Philippine Small-Scale Yellowfin ( albacares) Handline Fishery MSC Fishery Assessment Report

Public Comment Draft Report

Authors Client Group - Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership (PTHP)

Gerard DiNardo, Principal 1 Gulf of Lagonoy Tuna Fishers Federation

Brian Ahlers, Principal 2 and Team Lead Atenogenes B. Reaso

Michael Harte, Principal 3 Occidental-Occidental- Federation of Tuna Fishers Association

Johnson P. Peralta

Philippine Association of Tuna Processors, Inc. (PATPI)

Sammy C. Garcia

May 18th, 2021

1

SCS Global Services Report

Table of Contents

List of Tables ...... 5

List of Figures ...... 7

2 Glossary ...... 11

3 Executive Summary ...... 12 3.1 Fishery Operations Overview 12 3.1.1 The Philippine tuna industry ...... 12 3.1.2 Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna ...... 13 3.2 Assessment Overview 13 3.3 Summary of Findings 14

4 Report Details ...... 16 4.1 Authorship and peer review details 16 4.1.1 Audit Team ...... 16 Peer Reviewers...... 19 4.1.2 ...... 19 1.2 Version details 20

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview ...... 21 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification 21 5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment ...... 21 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification ...... 26 5.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries or Introduced Fisheries ...... 27 5.2 Assessment results overview 29 5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement ...... 29 5.2.2 Principle level scores ...... 29 5.2.3 Summary of conditions ...... 30 5.2.4 Recommendations ...... 31

6 Traceability and eligibility ...... 32 6.1 Eligibility date 32 6.2 Traceability within the fishery 32 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody 35 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 35

7 Scoring ...... 37 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores 37 7.2 Principle 1 39

2 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.2.1 Principle 1 background – WCPO ...... 39 7.2.2 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 58 PI 1.1.1 – Stock Status ...... 59 PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 62 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 64 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 68 PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 71 PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ...... 74 7.3 Principle 2 77 7.3.1 Principle 2 background ...... 77 Ecosystem Impacts ...... 128 7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 137 PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 137 PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ...... 140 PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ...... 145 PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 149 PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 152 PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ...... 157 PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 160 PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 164 PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 169 PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 171 PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ...... 174 PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 178 PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 182 PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 185 PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 188 7.4 Principle 3 192 7.4.1 Principle 3 background ...... 192 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales ...... 207 PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ...... 207 PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 213 PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 217 PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives ...... 219 PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes ...... 222 PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ...... 228 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation ...... 235

8 References ...... 238

9 Appendices ...... 242 9.1 Assessment information 242 9.1.1 Small-scale fisheries ...... 242 9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 242 9.2.1 Site visits ...... 242

3 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

AUDIT PLAN FOR FISHERY ASSESSMENT ...... 243 9.3 Objective 243 9.4 Scope of Audit 243 9.5 Follow Up 244 9.6 Audit Participants 244 9.7 Agenda 245 9.8 Logistics Information 245 9.8.1 Stakeholder Participation: ...... 256 9.8.2 Evaluation techniques ...... 257 9.9 Peer Review reports 261 9.9.1 SCS Responses to PR-A ...... 261 9.9.2 SCS Responses to PR-B ...... 269 9.9.3 SCS Responses to PR-C ...... 277 9.10 Stakeholder input 287 9.10.1 ACDR Stakeholder Comments and Responses ...... 288 9.11 Conditions 300 9.11.1 Condition 1 (PI 1.2.1) Yellowfin ...... 300 9.11.2 Condition 2 (PI 1.2.2) Yellowfin ...... 303 9.11.1 Condition 3 (PI 2.2.2) Secondary Species Management Strategy ...... 305 9.11.2 Condition 4 (PI 2.3.3) ETP Species Information Strategy ...... 307 9.11.3 Condition 5 (PI 2.4.2) Habitat management strategy ...... 309 9.11.4 Condition 6 (PI 2.4.3) Habitats Information ...... 311 9.11.5 Condition 7 (PI 3.2.1) Fishery-Specific Objectives ...... 313 9.11.6 Condition 8 (PI 3.2.3) Compliance and Enforcement ...... 316 9.11.7 Condition 9 (PI 3.2.3) Compliance and Enforcement ...... 320 9.12 Client Action Plan 325 9.13 Surveillance 325 9.14 Harmonised fishery assessments 326 9.14.1 Principle 1 ...... 326 9.14.2 Principle 2 ...... 329 9.14.3 Principle 3 ...... 331 9.15 Objection Procedure 332 9.16 Raw Catch Data – and Occidental- (Combined) 1 9.17 List of Vessels in Unit of Certification 4 9.18 Letters of Support 1

10 Template information and copyright ...... 1

4 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

List of Tables Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s) ...... 12 Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions ...... 20 Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) ...... 26 Table 4. Unit(s) of Certification (UoC) ...... 26 Table 5. Principle level scores ...... 29 Table 6. Summary of conditions ...... 30 Table 7. Traceability within the fishery ...... 33 Table 8. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores...... 37 Table 9. Final Principle Scores ...... 38 Table 10. Summary of reference points over the 72 models in the structural uncertainty grid. Note that “recent” is the average over the period 2015-2018 for SB and 2014-2017 for fishing mortality, while “latest” is 2018. The values of the upper 90th and lower 10th percentiles of the empirical distributions are also shown. Fmult is the multiplier of recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality required to attain MSY. 49 Table 11. Work plan from WCPFC14 (2017) for Yellowfin Tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06. Bold items are the six elements that are referred to in CMM 2014-06 (a. Objectives, b. Reference Points, c. Acceptable Levels of Risk, d. Monitoring, e. Harvest Control Rules and f. MSE). Items in brackets are related to harvest strategy development, are part of the plan, but are not one of these six elements...... 51 Table 11. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data based on recent landings recorded in the logbooks and submitted to BFAR, NSAP, and WCPFC...... 57 Table 12. Catch Summary for Fishery from (2013-2019) Source: Occidental-Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf yellowfin tuna handline fishery personnel...... 78 Table 13. Summary of Non-target Species as Categorized for Evaluation. Not that additional minor secondary species less than .1% of UoC catch are listed in Appendix 9.16...... 79 Table 15. : Description of the updated structural sensitivity grid used to characterize uncertainty in the assessment (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 88 Table 16. Skipjack tuna: Summary of reference points over the various models in the structural uncertainty grid. Fmult is the multiplier of recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality required to attain MSY, Frecent is the average fishing mortality of recent years (2014-2017), SBrecent is the average spawning potential of recent years (2015-2018) and SBlatest is the spawning potential in 2018 (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 89 Table 17. Agreed work plan for skipjack tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06. Year Activity ...... 94 Table 18. Description of the updated structural uncertainty grid used to characterize uncertainty in the assessment. The starred levels denote those assumed in the model diagnostic case. (from Ducharme- Barth et al. 2020)...... 99 Table 19. Interactions with ETP Species landed from the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery reported landings data from 2014-2019. Only Manta Rays and Requiem sharks were scored as elements in Section 7.3.2...... 114 Table 16. WCPFC binding conservation management measures (CMM) and Resolutions of particular relevance to the Units of Assessment...... 196 Table 17. National Tuna Management Plan 2018 high level outcomes and indicators ...... 197 Table 18. Small-scale fisheries ...... 242

5 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 20. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.2 Table 4) ...... 258 Table 21. Summary of Stakeholder Submissions ...... 287 Table 23. Fishery surveillance audit ...... 325 Table 24. Timing of surveillance audit ...... 325 Table 25. Surveillance level rationale ...... 325 Table 26. List includes 201 vessels and 379 vessels licensed and registered to operate in Lagonoy Gulf, and Mindoro Strait, respectively...... 4

6 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

List of Figures Figure 1. Maps of the UoA fishing areas: Occidental-Mindoro Strait (left) and Lagonoy Gulf (right). Source: Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership...... 13 Figure 2. AFADs design A, one of two common designs for anchored FADs in Lagonuy Gulf fisheries. Source: WWF /KKPFI...... 22 Figure 3. AFAD design B, commonly employed by the Lagonuy Gulf and Mindoro Strait handline fisheries. Source: WWF Philippines/KKPFI...... 23 Figure 4. Two pictures of two separate vesels in the UoA. Fishing vessels often use coconut fronds, which are deployed as drifting FADs behind the boat to target bait and yellowfin tuna. Source: WWF Philippines/KKPFI...... 24 Figure 14. Yellowfin tuna: estimated growth for the diagnostic case model. The blue line represents the estimated mean fork length (cm) at-age and the blue region represents the length-at-age within one standard deviation of the mean, for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017)...... 41 Figure 15. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (from Davies et al. 2014)...... 42 Figure 16. Map of the movements of tagged Yellowfin Tuna released in the Pacific and subsequently recaptured more than 1,000 nautical miles from their release site. The top panel represents combined recaptures from the tagging programs and the lower panels represent recaptures from different tuna tagging programs. RTTP is the Regional Tuna Tagging Program (1989-1992), SSAP the Skipjack Survey and Assessment Programme (1977-1981), HTTP the Hawaii Tuna Tagging Program (1998-2000), and PTTP the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (2006-2015) (from Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017)...... 43 Figure 17. Yellowfin tuna: the geographical area covered by the stock assessment and the boundaries for the 9 regions when using the “2017 regional structure” (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017)...... 44 Figure 18. Time series of total annual catch (1000s mt) by fishing gear over the full assessment region and time period. The different colours denote longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine unclassified (blue), purse seine-associated (dark blue), purse seine-unassociated (light blue), miscellaneous (yellow)...... 45 Figure 19. Estimated annual average, (top figure) recruitment (middle figure) spawning potential (bottom figure) total biomass by model region for the diagnostic model, showing the relative sizes among regions...... 46 Figure 20. Estimated annual average juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model...... 47 Figure 21. Plot showing the trajectories of fishing depletion of spawning potential for the models in the structural uncertainty grid for the median, 50% quantile, and 80% quantile of instantaneous depletion across the structural uncertainty grid and the point and error bars is the median and 10th and 90th percentile of estimates of SBrecent/SBF=0...... 47 Figure 22. Kobe plot for the recent spawning potential (2015–2018) summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning biomass depletion and fishing mortality relative to MSY quantities and marginal distributions of each are presented with the median of the structural uncertainty grid displayed as a brown triangle...... 48 Figure 23. Time series of yellowfin tuna spawning biomass (SBt/SBt,F=0, where SBt,F=0 is the average SB from t-10 to t-1) from the uncertainty grid of assessment models for the period 2000 to 2018, and stochastic projection results for the period 2019 to 2048 assuming 2016-2018 average catches in

7 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report longline and other fisheries and 2018 effort in purse seine fisheries continue. Vertical gray line at 2018 represents the last year of the assessment. During the projection period (2019-2048) levels of recruitment variability are assumed to match those over the time period used to estimate the stock- recruitment relationship (1962-2017). The red horizontal dashed line represents the agreed limit reference point...... 48 Figure 5. Yellowfin tuna: estimated growth for the diagnostic case model. The blue line represents the estimated mean fork length (cm) at-age and the blue region represents the length-at-age within one standard deviation of the mean, for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017)...... 53 Figure 6. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (from Davies et al. 2014)...... 53 Figure 7. Yellowfin tuna: the geographical area covered by the stock assessment and the boundaries for the 9 regions when using the “2017 regional structure” (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017)...... 55 Figure 8. Map of the movements of tagged yellowfin tuna released in the Pacific Ocean and subsequently recaptured more than 1,000 nautical miles from their release site. RTTP – Regional Tuna Tagging Project, SSAP – (Skipjack Survey and Assessment Program), HTTP – , PTTP – Pacific Tuna Tagging Program. (from Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017)...... 56 Figure 17. Historical and future trajectory of north Pacific female spawning biomass (SSB) under a constant catch (average 2010-2018 = 82,432 t) harvest scenario. Future recruitment was based on the expected recruitment variability and autocorrelation. Dashed line indicates the average limit reference point threshold for 2012-2018. Black line and blue area indicate maximum likelihood estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI), respectively, of historical female SSB, which includes parameter uncertainty. Red line and red area indicate mean value and 95% CI of projected female SSB, which only includes future recruitment variability and SSB uncertainty in the terminal year (from ALBWG 2020)...... 84 Figure 18. Kobe plot showing the status of the north Pacific albacore stock relative to the 20%SSBcurrent, F=0 biomass-based limit reference point, and equivalent fishing intensity (F20%; calculated as 1-SPR20%) over the base case modelling period (1994-2018). Blue triangle indicates the start year (1994) and black circle with 95% confidence intervals indicates the terminal year (2018) (from ALBWG 2020)...... 84 Figure 19. Map of the movements of tagged skipjack released in the WCPO and subsequently recaptured. (from McKechnie et al. 2016a)...... 87 Figure 22. Skipjack tuna: Eight region spatial structure used in the 2019 stock assessment model (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 89 Figure 23. Skipjack tuna: Time series of total annual catch (1000's mt) by fishing gear over the full assessment period (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 90 Figure 24. Estimated temporal overall spawning potential for skipjack tuna summed across regions from the diagnostic model, where the shaded region is ± 2 standard deviations (i.e., 95% CI) (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 90 Figure 25. Estimated annual average skipjack tuna juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 91 Figure 26. Plot showing the trajectories of skipjack tuna spawning potential depletion for the model runs included in the structural uncertainty grid weighted by the values given in Table SKJ-01. Red horizontal line indicates the agreed limit reference point, the green horizontal line indicates the interim target reference point (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 91 Figure 27. Skipjack tuna Kobe plots for the recent (2015-2018, left) and latest (2018, right) spawning potential summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning potential depletion and fishing mortality and marginal distributions of each are presented. Brown triangle indicates the median of the estimates. The size of the circle relates to the weight of that particular model run (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 92

8 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 22. Movements of tagged bigeye, divided into three regions. Black points are release locations; red are recapture locations for fish released in the western region; green for recaptures of fish released in the central region; blue for recaptures of fish released in the eastern region. Figure taken from McKechnie, Pilling, et al. (2017a) who in turn took it from Schaefer et al. (2015)...... 96 Figure 23. Bigeye growth curves used in the current and previous stock assessments: red – used in previous stock assessments up to 2014; green – used for 2017 assessment (McKechnie, Tremblay-Boyer, et al., 2017) based on the work presented in Farley et al. (2017b); blue – as green, incorporating additional work as set out in Farley, Eveson, et al. (2018); used in the 2018 update assessment...... 97 Figure 27. Distribution and magnitude of catches for the most recent decade of the stock assessment (2009-2018) by 5° square and fishing gear: longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow), for the WCPO and part of the EPO. Overlayed are the regional boundaries for the stock assessment (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 100 Figure 28. Total annual catch (1000s mt) of bigeye tuna by fishing gear for the full assessment period. The different colors refer to longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue), purse seine associated (dark blue), purse seine unassociated (light blue), miscellaneous (yellow), and index (gray). Note that the catch by longline gear has been converted into catch-in-weight from catch-in-numbers and so may differ from the annual catch estimates presented in (Williams et al. 2020), however these catches enter the model as catch-in-numbers (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 100 Figure 29. Estimated annual average recruitment (top), spawning potential (middle) and total biomass by model region for the diagnostic model (bottom), showing the relative sizes among regions (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 102 Figure 30. Estimated annual average juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 103 Figure 31. History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) for the diagnostic model compared with annual catch by the main gear types (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 103 Figure 32. Time-dynamic percentiles of depletion (SBt/SBt;F=0) and median (dark line) across all 24 models in the structural uncertainty grid. The lighter band shows the 10th to 90th percentiles around the median, and the dark band shows the 50th percentile around the median. The median SBrecent/SBF=0 and 80th percentile is shown on the right by the dot and line (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 104 Figure 33. Kobe plot for the recent spawning potential (2015–2018) summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning biomass depletion and fishing mortality. Marginal distributions of each are presented. The median is shown as the blue diamond (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 105 Figure 34. Time series of bigeye tuna spawning potential SBt/SBF=0 from the uncertainty grid of assessment models for the period 2000 to 2018, and stochastic projection results for the period 2019 to 2048 assuming 2016-2018 average catches in longline and other fisheries and 2018 effort in purse seine fisheries continue. Vertical gray line at 2018 represents the last year of the assessment. During the projection period (2019-2048) levels of recruitment variability are assumed to match those over the long-term period (1962-2017). The red horizontal dashed line represents the agreed limit reference point (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020)...... 105 Figure 22. Plots showing the trajectories of fishing depletion (of spawning potential) for model runs included in the structural uncertainty grid . The five panels show the models separated on the basis of the five axes used in the grid, with the color denoting the level within the axes for each model (from Vincent et al. 2018)...... 108 Figure 23. Majuro plots summarizing the results for each of the 72 models in the structural uncertainty grid, which are colored by the growth assumption for the reference point (a) SBrecent/SBF=0 and (b) SBlatest/SBF=0. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning potential depletion

9 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report and fishing mortality where the size of the circle is indicative of the weight in calculating the reference point table. The red zone represents spawning potential levels lower than the agreed limit reference point which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than FMSY (FMSY is marked with the black dashed line) (from Vincent et al. 2018)...... 108 Figure 24. Maps of the UoA fishing area: Occidental-Mindoro Strait with anchored FAD sites. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna...... 120 Figure 25. Bathymetry of map Occidental-Mindoro Strait. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna...... 121 Figure 26. Maps of the UoA fishing area: Lagonoy Gulf with anchored FAD sites. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna...... 122 Figure 27. Bathymetry map of Lagonoy Gulf. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna. 123 Figure 28. WCPFC additional section to the main tuna CMM (2018-01) requiring, among other things, that only non-entangling FADs to be in use by 1st January 2020...... 124 Figure 29. Map of distribution of coral species in the Coral Triangle. Image taken from Veron (2009) Coral Geographic: a spatial database; Malaysia from the State of the Coral Triangle Report (SCTR) for CT countries; Coral reefs – UNEP-WCMC (2010) Global Distribution of Coral Reefs in the Coral Triangle Atlas (http://ctatlas.reefbase.org) ...... 126 Figure 30. Spatial extent of the warm pool – cold tongue system in the Pacific Ocean (from Allain et al. 2007)...... 133 Figure 31. The boundaries of the area covered by the warm pool ecosystem model, and the exclusive economic zones of the countries included in the model. FSM = Federated States of Micronesia; PNG = Papua New Guinea (from Allain et al.2015)...... 133 Figure 32. Trends in total biomass for eight stocks of large predators in the Pacific Ocean. Blue lines indicate the biomass estimated from the observed fishing history (the exploited population), and red lines indicate the biomass estimated in the absence of all fishing (the unexploited population).The single black line indicates the equilibrium biomass corresponding to maximum sustainable yield conditions, assuming current levels of recruitment and distribution of fishing mortality among fisheries. (from Sibert et al., 2006)...... 134 Figure 33. Map of the UoA fishing areas: Occidental-Mindoro Strait (lower left) and Lagonoy Gulf (lower right). Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna...... 205

10 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

2 Glossary USAID United States Agency for International Development BFAR Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora DENR Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippines EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species FAO Fisheries Administrative FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FMA Fisheries Management Areas FOO Fishery Office Order IFARMC Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council IFQ Individual Fishing Quota ITQ Individual Transferable Quota Kg Kilogram Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg LGU Local Government Units LOA Length Over-All M Million (lbs.) MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation NFRDI National Fisheries Research and Development Institute nm nautical mile OFL Over-Fishing Level PI Performance Indicator SCS SCS Global Services SI Scoring Issue SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t and mt metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WWF World Wildlife Fund

11 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

3 Executive Summary

This report presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the Philippine Small-Scale Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Handline Fishery, harvested by handline fishing gear in Occidental- Mindoro Straight and Gulf of Lagonoy regions, considered to be a single Unit of Assessment (UoA). The Unit of Assessment is named the Philippine Small-Scale Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Handline Fishery, and will be referred to more simply as the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery within this report. The assessment was conducted and findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC-accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Fisheries Standard v 2.01 (August 2018), MSC Fishery Certification Process (FCP) v2.2 (25 March 2020) and the guidance to the MSC General Certification Requirements 2.4.1 (May 2019). The fishery was assessed against the Default Assessment Tree with no modifications.

Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s)

Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.a) (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.b) (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.c) Yellowfin tuna Handline, anchored UoA includes vessels licensed and registered to fish (Thunnus albacares) FAD/associated set type in municipal and EEZ waters with <3 GT holding capacity that operate in Occidental-Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf in the Philippines; UoC applies to select vessels only* *201 vessels and 379 vessels licensed and registered to operate in Lagonoy Gulf, and Mindoro Strait, respectively. For more information see appendix 9.17.

3.1 Fishery Operations Overview

3.1.1 The Philippine tuna industry

Tuna fishing in the Philippines involves both municipal (< 3GT) and commercial (> 3GT) fishing vessels. The main targeted oceanic (yellowfin, bigeye, and skipjack tuna) are caught by hook and line, troll line, handline, ring-net and purse seine mainly in offshore waters (both within Philippine waters and the high ) but also caught in coastal/archipelagic waters. These tuna populations are recognized to be part of the regional stocks of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean.

12 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 1. Maps of the UoA fishing areas: Occidental-Mindoro Strait (left) and Lagonoy Gulf (right). Source: Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership.

The number of registered municipal fishing boats in the Philippines and therefore part of the Unit of Assessment was 244,398 in April 2017 through the BoatR system. The number of municipal boats specifically engaged in tuna fishing for each region is approximately 800 and 1000 vessels for Gulf of Lagonoy and Strait of Mindoro, respectively. Municipal tuna fishing boats fish both in municipal waters (within 15 km) and beyond in the Philippine EEZ. Within the unit of certification (UoC) for this fishery assessment, 202 vessels and 379 vessels are licensed and registered to operate in Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait (noted as Mindoro Strait throughout this report), respectively. All vessels are under the 3GT limit required for municipal vessels in the Philippines. More information regarding the fishing vessels and fishing operations is provided in section 5.1, the description of the Unit of Assessment.

3.1.2 Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna

Since 2011, World Wildlife Fund for Nature in the Philippines (WWF) (also known as KKPFI) implemented a Fisheries Improvement Project (FIP), the so-called Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna (PPTST), in the project sites of Lagonoy Gulf and Occidental-Mindoro Island. Through the PPTST, WWF aims to develop a sustainable and equitable small-scale handline yellowfin tuna fishery that will provide a broad-based and profitable livelihood to artisanal Filipino fisherfolk in these regions.

Supported by USAID, German Development Bank, the FIP included extensive work on improvements to electronic catch documentation (eCDT), fishery information system, data collection, vessel registration, and other improvement to achieve regulatory and sustainability outcomes. At present, the fishery is currently implementing eCDT infrastructure and traceability infrastructure as part of the broader fishery information systems to ensure legality and traceability of product from the UoA vessels.

3.2 Assessment Overview

The team selected to undertake the assessment includes three team members that collectively meet the requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are: • Dr. Gerard DiNardo, Principal 1 Expert • Mr. Brian Ahlers, Principal 2 Expert and Team Lead • Dr. Michael Harte, Principle 3 Expert

13 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The team met with fishery representatives, scientists, and stakeholders remotely via teleconference from November 30th through December 10th. Documents were presented by fishery representatives and fisheries scientists. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The original announcement for the assessment indicated that the Risk- based framework (RBF) would not need to be used and this was confirmed from information provided prior to and during the site visit. The assessment proceeded without the RBF.

Stakeholders were notified of the remote site visit, invited to speak with the team regarding any concerns and time was scheduled during the remote site visit to meet with stakeholders. The assessment team received requests from stakeholders to register as an active stakeholder in the assessment of this fishery – only one stakeholder requested a meeting to discuss concerns as part of the remote site visit meetings.

Peer Review of the assessment was conducted by Peer Reviewers provided by the MSC Peer Review College. Report revisions included updates with most recent stock assessment for relevant tuna stocks, improvements to the conditions and milestones for Principal 3, and other minor revisions. No major scoring changes occurred stemming from Peer Review comment.

3.3 Summary of Findings

In this report, we provide detailed rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80). At the ACDR stage, the team anticipated nine PI level conditions for scoring issues that did not meet SG80 level. The fishery preliminarily receives two conditions in Principle 1, five conditions in Principle 2, and two conditions in Principle 3. Under Principal 3, the ACDR score was below 60 for 3.2.3d, as no evidence of system non-compliance for the UoA had been provided at that stage.

In Principle 1 two of the PIs (1.2.1 and 1.2.2) received scores under SG80, these are related to use of appropriate reference points and the harvest control rule. Though the yellowfin tuna stock is not experiencing overfishing and is not overfished, under the management of the WCPFC, yellowfin tuna has no formal, well-defined harvest control rules. Principle 1 scores for yellowfin in the WCPO have been agreed upon through a harmonization process that included aligning not only scores but also timelines for conditions.

In Principle 2 four of the PIs (2.2.2, 2.3.3, 2.4.2, and 2.4.3) received scores under SG80, mainly due to lack of external validation regarding potential risk of shark finning, limited verification of information on ETP species, habitat management strategy considerations as it relates to AFADs and derelict FAD impacts, and lack of verification of information to inform impacts to main and VME (e.g. coral reef and seagrass) habitats. Despite the potential conditions, the fishery performs well under Principal 2 given the relatively low impact and selectivity of the UoA handline fishery in particular (e.g. single hook), and relatively low fishery bycatch.

14 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

In Principle 3 two of the PIs (3.2.1, and 3.2.3) received scores under SG80, these are related to the fishery specific objectives to integrate and adopt tuna management at the local government unit (LGU) level. In addition, the UoA performed under SG80 on several issues related to compliance and enforcement. More specifically, evidence that monitoring, control, and surveillance systems have been implemented to enforce management measures and evidence of sanctions being consistently applied are lacking. While fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the UoA, licensing and registration requirements fall short of compliance requirements across the entire broader UoA. As a result, the fishery only achieves SG70 for 3.2.3 overall. Despite this issues, the fishery scores at SG80 or higher in all other PIs under Principal 3.

In this report, we provide the rationales for all preliminary scoring ranges.

15 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

4 Report Details

4.1 Authorship and peer review details

4.1.1 Audit Team

Gerard Dinardo, Senior Technical Specialist at SCS, Responsible for Principles 1 and 2

Dr. Gerard DiNardo has over 25 years of experience as a research fishery scientist and senior manager for NOAA Fisheries in the United States, as well as extensive knowledge, understanding, and involvement in fishery issues and processes of tuna-RFMOs and RFOs. Ensuring sustainable development and management of fisheries, including the identification of research and plans of action to support effective management decision making has been the focus throughout his career, and with a strong background and understanding of international fisheries and MSC. He holds an MSc from Long Island University, C.W. Post Center and a Ph.D from University of Maryland, where his dissertation topic was FISHMAP: An Expert System for Sampling Fish Populations.

Gerard was appointed as the Fisheries Resources Division Director of the Southwest Fisheries Science Center in San Diego, CA from 2015 to 2019. Previously, he held several positions at NMFS, including Supervisor of the Stock Assessment Program in the Fisheries Research and Monitoring Division at the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center. Dr. DiNardo was multiple publications related to the assessment of pelagic species, including tuna. He’s held positions as Co-Chair of the Joint PICES/ISC Working Group on Ocean Conditions and the Distribution and Productivity of Highly Migratory Fish for the North Pacific Marine Science Organization, standing member of the NMFS National Stock Assessment Methods Steering Committee, science expert on the U.S.A. Delegation to the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and Chair of the International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean (ISC).

Dr. DiNardo’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2): ✓ With relevant degree (PhD from the University of Maryland) and over 5 years of research experience in a marine conservation biology and fisheries ✓ Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules (FCP v2.2) for Team Members within the last 5 years. ✓ Affirms they have no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment. ✓ The team member will be onsite (or remote due to COVID-19 travel restrictions)

16 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Brian Ahlers – SCS Global Services – Principle 2 Expert and Team Lead

Mr. Brian Ahlers has eight years’ experience in fisheries, marine conservation, and marine resource management. He holds an MSc in Marine Resource Management from Oregon State University, and a BS in Biology from Dalhousie University with a particular focus on fisheries. Brian supports academic, government, non-profit, and private organizations through his efforts on marine resource management issues, which includes over four years of research experience regarding endangered, threatened, or protected species, illegal, unreported, and unregulated (IUU) fisheries, and aquatic ecosystem habitats. At Oregon State University, Brian conducted a value-chain approach to investigate perceptions and attitudes within the West Coast US Seafood industry regarding product traceability as a tool to address social, economic, and environmental needs and opportunities within the seafood industry. Using social science techniques including interviews, focus groups, and questionnaires, Brian engaged over 300 diverse stakeholders representing a wide range of firms involved with industrial and smaller scale operations in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii for both wild-capture and aquaculture production. Building on his graduate research, Brian applies his interdisciplinary expertise in fisheries policy and management, marine policy, fishery information systems, and food systems to help organizations achieve social and environmental outcomes related to fisheries and seafood. Brian demonstrates specialized knowledge in seafood traceability architecture as a researcher and industry professional, including his role as an independent reviewer of proposals for traceability systems implementation. Through his work in South Africa, the Caribbean, Latin America, South Pacific, and US West Coast, Brian developed expertise with the MSC Standard, Fair Trade Standard, other market-driven tools, and regulatory drivers of global fisheries and seafood sustainability improvements.

The proposed team leader meets the MSC Team leader qualifications in that: ✓ Completed training meeting requirements in Table 1 of GCRV2.4, as evidenced by the certificate of passing auditor training for the ISO course 19011 ✓ Relevant degree and/or equivalent experience in the fisheries sector related to tasks under responsibility of a team leader (Evidence: MSc in Marine Resource Management ) ✓ Completed of the latest MSC training modules applicable to this assessment (V2.2 Team Leader MSC modules) within the past five years (June 26, 2020) ✓ Has passed new online training modules on modifications to the MSC Fisheries Standard before undertaking assessments using these modifications such as enhanced bivalves, salmon and other modifications that may be developed in the future. (June 26, 2020) ✓ Has undertaken 2 MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last 5 years, including: 1. 1 full assessment: U.S. Northeastern Coast Longfin Inshore Squid and Northern Shortfin Squid Bottom Trawl Fishery Full Assessment 2. 2 Surveillance Audits: US Northeast Squid Bottom Trawl Fishery Year 1 Surveillance; US Northeast Squid Bottom Trawl Fishery Year 2 Surveillance

17 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

✓ Has demonstrated experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques, as verified by SCS records and previous audit reports. ✓ Is competent in the MSC Standard and current Certification Requirements, auditing techniques, and communication and stakeholder facilitation techniques, as verified by his completion of ISO 19011 auditor training. ✓ Has affirmed he holds no conflict of interest

Mr. Ahlers’ experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2): ✓ With relevant degree (MS in Marine Resource Management, Oregon State University) and over 5 years of research experience in a marine conservation biology and fisheries ✓ Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years. ✓ Affirms they have no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment. ✓ The team member will be offsite (due to COVID-19 travel restrictions)

Dr. Michael Harte – Professor in Oregon State University – Principle 3 Expert

Dr Michael Harte is a Professor in the College of Earth, Ocean and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University in the USA, having trained in physical geography and economics in New Zealand and Canada. He is recognized internationally as a fisheries and marine policy adviser, researcher, educator and program leader. He has held senior positions in the private, public, academic and NGO sectors in Australia, the US, the Falkland Islands, Canada and New Zealand.

Dr Harte has extensive policy and economic analysis experience working with commercial and small- scale fisheries, ecosystem-based fisheries management, bio-economic analysis of fisheries, climate impacts on fisheries, eco-labelling, cost recovery and resource rents in fisheries, and the development of policies and regulations associated with the monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries, as well as work on seafood markets and traceability. His work spans both academic and practical fishery management domains.

Dr. Michael Harte experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2): ✓ With relevant degree a PhD in Geography from University of Victoria, and over 5 years of research experience in management or research experience in a marine conservation biology, fisheries, and natural resources ✓ Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members (FCP v2.2 within the last 5 years (September 2020). ✓ Affirms they have no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment. ✓ The team member will be onsite (or remote due to COVID-19 travel restrictions)

18 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

4.1.2 Peer Reviewers

The Peer Review Draft Report, incorporating conditions, scores, weightings, and a draft determination was sent on March 8, 2021 to the MSC Peer Review College.

SCS obtained confirmation from the Peer Review College that the selected peer reviewers did not have any conflicts of interest in relation to the Philippine Small-Scale Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Handline Fishery and that the competencies of the peer reviewers match the required competencies

The peer reviewers proposed by the Peer Review College are: • Jeff Kinch • Jose Peiro Crespo • Sophie Des Clers • Tim Huntington

The peer reviewer comments, incorporated in this report (Section 9.9), were addressed by the assessment team, the team responses to those comments are also included (Section 9.9)

Peer Reviewers highlighted opportunities for improvement, including updates stemming from recent stock assessments published. The assessment team conducted these revisions in the report pertaining to stock status of yellowfin, bigeye, and albacore, though given the results of these stock assessments, no scoring changes occurred. Reviewers also noted improvements to include additional information on local and regional management, minor improvements to the ETP background and rationale for 2.3.1, as well as suggestions to improve the structure of conditions and milestones under Principal 3, which the assessment team now revised. No significant down-scoring of PIs occurred as a result of Peer Review.

A statement that peer reviewers can be viewed on the assessment downloads page on the MSC website.

19 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

1.2 Version details

Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.4.1

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2

20 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview

5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification

5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment

The Unit of Assessment includes the Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) caught by municipal handline vessels licensed and registered to operate in Lagonoy Gulf, and Mindoro Strait, respectively. Vessels have a holding capacity of <3 GT and are members of the Gulf of Lagonoy Tuna Fishers Federation, Occidental- Mindoro Federation of Tuna Fishers Association, and Philippine Association of Tuna Processors, Inc. (PATPI). All vessels are licensed by the Philippines Local Government Units (LGUs), fishing within the EEZ of the municipal fisheries management area of the Philippines. Vessels operating in the municipal fishery operate both within and beyond municipal waters of the Philippines, and are subject to compliance with all relevant WCPFC CMMs.

In the Mindoro Strait, vessels are 10-13 meters long and will operate for up to three-four days at . While vessels will typically operate in municipal waters within 15 km of shore, vessels will occasionally go out to sea 60-70 km offshore as permitted under the Philippine Fisheries Code. Vessels operate with up to eight reels with four fishermen total, each typically operating two reels of line. Each line has one large hook; at the site visit fishermen interviewed reported widespread use of C-hooks in Mindoro Strait for approximately 18 years now. All catch is retained for personal consumption or sale and is landed at buyer/trading locations , Rizal, and Mamburough (known as “casas”). All catch documentation is recorded and stored by casas.

Gulf of Lagonoy municipal handline vessels are slightly smaller in contrast, typically seven to 11 meters long, and will typically operate for eight hours or less at sea. Vessels typically have two to three fishermen aboard. All catch is retained for personal consumption or sale and landed at the main landing sites for trading (“casas”): Tiwi, Tobacco City, and San Jose.

The Philippine YFT Handline fishery operating in Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Bay employ a combination of different gear types. As reported by the fishery client and through anecdotal information provided by tuna handline fishers of Occidental-Mindoro in particular, the majority of fishermen attach to anchored FADs (AFADs) to rest and catch bait (primarily squids). In general as reported, once detached from the anchored FADs, while drifting a different FAD made of coconut fronds attached to their boat is deployed to catch bait (unless bait has already been purchased). After accruing adequate bait to catch Yellowfin Tuna, the vessels target yellowfin tuna while drifting with the other FAD (coconut fronds) attached to their boat. This approach is conducted several times as long as the fronds are still thick enough to be used as a FAD. Based on the anecdotal information obtained from the tuna fishers, approximately 90 to 95 percent of the handline tuna fishers are practicing this kind of fishing method in the UoA. Though this information is anecdotal, the assessment team considers the impacts and implications of all gear described above as per G.7.5.2b of FCP v 2.2 for the purposes of this assessment. Thus, the complex of AFADs, DFADs (e.g.

21 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report coconut fronds), and any use of free sets will be scored jointly and the gear component that poses the biggest risk of impacts and has the lowest score will determine any scoring results. More information on gear types is provided through images in Figures 2-4, and additional information regarding considerations for habitat and other impacts in Section 7.3.

Figure 2. AFADs design A, one of two common designs for anchored FADs in Lagonuy Gulf fisheries. Source: WWF Philippines/KKPFI.

22 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 3. AFAD design B, commonly employed by the Lagonuy Gulf and Mindoro Strait handline fisheries. Source: WWF Philippines/KKPFI.

23 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 4. Two pictures of two separate vesels in the UoA. Fishing vessels often use coconut fronds, which are deployed as drifting FADs behind the boat to target bait and yellowfin tuna. Source: WWF Philippines/KKPFI.

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.2 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it ▪ Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by the dispute. (FCP 7.4.2.1, 7.4.2.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.5) ▪ The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCP 7.4.5.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn. ▪ Is subject to additional review given “habitat modification” and potential enhancement has been determined as per G7.4.2.12 (FCP v 2.2) ▪ Is not based on an introduced species and does not represent an inseparable or practically inseparable species (FCP 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.8-13) ▪ Does not overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.5.14), ▪ And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.4) ▪ The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.5).

This assessment was based on the fleet of vessels that are part of the client group at the time of the publication of this report (for a list of the vessels see section 9.17). In this fishery there may be some vessels that move out and in of the client group during the course of the certificate which share the same characteristics (fishing gear/operations, management system, and area of operation). The current assessment is based on the observer data of the vessels currently listed as part of the client group, which is considered representative of other vessels with the same characteristics that may join the client group, and thus impacts of new vessels that meet the UoA characteristics are already considered. Taking a

24 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report precautionary approach, when adding new vessels to the client group SCS will conduct a gap analysis to confirm all the assessment tree components are the same for the existing fishery certificate and confirm that these vessels are within scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard, (i.e. verify that no vessels have been convicted of shark finning violation or conviction for forced or child labour in the last two years). If there are a large number of vessels seeking to enter the client group resulting in a significant size increase of the fleets, then a review of some components of P2 scoring may be necessary following Annex PE for Scope Extension. In this fishery the team assessed Principle 1 and Principle 3 at the level of the fishing associations of the Gulf of Lagonoy and Mindoro Strait, components of Principle 2, such as Ecosystems were also assessed for all the vessels in the fishing associations. However, the team only received bycatch information from a select group of vessels, that are estimated to be roughly one third of the entire fleet of the fishing associations of the Gulf of Lagonoy and Mindoro Strait. To reiterate, should the client choose to expand the UoC to include a significant number of vessels, SCS would need to conduct a scope extension following Annex PE to assess the impacts of P2 of these additional vessels.

25 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA)

UoA 1 Description

Species Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Stock Western and Central Pacific Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Fishing gear type(s) and, Large fish handline (hook and line) using smaller vessels – Free sets & anchored FAD if relevant, vessel sets1 type(s)

Client group Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership (PTHP)

Other eligible fishers No other eligible fisheries

Municipal (territorial) and EEZ waters within Occidental -Mindoro Straight and Gulf of Geographical area Lagonoy regions of the Philippines. -

5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification

Table 4. Unit(s) of Certification (UoC)

UoC 1 Description

Species Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Stock Western and Central Pacific Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Fishing gear type(s) and, Large fish handline (hook and line) using smaller vessels – Free sets & anchored FAD if relevant, vessel sets type(s)

Client group Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership (PTHP)

Municipal (territorial) and EEZ waters within Occidental -Mindoro Straight and Gulf of Geographical area Lagonoy regions of the Philippines. Specified vessel list in appendix 9.17.

1As described by the WCPFC on page 9, section 3.3 of the recent WCPFC report: https://www.wcpfc.int/file/484501/download?token=dKWm0YnL

26 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries or Introduced Fisheries

This fishery involves fish aggregation devices (FADs) deployed which under G7.4.2.12 (FCP v 2.2) are considered a “habitat modification” and for subject to fishery enhancement considerations. Thus, the assessment team evaluated the use of FADs in the UoA against the MSC eligibility criteria in Table 1, and determined that FADs meet the requirements under Table 1 of the FCP: ▪ Any modifications to the habitat of the stock are reversible and do not cause serious or irreversible harm to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function.

Following clause 7.7.1.2 d in the MSC FCP v2.2 , the CAB shall assess: The impacts of habitat modification under the habitats and ecosystems components in Principle 2. The CAB shall consider environmental impacts including: ◙ i. Whether serious or irreversible harm may be caused to the natural ecosystem’s structure and function, including the natural food chains of predator and/or prey species. ii. The types and extent of habitat modifications and the possibility of these causing serious or irreversible harm

As per the recent ACDR published Eastern Pacific Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine fishery (Andrews et al 2020), the team considered the following two issues in particular: ▪ Reversible modification of habitat: FADs are deployed in the epipelagic zone often in relatively deep waters, where there is no habitat impact, however, FADs may also transition into derelict and/or stranded gear that may entangle with benthic habitat when lost and/or not recovered. These potential indirect impacts of drifting FADs are considered reversible once FADs are removed. Additionally, the assessment team considered the possibility of drifting FADs causing serious or irreversible harm in PIs 2.4.x. Derelict FADS are considered abandoned fishing gear. The MSC intent regarding impacts from gear loss on habitat is described in Box GSA7 (MSC Standard v2.01), indicating that the impacts of gear loss on habitats are considered under the Habitats components, specifically at the SG100 level for PI 2.4.2, where fisheries are required to have a management strategy in place even for gears that do not regularly contact benthic habitats since gear loss could occur. Considering a broader interpretation of the MSC’s intent (in line with clause 7.7.1.2) the assessment team took a more precautionary approach categorizing coral reefs that are impacted by abandoned fishing gear as VMEs. ▪ The assessment team noted that the use of FADs are subject to management measures and controls at both national and WCPFC levels. Though measures are in place, evidence of habitat impacts on VMEs and other habitat types due to lost or derelict FADs require actions by the UoA to ensure actions are implemented... As a result, the assessment team issued conditions to ensure adequate progress for implementation of relevant management measures and controls within the UoA (see section 7.3.6 for background; 7.3.8 for scoring).

27 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

▪ Serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function is not caused by FAD modifications: the assessment team has reviewed relevant and credible resources and scientific publications on the subject of the “ecological trap” hypothesis. This hypothesis is centered on potential evidence of disproportionate aggregation and/or changes of behavior of certain species due to FADs. The assessment team carefully considered the evidence presented on fish residence times in particular and concluded there is no unequivocal evidence of irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function (see Section 7.3.7 PI 2.5.1).

There is no evidence of species introduction in this fishery.

28 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5.2 Assessment results overview

5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement

The determination of the fishery is drafted at the final report and completed at the PCR.

5.2.2 Principle level scores

Table 5. Principle level scores

Principle UoA 1

Principle 1 – Target species 80.8

Principle 2 – Ecosystem impacts 81.7

Principle 3 – Management system 82.9

29 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5.2.3 Summary of conditions

Table 6. Summary of conditions

Performance Condition Exceptional Condition Indicator Deadline number circumstances? (PI) By the second surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest 1 1.2.1 (a) Year 4 Surv No strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. By the second surveillance audit, the client must be in 2 a position to demonstrate that the SG80 requirements 1.2.2 Year 2 Surv No for yellowfin have been met. By the year four surveillance audit, demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place 3 2.2.2 (d) Year 4 Surv No in the fishery as per secondary species management for shark finning. By the year four surveillance, implement systems to 4 ensure information adequacy for assessment of 2.3.3 (a) Year 4 Surv No impacts to ETP species. By the third surveillance audit, provide at least some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with 5 both its management requirements and with 2.4.2 (a) Year 3 Surv No protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. By the third surveillance audit, provide evidence that the information available and continues to be collected to allow for identification of the main 6 impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is 2.4.3 (b) Year 3 Surv No reliable information on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear and, to the degree possible, the spatial extent of interaction. By the fourth surveillance audit, short and long-term fishery-specific objectives are explicit within the 7 fishery specific management system, which are 3.2.1 (a) Year 4 Surv No consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. By the fourth surveillance audit, it is demonstrated 8 3.2.3 (a) Year 4 Surv No that harmonized MCS system including LGU fishery

30 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Performance Condition Exceptional Condition Indicator Deadline number circumstances? (PI) ordinances in the UoA has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated ability to enforce relevant measures, strategies and/or rules. By the third surveillance audit following the Re- Assessment, some evidence exists regarding licensing and registration within the UoA to demonstrate Year 3 Surv post 9 fishers comply with the management system under 3.2.3 (c) Yes Re-Assessment2 assessment, including, when required, providing information of the importance to the effective management of the fishery.

5.2.4 Recommendations The assessment team has no recommendations at this time.

2 Due to the 1) socioeconomic constraints on fishers within the UoA to effectively and efficiently fulfill licensing and registration requirements in the Gulf of Lagunoy and Mindoro Strait regions and 2) the extensive inter-government collaboration that is necessary at the local, regional, and national levels to ensure progress regarding licensing and registration, the assessment team acknowledges that successful implementation may take longer than the certification period. As per clause 7.18.1.6 of the FCP v. 2.2, the assessment team grants up to the Year 3 Surveillance following the Re-Assessment to close this condition due to exceptional circumstances.

31 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

6 Traceability and eligibility

6.1 Eligibility date

The target eligibility date will be the date of the publication of the PCDR (June 18, 2021).

Based on the information provided by the client, SCS has determined that systems allow the fishery client to trace back to the UoC any fish or fish products sold as MSC certified and that the fishery client maintains appropriate records to demonstrate the traceability back to their UoCs of certified fish or fish products.

6.2 Traceability within the fishery

Description of Tracking, Tracing and Segregation Systems

The following traceability evaluation is for the UoC/UoA covering: Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) caught by the 201 vessels and 379 vessels licensed and registered to operate in Lagonoy Gulf, and Mindoro Strait, respectively, with a holding capacity of <3 GT that belong to members of the Gulf of Lagonoy Tuna Fishers Federation, Occidental-Occidental-Mindoro Federation of Tuna Fishers Association, and Philippine Association of Tuna Processors, Inc. (PATPI). All vessels are licensed by the Philippines, using handline and anchored FADs, fishing within the EEZ of the municipal fisheries management area of the Philippines. Vessels operating in the municipal fishery operate both within and beyond territorial waters of the Philippines, and are subject to compliance with all relevant WCPFC CMMs. Below we’ve listed the main stages of the supply chain within the UoC fishery and the relevant tracking, tracing and segregation systems at each step:

1. Capture of product: All species, including yellowfin tuna, are caught via handline and retained for landing. 2. On-board processing: Some small-scale tuna handline fishers practice proper bleeding, gutting and icing. However, since their boats are small and they operate within a shorter period compared to commercial scale boats, they don’t need to process the fish on board, they just chill the fish. 3. Product unloading: The unloading process usually happens in the traditional landing areas where the fish buying stations are located or their docking areas where they also document their catches. Buying stations prepare raw material receiving reports for boats below 3GT. Product is loaded at the following landing sites in Gulf of Lagonoy: Tiwi, Tobacco City, and San Jose. In Mindoro Strait the main landing sites are: Sablayan, Rizal, and Mamburough. Catch documentation is recorded by personnel at each casa and shared with local LGU officers. 4. Product transport: Local officers inspect the product for food safety and legal compliance and volume of catch to be transported. Then Local Government Units (LGUs) issue an auxiliary invoice to determine volume and catch origin of the product. For the issuance of transport permits, the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources through the Provincial Fishery Office will be the one responsible to secure legal compliance of catch certification before it can be transported out.

32 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

5. Product storage: Upon arrival of the tuna at the processing facilities, the quality control personnel prepare the incoming raw material inspection report to include information on weight, volume, supplier, data and volume of raw material received before processing and chilling. They also verify origin of catch. 6. Product sale and first change of ownership: First change of ownership will be the main processing sites. There are several, including Jam Seafoods. All processing sites will have MSC Chain-of-custody certification in order to handle the certified product from the UoC.

Though municipal handline vessels have considerable progress in the Philippines more broadly, significant progress has been made increasing fishing information system capabilities in the Philippines thanks to joint collaboration between BFAR, WWF/KKPFI, Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC) and USAID (United States Agency for International Development). For more information, considerable information on lessons learned and progress made as it relates to eCDT, traceability, and sustainability of artisanal fisheries within the project scope are summarized in Deliverable No. 5: Final Report Applying Catch Documentation and Traceability Technologies in the Small-scale Tuna Handline Fisheries in Mindoro and Bicol, Philippines (USAID May 2020). As highlighted in this report, eCDT has been successfully piloted in the Gulf of Lagonoy in particular, including electric codes tags associated with product that shows vessel information included registration. Each and every boat will be able to log in, provide lat/long of catch electronically, and submit other required and relevant catch information.

Table 7. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

In Mindoro, the fishery uses other gears like scoop nets and squid jigs just to catch baits. If there are not enough squids caught for bait, they use handline fishing gear with small fish hooks intended for small pelagic species which they use also as Will the fishery use gears that are not part of bait. Sometimes when the catch of YFT is really low especially the Unit of Certification (UoC)? during the lean season, fishers tend to use the handline with a small hook to catch small pelagic species and or demersal fish If Yes, please describe: species to at least try to break even on their operational - If this may occur on the same trip, on expenses. the same vessels, or during the same season; In Lagonoy Gulf the tuna handline fishers will bring handline to - How any risks are mitigated. catch tuna, and multiple hook and line and scoop net to catch their bait.

Only reel/line gear with single hook configurations are used to catch UoC target species (yellowfin tuna).

Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC In Mindoro, based on the information from the tuna fishers, geographic area? they only fish outside the UoC (which is in the neighboring province) during the lean season of YFT. But, during this time If Yes, please describe: they focus on catching small pelagics and demersal fish species - If this may occur on the same trip; using different fishing gear (handline but with smaller hooks - How any risks are mitigated. and sometimes they use multiple hook and line).

33 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

In Lagonoy Gulf the tuna handline fishers will just fish for yellowfin tuna within the gulf, however during the months of April-July some tuna fishers will operate outside the gulf. But during that single fishing trip they will not operate from one fishing ground to the other, they just operate in one fishing ground for every fishing trip. Separate auxiliary invoices are used for any vessel that caught species outside of the UoA region. Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non-certified products during any of the activities covered by the fishery Fishery client members do handle certified yellowfin tuna certificate? This refers to both at-sea activities (pending this assessment), and non-certified products since all and on-land activities. species are retained and landed for either consumption, bait, or commercial use. All product is landed at main landing sites - Transport identified in this report (e.g. “casas”). At each casas, risk is - Storage mitigated with enumerator verifying all species and weights of - Processing non-certified commercial catch as well as certified commercial - Landing product. Catch documentation, tally sheets, and transfer - Auction documentation to processing centers nearby will indicated MSC status explicitly, and boxes will be tagged with a separate tag for certified product only. If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. The fishery has no knowledge if transshipment occurs in the Does transshipment occur within the fishery? small-scale handline fisheries. However to ensure transparency of fishing operation, we are doing catch documentation and If Yes, please describe: traceability work improvement to eliminate the risk of - If transshipment takes place at-sea, in transshipment that might result in the mixing of certified and port, or both; non-certified fish. - If the transshipment vessel may handle product from outside the UoC; Municipal vessels are at-sea for a relatively short duration as - How any risks are mitigated. well, thus limited any incidence of transshipment.

In the buying station, for every batch of tuna from a certain fishing vessel landed in a particular buying station, they tie a ribbon around the tail of each tuna with a corresponding number so that they would know the details of each tuna (weight, vessel name etc..) before storing it in a fish container and delivering it to the processing plant in Manila. This method Are there any other risks of mixing or is simple but if done consistently it will eliminate the risk of substitution between certified and non-certified mixing the catch. But this method is not foolproof and mixing of fish? the catch can still occur. As a result, the fishery is continuously working with the fishers, buying stations (“casas”), and If Yes, please describe how any risks are processors to improve the traceability system of this fishery. mitigated. The fishery just recently completed a pilot testing of electronic catch documentation to improve the traceability and eliminate the mixing of catch. The pilot testing was very successful and they have been able to set up a traceability system from the point of catch up to the processor level. Right now, the fishery is are continuously working with the processor to continuously support the eCDT for this fishery (see USAID 2020 report). They

34 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

plan to have a QR code on each box which will provide electronic tagging information about the product.

At present the fishery indicated certified status of product at landing with the colored ribbon approach, and upon landing at processors, different color tags have been implemented to adequately separate certified vs. non-certified product at all stages of production.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody

The team has concluded and determined that the product originating from the UoC will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. The point of intended change of ownership of product is the first sale from vessel owners to the processors via traders located at the main landing sites listed below. The team has determined that the point of first sale has low risk of certified vs. non-certified product being mixed due to robust record keeping and ongoing implementation of eCDT and electronic traceability architecture on the vessels and at the point of landing. The point at which Chain of Custody is required will be the processors. Lists of documents to be solicited by CoC auditor at point where CoC is required includes auxiliary invoices, catch documentation including vessel name, date of catch, species caught, as well as weight and volume of product, tally sheets, and any records of transfer from landing sites to processing centers. All of these must be requested by the CoC auditor.

Below is a list of parties/categories of parties whose product will be eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified with the blue eco-label:

• All processors sourcing product from the UoC (e.g. Jam Seafoods and other members of the Philippine Tuna Processors Association)

List of eligible landing points:

• Sablayan (Mindoro Strait) • Rizal (Mindoro Strait) • Mamburao (Mindoro Strait) • Tobacco (Gulf of Lagonoy) • Tiwi (Gulf of Lagonoy) • San Jose (Gulf of Lagonoy)

6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

35 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

There are no inseparable or IPI stocks in this fishery.

36 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7 Scoring

7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores Table 8. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores.

Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 90 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 70 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 60 Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 95 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 100 Primary 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 95 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 85 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 75 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 80 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 60 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 75 2.4.3 Information 0.333 75 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 85 2.5.3 Information 0.333 85 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 95 Governance 0.5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.333 95 and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 90 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 60 Three Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 80 specific 0.5 management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 70 Monitoring & management performance system 3.2.4 0.25 80 evaluation

37 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 9. Final Principle Scores

Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 80.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 81.7 Principle 3 – Management System 82.9

38 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.2 Principle 1

7.2.1 Principle 1 background – WCPO Yellowfin Tuna

7.2.1.1 Life History Information of Yellowfin Tuna

Yellowfin are found in the subtropical and tropical areas of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Yellowfin form both free swimming and associated schools, with adults generally forming schools of similarly sized individuals. In the Philippines, the handline fishery takes primarily adult tunas; juveniles, are taken by other gears such as ring-net and purse seine.

Yellowfin tuna reach a size larger than skipjack, and similar to bigeye. Individuals as large as 150 cm are common in some fisheries. The largest recorded yellowfin tuna was 239 cm. Yellowfin have a maximum age of around 8 years and early maturity size for females is 108 cm, which corresponds to an age over 2 years. The species is highly fecund, spawning year-round over a wide area of the tropical and subtropical ocean. As with many tropical tuna species, environmental conditions are believed to significantly influence recruitment levels over time.

It is considered that yellowfin in the Philippines are part of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) stock distribution, extending from the eastern boundary of the WCPFC Convention area (1500W) to the coasts of Asia, and including the . This is based on tag returns from releases in Indonesia, Philippines and areas further east, and also given the known mobile nature of the species and the absence of any barriers to movement throughout the range of the WCPO stock. However, it is recognised that as a result of limited mixing, local depletion may occur within these stocks and persist at least temporarily, and that management measures may be applied on a sub-regional scale, as demonstrated in the case of the PNA skipjack fishery.

With regard to the Western and Central Pacific Yellowfin tuna stock targeted by the UoA, the assessment team conducted harmonization calls and coordinated with other CABs to ensure harmonization efforts continue and are documented. Though progress is still needed regarding implementation of harvest strategy and harvest control rules and tools for yellowfin tuna at the WCPFC, the WCPO Yellowfin tuna stock still passed SG80 overall for Principal 1. See section 9.14.1 regarding our harmonization efforts.

7.2.1.2 Western Central Pacific Ocean: Yellowfin tuna

WCPO Yellowfin - Life History Information

Taxonomic classification

Class: Actinopterigii Order: Family:

39 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Genus: Thunnus Species: albacares

Biology

Yellowfin tuna feed on other fish, crustaceans and squid. Their trophic level has been estimated at 4.4 +/- 0.4 SE. They are not a low trophic level species. Behaviour

Yellowfin tuna is a large, schooling tuna, common in surface waters of tropical and sub-equatorial oceans (Molony 2008). Tagging with acoustic transmitters or ultrasonic tags has shown Yellowfin spend a majority of their time in the upper mixed layer of the ocean (less than 100 m) and typically in temperatures above 17–18°C (Molony 2008). Yellowfin tuna are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical seas Growth and Natural Mortality

Growth in length for Yellowfin Tuna is estimated to continue throughout their life (Figure 5). The estimated mean length of the final age-class is 153.4 cm but the maximum fork length is over 200 cm.

Natural mortality is estimated to vary with age and sex. The generally increasing proportion of males in the catch with the increasing size is assumed to be due to an increase in the natural mortality of females, associated with sexual maturity and the onset of reproduction. The assessment model used fixed externally estimated values for natural mortality-at-age but also examined the sensitivity to estimating this during the model fitting process.

40 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 5. Yellowfin tuna: estimated growth for the diagnostic case model. The blue line represents the estimated mean fork length (cm) at-age and the blue region represents the length-at-age within one standard deviation of the mean, for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Reproduction and Recruitment

Yellowfin tuna commence maturation at 5 years of age and when information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction are included, the reproductive output peaks between 10 and 15 years of age (Figure 6). Spawning occurs throughout the year in the core areas of distribution with peaks observed in the northern and southern summer months. Individuals may spawn every few days over the

41 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report spawning period. Larval distribution in equatorial waters is transoceanic and year round, but there are seasonal changes in larval density in subtropical waters.

Figure 6. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (from Davies et al. 2014).

Distribution and Stock Structure

The current assessment and management arrangements in the Pacific treat yellowfin tuna as two single stocks associated with Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Convention Areas. However, the distribution of Yellowfin Tuna in the Pacific Ocean is nearly continuous. There is a large amount of tagging data (1989-2015) indicating extensive longitudinal movements among the equatorial regions and a level of latitudinal movements to and from the sub- tropical latitudes (Figure 7). Genetic data suggest that there may be stocks or sub-stocks within the western Pacific; a genetic study was able to distinguish between fish from Tokelau and the Coral Sea with a high degree of accuracy (Grewe et al. 2016).

Nevertheless, for the purpose of WCPFC Yellowfin stock assessments, the stock within the domain of the model area (essentially the WCPO, west of 210°E) has been considered as a discrete stock unit (Davies et al. 2014). This area has been disaggregated into 9 model regions (Figure 8) so as to describe to some extent spatial processes (such as recruitment and movement) and fishing mortality within regions (Tremblay- Boyer et al. 2017). The tagging data is used in the stock assessment to estimate movement coefficients among different regions. A shift in the regional boundaries from 20°N to 10°N was proposed for the

42 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report current stock assessment by the PAW based on few movements between tropical tag release sites and temperate zones for bigeye tuna.

Figure 7. Map of the movements of tagged Yellowfin Tuna released in the Pacific Ocean and subsequently recaptured more than 1,000 nautical miles from their release site. The top panel represents combined recaptures from the tagging programs and the lower panels represent recaptures from different tuna tagging programs. RTTP is the Regional Tuna Tagging Program (1989-1992), SSAP the Skipjack Survey and Assessment Programme (1977-1981), HTTP the Hawaii Tuna Tagging Program (1998-2000), and PTTP the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (2006-2015) (from Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017).

43 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 8. Yellowfin tuna: the geographical area covered by the stock assessment and the boundaries for the 9 regions when using the “2017 regional structure” (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

WCPO Yellowfin - Status of stocks

The median values of relative recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass depletion (SBrecent/ SBF=0) and relative recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality (Frecent/FMSY) over the uncertainty grid of 72 models were used to define stock status. The values of the upper 90thand lower 10thpercentiles of the empirical distributions of relative spawning biomass and relative fishing mortality from the uncertainty grid were used to characterize the probable range of stock status.

The spatial structure used in the 2020 stock assessment is shown below. Time series of total annual catch by fishing gear over the full assessment period is shown in Figure 9. Estimated annual average recruitment, spawning potential, and total biomass by model region is shown in Figure 17. Estimated trends juvenile and adult fishing mortality rates from the diagnostic model is shown in Figure 18. Time-dynamic percentiles of depletion (SBt/SBt,F=0) for the 72 models are shown in Figure 19. A Kobe plot summarising the results for each of the 72 models in the structural uncertainty grid is shown in Figure 13. Projections for the period 2019 to 2048 are illustrated in Figure 14 and Table 10 provides a summary of reference points over the 72 models in the structural uncertainty grid.

There has been a long-term decrease in spawning biomass from the 1960s for yellowfin tuna but that the depletion rates have been relatively stable over the last decade. The median catch in the last year of the 2018 assessment was 711,072 mt which was less than the median MSY (1,091,200 mt). The SBrecent is determined to be 2.6 SB MSY. Estimates of stock status from the structural uncertainty grid from the 2020 assessment were generally more optimistic than from the 2018 assessment (Vincent et al. 2020). This is strongly linked to the incorporation of the new growth (similar to the 2017 bigeye stock assessment). However, alternative treatment of tag data, assumptions regarding selectivity to better fit the data, and the use of maturity at length also resulted in a more optimistic stock status. All models tested show WCPO

44 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report yellowfin tuna to be above the LRP, 20%SBF=0, which is consistent with the previous assessment. Median terminal depletion (SBrecent/SBF=0) was 0.58 (80 percentile range: 0.51-0.64). The influence of more positive recruitments estimated in the terminal period of the previous stock assessment led to more optimistic stock status in the recent period. There was 0% probability (0 out of 72 models) that the recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass had breached the adopted LRP. Based on projection analyses, the risk that SB2048/SBF=0 is less than the Limit Reference Point is 0%.

All models in the structural uncertainty grid showed exploitation of WCPO yellowfin tuna to be below FMSY(Vincent et al. 2020). Median Frecent/FMSY was 0.36 (80 percentile range: 0.27-0.47). There was 0% probability (0 out of 72 models) that the recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality was above FMSY.

Figure 9. Time series of total annual catch (1000s mt) by fishing gear over the full assessment region and time period. The different colours denote longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine unclassified (blue), purse seine-associated (dark blue), purse seine-unassociated (light blue), miscellaneous (yellow).

45 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 10. Estimated annual average, (top figure) recruitment (middle figure) spawning potential (bottom figure) total biomass by model region for the diagnostic model, showing the relative sizes among regions.

46 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 11. Estimated annual average juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model.

Figure 12. Plot showing the trajectories of fishing depletion of spawning potential for the models in the structural uncertainty grid for the median, 50% quantile, and 80% quantile of instantaneous depletion across the structural uncertainty grid and the point and error bars is the median and 10th and 90th percentile of estimates of SBrecent/SBF=0.

47 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 13. Kobe plot for the recent spawning potential (2015–2018) summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning biomass depletion and fishing mortality relative to MSY quantities and marginal distributions of each are presented with the median of the structural uncertainty grid displayed as a brown triangle.

Figure 14. Time series of yellowfin tuna spawning biomass (SBt/SBt,F=0, where SBt,F=0 is the average SB from t- 10 to t-1) from the uncertainty grid of assessment models for the period 2000 to 2018, and stochastic projection results for the period 2019 to 2048 assuming 2016-2018 average catches in longline and other fisheries and 2018 effort in purse seine fisheries continue. Vertical gray line at 2018 represents the last year of the assessment. During the projection period (2019-2048) levels of recruitment variability are assumed to match those over the time period used to estimate the stock-recruitment relationship (1962-2017). The red horizontal dashed line represents the agreed limit reference point.

48 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 10. Summary of reference points over the 72 models in the structural uncertainty grid. Note that “recent” is the average over the period 2015-2018 for SB and 2014-2017 for fishing mortality, while “latest” is 2018. The values of the upper 90th and lower 10th percentiles of the empirical distributions are also shown. Fmult is the multiplier of recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality required to attain MSY. Mean Median Minimum 10th percentile 90th percentile Maximum

Clatest 709,389 711,072 700,358 702,279 712,761 714,073

YFrecent 779,872 784,200 661,600 707,720 877,040 908,000 fmult 2.87 2.80 1.70 2.12 3.72 4.29

FMSY 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.12 0.15 MSY 1,090,706 1,091,200 791,600 874,200 1,283,920 1,344,400

Frecent/FMSY 0.37 0.36 0.23 0.27 0.47 0.59

SBF=0 3,641,228 3,603,980 2,893,274 3,231,353 4,050,429 4,394,277

SBMSY 860,326 858,700 349,100 590,090 1,114,400 1,322,000

SBMSY/SBF=0 0.23 0.24 0.12 0.18 0.28 0.30

SB latest/SBF=0 0.54 0.54 0.40 0.47 0.60 0.66

SB latest/SBMSY 2.43 2.28 1.47 1.67 3.29 4.89

SB recent/SBF=0 0.58 0.58 0.42 0.51 0.64 0.68

SB recent/SBMSY 2.59 2.43 1.54 1.77 3.57 5.27

WCPO Yellowfin - Fishing and Management

Management of handline tuna fisheries is compromised of multi levels of governance at the local, regional, national and international bodies and agreements: - The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); and - Fisheries governance of the Philippines at national and local levels.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

The Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean established the WCPFC in 2004 to conserve and manage migratory fishery resources in the WCPO. The WCPFC is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment. The FAD Management Options Intersessional Working Group (three meetings since 2014) provides a process to develop and advice to the Commission for decision making about FAD management. More information regarding RFMO and WCPFC level management is described in section 7.4.1.1 in this report.

Philippines

The Philippines Government is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Philippine waters and to Philippine flagged vessels operating on the high seas and in the EEZ of other nations are

49 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report compatible with those of the WCPFC. The National Tuna Management Plan (NTMP) 2018 identifies strict compliance with WCPFC CMMs as a key measurable objective.

The Philippines ratified The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS in 1984), the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA in 2014) and the United Nations Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA in 2018). National laws providing the governing and policy framework for the management of fisheries include: - The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550 / as amended by RA 10654) (“the Fisheries Code”). - The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1998 (RA 8435) (“the AFMA”). - The Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160). - The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (RA 7586).

Specific Fisheries Administrative Orders and regulations have been set at a national level and establish the day to day to operational framework for managing municipal and industrial fisheries.

The Fisheries Code of the Philippines RA 8550 (amended in 2015) by RA 10654 sets out the overarching policies and objectives to be pursued in the management of fisheries, as well as powers to regulate municipal and commercial fisheries, aquaculture and post-harvest activity, create fisheries reserves, protect fisheries habitats and impose sanctions. The Fisheries Code sets out the institutional and consultative structure for the implementation of the Act. This includes the creation of a Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), which has overall responsibility for fisheries management at the national level, and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs), whose function is to assist in the formulation of policies and plans for the management and development of fisheries and in the enforcement of fisheries laws. FARMCs are established at four levels – local, municipal, provincial and national – and comprise government, fishers, fish workers, NGO and academic representatives. The Fisheries Code also establishes a National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI) to undertake research and, in particular, deliver training in fisheries technology. More information on national and local level management of Philippine tuna handline fisheries can be found in section 7.4.1.1.

WCPO Yellowfin - Harvest strategy

The WCPFC remains the most important level of management for Yellowfin. Progress towards the development of a harvest strategy for yellowfin is evaluated based on the Harvest Strategy Workplan adopted by WCPFC for the key tuna species (Table 11). This indicates that there are still important decisions to be made concerning harvest control rules, but that progress has been consistent with the agreed plan.

50 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 11. Work plan from WCPFC14 (2017) for Yellowfin Tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06. Bold items are the six elements that are referred to in CMM 2014-06 (a. Objectives, b. Reference Points, c. Acceptable Levels of Risk, d. Monitoring, e. Harvest Control Rules and f. MSE). Items in brackets are related to harvest strategy development, are part of the plan, but are not one of these six elements.

Year Activity - 2017 Performance indicators and Monitoring strategy (d). • SC provides advice on a range of performance indicators for the Tropical Longline Fishery to evaluate the performance of harvest control rules. • Commission noted performance indicators for the Tropical Longline Fishery to evaluate harvest control rules - 2017 Progress summary: • Recognized the importance of developing harvest strategies for key stocks in the WCPO. The Commission recognized that this work requires the consideration of fisheries managers and scientists at different stages. The Commission notes that the time required for harvest strategy discussions is substantial but will also vary from year to year and the Commission recognized the need for this to be accommodated. • Agreed to reprioritize as needed the annual agenda of the Commission and Scientific Committee to allow sufficient additional time for consideration of harvest strategy issues. In addition, WCPFC recognized that there may also be a need for a dedicated science/management dialogue. - 2018 • [SC and Commission discussion of management objectives for fisheries and/or stocks, and subsequent development of candidate TRPs for BET and YFT.] - 2019 Agree on Target Reference Point (b). • SC provides advice on potential Target Reference Points for Yellowfin. • Commission agrees on a TRP for Yellowfin. Develop harvest control rules (e) and Management strategy evaluation (f) • SC provides advice on the performance of candidate harvest control rules. (ongoing). - • Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. (ongoing). - 2020 Develop harvest control rules (e) and Management strategy evaluation (f) • SC provides advice on the performance of candidate harvest control rules. (ongoing). • TCC consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. (ongoing). • Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. (ongoing). - 2021 Develop harvest control rules (e) and Management strategy evaluation (f) • SC provides advice on the performance of candidate harvest control rules. • TCC consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. • Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. Adopt a Harvest Control Rule

51 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Taxonomic classification

Class: Actinopterigii Order: Scombriformes Family: Scombridae Genus: Thunnus Species: albacares Behaviour Yellowfin tuna are a large, schooling tuna, common in surface waters of tropical and sub-equatorial oceans (Molony 2008). Tagging with acoustic transmitters or ultrasonic tags has shown yellowfin spend a majority of their time in the upper mixed layer of the ocean (less than 100 m) and typically in temperatures above 17–18°C (Molony 2008).

Yellowfin tuna feed on other fish, crustaceans and squid. Their trophic level has been estimated at 4.4  0.4 se. They are not a low trophic level species.

Growth and Natural Mortality

Growth in length for yellowfin tuna is estimated to continue throughout their life (Figure 15). The estimated mean length of the final age‐class is 153.4 cm but maximum fork length is over 200 cm. Natural mortality is estimated to vary with age and by sex. The generally increasing proportion of males in the catch with increasing size is assumed to be due to an increase in the natural mortality of females, associated with sexual maturity and the onset of reproduction. The assessment model used fixed externally‐estimated values for natural mortality‐at‐age but also examined the sensitivity to estimating this during the model fitting process.

52 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 15. Yellowfin tuna: estimated growth for the diagnostic case model. The blue line represents the estimated mean fork length (cm) at-age and the blue region represents the length-at-age within one standard deviation of the mean, for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Reproduction and Recruitment

Yellowfin tuna start to mature at 5 years of age but when information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction are included, the reproductive output is found to peak between 10 and 15 years of age (Figure 5). Spawning occurs throughout the year in the core areas of distribution, but peaks are always observed in the northern and southern summer months, respectively. Individuals may spawn every few days over the spawning period. Larval distribution in equatorial waters is transoceanic and year- round but there are seasonal changes in larval density in subtropical waters.

Figure 16. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (from Davies et al. 2014).

Distribution and Stock Structure

53 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Yellowfin tuna are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical seas. The thermal boundaries of occurrence are roughly 18° and 31°C.

Although the distribution of yellowfin tuna 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 yellowfin tuna from the eastern and the central Pacific, nor between those from the western and the central Pacific. This suggests the existence of subpopulations and although early publications have suggested limited variation within the Pacific (Ward et al., 1994), recent studies with improved techniques have suggested a finer scale genetic stock structure (Aguila et al. 2015, Grewe et al. 2015, Grewe et al., 2016) that is not considered within the current stock assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Nevertheless, for the purpose of WCPFC yellowfin stock assessments, the stock within the domain of the model area (essentially the WCPO, west of 210°E) has been considered as a discrete stock unit (Davies et al. 2014). This area has been disaggregated into model regions (Figure 17) so as to describe to some extent spatial processes (such as recruitment and movement) and fishing mortality within regions (Tremblay- Boyer et al. 2017).

There is a large amount of tagging data (1989‐2012) which indicates extensive latitudinal movements among the equatorial regions but also a level of longitudinal movements to and from the sub‐tropical latitudes (Figure 18). The movement of tagged fish among regions is used in the stock assessment to estimate movement coefficients among different regions. A new regional structure proposed for the current stock assessment, with region boundaries shifted from 20° N to 10° N, was suggested by Pre- Assessment Workshop (PAW) participants based on few movements between tropical tag release sites and temperate zones for bigeye tuna (McKechnie et al., 2017a).

54 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 17. Yellowfin tuna: the geographical area covered by the stock assessment and the boundaries for the 9 regions when using the “2017 regional structure” (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

55 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 18. Map of the movements of tagged yellowfin tuna released in the Pacific Ocean and subsequently recaptured more than 1,000 nautical miles from their release site. RTTP – Regional Tuna Tagging Project, SSAP – (Skipjack Survey and Assessment Program), HTTP – , PTTP – Pacific Tuna Tagging Program. (from Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017).

56 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Catch profiles

See Table 13 in section 7.3.1.2, Overview of Species Classification to get an overview of reported catch for the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery.

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data Table 12. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data based on recent landings recorded in the logbooks and submitted to BFAR, NSAP, and WCPFC.

TAC Year n/a Amount n/a

UoA share of TAC Year n/a Amount n/a

UoA share of total TAC Year n/a Amount n/a

Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2019 Amount (kgs) 2,356 recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2018 Amount (kgs) 3,951 most recent)

57 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.2.2 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

58 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment

Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The diagnostic case from the 2017 stock assessment (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) estimated that the spawning biomass was at 40% of unfished levels in 2015 and was well above the WCPFC limit reference point, 20%SBF=0 .5. Recruitment was also estimated to have been stable since the mid 1960s. In the analysis of model structural uncertainty in the assessment (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017), using a crosswise grid of 72 alternative model formulations, only two runs (<5%) fell below the limit reference point. Previous modelling had also indicated that a biomass of this level for yellowfin tuna had a greater than 95% likelihood of being above the limit reference point of 20% of unfished levels (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017SPC- OFP 2014). A stock above this limit reference point is considered to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Furthermore, Pilling et al. (2014) used stochastic projections under status quo conditions to estimate that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032, and dependent upon the future recruitment assumption, it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%; long-term recruitment deviate assumption) or very unlikely (<10%; recent recruitment assumption) to fall below BMSY. Estimates of stock status from the structural uncertainty grid from the 2020 assessment were generally more optimistic than from the 2017 assessment (Vincent et al. 2020). This is strongly linked to the incorporation of the new growth (similar to the 2017 bigeye stock assessment). However, alternative treatment of tag data, assumptions regarding selectivity to better fit the data, and the use of maturity at length also resulted in a more optimistic stock status.

All models tested show WCPO yellowfin tuna to be above the LRP, 20%SBF=0, which is consistent with the previous assessment. Median terminal depletion (SBrecent/SBF=0) was 0.58 (80 percentile range: 0.51-0.64). The influence of more positive recruitments estimated in the terminal period of the previous stock assessment led to more optimistic stock status in the recent period. There was 0% probability (0 out of 72 models) that the recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass had breached the adopted LRP. Based on projection analyses, the risk that SB2048/SBF=0 is less than the Limit Reference Point is 0%.

Estimates of stock status from the structural uncertainty grid from the 2020 assessment were generally more optimistic than from the 2017 assessment (Vincent et al. 2020). This is strongly linked to the incorporation of the new growth (similar to the 2017 bigeye stock assessment). However, alternative treatment of tag data, assumptions regarding selectivity to better fit the data, and the use of maturity at length also resulted in a more optimistic stock status.

All models tested show WCPO yellowfin tuna to be above the LRP, 20%SBF=0, which is consistent with the previous assessment. Median terminal depletion (SBrecent/SBF=0) was 0.58 (80 percentile range: 0.51-0.64).

59 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The influence of more positive recruitments estimated in the terminal period of the previous stock assessment led to more optimistic stock status in the recent period. There was 0% probability (0 out of 72 models) that the recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass had breached the adopted LRP. Based on projection analyses, the risk that SB2048/SBF=0 is less than the Limit Reference Point is 0%.

There is, therefore, a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which meets the requirements of scoring issue a at the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Guide The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of post around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes No

Rationale

There is no explicit target reference point for yellowfin tuna but there is considered to be an implicit target of BMSY (supported by CMM 2016-01). The grid medians for both SBrecent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY in the most recent assessment were 1.42 (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) which is well above this (default) target reference point and, given the estimated stock trajectory, would have done so over the whole period modelled. This meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 80 level. Following SA2.2.1.3 a high degree of certainty means greater than or equal to the 95th percentile of a distribution. This assessment (unlike the previous one) does not provide 95% confidence intervals for the ratios SBrecent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY but across the grid of uncertainties only two runs (<5%) fell below the chance of the stock being below BMSY over recent years. This finding might suggest that that yellowfin tuna now meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 100 level. Nevertheless, previous assessment scores for Yellowfin tuna, based on the 2014 stock assessment (Rice et al. 2014), were that the SG 100 level was not met because the lower 95% confidence intervals for B/BMSY was less than 1 and the upper 95% confidence interval for F/FMSY was greater than 1. Building on the 2017 stock assessment, all models in the structural uncertainty grid showed exploitation of WCPO yellowfin tuna to be below FMSY in the 2020 stock assessment (Vincent et al. 2020). Median Frecent/FMSY was 0.36 (80 percentile range: 0.27-0.47). There was 0% probability (0 out of 72 models) that the recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality was above FMSY. There has been a long-term decrease in spawning biomass from the 1970s for yellowfin tuna but that the depletion rates have been relatively stable over the last decade. The median catch in the last year of the assessment (2018) was 711,072 mt which was less than the median MSY (1,091,200 mt). The SBrecent is determined to be 2.6 SB MSY. The 2017 and 2020 stock assessments were slightly more optimistic but as the stock has recently been estimated to have been below that threshold the SG 100 requirement that stock be above MSY over recent years is still not met.

References

Pilling et al. 2014, Rice et al. 2014, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017 ; Vincent et al. 2020

Stock status relative to reference points

60 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point Limit reference point 20% SBF=0 SBRECENT/SBF=0 = 0.6 used in scoring stock relative to MSC default PRI 75% SBMSY SBRECENT/0.75SBMSY = 3.3 PRI (SIa) Reference point SBRECENT/SBMSY 1 2.59 (80% CI = 1.77-3.57) used in scoring stock relative to MSY (SIb)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant)

61 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Rebuilding timeframes

Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that is rebuilding timeframe is the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not times its generation time. exceed one generation time For cases where 2 for the stock. generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? Not Scored Not Scored

Rationale

The stock does not require rebuilding.

b Rebuilding evaluation

Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence that post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is rebuilding stocks, or it is effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation highly likely based on stock within the specified modelling, exploitation rates simulation modelling, timeframe. or previous performance exploitation rates or that they will be able to previous performance that rebuild the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? Not Scored Not Scored Not Scored

Rationale

The stock does not require rebuilding

References

List any references here, including hyperlinks to publicly-available documents.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range NA

Information gap indicator

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

62 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant) NA

63 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes No Not Scored

Rationale

Agreed harmonized score: 60

MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may constitute a management procedure and be tested through management strategy evaluation procedures or other simulation modelling approaches. While the harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin has several contributing components, there are no formal harvest control rules.

The range of measures applied to the sectors that fish for yellowfin tuna are expected to achieve stock management objectives meeting the requirements of the SG 60 level.

Nevertheless, the general stock decline for yellowfin (albeit with a recent increase in stock size), the absence of agreed harvest control rules within, and the record of the Commission failing to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna when it was thought to have been subject to overfishing, reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy would be responsive to the state of the stock or that the elements will work together when required to do so to achieve the management objectives.

It is also not clear that coherent management actions are applied throughout the range of the stock, particularly in Indonesia and the Philippines and this prevents the strategy from achieving stock management objectives.

Yellowfin tuna is therefore considered to meet the SG 60 level of this scoring issue but not the SG 80 or SG 100 levels. b Harvest strategy evaluation

64 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may not The performance of the post to work based on prior have been fully tested but harvest strategy has been experience or plausible evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes Not Scored

Rationale

Yellowfin tuna has been estimated to be above the biomass limit reference point (92%) and that there is a high degree of certainty that recent fishing mortality is below FMSY (96%). Therefore, it appears that the stock is not experiencing overfishing nor is it overfished. The status quo stock projections undertaken indicate that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014a). The 2017 stock assessment (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) indicates that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. Although there are no formal HCRs to determine management actions for yellowfin, there is a workplan to develop HCRs by 2021. Furthermore, the most recent stock assessment (Vincent et al. 2020) indicates that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. Although there are no formal HCRs to determine management actions for yellowfin, there is a workplan to develop HCRs by 2021.Therefore yellowfin tuna is considered to meet both the SG 60 and SG 80 levels of this scoring issue.

c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guide Monitoring is in place that is post expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Yes

Rationale

Monitoring in place for the longline fishery for yellowfin tuna include mandatory logbooks with records of catch and effort for each fishing operation, a VMS, tagging data, biological studies and port inspections. There is, however, only very limited observer coverage of fishing operations so there are relatively few data on the discarded component of the catch, but few yellowfin would be expected to be discarded. The data that are collected do support a sophisticated stock assessment process that provides robust estimates of stock status that is sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. This meets the SG 60 requirements.

d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Not scored

65 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

Not scored since 1.2.1a does not meet the SG 80 requirements. e Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not Relevant Not Relevant Not Relevant

Rationale

Sharks are not a target species (or even a main retained species) of this fishery. This PI is therefore not relevant.

f Review of alternative measures

Guide There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of and practicality of and practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to alternative measures to minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. of the target stock and they of the target stock, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not Relevant Not Relevant Not Relevant

Rationale

Reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and observer programs. Reported discards for the UoA represented approximately 1 % for both North Pacific albacore tuna and yellowfin tuna, with no discarding reported for bigeye tuna. Discarding of target stock within the UoA is insignificant and ignored in stock assessments (Tremblayer-Boyer et al., 2017). Hence there is no ‘unwanted catch’* of yellowfin in this fishery and we consider this scoring issue not to be relevant.

* SA3.1.6: The term ‘unwanted catch’ shall be interpreted by the team as the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but could not avoid and did not want or chose not to use.

References

Pilling et al. 2014, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 70

66 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Condition number (if relevant) Condition 1

67 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Guide Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point as the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account level consistent with (or the ecological role of the above) MSY, or for key LTL stock, most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes No Not Scored

Rationale

A generally understood HCR is taken here to mean one that is not well defined, as otherwise there is no distinction between requirements at the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. This PI is also assessed taking account the guidance for scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG 60 containing in SA2.5.2, SA2.5.3 and SA2.5.5. The first option for scoring ‘available’ HCRs is intended to cover the situation where even generally understood HCRs are not yet clearly in place for a fishery. For WCPFC fisheries, including yellowfin tuna, there are measures for controlling fishing effort through closures, limits on fishing capacity and, for vessels involved, through limits on fishing days under the VDS. There are expectations about responses and examples of how actions have been implemented for species such as bigeye tuna, but there is no clear linkage or explicit process that links changes in stock status to emergent associated management actions. Therefore we do not consider that there are even generally understood HCRs that are also “in place” ; and the options for ‘available’ HCRs are evaluated below. The second question to address, is whether there are HCRs that meet the requirements for being considered as ‘available’. The guidance in SA2.5.2a indicates that teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs in cases where, “…Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2 generation times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within the next 5 years”. As noted at PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the 2017 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest and has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017). The stock assessment estimates spawning biomass for yellowfin tuna, SB, to be at 37% of unfished levels (SBF=0) and 1.39 times SBMSY. The stock is estimated to have never been reduced to SBMSY and has hence been above SBMSY in all years. Pilling et al. (2014) used stochastic projections under status quo conditions to estimate that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032, and dependent upon the future recruitment assumption, it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%; long-term recruitment deviate assumption) or very unlikely (<10%; recent recruitment assumption) to fall below SBMSY.

68 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

An estimate of the generation time of yellowfin tuna using the MSC definition (Box GSA4 in CR v2.0) is not available but SPC have produced an estimate of 5 years by a different method (Berger et al. 2013) and by any method of estimation 2 generation times will be much less than the 20 years used in the projections mentioned above. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are therefore considered to be ‘available’. The third question to address is whether these available HCRs meet the requirement for reducing the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The guidance in SA2.5.3 requires that “Teams shall recognise ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where, a. HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control of the same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; or b. An agreement or framework in place that requires the management body (in this case WCPFC) to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY”. There are CMMs that are in place for a range of tuna species within the WCPFC (including yellowfin) that contain a range of management measures that are designed to constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, none are considered to be more highly developed than the measures currently in place for yellowfin tuna and therefore they do not offer an example of effectiveness in reducing exploitation as the PRI is approached. Option a. is therefore not considered to be met. Option b. examines plans for the introduction of an effective HCR. WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2014-06 (WCPFC, 2014) sets out definitions of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The Commission agreed to adopt a work plan at its 2015 annual meeting, which was revised in 2016 and 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was progressed through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. We note that there is no specific requirement in CMM 2014-06 linking implementation of the HCRs to stock projections. Nevertheless, given that yellowfin tuna are projected to remain well above BMSY for many years and that the process CMM 2014-06 describes has already been initiated – considered in place - we have considered that the requirements of Option b. SA2.5.3b are met. The requirements of the SG 60 level are therefore considered to be met. In summary, generally understood HCRs are not in place. Yellowfin is a stock that has not previously been reduced below MSY, which has always been maintained well above the TRP and has an improbably low likelihood of becoming overfished or to experience overfishing. Therefore this stock meets the requirements to be considered against "availability" requirements. In the WCPFC, HCRs are not yet effectively used in any other WCPFC-managed UoAs. However, there is a framework that is in place, expected to develop further that will require the WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any detectable, projected risk that yellowfin stock status could decline below BMSY.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

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

69 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Met? No Not Scored

Rationale

Agreed harmonized score: SG 80 is not met. The ‘available’ harvest control rules are not sufficiently articulated to allow an evaluation of the extent to which they are robust to the main uncertainties. When well-defined HCRs are developed, they can be evaluated as to whether this is the case. The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met.

c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that post tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes No Not Scored

Rationale

As noted under scoring issue a above, following SA2.5.3b, we have recognized an ‘available’ HCR being in place and as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ by ensuring that stock biomass is kept above SB/SBF=0 for 2012-2015. However, because the HCR is not in place, this SI cannot score higher than SG60. References

Berger et al. 2015, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017, Pilling et al. 2014a, WCPFC (2014a), WCPFC 2014 (CMM for HCRs)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 60

Condition number (if relevant) Condition 2

70 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals the harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The following information is available and is used as part of the harvest strategy – notably to inform the stock assessment model.

Catch, Effort, CPUE All CCM fisheries are required to provide catch and effort data to WCPFC/SPC and most key fleets provide operational (logbook) rather than aggregated data (Williams, 2017). Catch and effort data date back to 1950, although historical data are generally less reliable than more recent data. The logbook data are raised to best estimates of total catch by SPC‐OFP, to account for missing data. Purse seine catch is allocated to species via an agreed methodology (‘Method 3’) (Hampton and Williams, 2017). Longline CPUE data are analysed and standardised as described in McKechnie et al. (2017a) and provide the key stock assessment input; purse seine CPUE is not used because of difficulty in measuring effort.

Length/weight frequency data Size‐frequency data come from port sampling programs and observer reports, and date back to the 1960s. These data are weighted in the stock assessment according to spatial representation, to account for differences in length-frequency by geographic region.

Fleet composition All CCMs provide information to WCPFC annually on their active fleet, in their Part 1 reports.

Natural mortality For yellowfin (and other WCPO stocks), the methodology set out in Hoyle and Nichol (2008) is used to estimate sex- and length-specific estimates of M. The M-at-length vector is then used to calculate a M-at-age vector using the growth curve, which is used as input to the stock assessment model.

Environmental data The Ocean Fisheries Program of SPC has undertaken environmental research as part of their ecosystem monitoring program, focusing particularly on potential environmental drivers of tuna population dynamics.

71 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Size and age data Age at size is based on otolith data and modelled using a VB model that accounts for deviations in small size classes. SPC noted benefits of this approach and that this process appears to work relatively well. However, due to limited data on aging significant uncertainty about growth, and regional variation in growth, for yellowfin remains (Pecoraro et al., 2016).

Stock structure The WCPO yellowfin fishery is assessed and managed as a single stock in the WCPFC Convention Area, although there is strong evidence for mixing across the WCPFC/IATTC boundary. While work has been done to evaluate the usefulness of a combined management approach, separate assessments in the WCPO and the EPO was considered appropriate for now (McKechnie et al., 2015a).

Data gaps Observer coverage is low for the longline fishery. There remain significant data gaps for the large and diverse fisheries in Vietnam, Indonesia and the Philippines, although the data have improved in recent years. Nonetheless, given the size and complexity of the fishery, the range and comprehensiveness of the data available is impressive and improving all the time. Data gaps that constrained previous assessments have been rectified, however, bias and lack of precision in some datasets remain, particularly historical data, but this is expected for any fishery.

Data used in the yellowfin tuna assessment include catch, effort, length-frequency and weight-frequency data for the fisheries, and tag release-recapture data. Unfortunately, significant data gaps persist for some large and diverse fisheries in southeast Asia, despite improvements in recent years. Due to the complexities of the fisheries, spatiotemporal changes in catchability remain problematic even with careful standardization of CPUE time series. On this basis, SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met.

b Monitoring

Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by post removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are available inherent uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Stock abundance and removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage that is sufficient to support the harvest control measures in place. There is not, however, a high degree of certainty that all the information required by the harvest control rule is monitored with high frequency and a high degree of certainty. Operational level data are not provided by some WCPFC members (although some who do not provide it to WCPFC make their country’s data available for assessment purposes).

This meets the requirements for the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not the SG 100 level.

72 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on post all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Yes

Rationale

WCPFC and SPC work hard to quantify all sources of removals and include them in the stock assessment. Data from fisheries in Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam have historically been problematic, and there has been ongoing work to improve data collection programs. According to the latest stock assessment report, improvements to data from both Indonesia and the Philippines has occurred over the last decade and catch data from Vietnam has recently been available. On this basis, SG80 is met. References

Banks et al. 2011, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

73 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into post appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of the rule. species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The most recent assessment applied to yellowfin tuna (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017), like other recent assessments, is an integrated, model-based assessment that integrates a suite of datasets to model several components, including growth, natural mortality, maturity and fecundity, recruitment, fishery dynamics, and dynamics of tagged fish. The model partitions the population into 9 spatial regions and 28 quarterly age-classes and defines fisheries to consist of relatively homogeneous fishing units with similar operational characteristics.

On this basis, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

b Assessment approach

Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates post stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment model (MULTIFAN-CL) provides a wide range of estimates of stock status relative to indicators of interest to management including both the target and limit reference points that have been agreed for yellowfin tuna. This therefore meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels c Uncertainty in the assessment

Guide The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into post major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

74 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The assessment of yellowfin tuna has provided explicit commentary on the major sources of uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. . More than a hundred runs were undertaken in conducting the 2017 yellowfin assessment, then to represent uncertainty the assessment was based on a grid of structural uncertainties, including 72 runs focused on a small set of uncertainty axes considered to represent the ‘plausible range’ of stock uncertainty.

This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue

d Evaluation of assessment

Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale

There is an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and approaches by the staff in the SPC-OFP. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required. Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data and a suite of sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. The assessment for yellowfin tuna has been shown to be robust and therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue.

e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Internal reviews are undertaken by SPC and there has been an external review of the assessment of Bigeye tuna (Ianelli et al. 2012) which provided recommendations that were also applicable to other similar assessments such as for yellowfin tuna. Many of those recommendations have been addressed with the latest yellowfin assessment. While there have been external reviews commissioned to assess different aspects of the input data that feed into the assessments, this does not constitute a review of the assessment (Lawson 2013; Powers 2013). Similarly, the annual pre-assessment workshops conducted by SPC are considered internal reviews based on the nature of its participation (see Pilling and Brouwer 2017). Therefore, although the current assessment was subject to internal scrutiny by SPC and the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC it has not undergone external review. On this basis SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met.

75 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

References

Davies et al. 2014, Haddon 2010, Ianelli et al. 2012, Maguire 2010, SPC-OFP 2011, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range >80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant)

76 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.3 Principle 2

7.3.1 Principle 2 background

Overview of Non-target Catch

All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes species that are retained for sale or personal use, bycatch species that are discarded, and species that are considered endangered, threatened or protected by the government in question or are listed by the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). This section contains an evaluation of the total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing, waste, or biota that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear. This section also considers impacts on marine habitats and the ecosystem more broadly.

Primary species

For the purposes of a MSC evaluation, primary species are those in the catch, and within the scope of the MSC program (fishes or shellfish), and not defined by the client as the target – which by definition is evaluated under Principle 1. Primary species will usually be species of commercial value to either the UoA or fisheries outside the UoA, with management tools controlling exploitation as well as known reference points in place. In addition, the institution or arrangement that manages the species (or its local stock) will usually have some overlap in a jurisdiction with the UoA fishery.

Secondary species

Species associated with the target that is harvested under some management regime, where measures are in place intended to achieve management, and these are reflected in either limit or target reference points are evaluated as Primary species within Principle 2. In contrast, secondary species include fish and shellfish species that are not managed according to reference points. Secondary species are also considered to be all species that are out of the scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/ amphibians) and that are not ETP species. These types of species could in some cases be landed intentionally to be used either as bait or as food for the crew or for other subsistence uses, but may also in some cases represent incidental catches that are undesired but somewhat unavoidable in the fishery. Given the often unmanaged status of these species, there are unlikely to be reference points for biomass or fishing mortality in place, as well as a general lack of data availability. In this assessment, 9 species were identified as bait species representing approximately 5% of the UoA catch.

77 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Main species

For Primary and Secondary species, species may be considered “Main” based on either resilience/vulnerability and catch volume. Species that are not “Main” are Minor. Main and Minor species must meet different Performance Indicators (PIs) in P2.

o Resilience/vulnerability: If the species is considered "less resilient" (as defined in SA3.4.2.2) and it is ≥ 2% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise it is considered Minor. o Catch volume: If the species is not considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 5% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise, it is considered Minor.

Overview of Species Classification

The assessment team compiled catch data collected and provided by representatives from the Occidental- Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf yellowfin tuna handline fishery. The catch composition below represents all catch recorded via landings data. Given no catch is discarded within the fishery and all species are retained for sale or personal use, the assessment team has determined this data provided an accurate representation of all catch.

Table 13. Catch Summary for Fishery from (2013-2019) Source: Occidental-Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf yellowfin tuna handline fishery personnel3.

Species (Scientific Total Total Species (Common Name) Local Name % Name) (kgs) (individuals)

Yellowfin tuna Bangkulis Thunnus albacares 13,029 11,599 59.16

Albacore Eliwon Thunnus alalunga 3,669 2,648 16.66

Skipjack tuna Pundahan Katsuwonus pelamis 992 705 4.50

Common dolphinfish (Mahi-Mahi) Lamadang Coryphaena hippurus 956 695 4.34

Squid (bait) Pusit (bait) Loligo spp. 530 - 2.41

Bigeye scad (bait) Abobngon 254 - 1.15 Acanthocybium Tangigui (batang) solandri 406 305 1.84 Roudi () Langkoy sa lawod premetheus 361 212 1.64

Opah Golden fish Lampris guttatus 175 120 0.79

Rainbow runner Bulangawan Elagatis bipinnulata 165 76 0.75

Indo-Pacific Blue Marlin Blue marlin Makaira mazara 141 87 0.64

Great Manabang Sphyraena barracuda 116 73 0.53 Promethichthys Langkoy - Roudi escolar (bait) premetheus 115 0.52

3All reported catch representing 0.1% or more included in this table. More granular data is available later in this report – see Appendix 9.16.

78 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Species (Scientific Total Total Species (Common Name) Local Name % Name) (kgs) (individuals)

Paranganon Bigeye tuna (bangkulis) Thunnus obesus 108 103 0.49 Istiophorus Indo-Pacific Sailfish Malasugui platypterus 102 75 0.46

Jacks Balnutan Caranx spp. 98 72 0.44

Sibobog 83 - 0.38

Swordfish Swordfish Xiphias gladius 75 70 0.34 Lobotes Tripletail surinamensis Lobotes surinamensis 65 52 0.30

Requiem sharks Shark (Sablihan) Shark (sablihan) 62 53 0.28

Big eye Trevally - Caranx sp. 49 49 0.22

Frigate tuna (bait) Turingan (bait) thazard 49 - 0.22

Mackerel (bait) Buraw (bait) spp. 47 - 0.21

Yellowtail scad (bait) Salay-salay (bait) Atule mate 41 - 0.19 Thysanoteuthis - Diamondback squid rhombus 38 33 0.17 - Narrow-barred commerson 32 27 0.15

Oilfish Pandawan Ruvettus pretiosus 32 24 0.15

Sardines (bait) Tamban (bait) Sardinella spp. 31 - 0.14

Black marlin Bigok Makaira indica 29 15 0.13

Dogtooth tuna Gymnosarda unicolor 29 24 0.13

Frigate tuna Turingan (lapad) Auxis thazard 25 16 0.11

Table 14. Summary of Non-target Species as Categorized for Evaluation. Not that additional minor secondary species less than .1% of UoC catch are listed in Appendix 9.169.16.

Common name Scientific name Managed Less % UoA ETP MSC Resilient Catch Classification

Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares Y N 59.16 N Target Species Y N N Main Primary Albacore Thunnus alalunga 16.66 Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis Y N 4.50 N Minor Primary Common dolphinfish (Mahi-Mahi) Coryphaena hippurus N N 4.34 N Minor Secondary Squid (bait) Loligo spp. N N 2.41 N Minor Secondary Bigeye scad (bait) N N 1.15 N Minor Secondary Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri N N 1.84 N Minor Secondary Roudi escolar (snake mackerel) Promethichthys premetheus N N 1.64 N Minor Secondary Opah Lampris guttatus N N 0.79 N Minor Secondary Rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulata N N 0.75 N Minor Secondary Indo-Pacific Blue Marlin Makaira mazara N N 0.64 N Minor Secondary Sphyraena barracuda N N 0.53 N Minor Secondary

79 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Common name Scientific name Managed Less % UoA ETP MSC Resilient Catch Classification

Roudi escolar (bait) Promethichthys premetheus N N 0.52 N Minor Secondary Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus N N 0.49 N Minor Primary Indo-Pacific Sailfish Istiophorus platypterus N N 0.46 N Minor Secondary Jacks Caranx spp. N N 0.44 N Minor Secondary Sibobog N N 0.38 N Minor Secondary Swordfish Xiphias gladius N N 0.34 N Minor Primary Tripletail Lobotes surinamensis N N 0.30 N Minor Secondary Requiem sharks Shark (sablihan) N N 0.28 N Minor Secondary Big eye Trevally Caranx sp. N N 0.22 N Minor Secondary Frigate tuna (bait) Auxis thazard N N 0.22 N Minor Secondary Mackerel (bait) Rastrelliger spp. N N 0.21 N Minor Secondary Yellowtail scad (bait) Atule mate N N 0.19 N Minor Secondary Diamondback squid Thysanoteuthis rhombus N N 0.17 N Minor Secondary Narrow-barred spanish mackerel Scomberomorus commerson N N 0.15 N Minor Secondary Ruvettus pretiosus N N 0.15 N Minor Secondary Sardines (bait) Sardinella spp. N N 0.14 N Minor Secondary Black marlin Makaira indica N N 0.13 N Minor Secondary Dogtooth tuna Gymnosarda unicolor N N 0.13 N Minor Secondary Frigate tuna Auxis thazard N N 0.11 N Minor Secondary

Information Sources

The Philippine YFT Handline Fishery conducted a one year (August 2014—July 2015) catch monitoring programme on the tuna handline fisheries, covering 24% of municipal tuna fishing vessels and 41% of commercial tuna fishing vessels in the Lagonoy Gulf, and 10% of the total tuna fishing vessels in Occidental-Mindoro. Following the initial pilot program of catch documentation from 2014-2015, the fishery extended data collection efforts through 2019. The results of this catch monitoring are summarised above in section 7.3.1.2.

All catch was retained and recorded upon landing of product. The assessment identified gaps in information regarding the collection of this information, including the percent coverage of fishing vessels through 2019. Given all species are retained, no information is available on discards in the fishery, or other forms of supplemental catch data. The assessment team examined these limitations as part of remote site visit and concluded that information was not sufficient to meet SG80 information requirements for ETP species.

80 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Primary Species

Stemming from the catch composition from catch data representing 2014 through 2019, the only primary main species is North Pacific Albacore Tuna.

North Pacific Albacore Tuna (Thunnus alalunga)

Biology

Taxonomic classification Class: Actinopterigii Order: Scombriformes Family: Scombridae Genus: Thunnus Species: alalunga

Behavior

Albacore are pelagic predators that eat a variety of foods, including fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods. They are unique among tuna in that their primary food source is sometimes cephalopods, with fish making up a much smaller portion of their diet. Albacore are found in temperate and tropical waters across the globe in the epipelagic and mesopelagic zones. There are six distinct stocks known globally in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian oceans, as well as the Mediterranean Sea. In the Pacific Ocean there are two distinct stocks, North Pacific and South Pacific stocks. Reproduction and Recruitment

Albacore are batch spawners, shedding eggs directly into the sea during discrete spawning events. Spawning frequency is estimated to be 1.7 d in the western Pacific Ocean (Chen et al. 2010), and batch fecundity ranges between 0.17 and 2.6 million eggs (Ueyanagi 1957, Otsu and Uchida 1959, Chen et al. 2010). Female albacore mature at lengths ranging from 83 cm fork length (FL) in the western Pacific Ocean (Chen et al. 2010) to 90 cm FL in the central Pacific Ocean (Ueyanagi 1957), and 93 cm FL north of Hawaii (Otsu and Uchida 1959).

Spawning locations in tropical and sub-tropical waters ranges between Hawaii (155°W) and the east coast of Taiwan and the Philippines (120°E) and between 10 and 25°N latitudes at depths exceeding 90 m (Ueyanagi 1957, 1969, Otsu and Uchida 1959, Yoshida 1966, Chen et al. 2010). The spawning period is thought to extend from March through September in the western and central Pacific Oceans. However, recent evidence based on a histological assessments of gonadal status and maturity (Chen et al. 2010) shows that spawning peaks in the March-April period in the western Pacific Ocean, which is consistent with evidence from larval sampling surveys in the same region (Nishikawa et al. 1985). In contrast, albacore reproductive studies in the central Pacific Ocean concluded a probable peak spawning period between June and August (Ueyanagi 1957, Otsu and Uchida 1959), but these studies have not been updated using modern histological techniques and are 50 years old.

81 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Growth and Natural Mortality

Growth of albacore tuna is modeled by a von Bertalanffy growth function, which typically shows rapid growth in immature fish followed by a slowing of growth rates at maturity and through the adult period. Since young fish are rarely captured in north Pacific Ocean fisheries, growth in the first year of life is uncertain. Juvenile albacore recruit into surface fisheries in both the eastern and western Pacific Oceans at age-2 and growth estimates are more certain.

Albacore exhibit sexually dimorphic growth after they reach sexual maturity with males attaining a larger size and older age than females (114 cm FL and 14 years vs. 103.5 cm FL and 10 years, respectively). A re- examination of the age and growth data compiled by Wells et al. (2013) showed that for those individuals in which sex was recorded, there was clear evidence of sexually dimorphic growth between males and females (Xu et al. 2014). Given the clear evidence of sexual dimorphism in growth and longevity of north Pacific albacore, the current stock assessment (ISC 2014) uses sex-specific male and female von Bertalanffy growth functions in the assessment. These growth parameters were estimated externally to the stock assessment model by Xu et al. (2014), who combined the sex-specific datasets compiled by Chen et al. (2012) and Wells et al. (2013). Distribution and Stock Structure

Albacore is a highly migratory tuna species found in all of the global oceans and Mediterranean Sea. In the Pacific Ocean there are two separate and distinct stocks of albacore, one in the northern hemisphere and the other in the southern hemisphere. The discreteness of these stocks is supported by fishery data (Suzuki et al., 1977), tagging data (Ramon and Bailey, 1996), ecological data (Ueyanagi, 1969), and genetic data (Takagi et al., 2001). Thus, north Pacific albacore is assumed to be a discrete, reproductively isolated stock.

North Pacific albacore are highly migratory and these movements are influenced by oceanic conditions (e.g., Polovina et al. 2001, Zainuddin et al. 2006, 2008). The migrating population is believed to be composed of juvenile fish immature fish generally less than 5 years old and 85 cm FL), which inhabit surface waters (0-50 m). Some juvenile albacore undertake trans-Pacific movements from west to the east and display seasonal movements between the eastern or western and central Pacific Ocean (Ichinokawa et al. 2008, Childers et al. 2011). The trans-Pacific movements track the position of the transition zone chlorophyll front (Polovina et al. 2001, Zainuddin et al. 2006, 2008) and increase when large meanders in the Kuroshio current occur, increasing albacore prey availability in the transition zone (Kimura et al. 1997, Watanabe et al. 2004). Westward movements of juveniles tend to be more frequent than eastward movements (Ichinokawa et al. 2008), corresponding to the recruitment of juvenile fish into fisheries in the western and eastern Pacific Ocean and are followed by a gradual movement of older juveniles and mature fish to low latitude spawning grounds in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Sex-related movements of large adult fish, which may be predominately male, to areas south of 20°N has been documented but its significance to the population dynamics of this stock is uncertain.

Status

82 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Stock status:

The most recent assessment of stock status was in August of 2020 by the ISC Albacore Working Group, building on the 2017 (ISC Albacore Working Group [ALBWG] 2017). As with the ISC ALBWG 2017, the 2020 assessment concluded that the stock was not overfished. In addition, the WCPFC did not adopt any F- based reference points to evaluate overfishing, and the fishing intensity is likely at or below potential reference points.

As reported in ALBWG (2020), the stock assessment estimated that total stock biomass (males and female at age-1+) declined at the beginning of the time series until 2000, after which biomass became relatively stable. Estimated female SSB exhibited a similar population trend, with an initial decline until 2003 followed by fluctuations with no apparent trend through 2015 (Figure 19). The estimated spawning potential ratio (SPR) relative to the unfished population in 2015 was 0.53, which corresponded to a moderate exploitation intensity of approximately 0.47 (calculated as, 1-SPR). Instantaneous fishing mortality at age (F-at-age) was similar in both sexes through age-5, peaking at age-4, declining to a low at age-6, after which males experienced higher F-at-age than females up to age 13. Juvenile albacore aged 2 to 4 years comprised, on average, 70% of the annual catch between 1993 and 2015 and is consistent with the larger impact being associated with surface fisheries (primarily troll, pole-and-line) which remove juvenile fish, relative to longline fisheries, which primarily remove adult fish. Harvest strategy:

There is an Interim Harvest Strategy for Northern Pacific albacore that was adopted in 2017 (NC13 Summary Report, Attachment H, Attachment I). Its management objective is “to maintain the biomass, with reasonable variability, around its current level in order to allow recent exploitation levels to continue with a low risk of breaching the limit reference point.” By adopting this management objective in 2017 the NC replaced the previously adopted precautionary management framework and indicated it was to be recognized as a harvest strategy

There is an agreed Limit Reference Point (LRP) for Northern Pacific albacore of 20% of the unfished spawning biomass (20%SSBcurrent F=0). A target reference point (TRP) has yet to be adopted and it is proposed that one will be determined following a comprehensive analysis under a management strategy evaluation approach as part of a future work plan. While there is no established HCR for albacore tuna the WCPFC Convention text states that if the spawning stock size decreased below the LRP, the NC would implement a rebuilding plan to increase the spawning stock size to the LRP within at least 10 years, and recommend a CMM to achieve this goal.

The MSC standard requires that a harvest strategy contain a combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions and that these should work together to maintain stocks at target levels. The absence of an agreed TRP and HCRs that could be expected to maintain stocks at these levels, means that the current Interim Harvest Strategy for North Pacific Albacore does not yet meet MSC requirements for Principle 1.

83 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 19. Historical and future trajectory of north Pacific albacore female spawning biomass (SSB) under a constant catch (average 2010-2018 = 82,432 t) harvest scenario. Future recruitment was based on the expected recruitment variability and autocorrelation. Dashed line indicates the average limit reference point threshold for 2012-2018. Black line and blue area indicate maximum likelihood estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI), respectively, of historical female SSB, which includes parameter uncertainty. Red line and red area indicate mean value and 95% CI of projected female SSB, which only includes future recruitment variability and SSB uncertainty in the terminal year (from ALBWG 2020).

Figure 20. Kobe plot showing the status of the north Pacific albacore stock relative to the 20%SSBcurrent, F=0 biomass-based limit reference point, and equivalent fishing intensity (F20%; calculated as 1-SPR20%) over the

84 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report base case modelling period (1994-2018). Blue triangle indicates the start year (1994) and black circle with 95% confidence intervals indicates the terminal year (2018) (from ALBWG 2020).

Primary Minor Species

The assessment team analyzed the catch composition for the reported catch from 2013-2019 and classified many species as primary minor species. All species described below are managed, but are less than 5% of the Unit of Certification catch (skipjack tuna) or less than 2% of reported catch (big-eye tuna). Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Biology

Taxonomic classification Class: Actinopterigii Order: Scombriformes Family: Scombridae Genus: Katsuwonus Species: pelamis

Behavior

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) distribute tropical, sub-tropical and temperate waters in Pacific, Atlantic and Indian Oceans. Populations in the three oceans considered to be separate stocks. Within the Pacific, skipjack tuna is managed as two stocks – WC Pacific and Eastern Pacific.

Reproduction and Recruitment

Skipjack tuna reach maturity at about 40 cm fork length (FL) and within their first year. They spawn in batches throughout the year in equatorial waters, and from spring to early fall in subtropical waters, with the spawning season becoming shorter as distance from the equator increases. Fecundity increases with size but is highly variable, the number of eggs per season in females of 41 to 87 cm fork length ranging between 80 000 and 2 million. Skipjack tuna have a generation time of 2 years (Berger et al. 2013). Feeding selectivity is low. Preys are fish, crustaceans and cephalopod. Predators are tuna species, , Spanish mackerel, sharks and sea birds.

Growth and Natural Mortality

Skipjack are the smallest of the major commercial tuna species, generally not exceeding 20 kg. Monthly observer sampling of the catch indicates that, when fished as surface schooling adults, they are typically caught at 30 – 70 cm and 2-5 kg in size (Williams and Terawasi 2015).

Skipjack growth is rapid compared to yellowfin and bigeye tuna. In the Pacific, approximate age estimates from counting daily rings on otoliths suggest that growth may vary between areas. At 150, 200, 300 and

85 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

400 days, fork lengths (FLs) of 30, 33, 40, and 46 cm were estimated for fish sampled mostly in the north Pacific (Tanabe et al. 2003), but growth estimates were faster (42, 47, 55, and 60 cm) for fish sampled close to the equator (Leroy 2000). Growth has been found to vary spatially in the eastern Pacific (Maunder 2001) and in the Atlantic (Gaertner et al., 2008), based on analyses of tagging data.

Estimates of natural mortality rate have been obtained using a size-structured tag attrition model (Hampton 2000), which indicated that natural mortality was substantially larger for small skipjack (21-30 cm FL, M=0.8 mo‐1) compared to larger skipjack (51–70 cm FL, M=0.12-0.15 mo‐1). The longest period at liberty for a tagged skipjack was 4.5 years.

Distribution and Stock Structure

Skipjack are found mainly in the tropical areas of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Their geographic limits are 55-60° N and 45-50° S, with the greatest abundance seen in equatorial waters, being roughly limited to a 20°C surface isotherm (Hoyle et al., 2011). In the western Pacific, warm, pole ward-flowing currents near northern Japan and southern Australia seasonally extend their distribution to 40°N and 40°S (Rice et al. 2014).

Skipjack in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are considered to comprise one stock for assessment and management purposes. A substantial amount of information on skipjack movement is available from tagging programs, which have documented some large-scale movement within the Pacific (Figure 16). In general, skipjack movement is highly variable (Sibert et al., 1999) but is thought to be influenced by large- scale oceanographic variability (Lehodey et al. 1997). Skipjack tuna are also classified as a ‘highly migratory species’ and are listed as such in Annex I of UNCLOS. Analyses of the tagging data have, however, indicated that the median lifetime displacement of skipjack ranges from 420 to 470 nautical miles (Sibert and Hampton 2003). Other studies (Hoyle et al. 2011, Lehody et al. 2011) also indicate that mixing rates appear to be fairly restricted, particularly between the equatorial and sub-tropical/temperate North Pacific.

86 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 21. Map of the movements of tagged skipjack released in the WCPO and subsequently recaptured. (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Status

Stock assessments for Skipjack Tuna are undertaken by the Oceanic Fisheries Program (OFP) of the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) as the scientific advisory body for the WCPFC. Draft results of assessments are submitted to the meeting of the WCPFC’s Scientific Committee (SC) for discussion and review by members, after which it is revised and a final report presented to the WCPFC plenary, usually held in December.

The assessment reports contain descriptions of structural assumptions, model parameterization and priors, as well as stock status determination. Stock assessments for Skipjack Tuna have been conducted regularly since 2000, the most recent being in 2019 using the integrated statistical modeling framework MULTIFAN-CL with model input based mainly on catch and effort data for various fleets, size data and tagging data (Vincent et al. 2019). This assessment followed the previously agreed approach but also addressed several recommended improvements. In particular, the SC used an 8-region model to describe the stock status of Skipjack Tuna because it considered that it better captures the biology of Skipjack Tuna (Figure 5).

Time series of total annual catch (1000’s mt) by fishing gear for all regions is shown in Figure 23. The overall spawning potential summed across region for the diagnostic model is shown in Figure 24. The estimated annual average juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model is shown in Figure 25. The median and 80th percent quantile trajectories of fishing depletion for models in the weighted structural uncertainty grid is shown in Figure 26, where it can be seen that the median has been below the target since 2009. The Kobe plot (Figure 27) shows the recent fishing mortality and spawning potential relative to spawning potential at MSY for all models in the structural uncertainty grid for (i) spawning potential in the recent time period (2015–2018) and (ii) spawning potential in the latest time period (2018).

87 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Stock status was determined over an uncertainty grid of 54 models with assumed weightings as illustrated in Error! Reference source not found..

The SC noted that the median level of spawning potential depletion from the uncertainty grid was SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.44 with a probable range of 0.37 to 0.53 (80% probability interval). There were no individual models where SBrecent/SBF=0 < 0.2, which indicated that the probability that recent spawning biomass was below the LRP was zero.

The SC also noted that the grid median Frecent/FMSY was 0.45, with a range of 0.34 to 0.60 (80% probability interval) and that no values of Frecent/FMSY in the grid exceed 1. Therefore, there was a zero probability that the recent fishing mortality exceeds FMSY.

The SC noted that the largest uncertainty in the structural uncertainty grid was due to the assumed tag mixing period. In addition, it acknowledged that further study is warranted to investigate the uncertainty surrounding the appropriate mixing period for the tagging data.

The SC acknowledged that the spatial extent of the Japanese pole-and-line fishery has decreased over the time period and that the future use of this standardized CPUE index within future stock assessments is uncertain.

Table 15. Skipjack tuna: Description of the updated structural sensitivity grid used to characterize uncertainty in the assessment (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

88 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 16. Skipjack tuna: Summary of reference points over the various models in the structural uncertainty grid. Fmult is the multiplier of recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality required to attain MSY, Frecent is the average fishing mortality of recent years (2014-2017), SBrecent is the average spawning potential of recent years (2015- 2018) and SBlatest is the spawning potential in 2018 (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Figure 22. Skipjack tuna: Eight region spatial structure used in the 2019 stock assessment model (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

89 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 23. Skipjack tuna: Time series of total annual catch (1000's mt) by fishing gear over the full assessment period (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Figure 24. Estimated temporal overall spawning potential for skipjack tuna summed across regions from the diagnostic model, where the shaded region is ± 2 standard deviations (i.e., 95% CI) (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

90 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 25. Estimated annual average skipjack tuna juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Figure 26. Plot showing the trajectories of skipjack tuna spawning potential depletion for the model runs included in the structural uncertainty grid weighted by the values given in Table SKJ-01. Red horizontal line indicates the agreed limit reference point, the green horizontal line indicates the interim target reference point (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

91 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 27. Skipjack tuna Kobe plots for the recent (2015-2018, left) and latest (2018, right) spawning potential summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning potential depletion and fishing mortality and marginal distributions of each are presented. Brown triangle indicates the median of the estimates. The size of the circle relates to the weight of that particular model run (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Management

Interim target reference point at 50% B0 was established in the CMM-2015-06. Introduction of MSE has been discussed, but it is not agreed yet. As 79% of skipjack tuna in the WCPO is caught by purse seine fishery, there are number of measures for purse seine fisheries targeting bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Those measures includes seasonal ban of FAD use in EEZ and high seas and limitation of number of FAD per vessel. It is considered that those measures are working effectively to achieve its objective.

WCPFC management

Skipjack tuna were not included in the earlier tuna specific Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) passed by the WCPFC because there were no concerns about the status of the species. They were first included in CMM 2012-01 and have been included in all later iterations of this CMM. CMM 2016-01 deals with skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna and includes the following requirements for purse seine effort control:

Exclusive Economic Zones

20. Coastal States within the Convention Area that are Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) shall restrict the level of purse seine effort in their EEZs to 2010 levels through the PNA Vessel Days Scheme (VDS).

92 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

21. CCMs shall support the ongoing development and strengthening of the PNA VDS including implementation and compliance with the requirements of the VDS as appropriate.

22. Other coastal States within the Convention Area with effort in their EEZs exceeding 1,500 days annually over the period 2006-2010 shall limit effort in their EEZs to 2001- 2004 average or 2010 levels.

23. Other coastal States within the Convention Area other than those referred to in paragraph 20 and paragraph 22 shall establish effort limits, or equivalent catch limits for purse seine fisheries within their EEZs that reflect the geographical distributions of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tunas, and are consistent with the objectives for those species. Those coastal States that have already notified limits to the Commission shall restrict purse seine effort and/or catch within their EEZs in accordance with those limits. Those coastal State CCMs that have yet to notify limits to the Commission shall do so by 30 June 2014.

High Seas purse seine effort limits

25. For 2017, non-SIDS CCMs shall restrict the level of purse seine effort on high seas to the limits indicated in Attachment D. The Commission shall review these limits at its meeting in 2017 and agree on high seas purse seine effort limits to apply after 2017.

26. Notwithstanding any agreement that may be reached at its annual meetings in 2014, 2015 and 2016 on high seas purse seine effort limits the total effort level for non-SIDS CCMs shall not exceed the total level of effort in Attachment D.

CMM 2016-01 also specifies other management measures including three months (July, August and September) prohibition of setting on FADs for all purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and high seas, and also high seas purse seine effort limits. The annual high seas limit for USA vessels through to 2017 is 1270 days. In addition to this, the USA NMFS has set a compatible limit of 558 fishing days per year with the USA EEZ, in accordance with CMM 2016-01 para. 23. These limits are applicable until 2017. Operationally, the USA considers that the limits apply to a combined area comprised of the high seas and EEZ for a total of 1,828 days. The 2016-2017 ELAPS days (EEZ and high seas) were codified as Rule 81 FR 41239, amending USA Code of Federal Regulations: 50 CFR Part 300.

Management by the Philippines

The management system for the Philippines is described in Section 3.5.

Harvest strategy

The WCPFC has progressed through a stepwise process for implementing the components of a harvest strategy (‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management

93 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report actions, which may include a Management Plan (MP) or an MP (implicit) and be tested by Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)’, MSCI Vocabulary v1.1).

Establishing a limit reference point (LRP) has involved initially agreeing to a hierarchical approach to identify LRPs for key target species (2011), adopting specific LRPs for skipjack tuna (2012), and agreeing to the time period over which the LRP would be calculated (2013). SC9 (noting the results in SC9-MI-WP- 02) recommended that the time window (from start year t1 to end year t2) to be used for defining the LRP of 20% of unfished Spawning Biomass (SBF=0,t1-t2) satisfy the following criteria:

A. have a length of 10 years;

B. be based on the years t1=ylast-10 to t2=ylast-1 where “ylast” is the last year used in the assessment; and

C. the approach used for calculating the unfished biomass levels be based on scaled estimates of recruitment according to the stock recruitment relationship.

For a target reference point (TRP), WCPFC’s CMM 2014-01 (WCPFC 2014b) reiterated the general objective (contained in previous CMMs) that its management measures aim to ensure that stocks are maintained at a minimum, at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield. This was also expressed in the specific objective that the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than the Fishing Mortality (F) at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) FMSY, i.e. F/FMSY ≤ 1. A series of Management Objectives Workshops were held and there is now an interim target reference point for skipjack tuna following the adoption of CMM 2015-06 which specified that

“The target reference point for the WCPO skipjack tuna stock shall initially be 50 per cent of the estimated recent average spawning biomass in the absence of fishing, (SB F=0, t1-t2 ).”

The harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is more advanced than for the other main species of tropical tunas. Nevertheless, the workplan that WCPFC adopted in 2015 and revised in 2016 for yellowfin tuna (Table 12) indicates that there are still important decisions to be made concerning harvest control rules.

Table 17. Agreed work plan for skipjack tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06. Year Activity

Year Activity

- Record management objectives for the fishery or stock (a). 2016 - Agree acceptable levels of risk (c). - Agree monitoring strategy (d). - Develop harvest control rules (e). - Management strategy evaluation (f) - SC provide advice on a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. - SC provide advice on a range of performance indicators to evaluate performance of harvest control rules. - Commission record management objectives for skipjack

94 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

- Commission agree to acceptable levels of risk for breaching Limit Reference Point for skipjack. - Commission agree to a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. - Commission agree performance indicators to evaluate harvest control rules.

1. Develop harvest control rules (e). 2017 2. Management strategy evaluation (f). a. SC provide advice on candidate harvest control rules based on agreed reference points. b. Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules.

3. Develop harvest control rules (e). 2018 4. Management strategy evaluation (f). a. SC provide advice on performance of candidate harvest control rules. b. TCC* consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. c. Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules.

The VDS system operates alongside WCPFC measures. At the 22nd Annual PNA Meeting in April 2017, the PNA countries agreed to confirm the provisional 2015 TAE of 44,625 days. In addition, a TAE of 44,890 days was adopted for 2016 and set as the provisional PNA TAE for 2017. Purse seine fishing effort (based on logsheet days) have been reported as 36,365 days and 40,349 days for 2015 and 2016 respectively (Clark 2017). In addition, non-PNA member Tokelau joined the VDS in 2015 and was allocated a TAE of 985 days for 2015 and 991 days for 2016 (i.e. a total VDS TAE of 45,610 days for 2015 and 45,881 days for 2016) (PNA 2016a). Information

The information used in the assessment of skipjack tuna consists of catch, effort, length-frequency and weight-frequency data for the fisheries defined in the analysis, and tag release-recapture data. These data come from a range of sources including mandatory logbooks with daily catch and effort records for each fishing operation (as described in CMM 2013-05), a VMS (as adopted under CMM 2014-3), 100% observer coverage of fishing operations providing a range of data including a detailed record of catch composition (through the Regional Observer Program as instigated under CMM 2006-07 and CMM 2007-01, and implemented through a range of standards and procedures available on the WCPFC website: https://www.wcpfc.int/regional-observer-programme). Records of authorized fishing vessels are also required to be maintained (as described in CMM 2013-10).

Information is also available on stock structure (from tagging and other work), and all other key aspects of the species’ biology. Data on environmental conditions is collected and is known to be important for understanding shifts in the distribution of the stock and the fishery.

Western and Central Pacific Bigeye Tuna

Biology

95 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Taxonomic classification Class: Actinopterigii Order: Scombriformes Family: Scombridae Genus: Thunnus Species: obesus Behavior

Bigeye tuna primarily feed on epipelagic and mesopelagic fish, crustaceans and cephalopods. They exhibit distinct diel shifts in vertical behavior, generally descending at dawn to deeper, cooler waters and returning to shallower, warmer waters at dusk. Results from tagging studies show that bigeye tuna are capable of traversing ocean basins, but can also show a high degree of site fidelity to some region (Figure 28).

Figure 28. Movements of tagged bigeye, divided into three regions. Black points are release locations; red are recapture locations for fish released in the western region; green for recaptures of fish released in the central region; blue for recaptures of fish released in the eastern region. Figure taken from McKechnie, Pilling, et al. (2017a) who in turn took it from Schaefer et al. (2015).

Growth and Natural Mortality

Bigeye tuna are relatively fast-growing, with a maximum length of ~200 cm. Individuals reach maturity in the length range 80-120 cm. It appears that bigeye growth is faster in the EPO than the WCPO, for reasons unknown; maturity is reached at a similar age but at a larger size. Growth does not seem to vary significantly by sex (changes in sex ratio after maturity are therefore presumed to be related to differential natural mortality), but growth may vary spatially in the WCPO, although more data are required to map this in detail.

96 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Bigeye age and growth in the WCPO have been revisited and revised in recent years (‘Project 35’; Farley et al. (2017b), followed by ‘Project 81’; Farley, Eveson, et al. (2018)). Initially, the 3321R05A | Control Union Pesca Ltd. 26 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) MEC V1.2 (2nd October 2017) authors sectioned otoliths from 1039 fish caught from 2013-16, in the age range 0.25-13.7 years, mainly from the equatorial regions, and for the 2018 update included a further 237 age estimates, including 188 from fish >130cm FL, to address concerned expressed at SC13 regarding the accuracy of the revised growth curve at larger sizes, as well as 11 for small fish (31-39cm).

This work has allowed a new growth curve for bigeye to be estimated, which had a significantly lower asymptotic length than the curve previously used in the stock assessment model (e.g. from 2014), which was more similar to the EPO growth curve (see McKechnie, Pilling, et al. (2017a). The new growth curve from Project 35 was used in the 2017 stock assessment (alongside the old one; see Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.9) and considerably affected the conclusions of the assessment. The updated 2018 stock assessment incorporated the results of Project 81 as well, but this made very little difference to the 2017 growth curve (Figure 29).

Figure 29. Bigeye growth curves used in the current and previous stock assessments: red – used in previous stock assessments up to 2014; green – used for 2017 assessment (McKechnie, Tremblay-Boyer, et al., 2017) based on the work presented in Farley et al. (2017b); blue – as green, incorporating additional work as set out in Farley, Eveson, et al. (2018); used in the 2018 update assessment.

Natural mortality (M) is assumed to be high for the smallest size classes before declining to ~0.5/yr for fish >~40cm. Tagging data suggest that significant numbers of fish reach at least 8 years; the longest period at liberty for a recaptured bigeye in the WCPO was approximately 14 years, for a fish released at age 1-2 years. For females, M may increase after maturity because of the physiological stress of spawning; sex ratios of larger size classes tend to be male biased (McKechnie, Pilling, et al., 2017a). M curves in the stock assessment are sex-specific (see below). Spawning takes place across most months of the year in tropical

97 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report regions of the Pacific Ocean, becoming seasonal at higher latitudes when sea surface temperatures are above 24 °C. Reproduction and Recruitment

Recorded lengths at which sexual maturity is attained varies geographically with a length at which 50% of fishes sampled are mature at 135 cm in the eastern Pacific Ocean and 102–105 cm in the western Pacific Ocean. This translates to an age of maturity of 2 – 4 years. Bigeye tuna spawn throughout the year in tropical waters and seasonally in cooler waters and spawn almost daily, releasing millions of eggs each time which are found in the top layer of the ocean. Spawning takes place across most months of the year in tropical regions of the Pacific Ocean, becoming seasonal at higher latitudes when sea surface temperatures are above 24 °C. Distribution and Stock Structure

Bigeye are distributed throughout the tropical and sub-tropical Pacific, so the question arises as to whether it is appropriate to treat the WCPO as a stock separate from the EPO. Genetic analysis does not suggest significant population differentiation (Grewe and Hampton, 1998). Tagging suggests that while some individuals may move very large distances (up to 4000 nautical miles over one or more years), most were recaptured much closer to the tagging point. Tagging also suggests that east-west movement is more significant than north-south movement (which is one reason why the regional structure of the stock assessment has been adjusted. The working hypothesis is that bigeye in the far east and far west Pacific have little exchange, but there is likely to be mixing in the central Pacific and there is certainly extensive movement over the nominal WCPFC/IATTC management boundary at 150°W. The consequences of this mixing for stock assessment has been evaluated via a Pacific-wide stock assessment (McKechnie et al., 2015b), the results of which suggest that the current approach is robust to this mixing. Status

The most recent full assessment was conducted in 2020 (Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020) and an additional three years of data were available since the last full stock assessment conducted in 2017 (McKechnie at al., 2017) and the model includes data through 2018. New developments in the model include (a) incorporating an updated growth curve resulting from analysis of an enhanced set of otolith data, tag recaptures, and implementation of the Richards growth model (Farley et al. 2020; Eveson et al. 2020). Key, (b) updates on reproductive potential, (c) enhancements to regional CPUE indices (Ducharme-Barth and Vincent, 2020), and (d) based on recommendations from the 2020 PAW only the 10°N spatial structure was considered within the assessment.

As per adopted practice of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, management advice is formulated from the results of the structural uncertainty grid whose aim is to provide an approximate understanding of variability in model estimates due to assumptions in structural and parameter uncertainty that are not accounted for by statistical uncertainty estimated by a single model run. In addition to the diagnostic case model, one-off sensitivity models are used to explore the relative impacts of key data and model assumptions for the diagnostic case model on the stock assessment results and conclusions. Following the adoption of the updated growth information and the 10°N regional structure, the most important factor

98 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report contributing to the uncertainty around the estimated stock status was the level of data-weighting given to the size-frequency data in the model. The description of the updated structural sensitivity grid used to characterize uncertainty in the 2018 assessment is given in

Table 18.

Table 18. Description of the updated structural uncertainty grid used to characterize uncertainty in the assessment. The starred levels denote those assumed in the model diagnostic case. (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

Axis Value 1 Value 2 Value 3 Value 4 Steepness 0.65 0.8 * 0.95 Natural mortality Diagnostic* M-hi

(0.112) (0.146) Size frequency weighting 20* 60 200 500

The spatial structure used in the 2020 stock assessment overlayed on bigeye tuna catches from 2009 to 2018 is shown in Figure 30. The reported total annual catch of bigeye tuna by fishing gear for the assessment period is shown in Figure 31. Estimated annual average recruitment, spawning potential, and total biomass by model region is shown in Figure 31. Juvenile and adult fishing mortality rates from the diagnostic model is shown in Figure 33. The trajectory of the annual estimates of MSY for the diagnostic model compared with annual catch by the main gear types is shown in Figure 31. Prior to 1970, the WCPO bigeye fishery was almost exclusively conducted using longline gear, with a low exploitation of small bigeye. The precipitous decline in MSY results from the targeting of the small-fish in region 7 combined with the rapid expansion of the purse seine fishery which caught younger aged fish before they have the chance to reproduce (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020). Time-dynamic percentiles of depletion (SBt/SBt,F=0) for the 24 models are shown in Figure 35 and a Kobe plot summarising the results for each of the 24 models in the structural uncertainty grid are shown in Figure 36. Projections are illustrated in Figure 37. Table 24 provides a summary of reference points over the 24 models in the structural uncertainty grid.

99 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 30. Distribution and magnitude of bigeye tuna catches for the most recent decade of the stock assessment (2009-2018) by 5° square and fishing gear: longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow), for the WCPO and part of the EPO. Overlayed are the regional boundaries for the stock assessment (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

Figure 31. Total annual catch (1000s mt) of bigeye tuna by fishing gear for the full assessment period. The different colors refer to longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue), purse seine associated (dark blue), purse seine unassociated (light blue), miscellaneous (yellow), and index (gray). Note that the catch by longline gear has been converted into catch-in-weight from catch-in-numbers and so may differ from the annual

100 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report catch estimates presented in (Williams et al. 2020), however these catches enter the model as catch-in-numbers (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

101 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 32. Estimated annual average recruitment (top), spawning potential (middle) and total biomass by model region for the diagnostic model (bottom), showing the relative sizes among regions (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

102 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 33. Estimated annual average juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

Figure 34. History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) for the diagnostic model compared with annual catch by the main gear types (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

103 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 35. Time-dynamic percentiles of depletion (SBt/SBt;F=0) and median (dark line) across all 24 models in the structural uncertainty grid. The lighter band shows the 10th to 90th percentiles around the median, and the dark band shows the 50th percentile around the median. The median SBrecent/SBF=0 and 80th percentile is shown on the right by the dot and line (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

104 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 36. Kobe plot for the recent spawning potential (2015–2018) summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning biomass depletion and fishing mortality. Marginal distributions of each are presented. The median is shown as the blue diamond (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

Figure 37. Time series of bigeye tuna spawning potential SBt/SBF=0 from the uncertainty grid of assessment models for the period 2000 to 2018, and stochastic projection results for the period 2019 to 2048 assuming 2016-2018 average catches in longline and other fisheries and 2018 effort in purse seine fisheries continue. Vertical gray line at 2018 represents the last year of the assessment. During the projection period (2019-2048) levels of recruitment variability are assumed to match those over the long-term period (1962-2017). The red horizontal dashed line represents the agreed limit reference point (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

105 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Table 21. Summary of reference points over the 24 models in the structural uncertainty grid. Note that “recent” is the average over the period 2015-2018 for SB and 2014-2017 for fishing mortality, while “latest” is 2018. The values of the upper 90th and lower 10th percentiles of the empirical distributions are also shown. Fmult is the multiplier of recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality required to attain MSY (from Ducharme-Barth et al. 2020).

Mean Median Minimum 10thpercentile 90th percentile Maximum

Clatest 159,738 159,288 157,297 157,722 162,033 162,271

YFrecent 136,568 134,940 117,800 124,668 149,424 161,520 fmult 1.45 1.38 0.83 0.98 2.03 2.33

FMSY 0.05 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.07 MSY 146,715 140,720 117,920 125,628 179,164 187,520

Frecent/FMSY 0.74 0.72 0.43 0.49 1.02 1.21

SBF=0 1,395,173 1,353,367 903,708 982,103 1,780,138 1,908,636

SBMSY 320,162 321,550 192,500 219,810 443,730 482,700

SBMSY/SBF=0 0.23 0.23 0.19 0.2 0.26 0.26

SB latest/SBF=0 0.38 0.38 0.23 0.3 0.47 0.51

SB latest/SBMSY 1.7 1.67 0.95 1.23 2.15 2.6

SB recent/SBF=0 0.4 0.41 0.21 0.27 0.52 0.55

SB recent/SBMSY 1.78 1.83 0.87 1.18 2.32 2.84

The following outcomes were noted at SC16:

(a) The stock has been continuously declining for about 60 years since the late 1950s, except for the recent small increase from 2015 to 2016 with biomass declining thereafter. (b) The median value of relative recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass depletion (SB2015-2018/ SBF=0) was 0.41 with a 10thto 90th percentiles of 0.27 to 0.52. (c) There is a 0% probability (0 out of 24 models) that the recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass breached the adopted limit reference point (LRP). (d) There has been a long-term increase in fishing mortality for both juvenile and adult bigeye tuna and while juvenile fishing mortality is higher than that of the adult fish, both adult and juvenile fishing mortality rates have stabilised somewhat since 2008 and have fluctuated without trend since that time. (e) The median recent fishing mortality (F2014-2017t/FMSY) was 0.72 with a 10th to 90th percentile interval of 0.49 to 1.02. (f) There was a roughly 12.5% probability (3 out of 24 models) that the recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality was above FMSY. (g) Projections from the long-term recruitment scenario indicate that median SB2025/SBF=0 = 0.42; median SB2035/SBF=0 = 0.44 and median SB2045/SBF=0 = 0.45. The risk that SB2048/SBF=0 is less than the Limit Reference Point is 5%.

Based on the uncertainty grid adopted by SC16, the WCPO bigeye tuna spawning biomass is above the biomass LRP and recent F is very likely below FMSY. The stock is not overfished (100%probability SB/SBF=0>LRP) and likely not experiencing overfishing (87.5% probability F

106 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Management

There is an agreed Limit Reference Point (LRP) for all the key tuna species including bigeye tuna at 20% of the unfished spawning biomass (20%SSBcurrent F=0).

There is also an agreed WPFC workplan to progress the development of harvest strategies for key tuna stocks, including bigeye tuna but a TRP and Harvest Control Rules are yet to be agreed. In the absence of these elements of a harvest strategy, the most important management measures for this species are those described in CMM 2017-01 which, for bigeye, states that “Pending agreement on a target reference point the spawning biomass depletion ratio (SB/SBF=0) is to be maintained at or above the average SB/SBF=0 for 2012-2015.” Other measures described in this CCM are designed to achieve this outcome but are not explicitly linked to stock status.

The MSC standard requires that a Harvest strategy contain a combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions and that these should work together to maintain stocks at target levels. The absence of an agreed TRP and HCRs that could be expected to maintain stocks at these levels, means that available the current elements of a Harvest Strategy for Western and Central Pacific bigeye tuna are not yet sufficient to meet MSC requirements.

There are no WCPO bigeye tuna fisheries that have completed assessment against the MSC standard but, given the similar state of development of its harvest strategy, it would be expected to be scored the same as yellowfin and to require conditions for PIs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.

107 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 38. Plots showing the trajectories of fishing depletion (of spawning potential) for model runs included in the structural uncertainty grid . The five panels show the models separated on the basis of the five axes used in the grid, with the color denoting the level within the axes for each model (from Vincent et al. 2018).

Figure 39. Majuro plots summarizing the results for each of the 72 models in the structural uncertainty grid, which are colored by the growth assumption for the reference point (a) SBrecent/SBF=0 and (b) SBlatest/SBF=0. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning potential depletion and fishing mortality where the size of the circle is indicative of the weight in calculating the reference point table. The red zone represents spawning potential levels lower than the agreed limit reference point which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than FMSY (FMSY is marked with the black dashed line) (from Vincent et al. 2018).

108 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Secondary Species

There are a number of minor secondary species reported in the catch composition from 2013-2019 in the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery. No main secondary species were classified, given all minor species were below 5% of the catch. All species reported in the catch were retained for bait, personal consumption, or are sold as part of this fishery.

Species, Biology, Status

Several minor secondary species were classified for the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery given the reported catch composition, including mahi-mahi (4.34%), wahoo (1.84%) roudi escolar (1.64%), Opah (0.79%), and rainbow runner (0.75%), great barracuda (0.53%), and many billfish species including black marlin (0.13%), blue marlin (0.64%), swordfish (0.34%), and sailfish (0.46%).

While none of these species are considered managed as per MSC requirements and guidelines (MSC Fisheries Standard V.2.01, Section GSA3.1.1-3.1.4), stock assessments are routinely conducted on some of these species. However, there are no established limit reference points (or PRIs) and stock status determinations are proffered relative to MSY. Additionally, management actions for these species have not been adopted and operationalized. Nevertheless, stock assessments available include swordfish, blue marlin, and black marlin. For instance, In 2016 the WCPFC-SC concluded that, based on the results of a 2016 stock assessment update conducted by the ISC, the Pacific blue marlin stock was not currently overfished and was not experiencing overfishing (WCPFC-SC 2016). In August 2018, WCPFC also released a new stock assessment for swordfish, in which they determined the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean swordfish stock is not likely overfished and is not likely experiencing overfishing.

In addition to records of “requiem shark” being caught, there are species-specific sharks and other species that were caught by the UoA that are listed as vulnerable, endangered or critically endangered by the IUCN Red List, and many of these species are not recognized as ETP under MSC processes in which a species IUCN status is only considered if it is a member of an out-of-scope group (SA3.5.1.3). Species caught included spottail shark (Carcharhinus sorrah), and blacktip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus). Other species of sharks (e.g. Shortfin Mako sharks) are listed under CMM 2010-07 as a ‘key species’, requiring members to report on catch to the Commission, however, there are no specific management measures. As per the IUCN Red List, spottail reek sharks and blacktip reef sharks are both considered “near threatened”5,6. While there may be conservation concerns, under MSC these reported species in the catch composition do not merit ETP classification, therefore these are considered minor secondary.

Management and Other Information

5 https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/161376/5409506 6 https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/39375/10219032

109 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Though none of the minor secondary species noted are managed under the WCPFC, management related activities have transpired in recent years and are worth noting. For example, under WCPFC Resolution 2005-03 the WCPFC acknowledges “the importance of many non-target fish species such as mahi, rainbow runner and wahoo for sustainable livelihoods in many communities in the Convention Area.” A recent Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis was conducted that included mahi-mahi (WCPFC–SC2–2006/EB WP– 1), in which it was determined as having a moderately high ecological risk. In the 15th regulation session of the WCPFC in December of 2018, an industry letter summarizes an increased interest in mahi-mahi stock assessment work and potential management actions to ensure the sustainability of mahi-mahi in particular7.

7 https://www.wcpfc.int/file/230790/download?token=HVXa67aR

110 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species

Mobulas

The assessment team examined reported species caught by UoA vessels for ETP classification status under MSC, including giant manta ray (manta birostris). Under FAO 193, for instance, manta rays and whale shark catch are prohibited and therefore listed as ETP as per this assessment. In particular, FAO 193 includes a ban on the taking, catching, selling, purchasing and possessing, transporting, and exportation of whale sharks and manta rays. As a result, the assessment team classified manta rays as ETP under this fishery assessment. See Table 19.

Status

The total global population size of giant mantas is difficult to discern, but local and regional abundance has been estimated and is mostly small, numbering less than 500 individuals. There are no stock assessments for mobulids, however, information on population trends are available for some species and areas based on long time series of sightings at diving sites. Within the Indo-Pacific the estimated decline for devil and manta ray populations is estimated to be at least 78%12. In areas where devil ray catch data is available population declines of 50-99% have been inferred (Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017).

Giant Manta Rays are targeted or taken as bycatch in artisanal small-scale fisheries, as well as taken as bycatch in large-scale tuna fisheries. In areas where Giant Manta Ray are protected, the sighting trends appear stable. Elsewhere, however, rapid declines have been noted in sightings records and landings where they are targeted or caught as bycatch; these range from 71 to 95% declines over 13- to 21-year periods (all less than the assumed one generation length of 29 years). It is estimated that the Giant Manta Ray has undergone a population reduction of 50–79% over the past three generation lengths (87 years) from 1931 to 2018, with further population reduction estimated over the next three generation lengths from 2018 to 2105) due to current and ongoing levels of exploitation, and a reduction in area of occupancy due to suspected local and regional extinctions (https://www.iucnredlist.org).Devil rays are a bycatch component of many small and large-scale fisheries, with much of this catch aggregated and reported as Mobula spp. The lack of comprehensive species-specific catch, fishing effort, and population data necessitates the use of genus-wide inferences to assess population reductions and based on a combination of declining sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) data from monitored populations, catch landings data, and evidence of depletions, significant population declines have been inferred (Fernando and Stevens 2011, Couturier et al. 2012, Hall and Roman 2013, Ward-Paige et al. 2013, Lewis et al. 2015, Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017). In areas where catch data is available population declines of 50-99% over the last three generations (38 years; from 1980-2018) has been inferred, with a further population reduction suspected over the next three generation lengths (2018–2056). Note, as the data in many regions are uncertain and are provided at the genus level (not at the species level), caution is required when extrapolating overall declines.

12 https://www.cms.int/sharks/sites/default/files/document/cms_sharks-mos3_inf.15_e_mobulid%20rays.pdf

111 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Management

CMM-2019-05, Conservation and Management Measure on Mobulid Rays Caught in Association with Fisheries in the WCPFC Convention Area, enters into force on January 1st, 2021 and applies to all fishing vessels operating in the high seas and/or exclusive economic zones of the Convention area and flagged to CCMs authorized to fish for highly migratory fish stocks in the Convention Area, including the Philippines archipelagic waters. For the purpose of this CMM, “mobulid rays” means species of the family Mobulidae, which includes manta rays and mobula rays. Specific measures of the CMM include:

- CCMs shall prohibit their vessels from targeted fishing or intentional setting on mobulid rays in the Convention Area. - CCMs shall prohibit their vessels from retaining on board, transhipping, or landing any part or whole carcass of mobulid rays caught in the Convention Area. - CCMs shall require their fishing vessels to promptly release alive and unharmed, to the extent practicable, mobulid rays as soon as possible, and to do so in a manner that will result in the least possible harm to the individuals captured. CCMs should encourage their fishing vessels to implement the handling practices detailed in Annex 1, while taking into consideration the safety of the crew. - In the case of mobulid rays that are unintentionally caught and landed as part of a purse seine vessel’s operation, the vessel must, at the point of landing or transhipment, surrender the whole mobulid ray to the responsible governmental authorities, or other competent authority, or discard them where possible. Mobulid rays surrendered in this manner may not be sold or bartered but may be donated for purposes of domestic human consumption. - CCMs shall advise the Commission (in Part 2 of their Annual Report) on implementation of this CMM. - CCMs shall ensure that fishers are aware of proper mitigation, identification, handling and releasing techniques and should encourage them to keep on board all necessary equipment for the safe release of mobulid rays. For this purpose, CCMs are encouraged to use the handling practices included as Annex 1.

There is also a ban on large scale drift net fishing in the High Seas by WCPFC under CMM 2008-04 partly because this fishing method was known to catch a large number of non-target species such as marine mammals. This does not apply to the UoA.

In addition, this CMM-2019-05 went into effect in January of 2021 and CMM 2019-05 does not specifically bear any consequence on compliance with the UoA. Under FAO 193, however, Philippine Law issued a ban on catch of whale sharks and manta rays. In particular, this includes a ban on the taking, catching, selling, purchasing and possessing, transporting, and exportation of whale sharks and manta rays. As a result, the assessment team classifies manta rays as ETP for this fishery, in which two individuals were reported from 2014-2019. As a result this matter is also addressed under Principal 3, 3.2.3. Information

112 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

All species are caught and retained and 100% of catch is reported upon landing. Since 2013, participating vessels in the UoC retain and catch and report all landings. Recorded interactions and reported landings of sharks and rays such as manta ray were minimal. Reporting of catch is overseen by BFAR, NSAP, and “bantay dagat,” officers deputized by BFAR that serve the local government units (LGUs).

Other Sharks and Rays

While clear information regarding the interactions and catch of giant manta rays was available for this assessment, other cartilaginous species (or other species) were reported as catch. This section summarizes interactions with sharks and rays as it relates to the UoA. Overall there is minimal risk of these other shark and ray species to be considered ETP, but the assessment team examined this issue out of precaution.

In particular, landed catch of potential ETP species by the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery from 2013-2019 included 0.28% (53 individuals) of catch as “requiem shark,” from 2015-2019. Requiem sharks are part of the shark family Carcharhinidae, which includes about 12 genera and 50 species found worldwide, such as blacktip, whitetip, bull shark, and lemon sharks. Under the WCPFC, three species of requiem sharks are protected including silky shark, whale shark and the oceanic whitetip shark. As a result they are classified as ETP species because they are protected under WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures CMM 2013-08, CMM 2012-04 and CMM 2011-04 respectively. Because species specific catch records are not available for 53 individuals, it is unknown whether any of the reported shark species were ETP. However, given the abundance of non-ETP shark species, the broader heterogenous shark population that inhabit archipelagic waters in the Philippines, and the fact that any potential ETP shark species for consideration (oceanic whitetips, silky sharks) typically occur offshore in open ocean in water depths greater than 600 feet well beyond municipal waters of 10-20 meters depth, it seems unlikely that ETP shark species were caught. Nevertheless, the assessment team has classified these 53 individuals as ETP to exercise additional precaution in this fishery assessment. See Table 15.

In addition, in the four years from 2013 to 2019 the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery reported catch of “shark” on nine occasions without identifying the species. Though unlikely in the fishery given the proximity to coastline and gear type, the assessment team classifies these species as ETP and will closely monitor species specificity regarding sharks to determine risk of potential ETP shark species. See Table 15.

Management

According to the 2017-2022 Sharks and Rays Philippine Status Report and National Plan of Action, there are four species under the Critically Endangered list for the IUCN Red List that exist in the Philippines: one shark, the Pondicherry shark (Carcharhinus hemiodon); and three batoids, namely, the Largetooth or Freshwater sawfish (Pristis microdon), Smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinate), and the Green sawfish (Pristis zijsron) (BFAR 2017). No evidence of interactions or catch of these species was identified in this assessment.

113 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Turtles

In addition to some shark species, cetaceans and turtles are classified as ETP species because as groups they are protected under CMM 2011-03 and CMM 2008-03 respectively. Turtles are also classified as ETP species under MSC given they are on Appendix I of CITES. All species of turtles except the Flat-backed Turtle (Natator depressus) are also listed under Appendix 1 of the Convention on Migratory Species as well as the Endangered Species Act of the United States. No ceteceans or turtle species were reported as catch landed by the fishery.

In summary, the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery reports sharks and rays landed and reported in the catch composition that the assessment team wishes to classify as ETP given the lack of specious specificity. With the exception of the Manta Ray, none of these individuals caught are explicitly defined as ETP within the national, regional, or global level framework. Nevertheless, as a measure of precaution, the assessment team lists sharks and rays identified in the reported catch as ETP as shown in the table below.

The UoA retains 100% of catch, which was confirmed as part of the remote site visit by the assessment team. All catch is landed at key landings sites (“casas”) and landings data was assessed by the assessment team. In addition, the landings are periodically inspected by BFAR, and BFAR deputized fish wardens known as “bantay dagats” within each local government unit (LGU). Though the assessment team has issued conditions given the need for improved information regarding information adequacy for assessment of impact and management strategy, evidence of impact on ETP species was analytically determined as required under Table 3 under FCP v 2.2, therefore RBF was not required.

Table 19. Interactions with ETP Species landed from the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery reported landings data from 2014-2019. Only Manta Rays and Requiem sharks were scored as elements in Section 7.3.2.

Species Interactions

Manta ray (Manta birostris) 2

Requiem sharks (Spp. requiem) 53

Other unknown sharks 9

Other unknown rays (Dasyatis sp.) 2

Turtle species 0

Ceteceans 0

TOTAL 66

114 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Management

Regional Level Sharks The WCPFC’s CMM for sharks (CMM 2010-07) includes the following resolutions applicable to its member states: 1. Commission Members, Cooperating non-Members, and participating Territories (CCMs) shall implement, as appropriate, the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA Sharks). 2. CCMs shall advise the Commission (in Part 2 of the annual report) on their implementation of the IPOA Sharks, including, results of their assessment of the need for a National Plan of Action and/or the status of their National Plans of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. 3. National Plans of Action or other relevant policies for sharks should include measures to minimize waste and discards from shark catches and encourage the live release of incidental catches of sharks. 4. Each CCM shall include key shark species, as identified by the Scientific Committee, in their annual reporting to the Commission of annual catch and fishing effort statistics by gear type, including available historical data, in accordance with the WCPF Convention and agreed reporting procedures. CCMs shall also report annual retained and discarded catches in Part 2 of their annual report. CCMs shall as appropriate, support research and development of strategies for the avoidance of unwanted shark captures (e.g. chemical, magnetic and rare earth metal shark deterrents).

National Level

Sharks and Rays

As a result of the UN International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA- Sharks) was adopted by the 23rd session of the UN FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1999, the Philippines has a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for the Conservation and Management of Sharks produced in 2009. The Philippine NPOA complies with relevant CMM’s under the WCPFC to prohibit catch of silky sharks, oceanic whitetip, and whale sharks (BFAR 2009).

BFAR and the Philippine legislative body currently has a draft law for protection of sharks that has been proposed and is under review. This law would likely include strategies to reduce the incidence of shark finning (Senate Bill 1863).

Under FAO 193, Philippine Law issued a ban on catch of whale sharks and manta rays. In particular, this includes a ban on the taking, catching, selling, purchasing and possessing, transporting, and exportation of whale sharks and manta rays. As a result, the assessment team classifies manta rays as ETP for this fishery, in which two individuals were reported from 2014-2019.

115 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Marine Mammals

The UoA fishery reports no catch or interactions with marine mammals and risk of marine mammal interactions with smaller municipal handline vessels is low. The assessment team confirmed no interactions or catch of marine mammals and therefore compliance with regional and national protection measures for marine mammals.

FAO 185 and FAO 185-1 provides protection measures for all dolphin and whale species. This includes a ban on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing, possessing, transporting and exporting of dolphins, whales, and porpoises.

Turtles

The Philippine YFT Handline fishery reported no turtle catch or turtle interactions. Though no interactions or catch were reported in the catch composition, the assessment team will verify that no interactions occur with turtle species as part of the site visit.

Since 2010, the community of Tiwi in Lagonoy Gulf participates in a conversation to “C” hooks, which lower the incidence of catch turtles with handline or longline. For example, in 2010 80% of the longline fleet had converted to “C” hooks in the longline fleet from “J” hooks, Japanese style hooks, or other hooks that have been proven detrimental to marine turtle populations. Furthermore, in Tiwi in Lagonoy Gulf, fishermen participate in a turtle tagging program for olive ridley, green, and hawsbill sea turtles. Turtles are caught alive in the fishing gear, information on size and species are collected, turtle is tagged, and then safely released. All tagging records are sent to the Wildlife Resource Division, a division of the Biodiversity Management Bureau and Department of Environmental and Natural Resources more broadly.

Other ETP Species

The Philippines also has Republic Act No. 9147, or Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act (WRCPA). Under WRCPA the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) has jurisdiction over crocodiles, waterbirds, and dugongs. Alternatively, the Department of Agriculture (DA) shall have jurisdiction over all declared aquatic species including all marine mammals, except dugong.

Republic Act No. 8550 offers additional protection of endangered species at the national level as noted in sections 11 and 97, which states the following:

SEC. 11. Protection of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species.

The Department shall declare closed seasons and take conservation and rehabilitation measures for rare, threatened and endangered species, as it may determine, and shall ban the fishing and/or taking of rare, threatened and/or endangered species, including

116 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

their eggs/offspring as identified by existing laws in concurrence with concerned government agencies.

SEC. 97. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered Species.

It shall be unlawful to fish or take rare, threatened or endangered species as listed in the CITES and as determined by the Department.

Information

Information available on the shark and ray species are collected through landings data. All species caught are retained. Landings data includes catch weight and effort at an operation level for most fleets, and some size composition data and biological data. Shark Finning

Most sharks caught by the fishery are assessed as ETP species. However, when sharks are caught by the fishery, and they are not one of the target species, the FCP v2.2 requires an assessment of whether shark finning is taking place as part of the evaluation of the management strategies under Principle 2. The issue is therefore considered here as background to the evaluation provided under PI 2.2.2

WCPFC measures

WCPFC’s CMM for sharks (CMM 2010-07) includes the following requirements:

6. CCMs shall take measures necessary to require that their fishers fully utilize any retained catches of sharks. Full utilization is defined as retention by the fishing vessel of all parts of the shark excepting head, guts, and skins, to the point of first landing or transshipment.

7. CCMs shall require their vessels to have on board fins that total no more than 5% of the weight of sharks on board up to the first point of landing. CCMs that currently do not require fins and carcasses to be offloaded together at the point of first landing shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the 5% ratio through certification, monitoring by an observer, or other appropriate measures. CCMs may alternatively require that their vessels land sharks with fins attached to the carcass or that fins not be landed without the corresponding carcass.

8. As finer resolution data become available, the specification of the ratio of fin weight to shark weight described in paragraph 7 shall be periodically reviewed by the Scientific Committee (SC) and the SC will recommend any appropriate revisions to the Commission for its consideration. The SC and the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) are directed to consider if additional appropriate measures that give effect to paragraph 7 are required.

117 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

9. CCMs shall take measures necessary to prohibit their fishing vessels from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or trading any fins harvested in contravention of this Conservation and Management Measure (CMM).

10. In fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species that are not directed at sharks, CCMs shall take measures to encourage the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally and are not used for food or other purposes.

Although WCPFC has measures intended to prohibit the practice of shark finning it is not currently able to determine whether this objective is being achieved. The assessment team will need to examine this issue further as it is a potential information gap in this fishery.

Philippines

Reported catch via landings for the UoA exhibit a very small volume of sharks retained in the UoA from 2014-2019 (approximately 0.3%). In addition, though minimal, the general practice of retaining all catch in the fishery also provides additional support that shark finning is not taking place. Furthermore, the fishery client group provided a total of over 15 separate official letters from government officials representing each relevant Local Government Unit (LGU) in the Occidental-Mindoro Straight and Gulf of Lagonoy. All letters certify that there has been no reported catch of shark finning recorded, and that there are no discards and all species caught are retained in all handline fisheries in the UoA.

During the site visit, the assessment team was informed by BFAR personnel that periodically conducts port inspections at the main landing sites in the UoA. During the site visit, BFAR fishery enforcement officers described the role of the Philippine National Police (PNP) and deputized fishery wardens within each of the local government units (LGUs) that enforce Philippines and WCPFC measures. Evidence of infractions and adjudication processes were provided by BFAR and PNP as per the site visit, but no infractions regarding ETP species or shark finning exist for the UoA.

For many years, the Philippines Congress has proposed the Shark, Ray, Chimaera Conservation Act (most recently Senate Bill 1863), in which additional regulations have been proposed to manage, protect, and conserve shark species in the Philippines at the national level. Once passed, this will provide additional measures to deter shark finning and selling of shark fins in the Philippines in general.

Habitat Impacts

Overview

When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (this is called the “managed area” for assessment purposes).

118 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

According to MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.3, the assessment team must determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats) for scoring purposes, [where]: - “A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA; and - A VME shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines (definition provided in GSA 3.13.3.214) [as having one or more of the following characteristics: uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity]. This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth.”

Both commonly encountered and VME habitats are considered ‘main’ habitats for scoring purposes (GSA 3.13.3).

Habitat Type: Commonly Encountered

Status

The fishing gear does not physically interact with benthic habitat during its operation. Any impacts of the fishery will, therefore, be confined to direct or indirect effects on the surface waters in which the fishery operates. The specifics of the fishing methods are described in Section 3.2.3 Description of Fishing Practices: Gear.

Anchored FADs are also employed in the fishery, there is contact between the substrate and the concrete blocks employed to anchor the FAD. The anchors are constructed as a low box with a surface area of approximately 1 square meter surface area and deployed at a depth between 10 and 20 meters. The number of anchored FADs (AFADs) deployed by the Occidental-Mindoro Straight component of the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery is approximately 110. The Lagonoy Gulf component of the fishery deploys approximately 77 AFADS. Maps provide geospatial verification of AFAD locations. Anecdotally, AFADS are deployed on sandy and rocky substrates. The assessment team will examine additional evidence to verify habitat type in which AFADs are deployed by the UoA.

14 According to MSC FCPV2.1 GSA 3.13.3.2: VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines:

119 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 40. Maps of the UoA fishing area: Occidental-Mindoro Strait with anchored FAD sites. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna.

120 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 41. Bathymetry of map Occidental-Mindoro Strait. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna.

121 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 42. Maps of the UoA fishing area: Lagonoy Gulf with anchored FAD sites. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna.

122 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 43. Bathymetry map of Lagonoy Gulf. Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna.

Management

WCPFC

There are some conservation measures in place at the WCPFC that may pertain to FAD management, including the application of a three month prohibition on the setting on FADs for purse seine vessels fishing in the high seas and EEZs (CMM 2009-02) and the requirement for the submission of a Management plan for the use of FADs for vessels in the high seas (WCPFC CMM 2014-01). The requirements for the FAD management plans included, considerations on catch reporting, minimum distances between aFADs, FAD ownership, procedures for FAD deployment, specifications and requirements for FAD construction. Measures at the WCPFC on FAD management are aimed at vessels operating in the high seas and drifting FADs, and there are few requirements that could be indirectly applicable to the small-scale vessels that are part of the UoA in this assessment.

In 2018 the WCPFC also adopted an additional section to the main tuna CMM (2018-01) that required, among other things, that only non-entangling FADs to be in use by 1st January 2020 (Figure 18).

123 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 44. WCPFC additional section to the main tuna CMM (2018-01) requiring, among other things, that only non-entangling FADs to be in use by 1st January 2020.

National

In response to the WCPFC’s CMM 2014-01, Philippines prepared a FAD Management Plan through FAO- 244 issued in 2012. As of the date of the site visit for this assessment in 2020, no update for the FAD management plan for the Philippines has been published. The management plan has in place provisions requiring marking and registration of deployed FADs and contains guidelines on distance between AFADs and drifting FADs (DFADS), and maximum number of FADs that can be deployed by each vessel. There are no specific considerations in the FAD management plan about sensitive habitat areas.

Nonetheless, none of the management measures in the FAD management plan are applicable to the small- scale vessels that are part of the UoA. According to the Philippines FAD management plan a FAD license is required for a fishing vessel to deploy a FAD, and the FAD license is only valid for the validity period of

124 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report the fishing permit of the vessel. Under section 19 of the Republic Act No. 8550 (Fisheries Code), local government units (LGUs) are required to maintain a registry of municipal fisherfolk that is updated annually, and LGUs are required to maintain a registry of municipal fishing vessels “by type of gear and other boat particulars.”15 The assessment team has yet to determine whether “boat particulars” includes registration of AFADs is required by fisherfolk and respective LGUs.

Though several requirements are explicit for FAD usage by commercial vessels at the National and Regional level, different rules may apply for municipal fisheries in the Philippines. As it relates to FADs, the assessment team has identified gaps in information pertaining to FAD requirements for municipal vessels <3GT, including building and material, registration, and other requirements for FADs. Information

The fishery client provided all relevant habitat information through the efforts of KKPFI, WWF Philippines, and other efforts in recent years including bathymetry maps, AFAD design images, and other information pertaining to habitat. In addition, the fishery client provided a description of efforts by the municipal fisheries to track and management AFADs deployed within the municipal jurisdiction by municipal vessels. Though these efforts are recent, BFAR has supplied AFADS to the UoA since 2015 and plans to strengthen tracking, management, and reporting of FADS (including lost FADS) are underway in the UoA. At present, each fishing association is responsible for reporting FADs deployed and FADs lost to the regional BFAR office (e.g. BFAR Region 5). Evidence of this was confirmed during the remote site visit meetings.

Habitat Type: Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME)

Status

The fishing area where the vessels of the UoA operate is known as the Coral Triangle Area, a marine region located along the equator and including the economic exclusive zone of six countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Timor Leste). The Coral Triangle contains a high diversity of coral and fish species and fish (Green et al., 2011). Distribution maps of coral reefs in the Philippines (Figure 22) and the anecdotal information collected during the site visit, indicate that the fishery does not operate in areas with occurrence of coral reefs. In addition at the level of Local Government Units (LGUs), many LGUs have implemented local ordinances prohibiting fishing and other activities within a broad network of MPAs managed by the LGUs. Municipal handline vessels do not operate in these areas.

15 http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/phi16098.pdf

125 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 45. Map of distribution of coral species in the Coral Triangle. Image taken from Veron (2009) Coral Geographic: a spatial database; Malaysia from the State of the Coral Triangle Report (SCTR) for CT countries; Coral reefs – UNEP-WCMC (2010) Global Distribution of Coral Reefs in the Coral Triangle Atlas (http://ctatlas.reefbase.org)

Asaad et al. (2018) employed a range of ecological and biological criteria to assess area of marine biodiversity importance in the Coral Triangle region. The results of the study identified sites of biodiversity importance based on the analysis of derived from five ecological criteria: (1) distribution data for three biogenic habitats (coral reefs, seagrass meadows, and forests) (2) potential species richness (3) the presence of species of conservation concern; (4) the occurrence of restricted-range species; (5) sea turtle nesting habitat and migratory routes as indicators of important areas for sea turtles. The criteria identified by Asaad et al. (2018) align with the FAO guidelines for VME.

The first criteria evaluating the distribution of coral reefs, seagrass meadows and mangrove forests was employed to assess the criterion for sensitive habitat. The analysis found that the largest coverage of biogenic habitat in the Coral Triangle (CT) was coral reefs (14%), followed by mangrove forests (12%) and seagrass (3%).

Potential Indirect Impacts of aFADs

Although AFADs may have minimal impact at low densities, the deployment of high number of anchored and drifting FADs to support both small scale and industrial fisheries can create higher FAD densities that increases potential of impacts of FADs (Itano 2007).

Under Section 9 of FAO-24416, the Philippines offers requirements for fishery companies as it relates to lost FADs:

16Available at https://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/

126 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

In the event of the loss of the FADs, the company concerned shall notify BFAR of such loss before the FADs are replaced. An observer shall be required to witness the replacement of the FADs. Replacement of FADs shall be deployed in the same position, with the same number as the previous one. In the case where the Observer is not available, FAD replacement activities may still be conducted, provided the FAD replacement position and coordinates shall be submitted to BFAR for further validation.

Entanglement

Small-scale vessels of the Philippines employ traditional anchored FADs (AFADs) which generally do not have any netting in their construction. In addition, the fishery has reported that all materials are non- entangling and comprised of mainly biodegradable materials.

Marine Debris

Coral reefs face a range of threats. Local threats come from coastal development, watershed based pollution, marine-based pollution and damage, overfishing and destructive fishing. Global threats arise from changing climate and ocean chemistry such as warming seas, acidifying seas, sea level rise and storms (Burke et al. 2011 and 2012). Certain fishing gear can also have a destructive impact on coral reef ecosystems, lost or abandoned fishing fear can continue “ghost fishing” or can also cause physical damage to reefs, which can take corals decades to recover (Burke et al. 2012).

Research conducted in the in the Seychelles Islands on environmental impacted of beached drifting FADs 2011 and 2015 found that dFADs impacted coral reef more than other habitats. Of the identified dFADs, 39%, were found attached to coral reefs. The study found that the construction of the FAD was an important factor, with 48,9% of dFADs using nets as the aggregator, found on coral reefs compared to 23% of dFADs using synthetic ropes (Balderson and Martin, 2015).

Seagrass has also been recorded to have been entangled in FADs (Zudaire et al. 2018). Another issue identified is FADs becoming a contributor to marine pollution, with more than 70% of FADs encountered were made of synthetic material. Proposed solutions to mitigate impact on ‘beached’ FADs include building FADs with biodegradable materials and the use of non-entangling FADs (Zudaire et al. 2018).

The longevity of anchored FADs in other similar small-scale fisheries has been identified as proximately 2 years. Once an anchored FAD breaks from their anchor, they can become a form of marine debris, that can either acts as ghost fishing, or impact coastal habitats (Beverly et al., 2012).

Southeast Asia has the most extensive and diverse coral reefs in the world, making up 28 percent of the global total. Reefs in this region are also considered the most at risk, with almost 95 percent of reefs affected. Main threat factors include; densely populated coastlines, shallow and easily accessible fishing grounds, and the highest global occurrences of blast and poison. In the region Indonesia has the largest area of threatened reef. Marine-based pollution is not a main threat factor and considered a threat to less than 5% of reefs in the region. On account of the lack of global spatial data on discarded fishing gear this

127 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report is not accounted for in the analysis of marine-based pollution (Burke et al. 2012). Nevertheless, it seems very unlikely that its inclusion could greatly elevate the relative importance of marine debris as a local threat for coral reefs either within Philippine waters or in the Coral Triangle as a whole; other local threats are estimated to be much more important.

Management

WCPFC

There are some conservation measures in place at the WCPFC that may pertain to FAD management, including the application of a three month prohibition on the setting on FADs for purse seine vessels fishing in the high seas and EEZs (CMM 2009-02) and the requirement for the submission of a Management plan for the use of FADs for vessels in the high seas (WCPFC CMM 2014-01). The requirements for the FAD management plans included, considerations on catch reporting, minimum distances between AFADs, FAD ownership, procedures for FAD deployment, specifications and requirements for FAD construction. Measures at the WCPFC on FAD management are aimed at vessels operating in the high seas and drifting FADs, and there are few requirements that could be indirectly applicable to the small-scale vessels that are part of the UoA in this assessment.

National Level

In response to the WCPFC’s CMM 2014-01, the Philippines prepared a FAD Management Plan through FAO-244. At this time prior to the site visit, no update for the FAD management plan for the Philippines has been published. The management plan has in place provisions requiring marking and registration of deployed FADs and contains guidelines on distance between AFADs, maximum number of FADs that can be deployed by each vessel.

There are no specific considerations in the FAD management plan about sensitive habitat areas at the national level.

Sub-National Level

In April of 2018, the Lagunoy Gulf Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (IFARMC) unanimously approved Resolution Nos. 004-2018. The resolution requests BFAR Region V to fully implement, regulate, and enforce FOO 68 and FAO 244 and identify the areas of no deployment zone of FADs, including AFADs.

Ecosystem Impacts

The MSC defines ‘key ecosystem elements’ as “the features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics and are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure

128 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity” (SA3.16.3 MSC 2014).

Further MSC guidance states that “key ecosystem elements may include trophic structure and function (in particular key prey, predators, and competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g. upwelling or spring bloom, abyssal, etc.), and characteristics of biodiversity” (GCB3.18.1, MSC 2014).

Defining the key ecosystem elements that are applicable to the UoAs is not clear cut and for the purposes of this assessment we have considered a broad range of features and measures from studies at a wider ecosystem scale. The pelagic ecosystems that support the yellowfin tuna fisheries in the WCPO are spread over very broad spatial scales and are influenced by oceanographic and climatic factors beyond the fishery boundaries. Relevant studies include studies of trophic relationships (e.g. Kitchell et al. 1999), studies at scales that are smaller than the whole fishery (e.g. modelling of the ‘warm pool’ by Allain et al. 2015), and modelling of the whole Pacific Ocean (e.g. Sibert et al. 2006). Also, of relevance to this assessment is the potential ecosystem impacts of FADs themselves, including both on target and non-target species. Each have been examined for evidence of impacts of the fishery on the structure and function of the ecosystem.

Trophic Relationships

Adult yellowfin tuna are high trophic level species, second tier apex predators below sharks, swordfish, marlin and other billfish (Kitchell et al., 1999). They are major biomass components of the apex guild, represented by strong responses in a diversity of food web components (Kitchell et al., 1999). Their diet of a variety of pelagic and mesopelagic species, and their trophic position assure an important role as they themselves are prey for higher apex predators. Tunas are considered the most effective generalists in the system as they are abundant opportunistic carnivores with high degrees of trophic interaction and diet overlap (Kitchell et al., 1999). Ecosystem modelling indicated that adult skipjack and yellowfin have critically important ecosystem roles. Their removal evoked substantial and sustained changes in the structure of the system (Kitchell et al., 1999).

Allain et al. (2007) constructed a trophic mass-balance ecosystem model of the Warm Pool/Cold tongue pelagic ecosystem using Ecopath with Ecosim software (Figure 25). They describe the warm pool as an oligotrophic system characterized by low salinity, low nitrates, high temperature, deep thermocline, low surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll located at 90m depth. Conversely, the cold tongue in the Eastern equatorial Pacific is described as an upwelling system with high salinity, high nitrates, low temperature, shallow thermocline, high surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll at the surface. This model indicated that the ecosystem responds to both top-down and bottom-up processes, and has the characteristics of a complex form of ‘wasp-waist’ structure where the majority of the system’s biomass is comprised of mid-trophic level groups. Significant complexity was further added through the effects of climate change, including increased sea surface temperature leading to changes in ocean stratification dynamics and changes in the depth of the thermocline. A combination of increased fishing and climate change produced complex trophic cascades, causing unpredictable increases and decreases in the biomass of groups representing all trophic levels, similar to unpredictable wasp-waist ecosystems in productive temperate ecosystems. This study noted that skipjack tuna appears to be a very resilient

129 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report species, such that it was nearly impossible to eliminate it from the system with a top-down control (i.e., fishing), which is probably related to its high production rate and internal density-dependence induced by cannibalism.

The available model-based predictions provide only indirect evidence of the trophic impacts associated with declining apex predator abundance, as there are difficulties applying detailed trophic models to open ocean systems in which ecological and fishery data uncertainties are large (Cox et al., 2002).

Warm Pool Pelagic Ecosystem Evaluation

A further study (Allain et al. 2015) has examined a more restricted area of the warm pool pelagic ecosystem (Figure 26) using Ecopath with Ecosim (www.ecopath.org) to provide information on the potential impacts of tuna fishing. This ecosystem model was characterised by five trophic levels, a high number of trophic links between groups, and a diverse pool of prey for predators. In the model, the majority (74%) of the ecosystem’s biomass was in trophic levels 1–2 (phytoplankton, zooplankton), whereas 89% of the industrial fish catch (tuna, edible bycatch and other top predators) was in trophic levels 3–5. The model was used to explore nine different scenarios of fishing effort, ranging from measures designed to reduce and/or increase the amount of bycatch, decrease and/or increase the amount of tuna harvested by altering the amount of longline fishing and purse-seine fishing effort on free swimming schools and on schools associated with FADs. The modelling showed that the warm pool ecosystem structure is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community). The intrinsic resistance of the ecosystem to perturbation appears to be related to the high diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey. The structure of the ecosystem was most sensitive to changes in the biomass of prey groups (e.g. small pelagic fish such as anchovy).

This more recent model of the warm-pool (Allain et al. 2015), however, covered only a part of the WCPO (Figure 26) and substantial catches of skipjack and yellowfin tuna are taken from waters outside the modelled area, so it is unclear whether the findings of this study would apply to other areas of the WCPO.

Pacific Ocean Ecosystem Evaluation

At a broader scale, Sibert et al. (2006) described biomass trends of exploited populations of top level predators in the whole Pacific Ocean (the WCPO and the Eastern Pacific Ocean combined) (Figure 27) and compares them to estimated biomass projections had the fishery never been exploited. This study found that the trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on the Pacific Ocean ecosystem were likely to be minor.

Ecosystem impacts of FADs and other considerations

Leroy et al. (2013) have critiqued the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse-seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The direct impacts of removals and their impact on stock status are well known. There is greater uncertainty about other effects such as impacts on fish

130 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report behavior, predator and prey interactions, and the potential flow on effects of these to population level impacts. The use of FADs varies spatially across the WCPO and the effects may also vary by species (Leroy et al. 2013) and ontogenetically (Fuller et al. 2015). Responses to FADs may also vary among individual fish (Phillips et al. 2017). Leroy et al. (2013) indicated that FADs both attract and retain tuna (by unknown but probably different mechanisms), and may affect distribution and migrations of tuna. FADs have been shown to influence the behavior and movement patterns of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna, with the juveniles of each species occupying shallower habitats when associated with FADs. Leroy et al. (2013) also document residence time of tunas up to 55 days and hypothesized that dense fields of AFADs may entrain fish for extended periods although this has not been studied. They noted that the ways in which FADs interact with the biotic components of tuna environmental preferences, through prey concentration, increased feeding on juvenile conspecifics, or incorrect habitat utilization, need further investigation, including tuna foraging and the effect of FADs on the behavior of other important species in the pelagic ecosystem.

The results of more recent studies by Phillips et al. (2017) suggest that processes working at different scales may explain the inter- and intra-individual variability in fish behavior that they observed for bigeye and yellowfin tuna. They suggested that there was an interaction between fine scale variability in the availability of prey, the local density of conspecifics, and the multi-species composition of the schools themselves whilst islands and other bathymetric features may affect vertical behaviour at larger spatial scales. They concluded that purse-seiners set on floating objects because they bring tuna to a more easily found locality in horizontal space, and then aggregate them in relative shallow water through this surface behaviour. The surface-association events they identified varied greatly. While some events were clear and prolonged, the large majority are not, and extended surface-association behaviour was rarely exhibited immediately prior to capture.

Another important consideration in the relationship between fishing and the ecosystem is the impact of climate change. Tuna stocks are particularly susceptible to the effects of environmental change. In addition to the seasonal, inter-annual and decadal variability in the WCPO (e.g. the El Niño Southern Oscillation - ENSO), projected changes in the marine environment over the coming decades include increases in sea surface temperature, sea level rise, ocean acidification and increases in precipitation. Recent climate change modelling predicts slight increases in skipjack tuna catch and biomass in the western and central Pacific until 2050, followed by biomass stabilisation and subsequent decrease after 2060 as the catch plateaus (Lehodey et al., 2013a). A shift in feeding and spawning grounds is also anticipated to shift to more favorable conditions in the eastern Pacific Ocean away from the current western equatorial region, as well as an extension to higher latitudes (Lehodey et al., 2013a).

The available model-based predictions provide only indirect evidence of the trophic impacts associated with declining apex predator abundance, as there are difficulties applying detailed trophic models to open ocean systems in which ecological and fishery data uncertainties are large (Cox et al., 2002).

Overall, the above modelling studies, together with results of the stock assessments of the main species (described under Principle 1) suggests it is unlikely that the tuna harvested by UoA vessels in WCPO waters

131 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The ongoing productivity of the purse seine fishery in the WCPO also provides evidence that the structure and function of the ecosystem has not been compromised by the fishery.

Ultimately, for this assessment against the MSC requirements, a key question about all these effects is whether they could affect populations in ways that would not be detected by current monitoring and assessment programs. Because if monitoring and assessment programs are able to detect any such changes and the harvest strategy is responsive to them, then the Principle 1 and 2 objectives are still likely to be achieved. The monitoring and assessment programs in place are very comprehensive, the scientists involved are well aware of these issues and are active in the research on them, so we consider it highly unlikely that they would disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

132 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 46. Spatial extent of the warm pool – cold tongue system in the Pacific Ocean (from Allain et al. 2007).

Figure 47. The boundaries of the area covered by the warm pool ecosystem model, and the exclusive economic zones of the countries included in the model. FSM = Federated States of Micronesia; PNG = Papua New Guinea (from Allain et al.2015).

133 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Figure 48. Trends in total biomass for eight stocks of large predators in the Pacific Ocean. Blue lines indicate the biomass estimated from the observed fishing history (the exploited population), and red lines indicate the biomass estimated in the absence of all fishing (the unexploited population).The single black line indicates the equilibrium biomass corresponding to maximum sustainable yield conditions, assuming current levels of recruitment and distribution of fishing mortality among fisheries. (from Sibert et al., 2006).

Management

The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) provides a reference framework for sustainable fisheries addressing ecosystem considerations, principles and goals needed for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). The Code is voluntary, although parts are based on international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). One of the principles of the Code is that management measures should not only ensure the conservation of target species but also species belonging to the same ecosystem. This approach is now explicit in the WCPFC Convention, although tuna fisheries remain managed on single-species basis and there does not appear to be integrated domestic and international strategies to manage the ecosystem components of this fishery.

The ecosystem role of yellowfin tuna is not explicitly considered within management decisions, but the overarching goal of managing to MSY levels (or above) implicitly takes this into account assuming ecosystem stability. In turn, consideration of the wider fishery implications, through the basis of management on the outcomes of the WCPFC assessments, supports the management strategy.

Information

134 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

As well as collecting data on target species taken in the WCPO fishery, there has been and continues to be collection of information for and assessments of a wide range of other components of the WCPO ecosystem, including: - data on the bycatch of large purse-seine vessels and other fishing operations; - data on the spatial distribution of the bycatch and the bycatch/catch ratios, collected for analysis of policy options to reduce bycatches; - information to evaluate measures to reduce bycatch, such as closures, effort limits; - assessment of habitat preferences and the effect of environmental changes.

This effort occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). Allain et al. (2011) discuss a number of projects which contribute to EAFM. These include but are not limited to: - Regional Observer Programme: has the objective to collect verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional information related to the fishery from the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the CMMs adopted by the Commission. The Programme is based on the use of existing regional, sub-regional and national observer programmes already in place amongst WCPFC members. Although there have been problems with data obtained under this programme, including biases introduced through operational changes and historically low coverage, recent improvements in the Programme, including 100% coverage in the purse seine fishery from 2010 and a minimum of 5% coverage in the longline fishery from 2012 should improve the quantity and quality of data available.

- data on species’ diet has been used to develop Pacific Ocean food-web models (Eastern Tropical Pacific, Central North Pacific, Pacific Warm pool, and the Australian Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fisheries) developed with the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) modelling tool.

- the bycatch mitigation information system (BMIS) is the result of a WCPFC project to centralize and make information available on the mitigation and management of bycatch in WCPO. The database is a reference and educational tool that supports the Commission's responsibilities with regard to the sustainable management of non-target, or bycatch, species in WCPO fisheries targeting highly migratory species, including tuna and billfish (see http://bmis.wcpfc.int/index.php) (Fitzsimmons, 2011).

The ecosystem model, SEAPODYM, was developed to investigate spatial population dynamics of fish under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects. In addition to fisheries and other fish relevant data (e.g. tagging data, acoustic biomass estimates, eggs and larvae density), the model utilizes environmental data in a manner that allows high resolution prediction (Lehodey et al., 2008). SEAPODYM was initially developed for tuna species and complements the WCPFC Scientific Committee’s MULTIFAN- CL models by providing additional information on how tuna distributions are structured in space and time.

Additional focus on ecosystem information has been provided through Kobe By-catch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) which was established in 2009 with the aim of supporting, streamlining, and seeking to

135 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report harmonize the by-catch related activities of Ecosystems/By-catch working groups across RFMOs. The KBTWG’s terms of reference include (from Nicol et al., 2013): - Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer by-catch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. Provide guidance for improving data collection efforts (e.g., information to be collected) and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among Tuna RFMOs;

- Identify species of concern that, based on their susceptibility to fisheries and their conservation status, require immediate action across Tuna RFMOs. Review all available information on these species and identify their data needs;

- Review and identify appropriate qualitative and quantitative species population status determination methods for bycatch species;

- Review data analyses to identify all fishery and non-fishery (e.g. oceanographic and physical) factors contributing to bycatch, taking into account the confidentiality rules of each RFMO;

- Review existing bycatch mitigation measures including those adopted by each Tuna RFMO and consider new mitigation research findings to assess the potential utility of such measures in areas covered by other Tuna RFMOs taking into consideration differences among such areas; and

- Review and compile information on by-catch research that has been already conducted or is currently underway to delineate future research priorities and areas for future collaboration.

- Leroy et al. (2013) noted that an important shortcoming for data analyses that would help evaluate the ecosystem impacts of FADS is the lack of information on the number and location of FADs in use in the WCPO. Some information on this is now forthcoming (e.g. Escalle et al. 2018b) and investigations are also continuing into issues such as the impacts of FADs on target and non-target species (Phillips et al. 2017).

At the WCPFC level, ecosystem considerations have been a long-standing area of investigation by the Scientific Committee. Ecosystem and bycatch are one of the themes that is addressed at all SC meetings and papers considered cover a broad range of topics under this heading.

136 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.3.2 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (PRI) and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures in If the species is below the place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence ensure that the UoA does of recovery or a not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

North Pacific Albacore North pacific albacore was the only main primary species classified given it represented 16.7% of the overall catch composition reported from 2013-2019. The most recent assessment of stock status was published in August of 2020, building off the previous 2017 (ISC Albacore Working Group [ALBWG] 2017). As with 2017, this 2020 assessment concluded that the stock was not overfished and was not subject to overfishing.

As reported in ALBWG (2020), the stock assessment estimated that total stock biomass (males and female at age-1+) declined at the beginning of the time series until 2000, after which biomass became relatively stable. Estimated female SSB exhibited a similar population trend, with an initial decline until 2003 followed by fluctuations with no apparent trend through 2018 (Figure 7). The estimated spawning potential ratio (SPR) relative to the unfished population in 2015 was 0.40, which corresponded to a moderate exploitation intensity of approximately 0.50 (calculated as, 1-SPR). Instantaneous fishing mortality at age (F-at-age) was similar in both sexes through age-5, peaking at age-4, declining to a low at age-6, after which males experienced higher F- at-age than females up to age 13. Juvenile albacore aged 2 to 4 years comprised, on average, 70% of the annual catch between 1993 and 2015 and is consistent with the larger impact being associated with surface fisheries (primarily troll, pole-and-line) which remove juvenile fish, relative to longline fisheries, which primarily remove adult fish.

There is an agreed Limit Reference Point (LRP) for Northern Pacific albacore of 20% of the unfished spawning biomass (20%SSBcurrent F=0). A target reference point (TRP) has yet to be adopted and it is proposed that one will be determined following a comprehensive analysis under a management strategy evaluation approach as part of a future work plan. While there is no established HCR for albacore tuna the WCPFC Convention text states that if the spawning stock size decreased below the LRP, the NC would implement a rebuilding plan to

137 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

increase the spawning stock size to the LRP within at least 10 years, and recommend a CMM to achieve this goal.

For north pacific albacore, (fishing mortality rate remains well below FMSY) and the stock (SSB2015 = 80,618 t) is well above SSBMSY (24,770 t), PRI (18,578 t), and even 20%SSBcurrent,F=0 (23,639 t - WCPFC explicit LRP). The stock assessment estimated current spawning stock biomass, SSB2015, to be approximately 4 times higher than the PRI and approximately 3 times higher than SSBMSY (24,770 t). The stock is estimated to never fallen below SSBMSY and has hence been above the PRI in all years with a high degree of certainty (ISC 2017a).

Given the current considerations for fishing mortality and that the stock is well above SSBMSY, there is a high degree of certainty that main primary species are above the PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY, and SG100 is met.

b Minor primary species stock status

Guide Minor primary species are post 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. Met? Yes

Rationale

Skipjack Tuna Skipjack tuna comprised of approximately 4.5% of the UoA catch and is therefore considered minor primary for this particular assessment. According to the latest stock assessment in 2019, current levels of spawning biomass are well above the level that will support the MSY, and are well above the Limit Reference Point which is adopted by WCPFC (Vincent et al., 2019). WCPFC-SC15 noted that the median level of spawning potential depletion was SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.44 with a probable range of 0.37 to 0.53 (80% probability interval). There were no individual models where SBrecent/SBF=0 < 0.2, which indicated that the probability that recent spawning biomass was below the LRP was zero. WCPFC-SC15 also noted that the median Frecent/FMSY was 0.45, with a range of 0.34 to 0.60 (80% probability interval) and that no values of Frecent/FMSY exceed 1. Therefore, there is a zero probability that the recent fishing mortality exceeds FMSY. The SG 100 is met.

Bigeye Tuna Bigeye tuna ended up with a catch proportion of .49% for the Philippine Yellowfin Tuna Handline fishery and is therefore considered a minor primary species. The WCPFC fishery for bigeye tuna is MSC certified with no conditions under P1 1.1.1. As detailed in the background, the most recent stock assessment (Vincent et al. 2018) indicated that the stock is well above the PRI and above levels that are consistent with MSY. The total bigeye catch in 2018 was 145,402 mt, a 13% increase from 2017 and a 1% decrease from the average 2013-2017. Longline catch in 2018 (71,305 mt) was a 23% increase from 2017 and a 7% increase from the 2013-2017 average. Purse seine catch in 2018 (64,119 mt) was a 10% increase from 2017 and a 4% increase from the 2013- 2017 average. Pole and line catch (1,677 mt) was a 3% increase from 2017 and a 60% decrease from the average 2013-2017 catch. Catch by other gear (8,301 mt) was a 25% decrease from 2017 and 45% decrease from the average catch in 2013-2017.

138 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The bigeye stock is initially projected to increase as recent estimated recruitments support adult stock biomass. Adult stock biomass is then projected to decline slightly before again increasing. Projected fishing mortality is below FMSY (median F2020/FMSY = 0.62, the risk of F2020 > FMSY = 0%) and projected median spawning biomass is above the LRP (SB2020/SBF=0 = 0.2) (median SB2020/SBF=0 = 0.41; median SB2020/SBMSY = 1.79. Risk that SB2020 < LRP = 0%). Projections are from the updated model runs of Vincent et al. (2018).

Building on the last stock assessment, Western and Central North Pacific Bigeye Tuna were assessed in 2020 and the following results presented at SC16: ▪ Results from the uncertainty grid adopted by SC16 show that the stock has been continuously declining for about 60 years since the late 1950s, except for the recent small increase from 2015 to 2016 with biomass declining thereafter; ▪ The median value of relative recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass depletion (SB2015-2018/ SBF=0) was 0.41 with a 10th to 90th percentiles of 0.27 to 0.52; ▪ There was 0% probability (0 out of 24 models) that the recent (2015-2018) spawning biomass had breached the adopted limit reference point (LRP) of 20%SBF=0. ▪ The estimate of SBRECENT is approximately 2 times higher than the LRP.

PRI for the stock is defined as 75%SBMSY and estimated as 240,122 mt. The estimate of SBRECENT is approximately 2 times higher than PRI. On this basis there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above PRI and SG 100 is met.

The information provided demonstrates evidence that for skipjack and bigeye tuna are highly likely to be above the PRI. Thus, SG 100 requirements are met.

References

Vincent, M.T., G.M. Pilling and J. Hampton. 2018. Incorporation of updated growth information within the 2017 WCPO bigeye stock assessment grid, and examination of the sensitivity of estimates to alternative model spatial structures; ISC 2020. Stock Assessment of Albacore Tuna in the North Pacific.; WCPFC-SC14-2018/ SA- WP-03, 41pp. , WCPFC-SC 2018

ISC 2017a

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 100

Condition number (if relevant)

139 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.2 There 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 minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to be above which are highly likely to be the PRI. above the PRI.

Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

Albacore A major improvement in the 2017 albacore assessment was the use of age and sex-specific natural mortality, which is considered to be the major axis of uncertainty in the assessment. In previous assessments an M of 0.3 y-1 was used, but this assumption was not well supported in the scientific literature (ISC 2017a: p25). Alternative estimates of M were tested and in all model runs SSB never fell below SSBMSY (24,770 t). Model runs with using a constant M of 0.38 and 0.49 y-1 for males and females, respectively, resulted in the lowest estimates of SSB which was still > 2 times higher than SSBMSY. Therefore, it is highly likely that SSB is at or above a level consistent with MSY, but there may not be a ‘high degree of certainty’ that the stock is above that level. As it relates to management, there is a strategy in place that includes the data collection stock assessments and management actions as described in CMMs. There are separate WCPFC CMMs in force for the southern stock (CMM 2010-05) and the northern stock (CMM 2005-03, 2019-03). For both stocks, these CMMs have the objective that effort levels should not be increased above the levels occurring at the time of their initial adoption.

The workplan for the development of harvest strategies for WCPO tuna species is outlined in CMM 2014-06 and includes South Pacific albacore. The status of strategy development for South Pacific albacore is outlined in SPC-OFP (2020). The workplan for North Pacific albacore is outlined in the summary report of the 15th regular session of the WCPFC Northern Committee (WCPFC-NC15 2019).

For municipal fisheries, jurisdiction lies with Local Government Units and they ensure compliance with the national Fisheries Code. Under Section 8, there is a framework for cooperation between BFAR and the LGUs via the legal requirement for LGUs to implement the National Fisheries Code. More specifically, harvest control rules and reference points may be established upon the approval and recommendation of special agencies and concerned LGU, in consultation with FARMCs. In partnership with BFAR and National Stock Assessment Program (NSAP), catch data is recorded at key landings sites within the UoA and submitted to national authorities. In turn this is provided to SPC and WCPFC to inform science and management decisions pertaining to albacore and other commercially viable species.

140 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The most recent stock assessment indicates that the strategy is effective for maintaining stocks above the point where recruitment would be impaired. These are considered to constitute a strategy for managing the minor primary species in the UoA, albacore tuna and is considered to meet SG 100 requirements.

Minor Species The strategy for bigeye and skipjack include the provisions of the main tuna CMM (CMM 2018-01), and the stock assessments and the data collection systems that support them such as logbooks, observers and VMS. CMM 2018-01 creates a bridge to the adoption of a harvest strategy for bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna stocks and/or fisheries in accordance with the work plan and indicative timeframes set out in the Agreed Work Plan for the Adoption of Harvest Strategies under CMM 2014-06, which includes the development of management objectives and target reference points. Pending agreement on a target reference point for bigeye tuna the spawning biomass depletion ratio (SB/SBF=0) is to be maintained at or above the average SB/SBF=0 for 2012-2015. The most recent stock assessment for bigeye in particular indicates this strategy has been effective for maintaining stocks above the point where recruitment would be impaired. These are considered to constitute a strategy for the UoA for managing the main primary species and is considered to meet SG 100 requirements. As a result of the combined CMMs, the National Tuna Management Plan adopted by the Philippines, Regional Tuna Management Plans in the UoA, and the use of selective fishing gear by the UoA, a strategy is in place for minor primary species like skipjack and bigeye tuna, and strategy is in place for albacore and therefore SG100 is met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the fishery similar fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species and/or species involved. involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Albacore The current harvest strategy for WCPO albacore tuna has several contributing components, biological reference points (explicit and implicit), monitoring, stock assessment, and MSE development, there is no formal harvest control rule. However, formal decision rules (harvest control rules) are being developed, and TRP and LRPs further defined (WCPFC 2014b; IATTC, 2014, ISC 2019), management of North Pacific albacore has operated informally to meet the objectives. The information base is extensive from a wide range of biological studies and from a diverse range of fisheries. The information is sufficient to support state-of-the-art stock assessment modelling that provides probabilistic estimates of key parameters and their relationship to the implicit reference points. Advice from the stock assessment is provided by the relevant scientific committees (e.g., WCPFC 2017a; ISC 2019) and additional work is carried out by the scientific provider, SPC and ISC, to the WCPFC. Annual decision-making, articulated through WCPFC CMM, is supported by good scientific decision- support materials. The Commissions also receive advice from their respective technical and compliance committees. The most current WCPFC CMM is CMM 2005-03, which lays out a range of effort controls and reporting requirements.

The combination of recent decisions and management measures evidenced provide some objective basis for confidence that the measures will work, thus SG80 is met. The MSC standard requires that a harvest strategy contain a combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions and that these should work together to maintain stocks at target levels. Given the Interim Harvest Strategy for North

141 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Pacific Albacore lacks an agreed TRP and HCRs that could be expected to maintain stocks at these levels, SG100 is not met.

Skipjack According to the latest stock assessment in 2019, current levels of spawning biomass are well above the level that will support the MSY, and are well above the Limit Reference Point which is adopted by WCPFC (Vincent et al., 2019).

The stated objective of the WCPFC harvest strategy as defined in CMM 2018-01 is to ensure conservation and management of bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna stocks in their entirety and, at a minimum, that stocks are maintained at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield (MSY), pending agreement on target reference points as part of the harvest strategy approach. The measures are therefore expected to achieve stock management objectives so that there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work for skipjack tuna. According to this, the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 are met.

Bigeye Despite a declining trend in bigeye biomass since the 1950s, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI and that the stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. Therefore, the stock is likely not experiencing overfishing or overfished. The new assessment with the updated growth curve decidedly changed the status of the stock compared to the previous assessments, where the stock was below PRI when using the old growth curve. Although the stock is currently above PRI, it is difficult to state that previous management was responsible for ensuring the stock remained above the PRI. Despite these measures, bigeye spawning stock biomass has been declining throughout the exploitation period, although the rate decline in recent years has been reduced. The lack of any agreed harvest control rule by WCPFC, however, reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy will be responsive to the state of the stock, or that the elements will work together when required to do so, to achieve the management objectives. Stock projections based on status quo and “optimistic” fishery scenarios estimated the probability of spawning biomass falling below PRI by 2045 to range from 0-18% (Scott et al 2017, WCPFC 2018a). This provides insight on which to evaluate the extent to which the harvest strategy is expected to achieve established management objectives.

As per CMM 2018-01 to ensure conservation and management of bigeye and skipjack, the specific objective for bigeye is to maintain biomass at 2012-2015 levels. These measures are expected to achieve stock management objectives and therefore there is some objective basis that the measures/partial strategy will work. Given that the harvest strategy has yet to be fully evaluated, there is no conclusive evidence to indicate that the strategy is achieving its objectives. In addition, review of systems in place at the national and sub-national level support an objective basis that the national combined measures and partial strategy will work to support regional measures (e.g. CMM 2018-01), including local-level ordinances administered by LGUs, regional tuna management plans, national tuna management plans, and the Philippines Fisheries Code. On this basis the SG80 level is met.

While testing supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work for skipjack, albacore and bigeye do not meet SG100. Thus SG80 is met overall.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes Yes

142 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

Albacore Catch and effort monitoring of all fishing entities catching North Pacific albacore are in place. ISC Members are required to annually report three levels of fishing data, including Category I: total annual catch (round weight by species) total annual effort (active vessels by fishery); Category II: catch-effort (summary of logbook data); Category III: biological data, (size composition, length or weight frequencies, sex information). In addition, the ISC exchanges data with the IATTC and the WCPFC (through the SPC) on an annual basis to collect data from ISC non-members entities catching North Pacific albacore tuna.

The harvest strategy for North Pacific albacore tuna is interim and has not been formalized. Development of an MSE framework for albacore has been initiated, further work on its development has been postponed. Nonetheless, the implicit harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary (WCPFC CMM- 2005-03 replaced by CMM-2019-03). The WCPFC reviews advice of their scientific bodies and develop potential management measures during their respective annual meetings. On this basis SG100 is met.

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No shark species were classified as primary species, so this SI is not relevant to the fishery.

e Review of alternative measures

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

All species caught in this fishery are retained for the purposes of personal consumption, bait, or sale, therefore there is no “unwanted catch.” References

S. Vincent et al. 2019 Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean WCPFC-SC15- 2019/SA-WP-05-Rev 2; WCPFC-SC 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

143 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant)

144 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? All - Yes All - Yes All - No

Rationale

Albacore Fleet catch information on the north Pacific albacore tuna fisheries are kept domestically by BFAR through the National Stock Assessment Program (NSAP) and internationally by ISC, SPC, and WCPFC. In the UoC 16.7% of the reported landed catch from 2014-2019 consisted of albacore. This and other quantitative data sources at both the fishery, national, and WCPFC level provide requisite information to conduct north pacific albacore stock assessments and support management decision making. It also provides quantitative data that, should there be a change in catch composition that leads to other main primary species being identified in the future. Though collection of information for municipal handline vessels in other regions of the Philippines outside the UoA has not been fully evaluated, the NSAP program is arguably a mature, robust system for data collection of landings of tuna species all major landing sites for all municipal vessels. As a result, this system in place is adequate to assess, with a high degree of certainty, the impact of the UoC on albacore and other tuna species. As it relates to the two regions and municipal handline fleets in the broader Unit of Assessment for the Gulf of Lagonoy and Mindoro Strait, SG60 and 80 are met given some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status.

For the UoA as noted under Principal 3 and Condition 9, SG100 is not met out of precaution given concerns that some catch may not be reported through NSAP for the small percentage of vessels that are not registered and/or licensed.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the

145 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Skipjack - Yes Bigeye - Yes Rationale

Skipjack tuna Stock status of skipjack is regularly assessed by WCPFC. Landing data and logbooks are available to estimate the impact of the UoA. Information collected has been sufficient to determine that that there is a high degree of certainty that the species is above the PRI (the objective required for PI 2.1.2). There is comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records and independent life history and ecological research conducted within the WCPFC. At SC15, it was reported that the median level of spawning potential depletion was SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.44 with a probable range of 0.37 to 0.53 (80% probability interval). There were no individual models where SBrecent/SBF=0 < 0.2, which indicated that the probability that recent spawning biomass was below the LRP was zero (Vincent et al., 2019). The results of the assessment are reviewed annually during the SPC Stock Assessment Workshop, WCPFC-SC and WCPFC Commission Meeting. Given some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status, the SG100 level is met.

Bigeye tuna Monitoring is achieved in the UoA in the Philippines through annual reporting of removals and CMM compliance to the WCPFC, as well as logbooks, port landing records by key landings sites called “casas.” Through the help of the National Stock Assessment Program (NSAP) led by BFAR, fishery removals are monitored by individual CCMs via log sheets and port sampling, and are required to be submitted to the Commission annually, in the form of estimates of total catch plus catch and effort data broken down by gear and 5-by-5 degree square, as well as operational level data. Size-frequency data are regularly collected as is biological data collected through research programs/projects. Assessments are routinely collected and in between stock assessments, SPC provide information on trends in fishery indicators (total catch, nominal CPUE, catch at length and at weight, status quo projections), to support management decision making. Given some quantitative information is available, on this basis the SG100 level is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary manage main primary manage all primary species, species. species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Albacore The North Pacific albacore stock has been monitored through the assessment work of the North Pacific Albacore Workshop from 1975-2004. Since 2004 this function has been assumed by the ISC Albacore Working Group (ALBWG). The ALBWG coordinates biological research needs and disseminates research results and statistics to cooperating scientists, domestic and international management bodies, and stakeholders.

There is adequate knowledge of the life-history parameters for north Pacific albacore to conduct robust assessments and develop appropriate biological reference points. Biological samples are routinely collected annually by ISC Member countries and BFAR. Reliable data are available to estimate sex-specific growth rates,

146 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

maturity, and fecundity. Length-weight relationships are established by the ALBWG to convert population numbers to biomass.

Despite the collection programs in place sources of uncertainty remain, including lack of sex – specific size data. Additionally, the assessment model assumes a simplified treatment of the spatial structure despite evidence to suggest spatial structuring (sex and size) within the population. This simplified approach also affects treatment of population/stock dynamics. On this basis SG80 is met but not the SG100 level.

Skipjack tuna Skipjack tuna information collected has been sufficient to determine that that there is a high degree of certainty that the species is above the PRI (the objective required for PI 2.1.2). There is comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records, as well as quantitative information from the UoA observer program and independent life history and ecological research conducted within the WCPFC. At SC15, it was reported that the median level of spawning potential depletion was SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.44 with a probable range of 0.37 to 0.53 (80% probability interval). There were no individual models where SBrecent/SBF=0 < 0.2, which indicated that the probability that recent spawning biomass was below the LRP was zero (Vincent et al., 2019). The results of the assessment are reviewed annually during the SPC Stock Assessment Workshop, WCPFC-SC and WCPFC Commission Meeting.

Considering the scale of the skipjack tuna catch (4.5%) and the fact that current information is sufficient to support a strategy to manage the fishery with a high degree of certainty, the requirements for SG 100 are met.

Bigeye tuna Fishery removals are monitored by individual CCMs via log sheets and port sampling, and are required to be submitted to the Commission annually, in the form of estimates of total catch plus catch and effort data broken down by gear and 5-by-5 degree square, as well as operational level data. Size-frequency data (collected via port sampling and observer programs) are regularly collected as is biological data collected through research programs/projects. Assessment s are routinely collected and in between stock assessments, SPC provide information on trends in fishery indicators (total catch, nominal CPUE, catch at length and at weight, status quo projections), to support management decision making. On this basis the SG80 level is met. However, concerns remain preventing the SG100 being met, including a lack of precision with the historical data, unknown accuracy of CPUE standardization approaches, sampling issues with the fishery-dependent at sea and shore side size sampling programs.

Though there may be information adequate to support a strategy in place for skipjack, information is not adequate for all primary species and therefore SG100 is not met.

References

Hoyle and Nichol, 2008; McKechnie et al., 2015b; Pacific, 2016; Farley et al., 2017b; Pilling and Brouwer, 2017; Scott et al., 2017; Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017a; WCPFC, 2017b, 2018; Hampton and Williams, 2017; McKechnie, Pilling, et al., 2017a; McKechnie, Tremblay-Boyer, et al., 2017; Brouwer et al., 2018; Vincent et al., 2018; Farley, Eveson, et al., 2018; Farley, Krusic-Golub, et al., 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range Albacore ≥80 Skipjack ≥80 Bigeye ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

147 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant)

Scoring Albacore Skipjack Bigeye Draft Scoring Total Overall Issue Range a 80 n/a n/a ≥80 80

b n/a 100 100 ≥80 100 85

c 80 80 80 ≥80 80

148 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guide Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above highly likely to be above certainty that main biologically based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits. OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place such rebuilding. 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 have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no secondary main species for this fishery.

b Minor secondary species stock status

Guide Minor secondary species are post 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

149 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Met? No

Rationale

Several minor secondary species were classified for the Philippine Yellowfin Tuna Handline fishery given the reported catch composition, including mahi-mahi (4.34%), wahoo (1.84%) roudi escolar (1.64%), Opah (.79%), and rainbow runner (0.75%), great barracuda (0.53%), and many billfish species including black marlin (.13%), blue marlin (.64%), swordfish (.34%), and sailfish (0.46%). The very low catch levels of these species, as well as all other minor secondary species indicate that there is a negligible interaction between the UoA vessels and these secondary species such that, even if these species were below any biologically based limits, any catch by them would not be hindering their recovery.

Blue marlin, black marlin, and swordfish Blue marlin, black marlin, and swordfish are the only minor secondary species for which a stock assessment is available. In 2016 the WCPFC-SC concluded that, based on the results of a 2016 stock assessment update conducted by the ISC, the Pacific blue marlin stock was not currently overfished and was not experiencing overfishing (WCPFC-SC 2016).

In August 2018 the WCPFC released a new stock assessment for Swordfish and determined the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean swordfish stock is not likely overfished and is not likely experiencing overfishing relative to MSY-based or 20% of unfished biomass-based reference points. population biomass (age-1 and older) averaged roughly 98,000 mt between 1974-1978, the first 5 years of the assessment time frame, and has declined only 20% to about 72,000 mt in 2016. The stock status of black marlin is largely unknown.

Other Species (including Bait) The low UoA catches of minor secondary species are very unlikely to would hinder recovery and rebuilding (if needed). Some, such as squid are of short-lived and highly productive species, and for many other minor secondary species such as striped marlin, rainbow runners and the frigate tunas the UoA catches are very small compared to the large catches of many of these species across the WCPFC area. Nevertheless, the status of many of these minor secondary species is not known.

The MSC v2.2 requirements (Table 3) trigger use of the RBF for any secondary (or primary) species without reference points, regardless of whether the impact of the fishery can be assessed. MSC FCP v2.2 requirement Annex PF 4.1.4 allows the assessment team to not conduct the required RBF evaluation (a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)) on minor species, in which case the outcome PI cannot be scored above 80 (MSC FCP v2.2) The assessment team elected not to conduct the RBF because the very low levels of catch indicates low impact by the UoA on these species, due the time and cost implications of conducting an RBF.

As a result, the assessment team has determined there is insufficient evidence to determine minor secondary species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits. As per an Interpretation Log “Minor species and scoring element approach at SG100 (FCR v2.0 - 7.10.7, Annex SA PI 1.1.1, 2.2.1),” SG100 is not met and SG80 is met by default.

References

WCPFC 2010. Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-07 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2010-07/conservation-and-management-measure-sharks

WCPFC 2014. Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2014-05 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2014-05/conservation-and-management-measures-sharks

150 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

ISC 2018. Stock Assessment for Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean through 2016 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC18/ISC_18_ANNEX_16_Stock_Assessment_of_WCNPO_Swordfish_through_2016_FIN AL.pdf

ISC 2016. Stock Assessment Update for Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans) in the Pacific Ocean through 2014 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC16/ISC16_Annex_10_Stock_Assessment_Update_for_Blue_Marlin_in_the_Pacific_Oc ean_through_2014(ISC2016).pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

151 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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 minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. secondary species at/to rebuilding of main secondary levels which are highly likely species at/to levels which to be above biologically are highly likely to be above based limits or to ensure biologically based limits or to that the UoA does not ensure that the UoA does hinder their recovery. not hinder their recovery. Met? NA NA All Minor - No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species.

Minor Species Minor secondary species are not scored at the SG 60 and SG 80 levels, only at the SG 100 level which requires there to be a strategy in place. While some minor secondary species have been assessed for stock status, management strategies do not exist for these species. For all other secondary species data is scant and management strategies do not exist. The SG 100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general will work, based on some based on information experience, theory or information directly about directly about the UoA comparison with similar the UoA and/or species and/or species involved. UoAs/species). involved. Met? NA All Minor - Yes All Minor - No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species.

Minor Secondary Species Swordfish Swordfish stock assessments are routinely conducted by the ISC and based on the 2018 stock assessment swordfish. Current stock status is not overfished and not experiencing overfishing. Stock of sword fish was assessed by ISC in 2018. Projections were run under varying 5 harvest scenarios in support of management decision making. It was expected that the stock will increase if the right strategy is selected. UoA catch is is <.1 MT .34% of the overall catch reported from 2013-2019.

152 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

BFAR implements and has successfully carried out port sampling programs at key landing sites for swordfish, marlin, and other main secondary species to inform national and regional science and management requirements as stipulated in the Philippines Fisheries Code and WCPFC CMMs (namely 2018-01). In consideration of BFThese activities constitute a partial strategy and the SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met. However, biological reference points have only recently been adopted and adequate testing has not been conducted. On this basis not been established for this species and the SG 100 level is not met.

Indo-Pacific blue marlin Stock assessment for Indo-Pacific blue marlin is regularly conducted. The latest assessment was in 2016, using Stock Synthesis model with newly available catch, abundance index, and length and size composition data for 1971-2014. Currently the stock status was considered not overfished and not overfishing (SSB2012- 2014/SSBMSY = 1.23, F2012-2014/SSBMSY = 0.86), but biomass is gradually declining and fishing mortality is gradually increasing. Projections run with 4 scenarios depending on different F, and it was estimated that SSB2024 is going to be higher than SSB20% which is considered biological based limit in 2 of the scenarios. It is advised at WCPFC to reduce fishing mortality of this species. At the national level, no catch limit is not set for this species. Annual catch of UoA is <.1 MT and is 0.64% of the catch. BFAR implements and has successfully carried out port sampling programs at key landing sites for swordfish, marlin, and other main secondary species to inform national and regional science and management requirements as stipulated in the Philippines Fisheries Code and WCPFC CMMs (namely 2018-01). Considering the scale of fishery and small impact on the stock, the SG 60 and SG 80 is considered met. However, no biological reference points have been established for this species and the SG 100 level is not met.

Black marlin, Indo-Pacific sailfish, Opah, Mahi-mahi, Diamond squid Stock of those species are not assessed, and stock status is unknown. Measures for management of those species are not well established. However, due to low commercial value, those species are normally not targeted and thus fishing pressure is not high. At the UoA level, catch of those species are very small and impact on those species is negligible. BFAR implements and has successfully carried out port sampling programs at key landing sites for swordfish, marlin, and other main secondary species to inform national and regional science and management requirements as stipulated in the Philippines Fisheries Code and WCPFC CMMs (namely 2018- 01). Considering the scale of fishery and low utilization of those fish stocks, the SG 80 is considered to be met. However, those measures are not tested, thus the SG 100 is not met.

The assessment team employs the “all or none” approach and guidelines of MSC Interpretation Log, “Minor species and scoring element approach at SG100 (FCR v2.0 - 7.10.7, Annex SA PI 1.1.1, 2.2.1)”, available at https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Minor-species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-SG100-7-10-7- 1527586956233. Using this approach, all minor species are scored in aggregate.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? All Minor - Yes All Minor - No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species.

Minor species

153 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Swordfish, Indo-Pacific blue marlin These species are routinely assessed by the ISC and measures are regularly reviewed at the ISC Plenary and WCPFC Scientific Committee meetings. In addition, the UoA operates with very selective fishing gear, and is subject to the Philippines National Tuna Management Plan, and the Philippine Fisheries Code. As part of the NSAP, BFAR routinely collects catch data on many of these minor species in the UoA through its port sampling program, which are submitted to NSAP, BFAR, and ultimately SPC and WCPFC. As a result, the SG 80 is likely to be met. Unfortunately, biological reference points have not been established for many of the secondary minor species. For instance, the marlin species and reference points for swordfish have only recently been established and evidence of implementation is not clear. On this basis the SG 100 level is not met.

Black marlin, Indo-Pacific sailfish, Opah, Mahi-mahi, Diamond squid Catch of those species by UoA is small and the impact against the stocks are negligible. Logbook record and submission is required for fisheries under the Philippine Fisheries Code, and the UoA follows the regulation. The SG 80 is met, but not SG 100.

d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Yes All Minor - No All Minor - No

Rationale

From 2013 to 2019, the Philippine Tuna Handline Fishery reported .28% (53 individuals) of catch as “requiem shark,” from 2015-2019. Reqiuem sharks are part of the shark family Carcharhinidae, which includes about 12 genera and 50 species found worldwide, such as blacktip, whitetip, bull shark, and lemon sharks. The assessment team also examined reported species caught by UoA vessels, including two giant manta ray (Manta birostris), five spottail shark (Carcharhinus sorrah), and two individual blacktip reef sharks (Carcharhinus melanopterus). In addition, in from 2013 to 2019 the Philippine Tuna Handline Fishery reported catch of “shark” on nine occasions without identifying the species, and one incident of stringray (Dasyatis sp.).

Reported catch via landings exhibit a very small volume of sharks retained in the UoA from 2014-2019 (approximately .3%). In addition, though minimal, the general practice of retaining all catch in the fishery also provides additional support that shark finning is not taking place. Furthermore, the fishery client group provided a total of over 15 separate official letters from government officials representing each relevant Local Government Unit (LGU) in the Occidental-Mindoro Straight and Gulf of Lagonoy. All letters certify that there has been no reported catch of shark finning recorded, and that there are no discards and all catch species are retained in all handline fisheries in the UoA. For many years, the Philippines Congress has proposed the Shark, Ray, Chimaera Conservation Act (most recently Senate Bill 1863), in which additional regulations have been proposed to manage, protect, and conserve shark species in the Philippines at the national level. This law has yet to be passed. Given the comprehensive qualitative evidence, the assessment team determines it is likely that shark finning is not taking place and therefore SG60 is met.

During the remote site visit meetings the assessment team interviewed BFAR, DENR, and NFRDI. Through the stock assessment program (NSAP) implemented by BFAR, sharks are monitored through port sampling upon request from NGOs and other organizations, though this effort is not ubiquitous nor is it standardized within the UoA landing sites. During the remote site visit, NFRDI and BFAR personnel confirmed and provided evidence of a national campaign to educate fishermen at ports and on vessels about shark finning. Though considerable attention and efforts to monitor and prevent shark finning is currently in place in the Philippines, out of precaution, the assessment team cannot unequivocally determine it is highly unlikely that shark finning is taking place given the low levels of external validation and regulations in place. Thus, SG80 is not met.

154 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The assessment team will closely monitor the status of Senate Bill 1863, which would provide additional assurance and external validation that shark finning is not occurring. In addition, species specificity of sharks to determine potential risk of shark finning will be closely monitored, and the team will seek additional evidence that would fulfil good external validation requirements under SA 2.4.6.2.

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of alternative and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to related mortality of related mortality of minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch secondary species. secondary species and they of all secondary species, and are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

All species caught in this fishery are retained for the purposes of personal consumption, bait, or sale, therefore there is no “unwanted catch.”

References

WCPFC 2010. Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-07 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2010-07/conservation-and-management-measure-sharks

WCPFC 2014. Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2014-05 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2014-05/conservation-and-management-measures-sharks

ISC 2018. Stock Assessment for Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean through 2016 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC18/ISC_18_ANNEX_16_Stock_Assessment_of_WCNPO_Swordfish_through_2016_FIN AL.pdf

ISC 2019. Stock Assessment Report for Striped Marlin (Kajikia audax) in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean through 2017. http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC19/ISC19_ANNEX11_Stock_Assessment_Report_for_Striped_Marlin.pdf

ISC 2016. Stock Assessment Update for Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans) in the Pacific Ocean through 2014 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC16/ISC16_Annex_10_Stock_Assessment_Update_for_Blue_Marlin_in_the_Pacific_Oc ean_through_2014(ISC2016).pdf

Senate Bill 1863. “An Act Regulating the Catching, Sale, Purchase, Possession, Transportation, Importation, and Exportation of All Sharks, Rays, and Chimaeras and any Part Thereof in the Country.” 2019.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

155 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator External validation regarding shark finning (e.g. dockside monitoring, etc.)

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 75

Condition number (if relevant) Condition 3

156 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.3 Information 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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main secondary species with impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the respect to status. secondary species with UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

There are no main secondary species.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? Swordfish: Y Indo-Pacific blue marlin: Y All other species: Y Rationale

Swordfish, Indo-Pacific blue marlin These species are assessed and conservation information is regularly reviewed at the WCPFC meetings. Catch of fisheries are taken into account in the assessment, including the UoA. Catch of those species are recorded and logbook data is submitted to BFAR. The assessment team has confirmed this information is submitted to WCPFC. SG100 is therefore met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

157 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? NA NA No

Rationale

There are no main secondary species.

While some minor secondary species are regularly assessed (swordfish, black marlin, and blue marlin), biological reference points have only been established for swordfish. Stock status for assessed species with no established reference points was based on commonly used MSY-based reference points (i.e., SSBMSY). Thus, there is not a high degree of certainty that management measures for these species will achieve their goal. For the other minor secondary species only logbook data is available to quantify removals, but these data do not afford a platform to assess the utility of management measures to achieve intended goals. Given this and that minor secondary species are only scored at SG100, SG100 level is not met. References

WCPFC 2010. Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-07 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2010-07/conservation-and-management-measure-sharks

WCPFC 2014. Conservation and Management Measures for Sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2014-05 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2014-05/conservation-and-management-measures-sharks

ISC 2018. Stock Assessment for Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean through 2016 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC18/ISC_18_ANNEX_16_Stock_Assessment_of_WCNPO_Swordfish_through_2016_FIN AL.pdf

ISC 2016. Stock Assessment Update for Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans) in the Pacific Ocean through 2014 http://isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC16/ISC16_Annex_10_Stock_Assessment_Update_for_Blue_Marlin_in_the_Pacific_Oc ean_through_2014(ISC2016).pdf

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant)

158 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

159 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable

Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the MSC there is a high degree of population/ stock are known UoAs on the population certainty that the combined and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly effects of the MSC UoAs are limits. likely to be within these within these limits. limits. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No national or international requirements in which limits are set for ETP species

b Direct effects

Guide Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA are There is a high degree of post UoA are likely to not hinder highly likely to not hinder confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – No Sharks – Yes Sharks – Yes Sharks – No

Rationale

Giant Manta Ray

The population size of the giant manta rays and devil rays is difficult to assess, but abundance trajectories have been estimated based on long time series of sightings at diving sites. Locally, abundance varies substantially and may be based on food availability and the degree that they were, or are currently, being fished (https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/198921/68632946#threats). In most regions, Giant Manta Ray population sizes appear to be small ranging from 100 to 1,500 individuals (https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/giant- manta-ray). Photo-identification studies at specific aggregation sites have yielded minimum estimates of 42 to 500 individuals over almost a decade of monitoring in most locations, including: Mozambique, Thailand, Myanmar, Indonesia (Holmberg and Marshall 2018), Japan (Kashiwagi et al. 2010), Brazil (Luiz et al. 2008), and Mexico (Rubin 2002). A 6-year study has catalogued more than 2,000 individuals in a single site, off mainland Ecuador (Holmberg and Marshall 2018). The trend of the number of individuals varies widely across the range of the Giant Manta Ray, but trends appear stable where they are protected and declining rapidly where fishing pressure is greater (Ward-Paige et al. 2013; Holmberg and Marshall 2018).

Mobula and Mantas are a bycatch component of many small and large-scale fisheries, with much of this catch being aggregated across multiple devil rays species. The lack of comprehensive species-specific catch, fishing

160 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

effort, and population data necessitates the use of genus-wide inferences to assess population reductions and based on a combination of declining sightings-per-unit-effort (SPUE) data from monitored populations, catch landings data, and evidence of depletions, significant population declines have been inferred (Fernando and Stevens 2011, Couturier et al. 2012, Hall and Roman 2013, Ward-Paige et al. 2013, Lewis et al. 2015, Croll et al. 2016, Rohner et al. 2017). In areas where catch data is available population declines of 50-99% over the last three generations (38 years; from 1980-2018) has been inferred, with a further population reduction suspected over the next three generation lengths (2018–2056).

Under FAO 193, Philippine Law issued a ban on catch of whale sharks and manta rays. In particular, this includes a ban on the taking, catching, selling, purchasing and possessing, transporting, and exportation of whale sharks and manta rays. As a result, the assessment team classifies manta rays as ETP for this fishery. In the UoA, all species are retained and landed, and two individuals were reported from 2014-2019 in the UoA logbooks. This matter still meets SG60 and SG80 as it relates to giant manta rays given the assessment team is confident this removal of two individuals would not hinder recovery of the giant manta ray population in this region.

Though two individuals bear minimal implications toward the broader giant manta population, the assessment team cannot unequivocally state there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Thus, SG100 is not met.

Sharks With the exception of two manta rays, no other ETP sharks or rays were identified that interact with or were retained by the Philippine YFT Handline Fishery based on the evidence and information provided. However, the fishery reported interactions with some shark and ray species from 2013-2019 including .28% (53 individuals) of catch classified as “requiem shark” and out of precaution scores these 53 individuals under another scoring element, “Sharks.” Requiem sharks are part of the shark family Carcharhinidae, which includes about 12 genera and 50 species found worldwide, such as blacktip, oceanic whitetip, bull shark, silky shark, and lemon sharks. Though no clear evidence of ETP interactions were presented, out of precaution, the assessment team closely examined the potential for ETP interactions or retention from this set of 53 individuals noted in the catch data, and conducted several interviews with BFAR, NFRDI, and other experts as part of the site visit. For instance, under the WCPFC, silky shark and the oceanic whitetip shark are classified as ETP species because they are protected under WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures CMM 2013-08, CMM 2012-04, CMM 2011- 04, and most recently the updated CMM 2019-04. Silky shark and oceanic whitetip are indeed considered and classified as “requiem sharks” within the family Carcharhinidae. However, silky shark and oceanic whitetip are most common in more open water, oligotrophic ocean regions in water depths greater than 600 feet, and it is therefore highly unlikely these species would inhabit near-shore habitats and fishing grounds with depths of 10- 20 meters in which the municipal handline fishery operates in the Gulf of Lagunoy and Mindoro Strait. As noted the lack of species specificity in catch data provided to the assessment team regarding shark species is best addressed under PI 2.3.3 under Condition 4 described in Section 9.11.

Given the relatively minimal reported interactions with other sharks and rays (.28% or 53 individuals) and low probability of interaction or retention of ETP species, the assessment team determines known direct effects are both likely and highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species given the low probability of occurrence of potential ETP shark species (e.g. oceanic whitetip, silky shark) interactions. Thus, both SG60 and SG80 are met.

The assessment team would need additional, more robust quantitative information that is species specific to accomplish a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects. Therefore, SG100 is not met.

No interactions with turtles, seabirds, or marine mammals were reported and therefore not scored here as elements. During the remote site visiting meeting, the assessment team interviewed local fishermen in the UoA, as well as ETP species experts from BFAR, local NGO’s, and DENR, who are responsible for managing and enforcing turtles and other ETP species. These personnel provided qualitative information confirming the

161 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

particularly low incidence and concern of turtle and marine mammal (e.g. dugong) interactions with the handline fishery. This qualitative information serves to help triangulate and support the quantitative data provided, in which no turtle or marine mammal species interactions were reported.

c Indirect effects

Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered for the UoA and confidence that there are no are thought to be highly significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA unacceptable impacts. on ETP species. Met? Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – No Sharks - Yes Sharks - No Rationale

Sharks While Silky, Oceanic Whitetip, and Scalloped Hammerhead Sharks are both apex predators and opportunistic feeders, capable of feeding through multiple trophic levels. The removal of tuna species allows for the proliferation of other prey species (e.g., rainbow runner) that can be utilized by shark species (Allian et al., 2015). Whale sharks are plankton feeders and the UoA does not directly impact this resource.

Mobula and Manta This group of species feeds primarily on plankton and the UoA does not impact this resource. These is no reason to suspect that fishing operations of the UoA will indirectly impact mobula and manta rays. The indirect effects have thus been considered and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on any ETP species, but the level of evidence is insufficient to assign a high degree of confidence to this conclusion.

Indirect effects of the UoA tuna fishery on ETP species are those arising from impacts to feeding efficiency/prey availability caused by direct extraction of the prey, or trophic effects resulting from removing skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna from the ecosystem. Indirect trophic effects of fishing for tuna on the tropical pelagic ecosystem have been considered through a variety of modelling approaches (Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Lehodey et al. 2014). The results suggest that although the UoA fishery will impact the relative biomass at different trophic levels through indirect relationships (increasing the catch of smaller tuna decreases the biomass available to sharks and other apex predators but increase the biomass of other prey and smaller predatory species) the warm pool ecosystem was found to be resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community) a feature apparently related to the high diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey (Allain et al. 2015). Based on this information Indirect effects have been considered for the UoA and are thought to be highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts; SG 80 is met for all ETP species.

While the ecosystem modelling results provide insights into the impact of the tropical tuna fisheries on Pacific pelagic ecosystems they are in some ways dated and likely require updates to advance their relevancy. This is not to say that the results are not applicable rather additional and updated information is available and could be incorporated into existing modelling platforms or used to develop new approaches. On this basis there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental indirect effects of the UoA on ETP species; SG 100 is not met. Information on then reported diets of taxonomic groups is provided below which provides evidence for the score of SG 80.

References

162 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Clarke 2018, Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018b, Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Lehodey et al. 2014.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

163 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post that minimise the UoA- for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for related mortality of ETP impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact species, and are expected to including measures to on ETP species, including be highly likely to achieve minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise national and international designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed requirements for the to achieve national and to achieve above national protection of ETP species. international requirements and international for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

No requirements for protection and rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements as stated in SA3.11.2.1 v2.01.

b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – No Sharks - Yes Sharks - Yes Sharks - No Rationale

Sharks and Rays

Regional Level

The WCPFC’s CMM for sharks (CMM 2010-07) (recently updated to 2019-04) includes the following resolutions applicable to its member states: - Commission Members, Cooperating non-Members, and participating Territories (CCMs) shall implement, as appropriate, the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA Sharks).

164 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

- CCMs shall advise the Commission (in Part 2 of the annual report) on their implementation of the IPOA Sharks, including, results of their assessment of the need for a National Plan of Action and/or the status of their National Plans of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. - National Plans of Action or other relevant policies for sharks should include measures to minimize waste and discards from shark catches and encourage the live release of incidental catches of sharks. - Each CCM shall include key shark species, as identified by the Scientific Committee, in their annual reporting to the Commission of annual catch and fishing effort statistics by gear type, including available historical data, in accordance with the WCPF Convention and agreed reporting procedures. CCMs shall also report annual retained and discarded catches in Part 2 of their annual report. CCMs shall as appropriate, support research and development of strategies for the avoidance of unwanted shark captures (e.g. chemical, magnetic and rare earth metal shark deterrents).

CMM 2019-04 (the updated CMM on sharks) contains specific conservation measures for silky, oceanic whitetip, and scalloped hammerhead sharks and CMM 2019-04 also contains measures to generally reduce mortality of sharks. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirement to avoid overfishing, apply to silky, scalloped hammerhead, and oceanic whitetip sharks.

Philippines

Under Section 11 of the Philippine Fisheries Code, protection of rare, threatened, and endangered species is stipulated. In addition, Section 102 indicates that fishing or rare, threatened, and endangered species is unlawful, including any species listed under CITES appendices. This bears implications for sharks, rays, chimeras, marine mammals, and turtles. For instance, there are 25 shark species listed on CITES (appendices I, II, and III), all of which are protected in the Philippines due to section 102.

Certain agencies such as NFRDI as well as local NGOs conduct training on safe handling practices, including brochures and other information products used to provide effective training to minimize ETP species catch by municipal fisheries in the Philippines.

As a result of the UN International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA- Sharks) was adopted by the 23rd session of the UN FAO Committee on Fisheries (COFI) in 1999, the Philippines has a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for the Conservation and Management of Sharks produced in 2009. The Philippine NPOA complies with relevant CMM’s under the WCPFC to prohibit catch of silky sharks, oceanic whitetip, and whale sharks (BFAR 2009). The Philippines recently updated its NPOA in 2017 which goes through 2022, which provides a thorough review of implementation of ETP measures at the national level.

BFAR and the Philippine legislative body currently has a draft law for protection of sharks that has been proposed and is under review. This law would likely include strategies to reduce the incidence of shark finning (Senate Bill 1863). The assessment team will monitor the potential progress for this legislation and its potential future implementation by BFAR.

Giant Manta Ray

CMM 2019-05, which entered into force on January 1, 2021, contains measure specifically designed to reduce the impacts of fishing on mobula rays, as detailed in the background, including a prohibition on the deliberate setting of purse seines on them and the requirement to implement safe handling and release protocols for unintentionally captured . The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirements to assess impacts on non-target species and protect biodiversity, also applies to mobula rays. The introduction of ‘lesser entangling’ FADs, as required by CMM 2018-01, addresses the issue of potential unobserved mortality due to the entanglement of pelegic species in FADs, which may also benefit mobula rays (currently there is no information of FAD entanglement in the Pacific Ocean).

165 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Under FAO 193 passed in 1998, pursuant to Sections 65 and 107 of the RA No. 8550 otherwise known as the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998Under FAO 193, Philippine Law issued a ban on catch of whale sharks and manta rays. In particular, this includes a ban on the taking, catching, selling, purchasing and possessing, transporting, and exportation of whale sharks and manta rays. As a result, the assessment team classifies manta rays as ETP for this fishery, in which two individuals were reported from 2014-2019.

These WCPFC and Philippine measures, with which the UoA fleet is now required to comply, are collectively considered to constitute a strategy as defined in Table SA8 of the FCR v2.0 that is sufficient to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of mobula and manta ray populations should that be considered. As a result, SG 80 is met.

In 2017, the Philippines also kicked off the Philippines Aquatic Red List Committee. During the remote site visit, the assessment team interviewed personnel from NFRDI that site on this Committee. Though the RedList has not been finalized, conservable interagency policy development and stakeholder consultation has been conducted at this juncture. The assessment team will monitor the progress with the Philippines Aquatic RedList Committee.

Though this fishery reports no catch or interactions with marine mammals and risk of marine mammal interactions with smaller municipal handline vessels is low, the assessment team will gather additional information to ensure compliance with regional and national protection measures for marine mammals. Under Philippine Law, FAO 185 and FAO 185-1 provides protection measures for all dolphin and whale species as well. Stemming from efforts initiated in 2010, large-scale adoption of “C” hooks has been adopted by segments of the yellowfin tuna handline fishery. During the remote site visit, the assessment team interviewed fishermen from Gulf of Lagonoy and Mindoro Strait. In the Gulf of Lagonuy in particular, fishermen report that there has been widespread adoption of “C” hooks in the majority of LGUs in that particular region, with occasional J-hook usage. Fishermen in the Mindoro Strait report that C-hook has been in usage for over 8 years.

During the remote site visit meetings, over 30 examples of forms titled “MT01 Marine Turtle Tagging Data Forms” were provided to the assessment team from the Wildlife Resources Division under the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). Forms indicated several instances of green turtles and olive-ridley turtles being found entangled in fishing nets. All forms provided to the assessment team indicate entanglement with fishing nets, rather than handline or hook and line fishing gear. Though the UoA does not use fishing nets and reported no interaction with turtles, the fishermen in the UoA are often called upon to report turtle and other ETP entanglements to DENR and actively participate in the broader turtle tagging program in the Philippines. Given there were no reported interactions and/or catch of marine mammals, turtles, or seabirds, these are not scored in this assessment.

Given the measures and strategy in place for sharks and mantas, the assessment team determines the current measures and strategy in place are expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Thus, SG60 and SG80 are met. The strategy is not considered comprehensive, however, and therefore SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive post considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on based on plausible argument measures/strategy will work, information directly about (e.g., general experience, based on information the fishery and/or species theory or comparison with directly about the fishery involved, and a quantitative similar fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

166 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – No Sharks - Yes Sharks - Yes Sharks - No Rationale

The fishery management area (FMAs) established under the National Tuna Management Plan indicate proposed goals and objectives for the UoA. The Philippines also has other measures and strategy in place as it relates to management of ETP species. In particular, Section 1, 11, and 97 of the Republic Act No. 8550 provides additional measures at the national level.

Additional Philippine Law provides measures for ETP management. Republic Act No. 9147, or Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act (WRCPA), and Republic Act No. 8550 offer additional protection of endangered species at the national level as noted in sections 11 and 97. Fishermen and relevant BFAR authorities were well aware if these laws and described enforcement personnel and their reporting during the site visit. Thus, SG 60 is met.

The collection of laws in the Philippines and the WCPFC level provides an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. As a result, fishery achieves SG80 requirements. No quantitative analysis is available examining the strategy involved, and strategy is not considered comprehensive. Thus, SG100 not met.

d Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – No Sharks - Yes Sharks - No Rationale

Given the considerably low numbers of ETP species reported in the landings data, that 100% all species landed in the UoA are retained for sale, bait, or consumption, the assessment team determines there is some evidence that the measures/strategy are being implemented successfully. For instance, in 2017 with the help of NFRDI and other agencies, BFAR trained and distributed over 700 fishery enforcement officers country-wide including the Gulf of Lagonoy and Mindoro Strait Regions (region 5 for BFAR). These officers handle enforcement of ETP measures under the Philippine Fisheries Code and relevant FAO’s to ensure compliance at ports. In addition, NFRDI and BFAR provide routine trainings to educate fishermen on ETP species identification, including shark and ray species. The Philippine National Police (PNP) also provide additional enforcement capacity at sea, including municipal fisheries like the UoA. The assessment team was provided evidence of adjudication and issuance of penalties for municipal fisheries regarding ETP species at the remote site visit, including by the PNP at-sea. In addition, BFAR has deputized fish wardens within each local government unit (LGU), also known as “bantay dagats.” Bantay dagats have the authority and carry out inspections at landing and at-sea periodically to ensure compliance regarding ETP species. No infractions were noted regarding ETP in the UoA area in particular with PNP or via bantay dagats, or through BFAR enforcement officers. The assessment team’s examination of evidence of infractions yielded no reported violations in the UoA regarding ETP species. AS a result, there is some evidence of successful strategy implementation for ETP species management. Thus, SG80 is met.

Though evidence exists that measures are being implemented, the assessment team notes that two manta rays were caught and retained by the UoC despite measures prohibiting such activities in the Philippines. As a result,

167 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

clear evidence of a comprehensive strategy has not been adequately provided to the assessment team, and therefore SG100 is not met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Giant Manta – Yes Giant Manta – Yes No Sharks - Yes Sharks - Yes Rationale

The recent Sharks and Rays “Pating” at “Pagi” Philippine Status Report and National Plan of Action 2017-2022 provides evidence of a regular review of the effectiveness of the initial NPOA for Sharks for the Philippines, including considerations for municipal and small-scale fisheries and interactions with giant manta rays.

Given the only species currently classified as ETP for the UoA include giant manta rays as well as other potential sharks and rays out of precaution, the recent abovementioned status report provides evidence of regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species. Evidence provided suggests they are also implemented as appropriate. Thus, SG 60 and 80 are met.

There is no biennual review, thus SG100 is not met.

References

The “Sharks and Rays “Pating” at “Pagi” Philippine Status Report and National Plan of Action 2017-2022; National Tuna Management Plan; Republic Act No. 8550; Republic Act No. 9147

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

168 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on ETP assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the species. mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and OR may be a threat to injuries and the protection and recovery of consequences for the status If RBF is used to score PI the ETP species. of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is OR adequate to estimate productivity and If RBF is used to score PI susceptibility attributes for 2.3.1 for the UoA: ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? All ETP Species – Yes All ETP Species – No All ETP Species – No

Rationale

Giant Manta Rays, and Sharks and Rays There are relatively few ETP species reported for this fishery as per landings data provided from 2013-2019. The fishery routinely collects landings data for all species, which is reported to regulatory authorities. All catch is retained for personal consumption, bait, or for sale. Given the selectivity of single hook, handline fishing for non-ETP species, and the reported landings, the assessment team believes the qualitative information provided via interviews with local NGO experts, BFAR, and other ETP professionals during the site visit is sufficient for SG60.

Quantitative information of animals have been provided that are not species-specific in some cases and indicate family level or generic information (e.g. “requiem shark” or “shark”). These incidences for all purposes are very small and total less than 20 individuals total over five years, however they are still worth noting. Though quantitative information is provided through the catch reported via landings data, there is no independent verification of data through either an observer program or robust port samples program for the UoA as it relates to ETP species 2.3.3 or combination of qualitative and quantitative as outlined in GSA3.6.3. Thus, the assessment team cannot determine whether the UoA may be a threat to potential ETP shark species (e.g. oceanic whitetip, silky shark), nor can it assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts on ETP species. SG80 and SG100 are not met.

169 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? All ETP Species – Yes All ETP Species – No All ETP Species – No

Rationale

The routine collection of landings from 2013-2019 in Occidental-Mindoro Straight and Lagonoy Gulf provided useful data to monitor potential risk of ETP to fulfil requirements for ETP measures and strategy. All catch is retained for personal consumption, bait, or for sale. The fishery personnel, BFAR, and LGU personnel reported no interactions with ETP species in the fishery in recent years. Thus, information is adequate to support measures to manage impacts on ETP species - SG60 is met.

As determined through the remote site visit meetings, the systems in place do serve to help gather information to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. These systems include the National Stock Assessment Program (NSAP), port inspections from BFAR fishery enforcement officers, and at- sea inspections through the Philippine National Police (PNP). Despite the robust data collection at point of landing and these systems in place, out of precaution, the assessment team determines the information provided is inadequate to support a strategy. Thus, SG 80 is not met.

Given there is no independent verification of catch data of ETP species (e.g. observer program, routine port sampling) for this fishery, the assessment team ascertains that information is not 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. Thus, SG100 cannot be met.

References

Landings data from 2013-2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator More information sought regarding independent verification that fishery information is adequate to monitor potential ETP interactions Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 60

Condition number (if relevant) 4

170 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Handlines deployed in the UoA do not physically interact with benthic habitat during its operation. As it relates to commonly encountered habitat concerns, the assessment team largely considers AFADs.

Anchored FADs (AFADs) are also employed in the fishery, there is contact between the substrate and the concrete blocks employed to anchor the FAD. The anchors are constructed as a low box with a surface area of approximately 1 square meter surface area and deployed at a depth between 10 and 20 meters. The number of AFADs deployed by the Occidental-Mindoro Straight component of the Philippine Tuna Handline fishery is approximately 110. The Lagonoy Gulf component of the fishery deploys approximately 77 AFADS. Anecdotally, the AFADs are deployed on rocky and sandy substrates.

Given the very small footprint of anchors relative to the size of the total areas of the Occidental-Mindoro Straight and Lagonoy Gulf assures that the damage is a negligible fraction of available habitat. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, and SG 80.

Additional evidence is needed in order the assessment team to determine it is highly unlikely for the UoA to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats, thus SG 100 level is not met. b VME habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME habitats function of the VME habitats reduce structure and to a point where there to a point where there function of the VME habitats would be serious or would be serious or to a point where there irreversible harm. irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The area of operation of the UoA does not overlap with any Marine Protected Area. However, the assessment team identified a coral reef and sea grass habitats as sensitive habitats occurring in the Coral Triangle region, where the fishery takes place that would qualify as potential VMEs. Anchored FADs that break from their

171 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

anchor can become a form of marine debris, impacting coastal habitats, including coral reefs. For coral reefs in the Southeast Asia region, the main threat factors include densely populated coastlines, overfishing and destructive fishing practices (Burke et al. 2012). There is no global spatial data available on the impact of discarded fishing gear, nor on the impact of AFADs specifically. Research conducted in the Indian Ocean in the Seychelles Islands on environmental impacted of beached drifting FADs 2011 and 2015 found that DFADs impacted coral reef more than other habitats. The study found that the construction of the FAD was an important factor, with close to 50% of drifting FADs that employed nets as aggregators found on corals compared to 23% of drifting FADs employing synthetic ropes on coral reefs (Balderson and Martin, 2015). Seagrass has also been recorded to have been entangled in FADs (Zudaire et al. 2018).

According to the estimates by Banks and Zaharia (2020) the annual impact on coral reefs collectively was assessed as affecting 4 and 6 km2 of coral reef; the WCPO region coral reef in the South Pacific covers in excess of 90,000 km2. Following MSC requirements, for habitats cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (2.4.2), thus the assessment team focused solely on the impacts of the UoA when scoring PI 2.4.1. It’s challenging to clearly link the impact of derelict anchored FADs (AFADs) to a specific fleet or UoA, given that municipal handline vessels will set on AFADs that were not deployed by their own fleet in most cases. Given the number of anchored FADs deployed by the UoA itself and that the overall impact of the UoA on coral reefs in the region is negligible and unlikely to reduce structure and function of coral reef habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, the UoA meets SG60.

Marine-based pollution, without including impacts of discarded fishing gear, is considered to affect less than 5% of coral reefs in Southeast Asia (Burke et al. 2012). The inclusion of FADs is unlikely to elevate the relative importance of marine debris as a local threat for coral reefs either within Philippine waters or in the Coral Triangle to a point where it would result in a driving threat factor. Moreover, in contrast with large, industrial drifting FADs deployed by purse-seine fleets in the WCPO, the AFADs employed in the UoA are thought to not have entangling material, making them less likely to impact coral reefs and sea grasses (see section 5.1). The assessment team concluded that it is highly unlikely that direct and indirect impacts of the UoA on coral reef and seagrass habitats reduces structure and function of these habitats to a point of serious or irreversible harm, thus meeting SG80.

There is insufficient evidence for the assessment team to determine it is highly unlikely for the UoA to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats, thus SG100 is not met. c Minor habitat status

Guide There is evidence that the post UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes

Rationale

The MSC identifies serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function such that “[…] the habitat would be unable to recover to at least 80% of its unimpacted structure, biological diversity and function within 5-20 years, if fishing were to cease entirely.” (Table SA8: Principle 2 Phrases). Handline gear does not interact with benthic habitats. Although anchored FADs do interact with the benthic substrate, the small surface area of the anchors and the small number of deployed anchored FADs have a negligible footprint on marine habitats, thus the assessment team concludes that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of minor habitats to a point of serious or irreversible harm, thus meeting the SG100.

172 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

References

Burke et al. 2012

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information is sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant)

173 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for post place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Although the impacts of AFADs are considered negligible, there are no explicit management measures to control the number of AFADs deployed by the UoA. There is the potential risk of an increase in AFADs leading to an increase in impact on the habitat component, particularly VMEs. This is an information and tracking issue addressed under 2.4.3.

Regional - WCPFC At the regional level (WCPFC) there are some measures in place including the application of a three-month prohibition on the setting on FADs for purse seine vessels fishing in the high seas and EEZs (CMM 2009-02) and the requirement for the submission of a management plan for the use of FADs for vessels in the high seas (WCPFC CMM 2014-01). In response to the WCPFC’s CMM 2014-01, Philippines prepared a FAD Management Plan through FAO 244. In addition, they developed a Fisheries Office Order (FOO) 68, “Guidelines on the establishment of Fish Aggregating Devices.” CMM 2018-01 provided an update to 2014-01, in which FAD management measures are required as well (see Figure 44).

None of the management measures in either the FAD management plan or guidelines are applicable to the small-scale vessels that are part of the UoA, and there are currently no explicit management measures in place to regulate the deployment and registration of FADs employed by municipal vessels (< 3 GT). There are also no specific considerations in any of the measures in place at the regional (WCPFC) or national level about sensitive habitat areas.

National and Local – Philippines and LGUs As part of the remote site visit meetings, the assessment team examined local level ordinances passed and implemented by the local government units (LGUs). As stated in Section 81 of the amended Philippine Fisheries Code, fish refuge and sanctuaries may be established by any LGU. The assessment team identified over 12 LGUs with local ordinances which implement protection of sensitive habitats (e.g. mangrove and coral reefs). As a policy, municipal fishermen are not permitted to set any anchored FAD within 1 km of VMEs (e.g. coral reefs) and marine protected areas.

At the moment, the majority of FADs deployed within the UoA region are deployed and managed by commercial fishing vessels. There is a longstanding informal agreement between the commercial and municipal vessels to allow the municipal vessels to fish for bait using these commercial anchored FADs. In addition, the UoA is increasingly deploying FADs specifically for municipal vessels that are supplied by BFAR. Though this program is in its infancy, these FADs are co-managed between the fishing associations, BFAR regional office (e.g. BFAR Region 5), and the LGU offices. These FADs will have a number, specific markings, and will be tracked by

174 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

the fishing associations and reported to BFAR on a regular basis when FADs are lost, deployed, etc. These measures in place are expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance.

Though the Philippines has passed local legislation such as Fisheries Office Order (FOO) 68 to address FAD management, it is not explicitly apply to the UoA and/or municipal fisheries. In addition, the UoA has initiated efforts to register, deploy, and manage its own AFAD assets, the assessment team cannot fully verify registration, establishment of limits, and overall management of AFADs used by the UoA, and therefore no management measures and/or partial strategy are considered in place expected to achieve the Habitat Outcome at the SG80 level. No strategy is in place for managing impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on habitats, thus SG100 is also not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general will work, based on based on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the UoA and/or comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The current measures including establishment of marine protected areas, and prohibition of fishing within a certain distance of any MPA, the current set of measures are considered likely to work and therefore SG60 is met.

Information provided on the low number of AFADs employed in the fishery and the general distribution of substrates, provides some objective basis for confidence that the measures in place are currently working to ensure the UoA does not reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, meeting SG80.

There is not enough information on all AFADs used by the fishers in the UoA, and their location, thus the SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

As outlined in Scoring Issue a of this Principal Indicator, the assessment team considers the National FAD Management Plan, the Fisheries Office Order (FOO) 68, and the implementation of MPAs collectively serve to be relevant measures to the protection of key habitats, such as coral reefs. As per the remote site visit, the assessment team was informed about the initial stages indicative of FAD management. For instance, in 2015 BFAR Region 5 awarded 15 anchored FADs to the UoA – one per municipality/LGU. Recently, the Mindoro Strait Fishing Federation acquired 3 AFADs from the provincial government, and there are plans to receive 36

175 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

additional AFADs to be deployed in the tuna conservation management zones designed for municipal fishing vessels only. Net fishing is off limits in these zones. For the 36 additional AFADs to be received in 2021, add AFADs will come with a tracking number and specific markings so they can be easily tracked, management, and reported as needed. While BFAR indicated that data is collected on the deployment of commercial AFADs, the assessment team could not confirm that BFAR is actively collecting data on lost AFADS in the municipal fisheries, only AFAD assets deployed as described above.

In short, the assessment team was provided some quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being implemented regarding habitat management. Thus, SG80 is met. However, clear evidence that the habitat management strategy is being implemented successfully in order to achieve outcomes specified in scoring issue a, therefore SG100 is not met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its management requirements management requirements management requirements to protect VMEs. and with protection and with protection measures measures afforded to VMEs afforded to VMEs by other by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, MSC fisheries, where where relevant. relevant. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

There are no specific management requirements to protect coral reefs or seagrass habitats for AFADs at the WCPFC management framework.

At the national level, however, the management requirements to protect coral reefs and seagrass include the establishment of marine protected areas, the regulation of certain fishing practices that are harmful to coral reefs (i.e. explosives and cyanide) and ban on the export of corals. Out of these measures the only relevant to the UoA is that of Marine Protected areas and fishing association policies to prevent deployment of AFADs within 1 km of any VME or sensitive habitat. Data captured on the location of a sample of fishing vessels, indicates that the vessels in the UoA don’t fish within MPA, and waters are patrolled at-sea by the PNP and bantay dagats, thus there is some quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with the protection measures for VMEs, meeting SG80.

Further quantitative evidence that the UoA complies with both its management requirements and with protections measures is not clear, therefore SG100 is not met. References

Phillipines National FAD Management Plan (FAO 244); Fisheries Office Order (FOO) 68, “Guidelines on the establishment of Fish Aggregating Devices.”

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

176 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 75

Condition number (if relevant) Condition 5

177 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all post the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their broadly understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence OR relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Following GPF7.1.5 “main” habitats include habitats that are commonly encountered by the UoA or VMEs.

Given this fishery deploys primarily anchored FAD sets, this fishery does have impacts to the benthic habitat. The composition of the bottom habitat where AFADs are deployed is largely sandy and rocky substrate at the site of each AFAD anchor. As a result, the level of detail of info available is acceptable given the scale an impact of the fishery. While the footprint of anchored FADs is believed to be relatively negligible compared to the habitat area, the distribution and bathymetry of benthic habitats is generally understood and was provided to the assessment team and the level of information is sufficient givne the scale and impact of the fishery. The location, registration, and tracking of AFADs deployed in the UoA is very clearly identified through mapping also provided to the assessment team. At the LGU level, fishing is prohibited within MPAs through several local ordinances, which protects coral reefs, seagrass, and mangrove habitats identified in the region. For pelagic habitats, distribution is sufficiently well known given the scale and intensity of the fishery.

In the Coral Triangle Region and UoA there is information available on the distribution of main habitats and vulnerable habitats (coral reefs, sea grass, and ) at a level of details that is relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA, meeting SG80.

The assessment team is not aware of any comprehensive habitat characterization efforts by BFAR or otherwise, and therefore the distribution of all habitats has not been characterized and is not known over their range. Thus SG 100 is not met.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

178 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. of gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with spatial extent of interaction fishing gear. and on the timing and location of use of the fishing OR gear.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available and habitats. is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Anchored FADs are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat, however some interaction with benthic habitat occur during its operation.

VMEs: Derelict AFADs potentially impact coral reefs. While the general distribution of reefs has been mapped (see Figure 29), the movement and potential distribution of derelict FADs over large scales, relevant to the scale of the UoA, is somewhat lacking.

There is some information on FAD loss rates and modelled movement trajectories to hypothesize that drifting FADs (once AFADs) may become beached on coral reefs. The potential impacts of such beaching are also broadly understood and the impacts of other marine debris (that would have similar impacts) has been incorporated in an analysis of risks to coral reefs (Burke et al. 2012). There is reliable information on the spatial locations of fishing, but not on the locations of FADs that are lost and become beached. This lack of reliable information on the spatial extent, timing and location of FAD interactions with coral reefs hinders a full understanding of the nature of the impacts of the gear on these habitats.

As it relates to the municipal Philippine tuna fishery, BFAR anecdotally confirmed that the Philippine government and the Philippine YFT Handline fishery currently do not have a way to track, recover, and reduce the incidence of anchored FADs that have been dislodged. Anecdotally, about half of the anchored FADs deployed ultimately get dislodged and are drifting. The assessment team requires more information to have transparency how the extent of anchored FADs that become ghost fishing gear and drifting in the region in association with municipal handline vessels. Though efforts have begun to track AFADS deployed by the UoA fishing vessels, the assessment team did not get reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear, including AFADs. Anecdotally, the assessment team was informed that agencies such as NFRDI and BFAR plan to undertake studies on AFADS and potential habitat impacts, which will better serve to provide more reliable information on this matter.

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, as evidence by maps provided and interviews conducted. While this meets the requirements of the SG 60 level, out of precaution, information is not entirely adequate to

179 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is not reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. As a result SG 80 and SG100 levels are not met.

c Monitoring

Guide Adequate information Changes in all habitat post continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Commonly encountered habitats: For FAD sets, the habitat relevant to the use of a purse seine is the pelagic water column and no hard substrate is impacted by this component of the gear. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the WCPO are regularly monitored. The client vessels all operate with accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear.

VMEs: The respective fishing associations have demonstrated they collect information on AFADs deployed and FADS are issued tracking numbers. Information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats. As a result, SG 80 is met.

Nevertheless, while the numbers of lost FADs is required to be reported to BFAR regional office, we have seen no evidence of effective compliance. Presently, any increase in risk to the VMEs from derelict AFADs would not be detected. Additionally, VMEs (e.g. coral reef) potentially impacted due to derelict FADs are not monitored. BFAR has anecdotally confirmed that the municipal handline fishery is encouraged to track, recover, and reduce the incidence of anchored FADs that have been dislodged but this is not formally adopted or mandated at this time. As a result, ability to monitor impacts to main and VME habitats needs improvements to obtain SG80.

This does not meet the requirements of SG 100 level. References

Burke et al. 2012

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Verification of reporting on derelict AFADs

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 75

Condition number (if relevant) Condition 6

180 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

181 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post the key elements underlying disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements function to a point where structure and function to a underlying ecosystem there would be a serious or point where there would be structure and function to a irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

As described in the background, there has been a range of models of the structure and functioning of the pelagic ecosystems developed that support the main tuna fisheries and their responses to fishing and climate change (e.g. Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Kitchell et al. 1999, Lehodey et al. 2013, Leroy et al. 2013, Sibert et al. 2006). Though the UoA employs anchored FADs, this information below on all types of FADs still needs to be taken into consideration.

There have been substantial impacts from the depletion of the main target species, although the trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Other modelling (Allain et al. 2015) suggests that the structure of the warm pool/cold tongue ecosystem is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community).

Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on top-level predators in the Pacific Ocean were substantial but that ecosystem impacts were likely to be minor. These studies suggests it is unlikely that neither the UoA fishery in particular nor the whole WCPFC tuna fishery, are having an irreversible impact on ecosystem structure or functioning to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

For FAD sets, there is the additional issue of the potential broader impact of FADs that is beyond the fish removed by fishing. The presence of drifting FADs has the potential to alter the distribution and migration of tunas (Leroy et al. 2013, Phillips et al. 2017). FADs have been shown to influence the behavior and movement patterns of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna, with the juveniles of each species occupying shallower habitats when associated with FADs (Schaefer and Fuller 2002, 2005, 2010, Fuller et al. 2015). There is some evidence that indicated that FADs both attract and retain tuna, and may affect distribution and migrations of tuna (Leroy et al. 2013). Other studies support the proposal that the large majority of residences at floating objects by tuna are moderately short, and that there is little evidence to suggest that their biology, movement behaviours or entrainment to a region are being significantly affected (Phillips et al. 2017).

Phillips et al. (2017) suggest that processes working at different scales may explain the inter- and intra- individual variability in fish behavior that they observed for bigeye and yellowfin tuna. They suggested that there was an interaction between fine scale variability in the availability of prey, the local density of conspecifics, and the multi-species composition of the schools themselves whilst islands and other bathymetric features may affect vertical behaviour at larger spatial scales. They concluded that purse-seiners set on floating objects because they bring tuna to a more easily found locality in horizontal space, and then aggregate them in

182 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

relative shallow water through this surface behaviour. The surface-association events they identified varied greatly. While some events were clear and prolonged, the large majority are not, and extended surface- association behaviour was rarely exhibited immediately prior to capture.

Leroy et al. (2013) noted that the ways in which FADs interact with the biotic components of tuna environmental preferences, through prey concentration, increased feeding on juvenile conspecifics, or incorrect habitat utilization, need further investigation, including tuna foraging and the effect of FADs on the behavior of other important species in the pelagic ecosystem.

Noting that estimates of spawning biomass for skipjack tuna in the WCPO are well above the level that will support MSY and current fishing mortality is approximately half the MSY level the stock is not overfished or considered to be experiencing overfishing. Modelling of the trophic dynamics in the warm pool-cold tongue convergence zone noted that skipjack tuna appears to be a very resilient species, and nearly impossible to eliminate it from the system due to fishing. Griffiths et al. (2019) most recently used the ecosystem model of the western Pacific Warm Pool Province to explore the potential ecological impacts of varying FAD fishing effort (±50%) over 30 years. Their results indicated that reduction of FAD effort by at least 50% was predicted to increase the biomass of tuna species and sharks and return the ecosystem structure to a pre‐industrial‐fishing state within 10 years. The intrinsic resistance of the ecosystem to perturbation is likely related to the high diversity of predators in the warm pool-cold tongue food web that consume a wide range of prey (Allain et al 2015). Thus, resiliency of the ecosystem has not been impacted, and biological diversity would return to pre-fishing conditions. As per SA3.16.2, this study fulfills evidence required to determine that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Lastly, relevant and credible resources and scientific publications on the subject of the “ecological trap” hypothesis were carefully reviewed. This hypothesis is centered on potential evidence of disproportionate aggregation and/or changes of behavior of certain species due to FADs. The assessment team carefully considered the evidence presented on fish residence times in particular and concluded there is no unequivocal evidence of irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

This is an area of active research to address the concern that the widespread use of FADs may be having important ecosystem effects. We expect that the monitoring and assessment programs that are in place for the WCPO fisheries are likely to be able to detect any major effects and expect that management would be responsive to them, so that Principle 1 and 2 objectives are still likely to be achieved. These monitoring and assessment programs are very comprehensive, the scientists involved are well aware of these ecosystem issues and are active in the research on them, so we consider it highly unlikely that they would disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. For FAD sets this meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

Nevertheless, the science is not yet at the stage where we could say that there is good evidence to suggest the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements of the underlying ecosystem structure. Based on this information, the assessment team concludes that the required probability of less than or equal to 20th percentile as per Table SA9 is not met, and SG100 is therefore not met.

References

Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Schaefer and Fuller 2002, 2005, 2010, Fuller et al. 2015, Kitchell et al. 1999, Lehodey et al. 2013, Leroy et al. 2013, Phillips et al. 2017, Sibert et al. 2006

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

183 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

184 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

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 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that post if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Regional Level At the regional level, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is used as the framework for sustainable fisheries for an “Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM)”. Tuna are important predatory species in the Pacific Ocean. The WCPFC’s application of the FAO code extends to the highly migratory fish species including tuna through Conservation and Management Measures such as CMM 2014-01 on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack, as well as to the management of non-target species, in particular through Resolution 2005-03 on Non-Target Fish Species and CMMs to improve the protection of sharks. Since then, CMM 2018-01 has been implemented to ensure proper management bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack which supersedes and builds upon CMM 2014-01. Although not specifically designed to manage impacts on the ecosystem, the range of measures in place is considered to represent a partial strategy that works to achieve the intended outcome. We note that there is no specific ecosystem management plan for the WCPO but also SA3.17.3.2 states that ‘It may not be necessary to have a specific “ecosystem strategy” other than that which comprises the individual strategies for the other components under P1 and P2.’ There are measures in place to address the main impacts of the UoA as these would arise from the directed fishing at skipjack and yellowfin tuna. However, SA3.17.2 further states that the ‘plan and measures in place at SG 100 should be based on well-understood functional relationships between the UoA and the components and elements of the ecosystem.’ While ecosystem modelling activities in the WCPO have occurred they are not based well-understood functional relationships.

National and Local Level Strategy In the Philippine municipal fisheries are primarily managed by the Local Government Units (LGUs). As part of the remote site visit meetings, the assessment team received a comprehensive review of ordinances and measures at the LGU level which serve to support ecosystem management. For instance, over a dozen ordinances have been implemented to which provide marine reserves, marine sanctuaries, tuna conservation management zones, and other provisions which secure robust management of coastal ecosystems in municipal waters in the Philippines. These measures are enforced by Local Fishery Officers, deputized by BFAR to carry out enforcement and training activities to ensure compliance with local ordinances. Together the LGUs participate in broader regional management under IFARMC, including fisheries and ecosystem management. Collectively these local ordinances under the broader legal framework of the Philippine Fisheries Code provide evidence that a partial strategy is in place which takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

185 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

This meets the requirements of the SG 60, and SG 80, but not SG 100 given the lack of information at the national level.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the UoA similar UoAs/ ecosystems). the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved. ecosystem involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Regional Level The regional stock assessments indicate that current harvest strategies and management measures have been successful in maintaining target species about the BMSY level. The strategy considers the significant sources of fishery related risks to the WCPO ecosystem, namely the removal of target species, risks associated with impacts of bycatch and discarding of a wide range of non-target species. Overall, the strategy is considered likely to work. The extensive ecosystem modelling (described under PI 2.5.1), together with the current and projected future healthy status of skipjack tuna, a key predator and prey species, are results of a form of testing for the specific ecosystem that provides high confidence that the strategy will work.

Mechanisms to reduce interactions with both target and non-target species include the preparation of Ecological Risk Assessments at regional levels (e.g. Kirby and Hobday, 2007, Gilman et al., 2014). In addition, the FFA started in-country EAFM work in 2005 to generate EAFM reports that will provide the basis for the development of operational and/or tuna management plans. To assist member countries implement EAFM, the FFA have developed a Pacific Islands Forum Fishery Agency EAFM Framework. This framework comprises a number of stages, which lead to the eventual identification and prioritization of issues related to the current state of tuna resources, environment and social-economics. The current strategy is considered to represent a partial strategy that will work. The Philippine government demonstrates the legal framework and measures in place that are adequate and aligned with this broader regional strategy.

This meets the requirements of the SG 60, and SG 80, but not SG 100 given the lack of information at the national level. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Yes No

Rationale

Stock assessments show that current management measures have largely been successful in maintaining target species well above PRI and at about the BMSY level. Available ecosystem modelling suggests it is unlikely the client fishery is having an impact on ecosystem functioning. The introduction of 100% observer coverage for the

186 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

purse seine fisheries provides a platform for gathering information to monitor changes to the ecosystem. All these activities constitute a partial strategy which meets requirements at the SG 80 level.

To successfully implement the partial strategy/strategy, objectives need to be defined and subsequent management measures should be based on well-understood functional relationships between the UoA and the components and elements of the ecosystem. While ecosystem modelling activities in the WCPO have occurred they are not based well-understood functional relationships. Thus, requirements at the SG 100 level are not met. References

Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Kirby and Hobday, 2007, Gilman et al., 2014

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Additional information regarding strategy and implementation of strategy to address ecosystem management at the national level

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

187 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements of the broadly understand the key ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

A number of organisations are collecting data to improve the knowledge of the structure of the Pacific Ocean pelagic ecosystem. This occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). However, trophic analyses and mid-trophic level sampling are conducted on a project-by-project basis and are not continuous in space and time.

The WCPO warm pool-cold tongue convergence has been well studied, in particular its impact on ocean temperature, salinity, stratification, circulation and production (An et al. 2012, Ganachaud et al. 2012, Lehodey et al. 1997, Lehodey et al. 2003, Miller 2007, Tascheto et al. 2014). Ocean variability and its ecological impacts in the warm pool-cold tongue region has been studied through the advancement of the SEAPODYM model (Lehody 2001) which is actively pursued as an alternative modelling platform in WCPFC through the multi-agency Project 62 which affiliates the independently funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013b). The warm pool area produces almost 80% of the tuna caught by purse-seine and other surface gears in the WCPO and the large-scale movements of tropical tuna in the western central equatorial Pacific have been correlated with the position of the oceanic convergence zone (where the warm pool meets the cold tongue) (Lehodey et al. 1997). This is a nutrient rich zone that attracts large concentrations of forage fish which in turn attracts tuna. Building on the SEAPODYM model and recent literature on the warm-pool cold tongue phenomenon, the WCPFC-SC continues to address ecosystem and bycatch mitigation issues to continually monitor oceanographic implications for marine ecosystems in the WCPFC convention area (e.g., WCPFC-SC 2016, WCPFC-SC 2017, WCPFC-SC 2018, WCPFC-SC 2019).

In addition to oceanographic considerations, the assessment team selected skipjack and an indicator of food web considerations within the warm pool foodweb. Skipjack tuna as a key predator and prey species is considered to be another key element, particularly in the warm pool where extensive studies have been carried out to understand their role in the ecosystem (Allain et al, 2015, Lehodey et al., 2014, Griffiths et al. 2019). Assessments on skipjack are routinely conducted from a single species perspective incorporating advances to their biology and ecology as information becomes available. Based on this information the SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met.

Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem including warm-pool-cold tongue convergence and food web dynamics considerations, which meets SG 60 and 80 requirements.

b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guide Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the post these key ecosystem elements these key ecosystem elements UoA and these ecosystem can be inferred from existing can be inferred from existing elements can be inferred from information, but have not been information, and some have existing information, and have investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail.

188 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Trophic structure of pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific, including the WCPO, has been characterised using Ecopath and Ecosim models based on diet data (Allain et al. 2007).

SEAPODYM is a dynamic system model developed for investigating spatial tuna population dynamics under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects (Lehodey et al., 2013b). The continued development and application of the SEAPODYM model to the work of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, including its application to tuna and billfish fisheries in the South Pacific, is facilitated through the multi-agency Project 62 which affiliates the independently funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013b). A list of current projects is given in Lehodey et al. (2013b). Main impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail, though not to the extent to meet SG 100 requirements.

The potential impacts of FADs themselves on tuna behaviour that have been discussed under PI 2.5.1 are not considered to be main impacts and are therefore not considered relevant to this scoring issue. Information on target and non-target species (bycatch and ETP species) is gathered by the SPC through logbook data and the regional observer programme, as well as being available via a number of historical research projects. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of species that are impacted and to potentially determine their respective roles--e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats. In order to improve the availability of data, the Kobe Bycatch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim to Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. The KBTWG provides guidance for improving data collection efforts and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among tuna RFMOs. These data are intended to improve future analysis of ecosystem functions.

Information at the RFMO level regarding ecosystem impacts from tuna fisheries has been investigated. At the local level of the UoA, ecosystem impacts due to municipal handline vessels are considered minimal given the gear is highly selective. The relevant information gathered is sufficient to identify species impacted and SG 80 requirements are met. Information is insufficient to understand the main functions of the ecosystem components - some have been investigated in detail, though not to the extent to meet SG 100 requirements.

c Understanding of component functions

Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 post components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, species, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP species and ETP species and Habitats) in the Habitats are identified and the ecosystem are known. main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

Information on landed species is gathered through logbooks. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of species that are impacted and to determine their respective roles e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats.

189 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

In order to improve the availability of data, the Kobe Bycatch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim to Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. The KBTWG provides guidance for improving data collection efforts and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among tuna RFMOs. These data will improve future analysis of ecosystem functions.

The information gathered is sufficient to identify species impacted and understand the main functions of the ecosystem components. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts of the available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to UoA on the components and allow some of the main elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. to be inferred. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Information on target and non-target species (bycatch and ETP species) is gathered by the SPC through logbook data, as well as being available via a number of historical research projects. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of species that are impacted and to potentially determine their respective roles--e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats. In order to improve the availability of data, the Kobe Bycatch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim to Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. The KBTWG provides guidance for improving data collection efforts and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among tuna RFMOs. These data are intended to improve future analysis of ecosystem functions.

Unfortunately, the available data generally comes from fishery dependent sources which is highly influenced by fishing practices. For example, purse seines exhibit selectivity through gear mesh size, while species composition and length-at-catch differs based on purse seine set types (free school or FAD). Additionally, data associated with FADs sets are from modified “ecosystems” that stems from their ability to change fish behaviour through attraction.

The information gathered is sufficient to identify species impacted and SG 80 requirements are met. Information is insufficient to understand the main functions of the ecosystem components and requirements for SG 100 are not met.

e Monitoring

Guide Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to post collected to detect any increase support the development of in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Yes No

Rationale

As indicated above, data are collected on the tuna and billfish species taken by the fishery through logbooks and monitored by the National Stock Assessment Program (NSAP) through BFAR. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increases in risk levels to generalized ecosystem components; SG 80 is met. However, in the absence

190 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

of a comprehensive strategy for ecosystem management which incorporates the collection of broader ecosystem information than existing systems, SG 100 is not met.

References

Allain et al. 2007; Lehodey et al. 2013b

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator More information sought

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 85

Condition number (if relevant)

191 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

7.4 Principle 3

7.4.1 Principle 3 background

7.4.1.1 Regional and National Level Management

Management of tuna fisheries across the WCPO is a mix of national and international bodies and agreements: ▪ The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); and ▪ Fisheries governance of the Philippines at national and local levels.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

The Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean established the WCPFC in 2004 to conserve and manage migratory fishery resources in the WCPO. The WCPFC is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment.

The WCPFC Secretariat is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and the Commission has three subsidiary bodies the ‘Scientific Committee’ (SC) the ‘Technical and Compliance Committee’ (TCC) and the “Northern Committee” (NC). The WCPFC comprises member nations, participating territories and the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei (also referred to as Chinese Taipei). The ‘Northern Committee’ was established to deal with management and conservation issues to the north of 20° N. The International Scientific Committee (ISC) was established in 1995 to enhance scientific research and cooperation for conservation and rational utilization of the species of tuna and tuna-like fishes which inhabit the North Pacific Ocean during a part or all of their life cycle. The ISC provides information to the WCPFC Scientific Committee (introduced below) and directly to the Northern Committee.

The Commission may establish other subsidiary bodies (e.g., the Finance and Administration Committee) and also employs ad hoc working groups as required. Ad hoc working groups have been established for data-related issues, the Commission’s vessel monitoring system, the regional observer program, and FAD management. The FAD Management Options Intersessional Working Group (three meetings since 2014) provides a process to develop and advice to the Commission for decision making about FAD management.

Scientists of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC- OFP) are responsible for leading much of the scientific research utilized by the Committees. WCPFC has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the SPC to provide scientific services, including data management services. Under the MoU, the SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme collects, compiles, and disseminates fisheries data; undertakes regional stock assessments of key target and non-target species; conducts ecosystem analyses; and advises on the WCPFC’s observer program and other strategies to monitor and control fishing activities.

192 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The Convention incorporates provisions of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), in particular: ▪ The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2); ▪ The general principles in Article 5 of UNFSA including the application of the precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines For The Application of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5); ▪ The application of these principles by parties in their cooperation under the Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national jurisdiction, (Article 7); ▪ Compatibility of measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction (Article 8); ▪ Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31); and ▪ Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources (Article 30).

The Convention provides a framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, it also provides for participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission. The Convention specifically provides recognition of the special requirements of developing States, in particular small island developing states (SIDS) and cooperation with other RFMOs whose respective areas of competence overlap with the WCPFC.

The Commission has 26 Members, of which most are SIDS. The current members are: Australia, Canada, People‘s Republic of China, Cook Islands, European Union (EU), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America (USA) and Vanuatu. Participating Territories include American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna. In addition, the following States are Cooperating Non-members: Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Liberia, Vietnam, Panama and Thailand17.

Roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are described in the Convention18, especially Articles 23 and 24, the Commission Rules of Procedure, Conservation and Management Measures, and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission.

17 Cooperating non-member roles and requirements are detailed in CMM 2009-11. A non-member of the Commission, with an interest in the fishery, or whose vessels fish or intend to fish in the Convention Area, may request the Commission for the status of Cooperating non-member (CNM). 18 Available online: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/text.pdf

193 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Article 30 recognizes special requirements for developing states in regard to high dependence on marine resources and the need to avoid adverse impacts on subsistence fishers and indigenous people. To this end, the Article established a fund to facilitate effective participation through provision of financial and technical resources and assistance to developing States.

The WCPFC allows participation by non-members and territories, with opportunities for cooperating non- Members. Observers are allowed to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the Scientific Committee, the Northern Committee, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee although some parts of these meetings are closed to Observers. As part of the conditions for Cooperating Non-Member status, applicants are required to provide annually a “a commitment to cooperate fully in the implementation of conservation and management measures (CMMs) adopted by the Commission and to ensure that fishing vessels flying its flag and fishing in the Convention Area and, to the greatest extent possible, its nationals, comply with the provisions of the Convention and MMs adopted by the Commission.” (CMM 2009-11).

Decision-making processes adopted by WCPFC, use the best available information and seek to apply the precautionary approach, and are well documented. Decision-making is by Commission Members and is generally based on consensus during annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. This includes a provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted (WCPFC 2004a; Rule 22). This voting provision has not been used for deciding on conservation and management measures. In addition, there are provisions for a decision to be reviewed by a review panel at the request of a Member (WCPFC 2000; Annex II). The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention.

Decision-making is open, with the process, outcomes and basis for decisions recorded in detail in records of Commission sessions and publicly available papers. The subsidiary bodies of the Commission provide extensive, detailed reports to the Commission, including advice and recommendations (see meeting reports at http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings).

The WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted relatively quickly in an extensive set of CMMs and strategies to respond to sustainability issues. The WCPF Convention (Art. 6) requires the application of the precautionary approach and the use of a Scientific Committee to ensure that the Commission obtains the best scientific information available for its consideration and decision-making. In 2012, WCPFC adopted a resolution (Resolution 2012-01) to promote the use of the best available science in management decision making.

Information on fishery performance is publicly available through SPC data, and Part 1 reports provide detailed reporting on catch, fleet size and other issues relating to the fishery in aggregate. The WPPFC SC and TCC papers and reports on the web provide a high level of public access and transparency, showing how scientific information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission.

194 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Philippines

The Philippines Government is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Philippine waters and to Philippine flagged vessels operating on the high seas and in the EEZ of other nations are compatible with those of the WCPFC. The National Tuna Management Plan (NTMP) 2018 identifies strict compliance with WCPFC CMMs as a key measurable objective.

The, Philippines has ratified The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS in 1984), the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA in 2014) and the United Nations Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA in 2018). National laws providing the governing and policy framework for the management of fisheries include: ▪ The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550 / as amended by RA 10654) (“the Fisheries Code”). ▪ The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1998 (RA 8435) (“the AFMA”). ▪ The Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160). ▪ The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (RA 7586).

Specific Fisheries Administrative Orders and regulations have been set at a national level and establish the day to day to operational framework for managing municipal and industrial fisheries.

The Fisheries Code of the Philippines RA 8550 (amended in 2015) by RA 10654 sets out the overarching policies and objectives to be pursued in the management of fisheries, as well as powers to regulate municipal and commercial fisheries, aquaculture and post-harvest activity, create fisheries reserves, protect fisheries habitats and impose sanctions. The Fisheries Code sets out the institutional and consultative structure for the implementation of the Act. This includes the creation of a Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), which has overall responsibility for fisheries management at the national level, and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs), whose function is to assist in the formulation of policies and plans for the management and development of fisheries and in the enforcement of fisheries laws. FARMCs are established at four levels – local, municipal, provincial and national – and comprise government, fishers, fish workers, NGO and academic representatives.

The Fisheries Code also establishes a National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI) to undertake research and, in particular, deliver training in fisheries technology.

Regulatory decisions are made following public consultation, through public hearing and with the input of representative organization such as Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs) and National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (NFARMC) as mandated in the Fisheries Code. Various mechanisms are used for public consultation and dissemination of information, such as national and municipal FARMCs and industry associations.

Documentation of national level fisheries management in the Philippines is available from the BFAR website (https://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/lawAndRegulation.jsp).

195 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The Local Government Code of 1991 provides the local government units (municipal and city governments) the jurisdiction and responsibility to manage the fisheries within their jurisdiction (municipal waters -15 km from the shoreline). Commercial vessels greater than 3GT are prohibited from fishing in municipal waters. Municipal fisherfolk operate vessels of less than 3GT and can operate within and outside municipal waters. Each local government unit (LGU) has a Municipal Fisheries Ordinance (MFO) outlining laws for the governance, management, and protection of the fishery resources and coastal habitats within the municipality. Municipal FARMCs (MFARMCs) are formed from a duly registered peoples’ organization composed of local fishermen and other resource users and are accredited by the LGUs. The major role of MFARMCs in the planning and formulation of policies and programs for the management, conservation, protection and sustainable development of fisheries and aquatic resources in the municipal level. An Integrated Fisheries Aquatic Resources Management Council (IFARMC) is a unifying body for the several MFARMCs. It is organized to manage a common fishing ground with harmonized policies and programs. This integrated approach to fisheries management can lead to harmonized MFOs for LGUs that share a common marine region.

7.4.1.2 Fishery-Specific Management

Regional Long-term objectives

Long-term objectives for fisheries within the waters of the Convention area are found within the WCPF Convention text. Under Article 2 the Commission has the objective to ‘ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks within the Convention area, consistent with UNCLOS and UNSFA. Article 5 provides principles and measures for achieving this conservation and management objective. Article 10(c) provides the explicit long-term objective of ‘maintaining or restoring populations’ to “above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened”. Article 5 (c) explicitly requires CCMs to apply the precautionary approach and Article 6 outlines the means by which this will be given effect, including through the application of the guidelines set out in Annex II of UNSFA. These guidelines provide additional objectives to guide decision-making, including the use of target reference points to meet management objectives and the adoption of fisheries management strategies to ensure that target reference points are not exceeded on average. CMM 2018-01 is the primary measure for the management of bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna in the WCPO. Other WCPFC CMMs apply to the UOA and are listed in Table 16.

Table 20. WCPFC binding conservation management measures (CMM) and Resolutions of particular relevance to the Units of Assessment.

Purpose CMM Bigeye, yellowfin & skipjack CMM 2018-01 (longline and purse seine fisheries) Pacific Bluefin CMM 2019-02 North Pacific Striped Marlin CMM 2010-01 Swordfish CMM 2009-03

196 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific CMM 2006-04 Non-target species Resolution 2005-03 Silky shark CMM 2014-05; CMM 2013-08; CMM 2011-04; CMM Oceanic whitetip shark 2010-07; CMM 2012-04 Sharks Whale sharks (purse seines) Sea turtles CMM 2018-04 Seabirds CMM2018-03 Cetaceans (purse seines) CMM 2011-03 Scientific observers 2018-05; CMM 2016-03; CMM 2006-07 Monitoring, control and surveillance activities CMM 2019-06; CMM 2019-07 CMM 2018-06 CMM 2014-03; CMM 2014-02; CMM 2013-05; CMM 2013- 04; CMM 2009-10; CMM 2009-09; CMM 2009-06; CMM 2004-03 High seas controls CMM 2016-02; CMM 2009-02; CMM 2008-04 FAD management CMM 2018-05; CMM 2018-04; CMM 2018-01; CMM 2017-04; CMM 2013-05; CMM 2009-02

As the fishery is a transnational fishery, the long-term objectives of the fishery are agreed to under the umbrella of the WCPFC, which in principle operates under the precautionary approach. Further, long term objectives are also laid out in the NTMP (2018). Table 17 provides a summary of key elements of NTMP (applies to municipal and commercial fisheries in the Philippine EEZ and high seas) although these are secondary to WCPFC objectives which must be followed by the Philippines as a CCM of the WCPF Convention.

Table 21. National Tuna Management Plan 2018 high level outcomes and indicators

Purpose CMM

Species sustainability By 2023, achieve the catch level through science- and rules- based management as guided by the WCPFC CMM Species Viability By 2023, establish management measures to protect identified spawning and breeding grounds Economic Benefits By 2023, improve annual municipal production by 1% annually by enhancing management and commercial fisheries production by 5% annually by improving fishing in the Philippines Rise and West , as well as better fishing access with other coastal states in the western and central Pacific Ocean and the Indian Ocean;

By 2023, reduce post-harvest losses from 25% to 15%; and

By 2023, improve harvest to market efficiency by reducing/minimizing/streamlining the key players in the supply chain.

197 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Purpose CMM Social Benefits By 2021, equitably distribute fishing access to stakeholders by providing zones for exclusive use of each fishing sector; Administration/governance By 2019, strengthen science-based decision making process and support while ensuring compliance to CMMs;

By 2019, institutionalize timely and accurate data collection programs to ensure availability and access to scientific information to support management decisions;

From 2018-2021, improve monitoring, control and surveillance measures to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing for tuna stocks;

By 2019, expand market access including product competitiveness for domestic and export, especially for MSMEs

By 2019, ensure compliance on food safety and quality standards and by 2023, reduce post- harvest losses by 10%.

Additional Philippine management objectives consistent with WCPFC CMMs include:

▪ FAO 226 Series of 2015 ‐ Regulation on the Mesh Size of Tuna Purse Seine Nets and Trading of Small Tuna; ▪ FAO 244 Series of 2012 ‐ National Tuna Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) Management Policy; ▪ FAO 258, Series of 2018 – Establishment of Tuna Conservation and Management Zones (TCMZ) in Mindanao/. ▪ FAO 263, series of 2019 – Establishment of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA) for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries In Philippine Waters.

Fisheries Administrative Orders (FAOs) are updated often and BFAR consults widely as part of its required consultative processes under the Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998.

Long term and fishery specific objectives for the Occidental-Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf fisheries are contained in their respective tuna fisheries management plans: ▪ Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf ▪ Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan

198 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

To ensure effective and responsive tuna fisheries management, the Lagonoy Gulf and Occidental-Mindoro Strait local tuna management plans are guided by the NTMP. The Fisheries Code (R.A. 8550 as amended by R.A. 10654), provides for the FARMC mechanism, enabling communication and information flow from national to local level and vice versa. The two regional tuna plans largely mirror the NTMP, albeit at a more local level.

These plans include requirements and activities to be addressed at the regional, national and local level. A key objective is to give effect to the Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). They summarize the activities to be implemented at the local level through the respective Local Government Units (LGUs) as the smallest administrative units recognized under Republic Act 7160 and under R.A. 10654, the provincial level with the provincial administration and the regional level or the Regional Fisheries Management Office represented by several national government offices to harmonize and coordinate activities in the respective provinces and municipalities.

The LGUs are at the forefront of implementing the Tuna management plans at the local level, with technical support from the respective Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council. The functions of the LGUs in the plans includes the registration of municipal fishing boats (<3GT), and fishers including the provision of renewable fishing licenses for tuna fishing activities and monitoring control and surveillance activities in municipal waters.

7.4.1.3 Compliance and Enforcement

Regional

A range of sanctions exist to deal with non-compliance at regional level, notably though black listing of IUU vessels, and Port State Measures. Port inspection reports provide evidence that they are being applied. Logbook data are supplied as part of license requirements. An extensive VMS system is in operation, as well as a 100% observer programme for purse seiners. Observers report data from catches in EEZ waters, with special provisions through a MoU to allow observers to operate in the waters of several EEZs. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

The WCPFC has established a comprehensive compliance programme, including the following elements: ▪ Requirements for vessels, including support vessels operating outside their own waters to be on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish (CMM 2018-06) ▪ Responsibilities and process for Cooperating Non Members (CMM 2019-01) ▪ Specifications, Markings and Identification of Vessels (CMM 2004-03) ▪ High seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures (CMM 2006-08) ▪ Regional observer programme (CMM 2018-05; 2017-03) ▪ High seas Vessel Monitoring System (CMM2014-02)

199 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

▪ Regulation of Transshipment, including ban on purse seine vessels transshipping at sea (CMM 2009-06) ▪ Charter Notification Scheme (CMM 2019-058 ▪ Monitoring Landings of Purse Seine Vessels (CMM 2009-10) ▪ Conservation and Management Measure to establish a List of Vessels presumed to have carried out Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing activities in the WCPO (CMM 2019-07) ▪ Conservation and Management Measure on daily catch and effort reporting (CMM 2013-05) ▪ WCPFC Implementation of a Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI) (CMM 2013-04) ▪ WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorization to Fish (CMM 2018-06) ▪ Standards, specifications and procedures for the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels (CMM 2014- 03) ▪ Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2019-07), to ensure compliance with obligations arising under the Convention and CMMs adopted by the Commission.

Regional reporting and transparency

The WCPFC TCC is tasked with examining compliance with CMMs adopted by the Commission. Members and CCMs submit a Part 2 Annual Report on the implementation of Commission measures. This leads to the development of a Compliance Monitoring Report. There is a lack of transparency with this reporting as much of the material is treated as confidential, including the Part 2 Annual Reports. Discussion of identified compliance issues are held in closed session.

CMM 2019-07 describes the WCPFC Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS). This CMM is relevant to MSC scoring and in particular Performance Indicator 3.2.3. The purpose of the CMS is to: ▪ assess CCMs’ compliance with their WCPFC obligations; ▪ identify areas in which technical assistance or capacity building may be needed to assist CCMs to attain compliance; ▪ identify aspects of conservation and management measures which may require refinement or amendment for effective implementation; ▪ respond to non-compliance through remedial options that include a range of possible responses that take account of the reason for and degree of noncompliance, and include cooperative capacity-building initiatives and, in case of serious non-compliance, such penalties and other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to promote compliance with CMMs and other Commission obligations; and ▪ monitor and resolve outstanding instances of non-compliance.

200 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

There is also an online system called the Online Compliance Case File system. This provides a secure, searchable system to store, manage and make available information to assist CCMs with tracking alleged violations by their flagged vessels. This data is not available publicly and is used by BFAR in its compliance investigations.

Philippine MCS Programs and Records

The WCPFC sets up conditions, general policies, capacity building operational support for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) activities in the WCPO tuna fishery, yet the WCPFC does not have enforcement capacity per se and therefore relies completely on coastal and flag state enforcement actions.

Key national MCS programs and related initiatives include (NTMP 2018): ▪ Data collection policy (log sheets, landing declarations, port sampling, and observers) o Expanded data collection for tuna in municipal waters o Catch logbook requirements for all vessels o Stowage plans for carrier vessel o Landing reports o 100% Observer coverage for vessels in the high seas and other coastal states; training of 464 Observers and 90 debriefers. ▪ Traceability o BAC 251 Series of 2014 ‐ Traceability system for fish and fishery products o Implementation of Electronic Catch Documentation and Traceability System (eCDTS). ▪ Catch certification o FAO 238, Series of 2012 – Rules and regulations Governing the implementation of Council Regulation EC No. 1005/2008 on the Catch Certification Scheme ▪ Inspections o FAO 227 Series of 2008 – Rule and regulations governing the export of fish and aquatic products to European Union member‐countries o FAO 228 Series of 2008 ‐ Rules governing the organization and implementation of official controls on fishery and aquatic products intended for export to the EU market for human consumption o National Plan of Control and Inspection (NPCI) ▪ Enforcement o SO 486 dated July 15, 2011 and FOO 241 dated July 18, 2011 – Creating the BFA R Fishery Resources Protection and law Enforcement Section. o Acquisition of multi‐mission patrol vessels; o Appointment of 778 Fishery Regulatory Officers; o Training of 343 Law Enforcement Officers ▪ Adjudication of administrative penalties

201 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

o Establishment of Adjudication Committees to administer the administrative penalties systems at the national and regional levels effective 2017 o Hiring of hearing officers and legal assistants o Conduct of capacity‐building for hearing officers o Investigation of 218 cases (2017) and resolution of 184 cases (2017) o Increased collection of fines and penalties

Over the last decade the Philippines has improved its national Monitoring, Control and Surveillance systems (PEMSEA. 2018). Although operational challenges remain for municipal fisheries, 100% observer coverage in the industrial purse seine fleet operating beyond the Philippine EEZ combined with a comprehensive administrative penalty regime and sanctions outlined in various Fisheries Administrative Orders have meant that the Philippines are now generally compliant and are investigating alleged CMM violations with WCPFC CMMs by their flagged vessels.

There are instances where the Philippines are non-compliant with CMMs and investigations of alleged violations determined from observer and catch reporting have yet to be started. These include (WCPFC; 2020): ▪ CMM 2014-02 para 9a relating to VMS operation ▪ CMM 2014-02 Para (9)(a) – VMS SSPs para 2.8 relating to VMS operation ▪ CMM 2018-01, attachment C 03 timely reporting entry and exit of vessel into HSP 1. ▪ CMM 2018-01, para 16, prohibiting setting FADs during a three month FAD closure ▪ CMM 2018-01, attachment C 03 timely reporting entry and exit of vessel into HSP 1.

The NTMP (2018) notes that there may be inadequate implementation and surveillance capacities to deter fishing violations. BFAR outlines 13 actions and related performance benchmarks to improve national monitoring, control and surveillance measures in the NTMP.

LGUs are responsible Monitoring Control and Surveillance activities within municipal waters (within 15 km from the shoreline) and are charged with ensuring compliance with R.A. 10654 and Municipal Fisheries Ordinances (MFOs). A compliance system is in place municipal fishing vessels (< 3 GT). This includes a BFAR requirement to obtain vessel and gear licenses (Boat R) and a municipal registration for fishers (Fish R). The Fish R and Boat R registration process only needs to take place once. Municipal Fisheries Registration according to Executive Order 305 requires the fisherfolk to provide pertinent information before they can be lawfully allowed to engage in fishing activities. This includes demographic information and criminal history. This registration gives fishers the right to gain access to fishery resources within municipal waters and engage in fishing and fishery related activities. LGUs also issue annual fishing licenses that are essentially a license to operate a business. However, municipal fisher commitment to licensing and registration is very variable depending on fishing location. Due to cost, it is common for fisherfolks and boats to be registered, but not to have an annual license issued by the LGU. Both registration and licensing are noted as a major compliance issue in the NTMP and regional tuna

202 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report management plans. In the LGUs defined by the UoA, fishers who are members of the Fishing Associations working with PPTST, and form the UoC, are licensed and registered as required by law.

The enforcement of the fisheries regulations in municipal waters through the Bantay Dagat (Fish Warden), a community-based surveillance team which is composed of fisher’s volunteers and supported by the respective LGU and BFAR regional offices. Bantay Dagat are deputized by BFAR after undergoing mandatory training. Their enforcement activities include: ▪ Seaborne patrolling and monitoring. ▪ Surveillance and evidence collection. ▪ Regular meetings with law enforcement staff. ▪ Information, education, and communication activities related to fisheries laws and marine conservation in local communities. ▪ The detection, pursuit and apprehension of violators of fisheries laws.

Each of 21 LGUs in the UoA has Bantay Dagat acting as the Fishery Law Enforcement Team for the LGU. In national waters, the competent authorities are the National BFAR office, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Maritime group of the Philippine National Police are responsible for enforcing fishery law.

A range of sanctions may be applied in the handline fishery, including fines, confiscation of catch and imprisonment. These sanctions are specified in Municipal Fisheries Ordinances. Two contrasting approaches are uses in coastal law enforcement in Municipal Fisheries: Soft and hard. Soft approaches focus voluntary compliance among fisherfolk and include engagement in legislation and regulation, monitoring and evaluation, information management, education and outreach, and networking and alliance building. Hard approaches are reserved for when the soft approaches fail. Hard approaches include intelligence and networking, enforcement planning, enforcement operations, rules of engagement, handling of evidence, case preparation, criminal and administrative.

Hard fisheries enforcement is carried out primarily by uniformed law enforcement officers of the Philippine National Police, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) (DENR et al., 2001). Bantay Dagat activities are commonly focused on soft approaches. They may also support uniformed police in areas of intelligence gathering and documentation; monitoring; and educating fisherfolk about law enforcement and its consequences,

Review and Audit of the Management Plan

Regional

The WCPFC was subject to an external peer review (WCPFC, 2012, summarized in FAO 2015) carried out in 2012 that found the WCPFC convention is almost completely up-to-date to the most recent standards in international fisheries management. National compliance performance with the implementation of

203 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

WCPFC CMMs is assessed annually by WCPFC’s Technical Compliance Committee and reported in the Compliance Monitoring System.

An independent review has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the Scientific Committee, and adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the data and science functions. SPC papers and stock assessment methodologies are subject to occasional external review. An independent review of the WCPFC Compliance Scheme was completed in 2018 (MacKay et al. 2018).

National

The revision of the Philippines Fisheries Code (RA 10654), establishes an internal review and evaluation of the fishery-specific management system. Fisheries Administrative Orders are regularly revised and the 2018 publication of a revised National Tuna Management Plan shows that major plans are updated. At the national level statutory consultation with stakeholders is mandated by the Fisheries Code. Legislation and plans are reviewed by the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council, and Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council as appropriate or required. Stakeholders are appointed to these statutory bodies. An NGO representative has a statutory position on the NFARMCs can hold positions on MFARMCs.

Regular annual reviews of the tuna fisheries management plan for Mindoro and Lagonoy are to be prepared by BFAR for the FMA Board/IFARMs and will feed into an Annual Report on the Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf Tuna Fisheries Management Plans. There is the intent to subject the regional plans to external review. The regional tuna management plans could be modified after review of the plan or after changes in the laws governing the management organizations’ activities. This will be determined by BFAR in consultation with the FMA Board, FARMCs and tuna resource stakeholders. BFAR and the LGUs may utilize the FMA Board & FARMC mechanism to consult with stakeholders before modifying a regional tuna plan. Modification of a regional Plan will be reflected in changes of the regulations enacted in MFOs to give it legal effect.

7.4.1.4 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions

Municipal and city governments have jurisdiction over municipal waters of up to 15 kilometers from the shoreline by virtue of Philippines Fisheries Code (R.A. 8550 as amended by R.A. 10654. Other government agencies with fisheries-related functions, involved in addressing issues related to tuna fisheries management such as the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Philippine Fisheries Development Authority, Philippine Ports Authority, Department of Trade and Industry, and the Department of Foreign Affairs. The functions of these agencies include the protection of fish habitat, management of fish ports, registration of commercial fishing vessels, regulation of fish trade, and fisheries negotiations. A number of coordinating bodies have been established to facilitate the implementation of fisheries regulations and management measures. These coordinating mechanisms include the NAFC, Fisheries Aquatic Resources

204 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Management Council, Philippine Council for Aquatic and Marine Research Development, and Bantay Dagat (Sea Watch) Program.

The number of registered municipal fishing boats was approximately 259,000 in April 2018 (BFAR https://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/profile?id=9).. Municipal tuna fishing boats fish both in municipal waters (within 15 km) and beyond. Municipal fishing gears for tuna are mainly hook and line, drift gillnet and troll line. Municipal tuna fishing is carried out nationwide, with major fleets operating in , /Celebes Sea, entire Pacific seaboard including archipelagic waters of Lagonoy Gulf, Gulf, , Davao Oriental, West Philippine Sea including archipelagic waters off Antique, Occidental-Mindoro, Zambales, Ilocos Norte and Ilocos Sur (Figure XX). The number of boats specifically engaged in handline fishing for tuna in the Lagonoy Gulf is approximately 1,700 and in Mindoro Strait approximately 1,000 (pers com Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership 2020).

Figure 49. Map of the UoA fishing areas: Occidental-Mindoro Strait (lower left) and Lagonoy Gulf (lower right). Source: Partnership Program Towards Sustainable Tuna.

Lagonoy Gulf is one of the most productive fishing areas on the east coast of the Philippines. The Gulf is considered an important spawning ground for yellowfin tuna. Lagonoy Gulf covers an area of around 3,700 km² and is up to 1,200 meters deep. There are some 112 fishing villages in the 15 LGUs surrounding the Gulf.

205 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Mindoro Strait is a corridor linking the West Philippine Sea, and Sulu Sea. This corridor, which connects three productive seas, is a natural pathway for many tuna species. Mindoro covers an area of about 9,735 km2 and is the seventh biggest island in the Philippines. In , there are 28 fishing villages along the west coast which are spread across six LGUs.

7.4.1.5 Recognized Interest Groups

Interest groups include: ▪ WWF Western Central Pacific Tuna Programme ▪ WWF Smart Fishing Initiative (Global Fisheries Programme) ▪ International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) ▪ Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission ▪ Shark Advocates International ▪ Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) ▪ NFARMC ▪ Relevant industry associations ▪ WWF Philippines ▪ Rare Philippines ▪ Oceana Philippines ▪ Department of Environment and Natural Resources ▪ Provincial/Municipal Local Government Units (LGUs) with Municipal Tuna Fisheries; ▪ Law enforcement authorities such as the Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), Bantay Dagat, the Philippine Navy (PN), and the Philippine National Police (PNP), ▪ Other NGOs ▪ Other MSC tuna client groups

7.4.1.6 Arrangements for On-going Consultations

At the national level statutory consultation with stakeholders is mandated by the Fisheries Code. Legislation and plans are reviewed by the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council and Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council and the National Tuna Industry Council as appropriated or mandated. Stakeholders are appointed to these statutory bodies. An NGO representative a statutory position on the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council and MFARCs provide for NGO representation.

206 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate 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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guide There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective post legal system and a legal system and organised national legal system and framework for cooperation and effective cooperation binding procedures with other parties, where with other parties, where governing cooperation with necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver other parties which delivers management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC

The Convention of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), sets overarching conservation and management measures and policies for the Convention area. It was the first RFMO to be established following the adoption of UN Fish Stocks Agreement and many provisions draw heavily on the Agreement. It is also designed to reflect the regional political, socio-economic, geographical and environmental characteristics of the WCPO. It embodies contemporary international fisheries treaties and codes and management arrangements and CMMs implemented under the Convention are designed to deliver outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Philippines

The Philippines has ratified UNCLOS, and the PSMA. In particular, Article 8 of the UNFSA reinforces the need for States to cooperate to ensure the objective of the Agreement “to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks through effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention” is achieved.

The Philippines has implemented its obligations through a number of national laws providing the governance and policy framework for the management of fisheries. These include:

▪ The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act (RA) No. 8550 / amended by RA 10654) ▪ The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1998 (RA 8435). ▪ The Local Government Code of 1991 (RA 7160)

207 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

▪ The National Integrated Protected Areas System Act of 1992 (RA 7586)

The Fisheries Code of the Philippines RA 8550 and (most recently amended) RA 10654 sets out the overarching policies and objectives to be pursued in the management of fisheries, as well as powers to regulate municipal and commercial fisheries, aquaculture and post-harvest activity, create fisheries reserves, protect fisheries habitats and impose sanctions. The Act seeks to ensure rational and sustainable development, the effective management of fisheries resources within the EEZ and high seas and to implement Philippine obligations under international treaties, including cooperating with other States and international bodies. Importantly it adopts the precautionary principle and the concept of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management. The National Tuna Management Plan 2018 identifies compliance with WCPFC CMMs as a central goal. This commitment is also reflected in the Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf regional tuna management plans and in BFAR FAOs such as:

▪ FAO 258, Series of 2018 – Establishment of Tuna Conservation and Management Zones (TCMZ) in Mindanao/Celebes Sea. ▪ FAO 263, series of 2019 – Establishment of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA) for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries In Philippine Waters.

For municipal fisheries, jurisdiction lies with Local Government Units and they ensure compliance with the national Fisheries Code. Under Section 8, there is a framework for cooperation between BFAR and the LGUs via the legal requirement for LGUs to implement the National Fisheries Code. More specifically, harvest control rules and reference points may be established upon the approval and recommendation of special agencies and concerned LGU, in consultation with FARMCs. Furthermore, in accordance with Section 23 of the Republic Act No. 8550, when a body of water is identified to be overfished, LGU must prohibit or limit fishery activities to regenerate fishery resources.

Fisheries Management Areas and Fisheries Management Bodies created by the FAO 263, series of 2019 – Establishment of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA) for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries in Philippine Waters enhances these arrangements. BFAR, via the cooperative control of the Department of the Interior and Local Government over LGUs, has effective mechanism to strengthen the compliance of LGU’s to measures in the National Fisheries Code. The implementation of the National Tuna Management Plan and the Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf Tuna Management Plans propose specific goals and objectives that when implemented, collectively represent a harvest strategy compatible with WCPFC 2018-01 and other CMMs, including licensing, registration, effort controls, and other requirements for small-scale municipal fisheries such as the UoA.

Municipal Fisheries Ordinances

We assess 3.1.1a based on the totality of the legal framework as per SA4.3.4.3 that states that an: “effective national legal system” means that the client can provide objective evidence that most of the essential features and elements needed to deliver sustainable fisheries are present in: ▪ A coherent, logical set of practices or procedures, or

▪ Within a coherent, logical supporting ‘rule-making’ structure We would then consider this in the context of SA 4.3.3.2 regarding SG 80 scoring of consistency with laws and standards for a UOA subject to international cooperation: ▪ The existence of national and international laws, agreements and policies governing the actions of the authorities and actors involved in managing the UoA,

208 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

▪ That effective regional and/or international cooperation creates a comprehensive cooperation under the obligations of UNCLOS Articles 63(2), 64, 118, 119, and UNFSA Article 8,

▪ That cooperation shall at least deliver the intent (our emphasis) of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs relating to the collection, sharing and dissemination of scientific data, the scientific assessment of stock status and development of management advice, the agreement and delivery of management actions consistent with this sustainable management advice, and on monitoring and control, and

▪ That the flag state of fishery participants in the UoA shall be members of the relevant organisation or participants in the arrangement or agree to apply the conservation and management measures established by the organisation or arrangement if such organisation or arrangement exists.

Which is further informed by GSA43.3.2:

At SG80, organized and effective cooperation with other parties extends to UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs a, h and j, and could include for example the establishment of appropriate cooperative mechanisms for effective monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement. Also, at SG80 and SG100 the flag state(s) of vessels from the UoA should be participating with a relevant RFMO or other arrangement as Members or, if Membership is prohibited for political reasons, as cooperating non-contracting party or cooperating non-member.

The totality of the WCPFC and associated CCMs, the Philippine national legal framework for fisheries and the management of municipal fisheries by LGU s referencing GSA4.3 Legal and/or Customary Framework PI (PI 3.1.1a) meets:

▪ SG 60 as 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 1 and

▪ Meets SG 80 since, our assessment confirms that there is an effective national (and local) legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2/

SG100 is not met since the Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Regional Tuna Management Plans contain goals and objectives that are non-binding and may or may not be incorporated into Municipal Fisheries Ordinances at the LGU level. SG 100 would require binding procedures at the level of the UoA and not all LGUs have given legal recognition to these plans in their respective Municipal Fisheries Ordinances.

b Resolution of disputes

Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven appropriate to the context of to be effective. the UoA. Met? Yes Yes Yes

209 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. Essentially, this Article implements the dispute settlement arrangements established in the UNFSA and binds all WCPFC Members to those arrangements whether they are Parties to the UNFSA. These arrangements are set out in Part VIII of the Agreement where Article 30 sets out the Procedures for the Settlement of Disputes. These arrangements mirror the provisions of Part XV of UNCLOS.

In addition, the transparent decision making required under Article 21 of the Convention helps prevent disputes through annual Commission meetings, representation by stakeholders at the meetings, use of scientific advice, and negotiations at technical and policy levels on issues of importance. The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two- chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted.

Disputes at the level of the WCPFC can be rereferred the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) if they cannot be resolved in more efficient ways. This has been used by WCPFC (ITLOS Cases Nos 3 & 4 between New Zealand, Australia and Japan) in 1999.

Philippines

The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is also supported by participatory processes appropriate to the scale of the fishery as per GSA 4.3. These include detailed public consultation, including a public hearing process via the NFARMCs as appropriate. At the Municipal level the use of MFARMCs and the LGU legislative processes ensure both transparency and a comprehensive process which minimizes any possible disputes. Integrated-MFARMCs are also align management measures amongst geographically-related municipalities. FAO 196 Series of 2000 establishing FARMCs explicitly establishes a role for MFARMCs in dispute resolution among fisherfolk. Stakeholders in the system are aware of FARMC structures and feel empowered to use these as mechanisms to resolve disputes. Fishers are aware of their rights related to jurisdiction between municipal and commercial vessels and fishing on FADs.

Both the WCPFC and Philippine dispute resolution systems meets:

▪ SG 60 since the management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes arising within the system.

▪ SG 80 since The management system incorporates or is subject by law to a transparent mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the UoA.

▪ SG100 since For the WCPFC, the available evidence indicates that robust dispute resolution measures enshrined in international law. For Philippine national and municipal there are transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate to the context of the fishery and has been tested and proven to be effective. c Respect for rights

210 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Guide The management system has The management system has The management system post a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the has a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPFC recognises throughout the Convention the needs of small island developing States, and territories and possessions, in the Convention Area whose economies, food supplies and livelihoods are overwhelmingly dependent on the exploitation of marine living resources. Part XIII of the Convention lays out specific requirements. The Convention specifically recognizes that small island developing States may be dependent on the exploitation of marine living resources, including for meeting the nutritional requirements of their populations; and recognizes the need to avoid adverse impacts on, and ensure access to fisheries by, subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers and fish workers, as well as indigenous people in developing States Parties.

Philippines

The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998. the Philippine National Tuna Management Plan (2018) the Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf, and the Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan promotes conservation and management principles embodied in international fisheries agreements, the Philippine Constitution, and applicable domestic laws, regulations and policies, including protection of the rights of subsistence tuna fishermen, in both municipal and offshore fishing grounds.

Various Fisheries Administrative Orders also formally commit to the legal of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood. For example Fisheries Administrative Order 263 series of 2019 Establishment of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA) for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries in Philippine Waters reaffirms article Xlll Section 7 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution declaring that the State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. Registered fisherfolk and cooperatives shall have preferential rights to the fishery privileges issued by the municipal/city government (Sec. 17, RA 8550). In addition, Section 21 of the Fisheries Code gives priority to resident municipal fisherfolk and their organizations/cooperatives in the use of municipal and demarcated fishery areas of the municipality.

The Indigenous People’s Rights Act (IPRA) requires the state to not only respect, recognize, and protect the rights of Indigenous Peoples (IPs) but also to preserve and protect their culture, traditions, and institutions (Sec. 29).

The WCPFC and Philippine management systems meets:

211 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

▪ SG 60 since he 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;

▪ SG 80 since 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 1 and 2; and

▪ SG 100 since the management system has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. References

UNCLOS; UNFSA; PSMA WCPFC Convention; BFAR NTMP 2018; The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act (RA) No. 8550 / amended by RA 10654); The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1998 (RA 8435). BFAR FAOs and SOs, Philippine National Tuna Management Plan; Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf; and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management; Courtney et al. 2017.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant)

212 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states (in particular, Articles 23 – Obligations of members of the Commission and 24 – Flag State duties) and the key committees formed under Commission control (Scientific Committee and Technical and Compliance Committee). CMMs provide clear requirements for such things as sharing information, meeting obligations, conservation measures, and applying appropriate levels of surveillance and enforcement.

Philippines

The Fisheries Code (RA 8550/10654) sets out the institutional and consultative structure for the implementation of the Act. This includes the creation of a Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), which has overall responsibility for fisheries management at the national level, and Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs), whose function is to assist in the formulation of policies and plans for the management and development of fisheries and in the enforcement of fisheries laws. The Fisheries Code also establishes a National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI) to undertake research and deliver training in fisheries technology.. The National Tuna Management Plan (2018) establishes clear roles and responsibilities for meeting short- and medium-term tuna management objectives.

FARMCs are established at four levels – local, municipal, provincial and national – and comprise government, fishers, fish workers, NGO and academic representatives. “Integrated” FARMCs are also established in bays and

213 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

other systems that span two or more municipalities to ensure consistency in management approaches. LGUs play an important part in implementing municipal arrangements based on advice from FARMCs.

These structures are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas and therefore provide clear roles and responsibilities for those involved. Roles are and responsibilities are clearly articulated in FAO and MFOs and in regional tuna fishery management plans for Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait.

For the Philippines and WCPFC:

▪ Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are generally understood meeting SG 60.

▪ Organisations 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 meeting SG 80; and

▪ Organisations 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 meeting SG 100. b Consultation processes

Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek relevant information from and accept relevant and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, to knowledge. The knowledge. The inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC

The management/decisions making system of the WCPFC involves annual meetings of the Commission, which are proceeded by meetings of the two key subsidiary committees – the Scientific Committee and the Technical and Compliance Committee. There are also extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the regional level. These processes regularly seek and accept relevant information in relation to the management of the fishery and the outcomes of most of these processes demonstrate consideration of the information.

Information derived from the members and the inputs from subsidiary committees and specialist working groups is used by decision-makers and such consideration forms the basis for the decisions of the WCPFC. These processes seek and accept information and demonstrate consideration of the information. Scientific reports state exactly what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information which is

214 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

rejected. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported.

Philippines

At the national and municipal level no decision can be taken on management matters without prior consultation, through Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils. Various mechanisms have been established by the government to be used as avenues for public consultation, that seek and accept the input of local knowledge and the dissemination of information. Minutes of consultative meetings are regularly published on the BFAR website and from MFARMCs. FARMCs (and MFARMCs/IFARMC for municipal fisheries) provide the key avenue for consultation that do seek and accept the input of local knowledge that then forms the basis of local government laws and policies..

SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met by WCPFC and Philippines since regional, national and municipal management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management systems at all levels demonstrate consideration of the information obtained. However, SG 100 is not met because the management systems cannot demonstrate that they explain how they use or not use such information in decisions.

c Participation

Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

This Scoring Issue considers whether appropriate consultation processes are in place to ensure interested parties can participate in decision making. The primary level of decision-making is at the regional level, the WCPFC, however as the Members make decisions, individual flag States need to provide for stakeholder involvement in developing national positions and resulting measures/legislation.

WCPFC

The WCPFC has a comprehensive governance structure that provides for Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members. It also allows observers (intergovernmental and non-government) to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the SC, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee (although they are restricted from some sections of some of these meetings). All relevant Small Island Developing States are members or participating territories and additional access and support is provided through the participation of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency. Attendance at Commission and related meetings is comprehensive, and logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance, meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management.

215 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Philippines

All interested and affected parties may be involved in national and regional/local consultation processes. The development and revision of national laws. the National Tuna Management Plan, municipal fisheries ordinaces and regional tuna management plans is done in consultation with a range of stakeholders and partners. Regulatory decisions are made following public consultation, through public hearing and with the input of representative organisation such as Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs) and National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (NFARMC) as mandated in the Fisheries Code. Various mechanisms are used for public consultation and dissemination of information, such as national and municipal and integrated FARMCs, industry associations and fisherfolk organizations.

SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met at the WCPFC and Philippine national and municipal levels. The consultation process(es) provide opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement

References

WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure; Medley et al. 2020; The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998 (Republic Act No. 8550 / amended by RA 10654); The Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1998 (RA 8435). BFAR FAOs and SOs. Philippine National Tuna Management Plan; Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf; and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan; Courtney et al. 2017.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 95

Condition number (if relevant)

216 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes Partial

Rationale

WCPFC The WCPF Convention provides clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. These are explicit at a range of levels, including within applicable CMMs, and national laws and plans of the Philippines.

While the precautionary approach is a stated requirement for WCPFC, in practice it is less clear that the precautionary approach is applied uniformly or consistently across member decisions. Earlier stock assessments in 2010, 2011 and 2014 indicated that bigeye fishing mortality exceeded levels consistent with MSY. While precautionary limit reference points have since been set and CMMs updated, clear precautionary action that sufficiently reduced exploitation levels were not evident before an updated assessment indicated that the stock was in better condition than previously thought.

Philippines The Philippine National Tuna Management Plan 2018 defines conservation and management principles embodied in international fisheries agreements, the Philippine Constitution, and applicable domestic laws, regulations and policies. It includes broad objectives (e.g. to maintain tuna catches at sustainable levels; to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing) to guide decision making and also has as one of its Principles the precautionary approach. The NTMP 2018 applies to all form of municipal and commercial fishing for tuna. It contains explicit fishery specific and measurable long-term objectives, outcomes or activities which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

The Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan promote clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Fisheries Standards. These plans include requirements and activities to be addressed at the regional, national and local level. FAO 263, series of 2019 – Establishment of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA) for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries in Philippine Waters enhances these arrangements by providing for a science-based, participatory and transparent governance framework and mechanism to sustainably manage fisheries in such FMAs, consistent with the principles of EAFM anchored on food security, and supplementary livelihood for poverty alleviation.

Overall:

217 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

▪ SG 60 is met since long-term objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are implicit within management policy;

▪ SG 80 is met since clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy; and

▪ SG 100 is only partially met since while clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are explicit within management policy the precautionary approach is not required in Municipal Fisheries Ordinances at the LGU level. References

WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure; Medley et al. 2020; Philippine National Tuna Management Plan; Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf; and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management plan

Morgan, S., Morison, A., and Meere, F. Western Pacific Sustainable Tuna Alliance (WPSTA) Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine MSC Fishery Assessment Report, SCS Global Services, 2018.

Morison, A., and McLoughlin, K. Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE), MSC Full Assessment: Final Report. SCS Global Services, 2015.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 90

Condition number (if relevant)

218 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.1 – Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable post broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management specific management 1 and 2, are explicit within the system. system. fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPFC is responsible for the sustainability and management of target stocks and for considering and minimizing the impact of the fishery on ecosystem components. Hence the focus for evaluation against this PI are the WCPFC arrangements, and specifically the relevant CMMs as implemented by PNA arrangements and Flag States.

The WCPF Convention offers guidance and principles on which the management plans might be based. This includes long-term objectives which apply to target stocks, and the ecosystem. Though explicit these long term principles and objectives are relatively general and covered under PI 3.1.3. These objectives have been used in developing scientific advice and conservation measures that that constitute short term objectives.

There are a large number of WCPFC CMMs that relate directly to P1 and P2 outcomes, developed with the support of both the Scientific Committee and Technical and Compliance Committee and aiming to deliver specific conservation and/or management outcomes. For example, CMM 2018-01 (the Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean) includes explicit and measurable operational objectives for all three key tuna species. For example, CMM 2018-01 paragraph 51 incorporates measures to manage “Other Commercial” tuna fishing that relates to the UoA stating (WCPFC 2020a):

CCMs shall take necessary measures to ensure that the total catch of their respective other commercial tuna fisheries for bigeye, yellowfin or skipjack tuna, but excluding those fisheries taking less than 2,000 tonnes of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack, shall not exceed either the average level for the period 2001-2004 or the level of 2004.

219 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The Scientific Committee produced a report in 2020 documenting other commercial catches in Philippine waters showing that the Philippines met these catch limits for the large-fish handline fishery in 2018 and 2018. (WCPFC 2020b).

WCPFC members also report against a number of indicators, including detailed performance reporting of progress against specific WCPFC CMM’s, as part of their obligations through Part 2 Annual Reporting.

Philippines

The Philippine National Tuna Management Plan 2018 defines conservation and management principles embodied in international fisheries agreements, the Philippine Constitution, and applicable domestic laws, regulations and policies. It includes broad objectives (e.g. to maintain tuna catches at sustainable levels; to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing). The NTMP 2018 applies to all form of municipal and commercial fishing for tuna. It contains explicit fishery specific and measurable short-term objectives, outcomes or activities which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

The Tuna Fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan have been approved by the Lagonoy Gulf IFARMC and Mindoro Strait IFARMC respectively, consistent with Section 16 of the Philippine Fisheries Code (1998). The Plan has general goals and objectives covering the sustainable level of tuna production, the Improved condition of fisherfolk and equitable access to tuna resources and Strengthening the governance/management of tuna fisheries. These are supported by monitoring and evaluation plans containing benchmarks, indicators, management actions/measures and proposed outcomes. The plans also assign specific tasks, responsible agencies and timelines for the objectives under the main goals. However, though both regional management plans have been agreed at the IFAMC level, they have yet to be ratified by individual LGUs in each region and therefore the implementation framework of the regional tuna management plans is not explicit. Though some LGU’s have adopted the regional management plans, remaining LGU’s ultimately need to adopt these plans to demonstrate implementation.

SG 60 is met as short and long-term 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. However, the standing of the regional tuna management plans within each of the LGUs is unclear. This means it cannot be concluded that short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit (our emphasis) within the fishery-specific management system. Therefore, SG80 is not met. Since SG 80 is not met, SG 100 cannot be met.

References

Banks et al. 2011; BFAR FAO 244, 245 series; Medley et al. 2020; Morison et al. 2015; Morgan et al. 2018.; Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management plan; Philippine National Tuna Management Plan; Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf; WCPFC 2020a; 2020b).

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

220 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score 60

Condition number (if relevant) 7

221 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.2 The 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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPFC sets the arrangements that result in measures and strategies being developed aimed at achieving fishery-specific objectives. The decision-making processes have resulted in a comprehensive set of CMMs and strategies to achieve the specific objectives for the purse seine fishery. Flag and coastal states are required to implement binding CMMs developed by the Commission. There is a process that can be immediately triggered for fisheries-related issues, the process has been triggered in the past and has led to decisions about sustainability in the fishery. The WCPF Convention provides direct guidance on decision-making, review of decisions and dispute settlement. Decision-making is generally open and seeks to use the best available information with advice being channelled via the SC and TCC. Decisions are documented. Decision-making by the Commission is by consensus; however, if consensus cannot be reached a system of voting, as detailed in the Convention, can be applied. There is no opting out procedure, but members may require an independent review of a decision to ensure it is consistent with the Convention and management objectives. The Convention provides clear guidance in relation to overarching fisheries management arrangements, which requires that the precautionary approach be applied consistent with Articles 5 and 6 as well as Annex II of the UNFSA. The Convention also requires the use of the best scientific information available and CMMs be based on ecosystem- based fisheries management. Decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives are well documented and established at the WCPFC, are recognised by stakeholders, and are durable. Therefore, both SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

Philippines

The Fisheries Code sets out the institutional and consultative structure for the implementation of the Act. This includes the creation of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils (FARMCs), Municipal FARMCs and Integrated FARMCs whose function is to assist in the formulation of policies and plans for the management and development of fisheries and in the enforcement of fisheries laws. This occurs at the local, regional and national level. The system provides a highly structured consultation/decision making process. There is evidence that the NFARMCs; MFARMCs and IFAMCs have been operational in developing management decisions for the UoA. The fishery-specific management system that is currently in place for tuna fisheries in the Philippines is laid out in the

222 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

NTMP (2018). There is evidence that the NFARMC, MFARMCs and IFARMCs are functional and have a clearly established role in decision-making processes and is active and therefore effective in making responsive decisions.

The WCPFC and Philippines decision making processes meet:

▪ SG 60 since there are some decision-making processes in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives; and

▪ SG 80 since there are established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes post respond to serious issues respond to serious and other respond to all issues identified in relevant important issues identified in identified in relevant research, monitoring, relevant research, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, monitoring, evaluation and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WPFC

WCPFC decision-making processes allow consideration of serious and important issues through its committees (SC and TCC) and at the Commission itself. Stock assessments and other studies presented at the SC identify serious issues which need to be considered at the regional level. These issues are addressed through agreed CMMs. The system allows Commission members to be fully informed of the issues under consideration and enable participation in informed decision- making.

Philippines

BFAR consultation processes are strong and there is a good structure for decision making. Progress has been made by BFAR in adopting Fisheries Administrative Orders as compatible measures to WCPFC CMMs, e.g. Philippines agree to take measures not to increase catches by their vessels of yellowfin tuna. Also, the NTMP 2018 establishes goals and measurable performance metrics to achieve catch levels through science-and rules- based management as guided by the WCPFC CMM.

There is evidence that the Philippines has been responsive at a national level to serious deficiencies in the Fisheries Code which it amended in 2014 to create Republic Act 10654 “An act to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Republic Act 8550. Management at the LGU/municpal level appears to respond to serious and other important issues via MFARMCs and IFARMCs taking transparent decisions that are translated into municipal ordinances and other actions, though the formal process for doing this is less well defined than at the national level.

223 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

The WCPFC and Philippines at the national and local level have decision-making processes that meet:

▪ SG 60 since they 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; and

▪ SG 80 since they 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.

Neither of the jurisdictions have decision-making process that demonstrably respond to “all” issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, so SG100 is not met

c Use of precautionary approach

Guide Decision-making processes post use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Yes

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPF Convention requires that CCMs, directly and through the Commission, apply the precautionary approach. The Convention, in its compliance with UNFSA requirements, requires that Commission be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and does not use the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (Medley et al. 2020). In all cases, decisions are required to be based on the best scientific information available per the WCPF Convention text, and the Commission makes adequate provision for this to be achieved. There is evidence of WCPFC using the precautionary approach in limiting the expansion of various fisheries, such as Southern Pacific Albacore, pending further development of management plans.

Philippines

The Philippine National Tuna Management Plan 2018 and The Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan promotes conservation and management principles embodied in international fisheries agreements, including Ecosystem Approaches to Fisheries Management that incorporate the precautionary approach and best available information. Less clear is how the precautionary approach is actually used in decision making processes, especially at the local level. Science advisory groups do operate at the local level and decisions appear to be based on best available information.

Based on the above information it is clear decision-making processes for the WCPFC are based on precautionary approach and use the best available information, meeting SG 80. At the national and local level in the Philippines legislation and management plans demonstrate evidence of the use precautionary approach and best available information appears to inform decisions at the national and local level. Therefore SG 80 is met.

224 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guide Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPFC formally posts information related to research, monitoring, evaluation and performance review on its website. Plenary Commission reports are also available from the website. These papers and reports provide a good level of transparency, showing how information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission level. The readily available information allows for stakeholder review and input to these processes.

However, the available reports do not provide all the information used (for example National Part 2 Reports provided to the TCC are not publicly available) and often decisions provide minimal justification.

Philippines

At least a general summary of information on compliance and fisheries management decisions is available online. For example, Fisheries Administrative Orders are available for download, and compliance with WCPFC CMMs is readily available in WCPFC meeting documents. Information on fishery performance and management action at the local and regional level is limited, however NFARMCs., FARMCs, IFARMCs. and NTIC meeting minutes are available on request.

Overall, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met for the WCPFC however, not all information is publicly available (e.g. WCPFC Part 2 Country Reports) and information is not comprehensive for all elements of the management system or available to all interested stakeholders, therefore SG100 is not met.

For the Philippines though information is generally available on request to stakeholders meeting SG 60. National, Municipal and Integrated FARMCs supported by regional BFAR offices and other agencies as appropriate, make available to stakeholders information on the fishery’s performance and management action 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. SG80 is therefore met. However, it is not clear that there is formal reporting to all interested stakeholders that provides comprehensive information on the fishery’s

225 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

performance and management actions and describes how the management system responded. Therefore SG 100 is not met.

e Approach to disputes

Guide Although the management The management system or The management system or post authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not with judicial decisions arising rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or from any legal challenges. decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC

The primary management system for assessment under this Scoring Issue is the WCPFC. As the overarching management authority, the Commission process is collaborative, serving to develop and implement management arrangements, and monitor member compliance. WCPFC Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members are party to all decisions at the WCPFC through ongoing participation in the SC, the TCC, and WCPFC annual meetings. Disputes/disagreements are typically resolved either during the iterative development of new management measures, including CMM’s, or for more formal matters via negotiation at WCPFC annual meetings.

The Commission has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. The WPFC is not subject to any court challenges as of 2020. It does not indicate any disrespect or defiance of the law through repeated violations. There is no evidence that other entities flout the law, with the the exception of particular fishing companies and fishing vessels, which are listed on the IUU fishing list or in annual Compliance Monitoring Reports. Therefore, excluding these, WCPFC, its parties and cooperating non- members meet SG60. SG 80 is met since The management system is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges. By resolving disputes through WCPFC meetings the Parties and cooperating non-members have pro-actively avoided legal disputes meeting SG100.

Philippines

The Philippines management arrangements for the UoA are consistent with both WCPFC arrangements and are also given effect via FAOs and MFOs. The Philippines participates actively in WCPFC meetings and arrangements are negotiated with key stakeholders (including during development and ongoing implementation of the National Tuna Management Plan and local tuna management plans for Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait

Rules of Procedure for the Adjudication of Fisheries Law Cases (RPAC) took effect in 2017. However, there is limited information available to determine if the UOA has been subject to any legal disputes and how it has responded to those disputes. Any investigative proceedings are confidential, and the outcomes of adjudication

226 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

hearings are not made public, though the total number of investigations and resolved cases are. SG 60 is met since 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

There is additional evidence that the Philippine tuna management system is attempting to comply in a timely fashion with judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges meeting SG 80 guidelines. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that it acts proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly implements judicial decisions arising from legal challenges and therefore does SG 100 is not met.

References

BFAR FAO and Rules ; Medley et al. 2020; BFAR National Tuna Management Plan 2018, Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf; and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management plan,.Ramos 2017; WCPF Convention; WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

227 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has been monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented implemented in the fishery surveillance system has been in the fishery and there is a and has demonstrated an implemented in the fishery reasonable expectation that ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

WCPFC

At the WCPFC level there is a well-developed MCS system that, when applied appropriately, results in effective compliance with management arrangements. The basis of this system for the WCPFC is its Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS). The CMS is a contemporary, integrated framework to ensure that Members, Cooperating Non- Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) implement and comply with obligations arising under the Convention, as well as CMMs adopted by the Commission. The CMS is designed to:

▪ assess CCMs’ compliance with their obligations; ▪ identify areas in which technical assistance or capacity building may be needed to assist CCMs to attain compliance; ▪ identify aspects of conservation and management measures which may require refinement or amendment for effective implementation; ▪ respond to non-compliance through remedial options that include a range of possible responses that take account of the reason for and degree of non-compliance, and include cooperative capacity- building initiatives and, in case of serious non-compliance, such penalties and other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to promote compliance with CMMs and other Commission obligations; and ▪ monitor and resolve outstanding instances of non-compliance. It covers requirements relating to: ▪ catch and effort limits for target species; ▪ catch and effort reporting for target species; ▪ reporting including with respect to implementation of measures for non-target species; ▪ spatial and temporal closures, and restrictions on the use of fish aggregating devices; ▪ authorizations to fish and the Record of Fishing Vessels, observer, VMS coverage, transhipment and the High Seas Boarding and Inspection Scheme;

228 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

▪ provision of scientific data through the Part 1 Annual Report (and its addendum) and the Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission; and; ▪ submission of the Part 2 Annual Report, including compliance with the obligations in paragraph 36, and compliance with other Commission reporting deadlines.

WCPFC members are required to submit annual TCC reports reflecting the status of fishery compliance in the WCPFC. TCC summary reports publicly identify member compliance (or non- compliance).

Philippines

Key national MCS programs and related initiatives include (NTMP 2018):

▪ Data collection policy (log sheets, landing declarations, port sampling, and observers) o Expanded data collection for tuna in municipal waters o Catch logbook requirements for all vessels o Stowage plans for carrier vessel o landing reports o 100% Observer coverage for vessels in the high seas and other coastal states; training of 464 Observers and 90 debriefers. ▪ Traceability o BAC 251 Series of 2014 ‐ Traceability system for fish and fishery products o Implementation of Electronic Catch Documentation and Traceability System (eCDTS). ▪ Catch certification o FAO 238, Series of 2012 – Rules and regulations Governing the implementation of Council Regulation EC No. 1005/2008 on the Catch Certification Scheme ▪ Inspections o FAO 227 Series of 2008 – Rule and regulations governing the export of fish and aquatic products to European Union member‐countries o FAO 228 Series of 2008 ‐ Rules governing the organization and implementation of official controls on fishery and aquatic products intended for export to the EU market for human consumption o National Plan of Control and Inspection (NPCI) ▪ Enforcement o SO 486 dated July 15, 2011 and FOO 241 dated July 18, 2011 – Creating the BFAR Fishery Resources Protection and law Enforcement Section. o Acquisition of multi‐mission patrol vessels; o Appointment of 778 Fishery Regulatory Officers; o Training of 343 Law Enforcement Officers ▪ Adjudication of administrative penalties o Establishment of Adjudication Committees to administer the administrative penalties systems at the national and regional levels effective 2017 o Hiring of hearing officers and legal assistants

229 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

o Conduct of capacity‐building for hearing officers o Investigation of 218 cases (2017) and resolution of 184 cases (2017) o Increased collection of fines and penalties

Over the last decade the Philippines has improved its national Monitoring, Control and Surveillance systems (PEMSEA. 2018). A compliance system is in place for municipal vessels (< 3 GT). This includes BFAR registration (Boat R) and a municipal registration for fishers (Fish R) and the requirement to obtain gear licenses (Boat R). However, commitment to licensing and registration is very variable in each fishing location and the arrangements can not demonstrate an ability to effectively enforce these rules in the overall handline fishery in the municipalities defined by the UoA: fishers who are part of the Fishing Associations working with PPTST are licensed and registered as required by law (the scope of the UoA cannot be constrained to only these participants because there is a requirements for P3 to be scored at the scale of the “fishery-specific” system, which must include all Tuna handline fishers within the relevant LGUs comprising the UoA).

The Occidental-Mindoro Strait local tuna management plan states (p.28): On the aspect of governance relative to the management of tuna fisheries in the Strait, NSAP data showed that the bottlenecks is on the compliance to the increasing management measures and other requirements of RFMOs, by-catch and catching sharks and the concern for the high number of tuna fishing vessels unlicensed and high percentage of catch production from tuna handline fisheries coming from the unlicensed fishing operation. Similar comments can be found in the Lagonoy Gulf Strait local tuna management plan.

An issue of relevance to the UoA are dated, and inconsistent MCS provisions in Municipal Fisheries Ordinances for LGUs in both Lagonoy Gulf and Mindoro Strait. BFAR led efforts are underway to encourage LGUs to adopt an integrated Municipal Fisheries Ordinance that would create a unified MCS across all LGUs in the UoA.

SG 60 is met since monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, and are implemented in the fishery and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. However, SG 80 is not met because although a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery it has not demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- post compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC The WCPFC Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS), as part of the TCC processes, is relevant to performance against this scoring issue. The TCC discusses compliance issues based on available information on infringements from observers and other sources. These discussions are held in closed session. Responses to infringements are considered at the TCC and reported to the Commission in the Compliance Monitoring Summary Report. This report provides a reporting matrix describing compliance with CMMs by CCM. Additional detail on the compliance status of each flag State has been added in recent years. The annual compliance summary report still does not provide information on outcomes of investigations by flag state agencies into non-compliance, nor

230 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

specific cases, such that a reader may judge whether non-compliance is dealt with consistently (SCS 2017) or deterred appropriately. The CMS is currently not a sanctioning tool but provides information on non- compliance and may provide some deterrence in so far as flag States would not wish to be rated non-compliant or priority non-compliance over time.

The only other significant tool directly available to the WCPFC is the IUU Vessel list, which is aimed at vessels presumed to have carried out IUU fishing. Where IUU fishing is detected, flag States are notified and asked to take appropriate enforcement action, including ensuring that the vessel leaves the Convention area. At present, there are three vessels on the IUU Vessel list.

Philippines

A range of sanctions may be applied in the handline fishery, including fines, confiscation of catch and imprisonment. These sanctions are specified in Municipal Fisheries Ordinances. Two contrasting approaches are uses in coastal law enforcement in Municipal Fisheries: Soft and hard. Soft approaches focus voluntary compliance among fisherfolk and include engagement in legislation and regulation, monitoring and evaluation, information management, education and outreach, and networking and alliance building. Hard approaches are reserved for when the soft approaches fail. Hard approaches include intelligence and networking, enforcement planning, enforcement operations, rules of engagement, handling of evidence and case preparation leading to criminal and administrative sanctions.

Hard fisheries enforcement is carried out primarily by uniformed law enforcement officers of the Philippine National Police, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG), and Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) (DENR et al., 2001). Bantay Dagat activities are commonly focused on soft approaches. They may also support uniformed police in areas of intelligence gathering and documentation; monitoring; and educating fisherfolk about law enforcement and its consequences.

Evidence was presented of sanctions (soft and hard) being applied in municipal fisheries in both Laganoy Gulf and Mindoro Strait. Anecdotal evidence during the site visit supported the conclusion were effective in deterring non- compliance especially repeat and serious offences.

SG 60 is met since sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied.SG 80 is met because sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. SG 100 is not met because while sanctions are thought to provide effective deterrence,, there is insufficient evidence to conclude they demonstrably provide effective deterrence.

c Compliance

Guide Fishers are generally thought Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery. Met? Yes No No

231 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

WCPFC

In relation to the UoA and for this Scoring Issue, the appropriate management system is that of the WCPFC and the suite of MCS arrangements implemented under the Convention. Individual flag States play an important role in ensuring arrangements are complied with at the individual fisher level and from an overall flag State performance perspective, however the overall efficiency and effectiveness of management arrangements rests with the WCPFC.

All WCPFC Members and in this case the Philippines, are bound to implement all WCPFC CMMs. Any detected non-compliance with these arrangements is reported in National Part 2 Country Reports and annually assessed by the TCC. CCMs performance is reported in the Compliance Monitoring Report and available to the Commission. A review of the 2019 CMR indicates that identified non-compliance with CMMs by some flags, including the Philippines and vessels which remains a problem.

In any large commercial fishery, some level of non-compliance is expected. Nonetheless, the WCPFC has a comprehensive MCS system in place supported by at-sea compliance monitoring and very high levels of coverage by trained scientific observers. This is recognised as contributing to generally strong compliance outcomes and improving the quality of both catch and effort and ecosystem related data collection. The MCS system also requires that logbook and other data be supplied as part of licence requirements.

The TCC reports, observer reports, logbook and other data requirements and regional MCS operations coordinated by FFA, provide reliable evidence that there is compliance with the management system.

Philippines

The Philippines are fully compliant with reporting scientific and operational (catch and effort) fishing data to the WCPFC, recognizing that improvements are required in the reporting of data from municipal tuna fisheries.

The enforcement of the fisheries regulations in municipal waters is through the Bantay Dagat (Fish Warden), a community-based surveillance team which is composed of fisher’s volunteers and supported by the respective LGU and BFAR regional offices. Bantay Dagat are deputized by BFAR after undergoing mandatory training. Their enforcement activities include:

▪ Seaborne patrolling and monitoring.

▪ Surveillance and evidence collection.

▪ Regular meetings with law enforcement staff.

▪ Information, education, and communication activities related to fisheries laws and marine conservation in local communities.

▪ The detection, pursuit and apprehension of violators of fisheries laws.

Each of 21 LGUs in the UoA has Bantay Dagat acting as the Fishery Law Enforcement Team for the LGU. In national waters, the competent authorities are the National BFAR office, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Maritime group of the Philippine National Police are responsible for enforcing fishery law.

232 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Other significant operational compliance challenges remain for municipal fisheries. The available information suggests that compliance with the system of registration, licensing and catch reporting is variable and improvements need to be made across the range of the PPTST landing sites and all tuna handline fishers in the LGUs within scope of the UoA. There is evidence available that PPTST fishers comply with catch reporting, facilitated by WWF, but there is also evidence that other municipal handline fishers do not. For example, in Lagonoy Gulf in October 2020 some 20% of municipal tuna vessels are unregistered, while for Mindoro Strait 10% of municipal tuna vessels are estimated to be unregistered. Figures for municipal tuna vessels without an annual license are higher. In October 2020, 78% of tuna vessels were unlicensed in Lagonoy Gulf and 25% were unlicensed in Mindoro Strait.

SG60 is met because there is evidence to show that fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

However, SG 80 is not met because insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

d Systematic non-compliance

Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance. Met? Yes

Rationale

Although the Langony local tuna management plan and the Occidental-Mindoro Gulf local tuna management plan express concern about the high number of unlicensed tuna fishing vessels and high percentage of catch production from tuna handline fisheries coming from the unlicensed fishing operation, there is no evidence of systematic noncompliance with Municipal Fisheries Ordinances more broadly. Municipal fisherfolk in the Philippines are among the lowest income of all economic sectors and most offences for operating an unlicensed vessel are driven by poverty. As a result, SG 80 is met.

References

Catedrilla et al. 2012; Medley et al. 2020; National Tuna Management Plan 2018; Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf; Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan, PEMSEA 2018. ; WCPFC TCC minutes, WCPFC 2019 Final Compliance Monitoring Report WCPFC-2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information insufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 70

233 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Condition number (if relevant) 8

234 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPFC has well developed arrangements to provide a range of information to the Secretariat and Commission Members, via the work of the Scientific Committee, and the Technical and Compliance Committee. Both these committees are established by the Convention, which sets out the functions for each. Both have key roles to play in monitoring and evaluating key parts of the fishery-specific management system.

Philippines

MFARMCs are subject to performance review by BFAR, linked to a recognition of outstanding achievement. The review process includes: Promoting awareness on conservation, management and sustainable development of the municipal waters; encouraging active participation in the implementation of the MFARMCs decisions; enhancing partnership between LGUs, other line agencies and the fishing community in the management of fisheries and coastal resources; finding ways to improve performance; and defining FARMC standards for nationwide implementation.

The National Tuna Management Plan 2018, Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf and Occidental- Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan contain explicit mechanisms to evaluate the key measures in the plans. The plans include explicit goals and objectives, a clear implementation plan and a monitoring and evaluation plan including baseline and target benchmarks.

SG 60 is met since there are mechanisms in place to evaluate some parts of the fishery-specific management system. SG 80 is met for the WCPFC and the Philippines because mechanisms are in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system. SG 100 is not met because there are not mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts of the fishery-specific management system.

b Internal and/or external review

Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional internal subject to regular internal subject to regular internal review. and external review.

235 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

and occasional external review. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC

The WCPFC was subject to an external peer review (carried out in 2012 that found the WCPFC convention is almost completely up-to-date to the most recent standards in international fisheries management. National compliance performance with the implementation of WCPFC CMMs is assessed annually by WCPFC’s Technical Compliance Committee and reported in the Compliance Monitoring System.

An independent review has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the Scientific Committee, and adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the data and science functions. SPC papers and stock assessment methodologies are subject to occasional external review. An independent review of the WCPFC Compliance Scheme was completed in 2018 (MacKay et al. 2018).

Philippines

The revision of the Philippines Fisheries Code (RA 10654), establishes an internal review and evaluation of the fishery-specific management system. Further evidence is provided by the regular updates of Fisheries Administrative Orders and the recent publication of a revised National Tuna Management Plan. At the national level statutory consultation with stakeholders is mandated by the Fisheries Code. Legislation and plans are reviewed by the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council, Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council and Municipal Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council as appropriate or mandated. Stakeholders are appointed to these statutory bodies. An NGO representative a statutory position on the National Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council. External review of programmes occasionally occurs as part of international assistance projects or by academic institutions. As an example of this is the West Pacific East Asia Project to improve tuna management in Vietnamese, Indonesian and Philippine waters (WCPFC 2019d).

The fishery-specific management system is subject to occasional internal review. So SG 60 is met SG 80 is met because the fishery-specific management system of the WPFC and Philippines is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. SG 100 is not met because the systems are not subject to regular internal and external review.

References

Independent Review of the Commission’s Transitional Science Structure and Functions – MRAG 2009.; MacKay et al. 2018; Medley et al. 2020; National Tuna Management Plan 2018; Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf; and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan; WCPFC Performance Review 2012; WCPFC meeting documents

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

236 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 SCS Global Services Report

Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score 80

Condition number (if relevant)

237 Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1

8 References

Allain V., Griffiths S., Bell J. and Nicol S. 2015. Monitoring the pelagic ecosystem effects of different levels of fishing effort on the western Pacific Ocean warm pool. Issue-specific national report. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia. Allain V., Nicol S., Essington T., Okey T. Olson R.J. & Kirby D. 2007. An Ecopath with Ecosim model of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean warm pool pelagic ecosystem. Third regular session of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 13-24 Aug. 2007. Honolulu, USA. WCPFC-SC3 – EB SWG/IP-8: 1-42. Allain, V., S. Nicol, J. Polovina, M. Coll, R. Olson, S. Griffiths, J. Dambacher, J. Young, J. J. Molina, S. Hoyle, T. Lawson, J. Bell. 2011. Report of the international workshop on opportunities for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-IP-04. Seventh Regular Session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee. 9-17 August 2011 Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. P. 11. Banks R., Clark L., Huntington T., Lewis T. and Hough A. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd.

Banks, R. & M. Zaharia (2020). Characterization of the costs and benefits related to lost and/or abandoned Fish Aggregating Devices in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Report produced by Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd. for The Pew Charitable Trusts. 25th January 2020. 97 pp. Available online: https://consult-poseidon.com/fishery- reports/Poseidon_Pew1514_FAD%20final%20report_270120.pdf.

BFAR. 2009. National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources. http://www.mwwphilippines.org/ downloads/NPOA-Shark-PH-2009.pdf

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) 2018. National Tuna Management Plan. Department of Agriculture‐ Bureau of Fisheries and AquaƟc Resources. Manila, Philippines. 92 pages. https://www.bfar.da.gov.ph/files/img/photos/NTMP-ForPublication.pdf

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR)- National Fisheries Research and Development Institute. 2017. Sharks and Rays “Pating” at “Pagi” Philippine Status Report and National Plan of Action 2017-2022, Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources - National Fisheries Research and Development Institute - Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) GmbH on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety, Quezon City, Philippines. 176 pages.

Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR); regarding shark fins established a Ban on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing, possessing, transport and exploration of dolphins.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 238

SCS Global Services Report

Catedrilla, L.C., Espectato, L.N., Serofia, G.D. and Jimenez, C.N., 2012. Fisheries law enforcement and compliance in District 1, Iloilo Province, Philippines. Ocean & coastal management, 60, pp.31-37.

Courtney, C. A., Jhaveri, N. J., Pomeroy, R., & Brooks, S. H. (2016). Marine tenure and small-scale fisheries: Learning from the Philippines experience, Washington, DC: USAID Tenure and Global Climate Change Program. FAO 193. Ban on the taking or catching, selling, purchasing and possessing, transporting and exporting.

FAO 244 series of 2012 National Tuna Fish Aggregating Device (FAD) Management Policy.

FAO 258 series of 2018 - Establishment of Tuna Conservation And Management Zones (TCMZ) in the Mindanao/Celebes Sea

FAO 263, series of 2019 – Establishment of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA) for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries in Philippine Waters

Griffiths, S.P., Allain, V., Hoyle, S.D., Lawson, T.A. & S.J. Nicol (2019). Just a FAD ? Ecosystem impacts of tuna purse‐seine fishing associated with fish aggregating devices in the western Pacific Warm Pool Province. Fisheries Oceanography, V. 28, pp. 94-112.

ISC. July 2020. Stock Assessment of Albacore Tuna in the North Pacific Ocean. http://www.isc.fra.go.jp/pdf/ISC20/ISC20_ANNEX12_Stock_Assessment_Report_for_Albacore_Tuna _in_NorthPacific.pdf

Lagonoy Gulf Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (2017) Tuna Fisheries Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf December 2017

MacKay, D., A. Wright and C . Rogers 2018. Final Report From The Independent Panel To Review The Compliance Monitoring Scheme. WCPFC15-2018-26 https://www.wcpfc.int/node/32675

McKechnie, S., Hampton, J., Abascal, F., Davies, N., Harley, S.J. 2015. Sensitivity of WCPO stock assessment results to the inclusion of EPO dynamics within a Pacific-wide analysis. WCPFC-SC11-2015/SA-WP-04.

McKechnie S., Hampton J., Pilling, G. and Davies, N. (2016). Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-04.

McKechnie, S., Pilling, G., and Hampton, J. (2017a). Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-05, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 9–17 August 2017.

Medley, P.A.H. J. Gascoigne and J. Akroyd. 2020. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 7). ISSF Technical Report 2020- 09. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington.D.C., USA.

Morgan, S., Morison, A., and Meere, F. Western Pacific Sustainable Tuna Alliance (WPSTA) Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine MSC Fishery Assessment Report, SCS Global Services, 2018

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Morison, A.M. and McLoughlin, K. (2015). Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE) MSC Full Assessment: Final Report.

MRAG 2009b Final Report on Independent Review of the Commission’s Transitional Science Structure and Functions WCPFC-SC5-2009/GN-WP-7 file:///Users/mchlharte/Downloads/WCPFC-SC5-2009- GN-WP-7%20(Project%20report%20on%20Independent%20Review).pdf

Occidental-Mindoro Strait Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (2020) Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan.

PEMSEA. 2018. Sustainable Tuna Fisheries for Blue Economy. GEF/UNDPWCPFC Project: Sustainable Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the West Pacific and East Asian Seas. Global Environment Facility/United Nations Development Programme/Partnerships in Environmental Management for the Seas of East Asia (PEMSEA), Quezon City, Philippines

Ramos, J.L 2017. The Fisheries Code of the Philippines. Oceana Philippines International.

Republic Act No. 9147, or Wildlife Resources Conservation and Protection Act. Available at: http://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2001/07jul/20010730-RA-09147-GMA.pdf

Tremblay-Boyer, S., McKechnie, S., Pilling, G., Hampton, J., 2017. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-06.

USAID. 2020. Deliverable No. 5: Final Report, Applying Catch Documentation and Traceability Technologies in the Small-scale Tuna Handline Fisheries in Mindoro and Bicol, Philippines.

Vincent, M., Ducharme Barth, N., Hamer, P., Hampton, J., Williams, P., and G. Pilling. August 2020. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/file/497577/download?token=VvC-6vSV

Vincent M., Pilling G. and Hampton J. (2019). Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Report to the 15th Regular Session of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 12-20 August 2019. WCPFC-SC15-2019/SA-WP-05.

Vincent MT, Pilling G, and Hampton J. 2018. Incorporation of updated growth information within the 2017 WCPO bigeye stock assessment grid, and examination of the sensitivity of estimates to alternative model spatial structures. WCPFC-SC14-2018/ SA-WP-03.

WCPFC 2000. Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/convention-conservation-and- management-highly-migratory-fish-stocks-western-and-central-pacific

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

WCPFC 2018. Stock Assessment for Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean through 2016 WCPFC-SC14-2018/ SA-WP-07 Rev. 1 (11 August 2018)

WCPFC 2019 Scientific and Technical Data Available to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, , WCPFC-TCC15-2019-IP03_rev11 17 September 2019

WCPFC 2020c Final Compliance Monitoring Report WCPFC-2019- WCPFC16-2019-fCM https://www.wcpfc.int/node/44907

WCPFC 2020aConservation and Management Measures (CMMs) and Resolutions of the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/booklets/31/CMM%20and%20Resolutions.pdf

WCPFC 2020b Availability of catch estimates from other commercial fisheries in the Philippines, WCPFC- SC-2020-MI IO-17_11-20 August 2020

WCPFC 2020c Final Compliance Monitoring Report WCPFC-2020- WCPFC17-2020-fCMR https://www.wcpfc.int/node/49799

Williams, P. and P. Terawasi. 2014. Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1.

Williams, P., A. Panizza, C. Falasi, E. Loganimoce, M. Hosken and E. Schneiter. 2019. Status of observer data management. WCPFC-SC15-2019/ST IP-02. 15th Regular Session of the WCPFC-SC, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 12 – 20 August 2019 P. 20.

Williams, P., A. Panizza, C. Falasi, E. Loganimoce, M. Hosken and E. Schneiter. 2020. Status of observer data management. WCPFC-SC16-2020/ST IP-02. 16th Regular Session of the WCPFC-SC, Electronic Meeting, 11 – 20 August 2020 P. 23.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9 Appendices

9.1 Assessment information

9.1.1 Small-scale fisheries

Table 22. Small-scale fisheries

Unit of Assessment (UoA) Percentage of vessels with Percentage of fishing length <15m activity completed within 12 nautical miles of shore Select vessels targeting Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) licensed to fish in municipal (territorial) 100% 100% and EEZ waters within Occidental -Mindoro Straight and Gulf of Lagonoy regions of the Philippines

9.2 Evaluation processes and techniques

9.2.1 Site visits

The assessment team selected visit sites and interviewees based on information needed to assess management operations of the unit of assessment. The client group and other relevant stakeholders helped identify and contact fisheries management, research, compliance, and habitat protection personnel and agency representatives. Before the site visit and meetings were conducted, an audit plan was provided to the client and relevant stakeholders. Remote site visit meetings took place via teleconference with relevant personnel between November 30th through December 10th. The assessment team met with personnel representing the Bureau of Fisheries and Agricultural Resources (BFAR), National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines (MWWP), Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Council (IFARMC), and many personnel from several Local Government Units (LGUs) located within the Gulf of Lagonoy and Mindoro Strait regions.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

AUDIT PLAN FOR FISHERY ASSESSMENT

Philippine Small-Scale Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Handline Fishery MSC Fishery Full Assessment December 1st through December 11th UTC+08:00 Manila, Philippines Remote Site Visit Meetings

9.3 Objective The MSC Fishery Assessment of the Philippine Small-Scale Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Handline Fishery will be conducted by the SCS Global Services Inc. (SCS) Assessment Team to examine fishery performance of the Unit of Certification (Table 1) against the MSC Fishery Standard. Anticipated attendees are listed in Table 2, and Meeting Agenda is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Unit of Certification/ Unit of Assessment Stock: Western Central Pacific Geography: Select vessels licensed to fish in municipal (territorial) and EEZ Ocean waters within Occidental -Mindoro Straight and Gulf of Lagonoy regions of the Philippines Species: Yellowfin ( Thunnus Management: Select vessels flagged to the Philippines, licensed and albacares) registered to operate in municipal waters and Philippine EEZs, which are subject to municipal, archipelagic, national, and WCPFC management measures. Method of Capture: Handline Clients: Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership (PTHP) (hook and line) – Free sets & anchored FAD sets

In this fishery, the Unit of Certification (UoC) under examination includes specified vessels flagged to the Philippines and are listed in Appendix A. Vessels outside of the UoC vessels listed would only be eligible to share the certificate by virtue of expanding both the Unit of Assessment and Unit of Certification.

9.4 Scope of Audit During the assessment, the assessment team will examine all aspects of fishery performance as it relates to the MSC Standard, including stock status of target and non-target species, fishery impacts, and fisheries governance and management. Use of the blue eco-label and the licensing agreement will be reviewed. The SCS Assessment Team will conduct the scope extension audit using the Fishery Certification Process (V2.2). As part of the MSC requirements, the Assessment Team will consist of at least 2 team members (see below). This plan is considered confirmed and will proceed as planned. Any changes to the audit plan requested by the client must be provided to SCS in writing.

Any information considered to justify scoring changes must be publicly available on or before the last day of the site visit as per MSC requirements. If the CAB and any participant at the site visit agree in writing that information will be shared after the site visit, the CAB shall accept this information up to 30 days after the last day of the site visit.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.5 Follow Up SCS conducted all required site visit activities for the MSC Fishery Assessment as per MSC FCP v2.2. All documentation, evidence, and findings will inform updates to the Announcement Comment Draft Report (ACDR), which were sent to the Client to develop the client action plan and 2) sent to the MSC Peer Review College as required.

9.6 Audit Participants

Table 2: Anticipated Meeting Attendees Name Role Affiliation Dr. Michael Harte Principal 3 SCS Global Services Brian Ahlers Principal 2 and Team Lead SCS Global Services

Dr. Gerard DiNardo Principal 1 SCS Global Services

Atenogenes B. Reaso Authorized MSC Client Group Gulf of Lagonoy Tuna Fishers Federation, Inc. (GLTFF) Representative Johnson P. Peralta Authorized MSC Client Group Occidental Mindoro Federation of Tuna Fishers Representative Association (OMFTFA) Sam Garcia Authorized MSC Client Group Philippine Association of Tuna Processors, Inc. (PATPI) Representative Adrian Cruz Secretariat Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership

Joann Binondo Program Manager Kabang Kalikasan Ng Philipinas Foundation Inc. (KKPFI)

Suzette Barcoma Science Research Specialist 1 – National Fisheries Research and Development Institute West Pacific East Asia ITM Project (NFRDI). Lead Joeren Yleana FAD Management BFAR

Elmer Bien Fisheries extension officer LGU-Tabaco City

Nilo Katada Chief, Fisheries Resources BFAR_FRMD Management Division Raffy Ramiscal Chief, Capture Fisheries Division BFAR

Leonila Coralde Municipal Agriculturist LGU-Tiwi

Krystal D. Villanada Protected Area superintendent, DENR- Marine Protected Area. Hugo Salvador Coastal Extension Officer DENR-MIMAROPA

Arnel Andrew Founder & Director, Marine MWWP Yaptinchay Wildlife Watch of the Philippines - ETPs Nonie Enolva Public Information Officer – BFAR-Bikol Marine Mammals Mudjekewis Santos OIC, Traning Division National Fisheries Research and Development Institute (NFRDI) Annie Castillo Fisheries extension officer LGU-Mamburao

Raymon Camacho Fisheries extension officer LGU-Rizal

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 2: Anticipated Meeting Attendees Name Role Affiliation Jennelyn Lontoc Fisheries extension officer LGU-San Jose

Shiela Mae Borigas Fisheries extension officer LGU-Tabaco

Peter Cadapan OIC, Capture Fisheries Licensing BFAR Section Bernard Mayo Chairman, IFARMC IFARMC-Mindoro Strait

Boholst Arnel Chairman, IFARMC IFARMC-Lagonoy Gulf

Benjamin Tabios Office of the special concern BFAR

Efren Hilario Capture Fisheries Division – BFAR National Tuna Management Plan Edwyn Alesna OIC, Fisheries Inspection and BFAR Quarantine Division (FIQD) Marvin Ranada OIC, Fisheries Management BFAR-MIMAROPA Regulatory and Enforcement Division Ariel Pioquinto Fisheries Management BFAR-Bicol Regulatory and Enforcement Division Elizabeth Francisco Office of the Provicial PLGU, Occidental Mindoro Agriculturust – Provincial Fisheries Extension Officer Maria Lourdes Achero Fisheries Extension Officer; MLGU, , Albay

Edgar Payas Provincial Fisheries Officer BFAR-PFO, Occidental Mindoro

Nilo Consuelo Provincial Fisheries Officer BFAR-PFO, Camarines Sur

Franciso Torres Jr. National Tuna Assess. Program BFAR

9.7 Agenda All meetings took place remotely via Zoom between the assessment team, the client group (Gulf of Lagonoy Tuna Fishers Federation (GLTFF), Occidental-Mindoro Federation of Tuna Fishers Association (OMFTFA), Philippine Association of Tuna Processors, Inc. (PATPI)), and relevant government stakeholders and experts in from BFAR (Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources), Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), Integrated Fisheries and Aquatic Resource and Management Council (IFARMC), and Local Government Units (LGUs). These meetings occurred the weeks of November 30 through December 11th. Team Leader, Brian Ahlers, will help facilitate meetings remotely with the support of Dr. Michael Harte. In addition to the officials listed above, the team may meet remotely with additional experts from PNA, relevant RFMO personnel, and stakeholders potentially at a later date.

9.8 Logistics Information Assessment Team Contacts

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Brian Ahlers, Principal 2 and Team Lead Michael Harte, Principal 3

Client Contacts Atenogenes B. Reaso Johnson P. Peralta Sam Garcia

Meeting Locations All meetings will be conducted remotely via zoom.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

Table 3: Meeting Agenda for Day 1, December 1st Manila Time (November 30th, USA) – Client Opening Meeting

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Client Opening Meeting, Introductions Brian Ahlers SCS Global Services 10:30 AM - Confirmation of Unit of Assessment and Certification Dr. Michael Harte GLTFA - Presentation on the MSC Standard and Fishery Certification Process Dr. Gerard DiNardo OMFTFA v2.2 Atenogenes B. Reaso PATPI Johnson P. Peralta PTHP Sam Garcia Adrian Cruz

10:30 - - Closing Remarks With Client Brian Ahlers SCS Global Services 11:00 - Summarize and review evidence provided Dr. Michael Harte GLTFA - Confirmation of evidence still pending Dr. Gerard DiNardo OMFTFA - Status Update regarding harmonization under Principle 1 Atenogenes B. Reaso PATP - Timeline Johnson P. Peralta PTHP - Questions Sam Garcia Adrian Cruz

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 247

SCS Global Services Report

Table 4: Meeting Agenda for Day 2, December 2nd Manila Time (December 1st, USA) PRINCIPLE 2 – Fishery Impacts to Habitat and Ecosystem

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Opening Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 9:15 AM Introductions Brian Ahlers BFAR Suzette Barcoma Joeren Yleana Elmer Bien Nilo Katada Raffy Ramiscal

9:15 – 10:15 Principle 2 Habitat Impacts and FAD Management Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services AM Brian Ahlers BFAR Ecosystem Impacts from FADs Suzette Barcoma Joeren Yleana Other FAD Impacts Elmer Bien Nilo Katada Raffy Ramiscal

11:00 – - Closing Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 11:15 AM Summarize evidence received Brian Ahlers BFAR Summarize evidence still needed Suzette Barcoma Joeren Yleana Elmer Bien Nilo Katada Raffy Ramiscal

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 5: Meeting Agenda for Day 3, December 3rd Manila Time (December 2nd, USA) PRINCIPLE 2 – Fishery Impacts to ETP Species (sharks, mammals, etc.)

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Opening Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 9:15 AM Introductions Brian Ahlers BFAR Leonila Coralde LGU-Tiwi Krystal Dayne Villanada DENR-MIMAROPA Hugo Salvador MWWP Arnel Andrew Yapinchay BFAR-Bikol Nonie Enolva BFAR-NFRDI Mudjekewis Santos 9:15 – 10:15 Principle 2 Endangered Threatened and Protected Species (ETP) Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services AM Brian Ahlers BFAR Leonila Coralde LGU-Tiwi Sharks and Shark Finning Krystal Dayne Villanada DENR-MIMAROPA Hugo Salvador MWWP Arnel Andrew Yapinchay BFAR-Bikol Other Challenges Nonie Enolva BFAR-NFRDI Mudjekewis Santos 11:00 – - Closing Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 11:15 AM Summarize evidence received Brian Ahlers BFAR Summarize evidence still needed Leonila Coralde LGU-Tiwi Krystal Dayne Villanada DENR-MIMAROPA Hugo Salvador MWWP Arnel Andrew Yapinchay BFAR-Bikol Nonie Enolva BFAR-NFRDI Mudjekewis Santos

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 6: Meeting Agenda for Day 4, December 4th Manila Time (December 3rd, USA) Fishery Operations: Traceability, Catch Documentation, etc.

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Opening Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 9:15 AM Introductions Brian Ahlers GLTFF Atenogenes Reaso OMFTFA Johnson Peralta PATPI Sam Garcia 9:15 – 10:15 Traceability; General Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services AM Fishery Brian Ahlers GLTFF Operations Atenogenes Reaso OMFTFA Fishing Practices – Information Systems and Traceability Johnson Peralta PATPI Sam Garcia

Processing Practices – Information Systems and Traceability

11:00 – - Closing Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 11:15 AM Summarize evidence received Brian Ahlers GLTFF Summarize evidence still needed Atenogenes Reaso OMFTFA Johnson Peralta PATPI Sam Garcia

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 7: Meeting Agenda for Day 5, December 8th Manila Time (December 7th, USA) PRINCIPLE 3 – National and RFMO Level Governance and Management of Fishery

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Opening Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 9:15 AM Introductions Brian Ahlers BFAR Benjamin Tabios BFAR-MIMAROPA Efren Hilario BFAR-Bicol Edwyn Alesna Marvin Ranada Ariel Pioquinto

9:15 – 10:15 Principle 3 Compliance and Enforcement Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services AM 2.2.3 c Compliance Brian Ahlers BFAR Benjamin Tabios BFAR-MIMAROPA 3.2.3 b Sanctions Efren Hilario BFAR-Bicol Edwyn Alesna 2.2.3 d Systematic non-compliance Marvin Ranada Ariel Pioquinto Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance 3.2.3 a Monitoring, control and surveillance implementation

Consultation 3.1.2 b consultation processes

Decision-Making 3.2.2 d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Other Challenges

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 7: Meeting Agenda for Day 5, December 8th Manila Time (December 7th, USA) PRINCIPLE 3 – National and RFMO Level Governance and Management of Fishery

11:00 – - Closing Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 11:15 AM Summarize evidence received Brian Ahlers BFAR Summarize evidence still needed Benjamin Tabios BFAR-MIMAROPA Efren Hilario BFAR-Bicol Edwyn Alesna Marvin Ranada Ariel Pioquinto

Table 8: Meeting Agenda for Day 6, December 9th Manila Time (December 8th, USA) PRINCIPLE 3 – Local Level Governance and Management of Fishery

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Opening Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 9:15 AM Introductions Brian Ahlers BFAR Annie Castillo LGU-Mamburao Raymon Camacho LGU-Rizal Jennelyn Lontoc LGU-San Jose Shiela Mae Borigas LGU-Tabaco Peter Cadapan BFAR Bernard Mayo IFARMC-Mindoro Strt. Boholst Arnel IFARMC-Lagonoy Gulf

9:15 – 10:15 Principle 3 Local Level Ordinances Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services AM Brian Ahlers BFAR Compliance and Enforcement Annie Castillo LGU-Mamburao

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 8: Meeting Agenda for Day 6, December 9th Manila Time (December 8th, USA) PRINCIPLE 3 – Local Level Governance and Management of Fishery

2.2.3 d Systematic non-compliance Raymon Camacho LGU-Rizal Jennelyn Lontoc LGU-San Jose Monitoring, Control, and Surveillance Shiela Mae Borigas LGU-Tabaco 3.2.3 a Monitoring, control and surveillance implementation Peter Cadapan BFAR Bernard Mayo IFARMC-Mindoro Strt. Decision Making Boholst Arnel IFARMC-Lagonoy Gulf 3.2.2 d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Other Challenges

11:00 – - Closing Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 11:15 AM Summarize evidence received Brian Ahlers BFAR Summarize evidence still needed Annie Castillo LGU-Mamburao Raymon Camacho LGU-Rizal Jennelyn Lontoc LGU-San Jose Shiela Mae Borigas LGU-Tabaco Peter Cadapan BFAR Bernard Mayo IFARMC-Mindoro Strt. Boholst Arnel IFARMC-Lagonoy Gulf

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 9: Meeting Agenda for Day 7, December 10th Manila Time (December 9th, USA) PRINCIPLE 1, 2, 3 – Data Reporting (e.g. Catch, FADs), etc.

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Opening Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 9:15 AM Introductions Brian Ahlers PLGU, Occidental Mindoro Elizabeth Francisco MLGU, Bacacay, Albay Maria Lourdes Achero BFAR-PFO, Occidental Mindo Edgar Payas BFAR-PFO, Camarines Sur Nilo Consuelo BFAR-NFRDI Suzette Barcoma BFAR-CFD Franciso Torres Jr. BFAR

9:15 – 10:15 Principle 1, FAD Tracking and Management Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services AM 2, and 3 Brian Ahlers PLGU, Occidental Mindoro Catch Documentation and Reporting Elizabeth Francisco MLGU, Bacacay, Albay Maria Lourdes Achero BFAR-PFO, Occidental Mindo Compliance and Enforcement Edgar Payas BFAR-PFO, Camarines Sur Nilo Consuelo BFAR-NFRDI Suzette Barcoma BFAR-CFD Franciso Torres Jr. BFAR

11:00 – - Closing Remarks Dr. Michael Harte SCS Global Services 11:15 AM Summarize evidence received Brian Ahlers PLGU, Occidental Mindoro Summarize evidence still needed Elizabeth Francisco MLGU, Bacacay, Albay Maria Lourdes Achero BFAR-PFO, Occidental Mindo Edgar Payas BFAR-PFO, Camarines Sur Nilo Consuelo BFAR-NFRDI Suzette Barcoma BFAR-CFD Franciso Torres Jr. BFAR

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Table 10: Meeting Agenda for Day 8, December 11th Manila Time (December 10th, USA) – Client Closing Meeting

Time Taipei/Singa Relevant pore Time Activities Meeting Participants Orgs MSC P.I.’s Zone (UTC +8) 9:00 AM – - Client Opening Meeting, Introductions Brian Ahlers SCS Global Services 10:30 AM - Discuss overall preliminary findings from the remote site visit Dr. Michael Harte GLTFA - Discuss any key issues for the fishery to address Atenogenes B. Reaso OMFTFA - Questions from SCS Johnson P. Peralta PATPI - Questions for PTHP (MSC Fishery Client Group) Sam Garcia PTHP Adrian Cruz

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

9.8.1 Stakeholder Participation:

In addition to the meetings and attendees list above (Section 4.4.1), consultations have included large numbers of phone and email exchanges. SCS also worked with MSC outreach in advance of the fishery entering full assessment, to compile an extensive stakeholder list used for emailing announcements and assessment progress to stakeholders. This list contained over 100 individuals from approximately 20 organizations spanning the government, private, and non-profit sectors.

Prior to the onsite meeting, as well as following the onsite meeting, written stakeholder comments were received from the International Sustainable Seafood Foundation (ISSF) and the Parties to Nauru (PNA). A summary of these concerns, and the original stakeholder comments can be found in Appendix 9.10.1. A summary of core concerns used to structure the team’s feedback is found in the Table in Appendix 9.10.1.

A call was scheduled with PNA as part of the remote site visit meetings to discuss Principal 3 concerns expressed by PNA. See comments and responses in Appendix section 9.10.1.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 256

SCS Global Services Report

9.8.2 Evaluation techniques

Documentation and Information Gathering

One of the most critical aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team gets a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest fishery, the assessment team typically needs documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures.

Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location.

Information for the assessed was gathered from stakeholder comments prior to the onsite visit (and after), and via conversations conducted through teleconferencing.

The BFAR, DENR, and NFRDI were key in providing many of the scientific analyses, figures as well as operational and regulatory information provided by the Local Government Units (LGUs). The assessment team did not employ RBF for this assessment.

Scoring and Report Development Process

ACDR: The Announcement Comment Draft Report was completed and published on September 30, 2020. The client decided to continue with the full assessment.

Publication of ACDR: Publication of the Announcement Comment Draft Report was published on September 30th, 2020.

Onsite Visit: Scoring was initiated during the 10-day remote site visit and completed iteratively through phone calls, emails and skype teleconferences between November 30th and December 10th.

Additional Document Submission: Following the onsite visit, the team compiled a list of requested documents submitted at the Client Closing Meeting on December 10th. Documents included but was not limited to evidence of enforcement and compliance systems, traceability documentation, and evidence of training for fishermen in the UoA to adequately handle and release ETP species when initially caught.

Client Draft: Rationales and associated background was developed by respectively assigned assessment team members, and then cross read by team members and SCS staff for production of the client draft

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report report. Scoring was completed by consensus through this review process and team meetings by phone and email. The fishery received a total of 9 scoring-issue level conditions within 13 performance indicators. The team finalized scoring and submitted the Client Draft in February 2021. From March 2021 through May, the client fishery worked with SCS to generate an acceptable client action plan, which was structured at the level of scoring issues (versus performance indicators).

Peer Review: Based on comments from peer reviewers, the team modified content related to providing the most recent stock assessment information from recent reports in 2020, and revised conditions and milestones under Principle 3 to ensure milestones were structured and worded to adequately assess measurable progress in future surveillance audits. Once the Client Action Plan has been determined, the team used the MSC reporting template to formulate the Client and Peer Review Draft Report. In this draft, the team incorporated peer reviewer comments, the team responses to those comments and any modified content. Additionally, the team ensured that the client readdressed the Client Action Plan as needed. The Client and Peer Review Draft Report was submitted in February 2021 to the client and the peer review college to review prior to the PCDR. The PCDR was prepared on June 18th, 2021 and subject to a minimum 30-day stakeholder comment period that terminated on July 22, 2021.

Scoring Methodology

The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCP v2.2 Section 7.10 “Scoring the fishery”. Scoring in the MSC system occurs via an Analytical Hierarchy Process and uses decision rules and weighted averages to produce Principle Level scores. There are 28 Performance Indicators (PIs), each with one or more Scoring Issues (SIs). Each of the scoring issues is considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels. The decision rule described in Table 23 determines the Performance Indicator score, which must always be in an increment of 5. If there are multiple ‘elements19’ under consideration (e.g. multiple main primary species), each element is scored individually for each relevant PI, then a single PI score is generated using the same set of decision rules described in Table 23.

Table 23. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.2 Table 4)

Score Combination of individual SIs at the PI level, and/or combining multiple element PI scores into a single PI score. <60 Any scoring element/SI within a PI which fails to reach SG60 shall not be assigned a score as this is a pre-condition to certification. 60 All elements (as scored at the PI level) or SIs meet SG60 and only SG60. 65 All elements/SIs meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do not meet SG80. 70 All elements/SIs meet SG60; half* achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there.

19 MSC FCPV2.1 7.10.7: In Principle 1 or 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the UoA.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

75 All elements/SIs meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. 80 All elements/SIs meet SG80, and only SG80. 85 All elements/SIs meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. 90 All elements/SIs meet SG80; half achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not. 95 All elements/SIs meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few fail to achieve SG100. 100 All elements/SIs meet SG100. *MSC FCPV2.2 uses the word ‘some’ instead of half. SCS considers ‘half’ a clearer description of the methodology utilized.

When calculating the Principal Indicator scores based on the results of the Scoring Issues (SI), SCS interprets the terms in Table 2 as follows: ▪ Few: Less than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, one SI out of 3 is considered few. ▪ Some: Equal to half. Ex: if there are a total of four SIs, two SIs out of 4 is considered some. ▪ Most: More than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, two SIs out of 3 is considered most.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 260

SCS Global Services Report

9.9 Peer Review reports

9.9.1 SCS Responses to PR-A General Comments Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief comments (as included in the Public explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, Comment Draft Report - PCDR) summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery consistent with the Yes Not withstanding the inconsistent use of recent No response needed MSC standard, and clearly based on the information in this assessment (see below) the scoring evidence presented in the assessment report? seems reasonable. In some SIs the scoring against each Scoring Guidepost could be made more clear and consistent (see 7.17.4 in the MSC Fisheries Certification Process v2.2). Are the condition(s) raised appropriately Yes No response needed written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.2, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses]

Enhanced fisheries only: Does the report NA No response needed clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief comments (as included in the Public explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, Comment Draft Report - PCDR) summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Optional: General Comments on the Peer NA I am wondering why the results of the most recent 2020 At the time this report was written, these Review Draft Report (including comments on YFT stock assessment were not used in this CPRDR. The reports had not come out and were the adequacy of the background information if results were made available to SC-16 in August 2020 announced shortly after drafting. Thank necessary). Add extra rows if needed below, and the summary report adopted in November 2020 in you for suggesting these updates. The including the codes in Columns A-C. time for the site visit over December 2020. The same 2020 YFT stock asessment information goes for Northern Pacific albacore and bigeye tuna in has now been integrated into the report P2. In general it does not seem to use the latest background and rationales. In addition, information on stock assessments and WCPFC CMMs. WCPO bigeye has been updated in the The report also has numerous spelling mistakes (and background and rationales as well. For mixture of UK/US spelling). north pacific albacore however, the last stock assessment completed in 2020 is also now reflected in the report (pending).

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

PI Comments

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse Code included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Yellowfin Handline 1.1.1 No (change Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you for noting this. Accepted tuna to rationale (no score expected, However I am wondering why the results of The assessment team has change, not to the most recent 2020 YFT stock assessment updated the Principal 1 change to scoring) were not used in this assessment. The background and rationales to rationale) results were made available to SC-16 in reflect the 2020 assessment August 2020 and the summary report made available to the SC-16 last adopted in November 2020 in time for the August. site visit over December 2020. This said, the recent stock assessment provides As noted, the scoring does not similar results to that of 2017 (the one used change. in this assessment) so the scoring is unlikely to change, but this needs verification. Yellowfin Handline 1.1.2 NA (PI not NA (PI NA No response needed NA (No tuna scored) not response scored) needed)

Yellowfin Handline 1.2.1 No (change Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - see comment Accepted tuna to rationale above. (no score expected, However see 1.1.1. for Scoring Issue (b). change, not to change to scoring) rationale) Yellowfin Handline 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you. Accepted tuna (no score It is considered that the Y1 milestone could change, be better worded e.g. progress towards change to well-defined ….. rationale)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse Code included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Yellowfin Handline 1.2.3 No (change Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - see comment Accepted tuna to rationale above. (no score expected, However again, it is strange that no recent change, not to evidence (e.g. 2018 onwards) has been change to scoring) used in the rationale, esp.. for Scoring Issue rationale) (a). I would have thought that WCPFC Scientific Committee meetings SC14-2018, SC15 -2019 & SC16-2020 would have all contributed to this analysis. Yellowfin Handline 1.2.4 No (change Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - see comment Accepted tuna to rationale above. (no score expected, See 1.1.1 for all PI Scoring Issues. change, not to change to scoring) rationale) Yellowfin Handline 2.1.1 No (change Yes NA Scoring agreed. All recent stock assessments for Accepted tuna to rationale north pacific albacore and (no score expected, Again, there is more recent information bigeye have now been included change, not to available for ALB (main) and BET (minor) in the background and under change to scoring) stock status. Northern Pacific Albacore had 2.1.1. References have now rationale) a new stock assessment reported in SC16- been included in the references 2020 and bigeye in SC16-2020. It is also section. noted that the Vincent et al 2018 BET stock assessment report referred to in the text was a stock assessment update, not a full stock assessment. These later stock assessments are unlikely to change the scores, but it undermines confidence in this CPRDR. Vincent et al (2019) (the 2019 SKJ stock assessment) is mentioned in the rationale, but the reference not included in the references listed.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse Code included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Yellowfin Handline 2.1.2 No (change Yes NA Scoring agreed. The most recent 2019 SKJ Stock Accepted tuna to rationale assessment has been included (no score expected, Scoring Issue (b) rationale refers to the and updated in the background change, not to latest stock assessment for SKJ being in section, as well as the 2.1.2 change to scoring) 2016 whilst PI 2.1.1 uses the more recent rationale. rationale) 2019 stock assessment. Furthermore the reference given at the end is for the 2019 stock assessment. Yellowfin Handline 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - we have now Accepted tuna updated the reference list. (no score The references listed need to be cross- change, checked with those in the rationales (e.g. change to Vincent et al, 2019 is included in Scoring rationale) Issue (c) but missing from the reference list) Yellowfin Handline 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes There is an issue with the 1st and 2nd Thank you - noted regarding the Accepted tuna sentences on swordfish in Scoring Issue (b). rationale, which has now been (no score revised. change, It would be useful to have a summary table additional showing how the different elements are As for the second suggestion, evidence scored and the overall SI score derived. the assessment team employs presented) the “all or none” approach and guidelines of MSC Interpretation Log, “Minor species and scoring element approach at SG100 (FCR v2.0 - 7.10.7, Annex SA PI 1.1.1, 2.2.1)”, available at https://mscportal.force.com/int erpret/s/article/Minor-species-

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse Code included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) and-scoring-element-approach- at-SG100-7-10-7- 1527586956233. Using this approach, all minor species are scored in aggregate.

Yellowfin Handline 2.2.3 Yes Yes No Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA In Scoring Issue (b) 'Sharks and rays' and Thank you - elements have been Accepted tuna 'Turtles, marine mammals and other ETP better clarified in the (no score species' seem to be treated as different assessment under 2.3.1, 2.3.2, change, elements but are not scored as such. and 2.3.3 in particular. change to rationale) Yellowfin Handline 2.3.2 No (change Yes NA The rationale in Scoring Issues (b) refers to Thank you for noting this. Accepted tuna to rationale CMM 2010-07 but fails to note it has been Relevant and updates to CMMs (no score expected, replaced by CMM 2019-04. The rationale including 2019-04 have been change, not to needs updating accordingly. noted and inluded in the change to scoring) background and in the rationale) rationales. Yellowfin Handline 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse Code included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Yellowfin Handline 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.4.2 No (change Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you for bringing this to Accepted tuna to rationale our attention. Rationale for (no score expected, The rationale in Scoring Issues (b) refers to 2.4.2 has been updated to change, not to CMM 2014-01 on the management of include reference to 2018-01. change to scoring) bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack but fails to rationale) note it has been replaced by CMM 2018- 01. The rationale needs updating accordingly. It is noted that CMM 2018-01 is referred to on other parts of the CPRDR. Yellowfin Handline 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.5.2 No (change Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you. The rationale has Accepted tuna to rationale now been updated to include (no score expected, The rationale in Scoring Issues (a) refers to CMM 2018-01, which change, not to CMM 2014-01 on the management of supersedes and builds upon change to scoring) bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack but fails to 2014-01. rationale) note it has been replaced by CMM 2018- 01. The rationale needs updating accordingly. It is noted that CMM 2018-01 is referred to on other parts of the CPRDR.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse Code included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Yellowfin Handline 2.5.3 No (change Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you for nothing this area Accepted tuna to rationale for improvement. Evidence of (no score expected, Again the rationale is based on rather old more recent research and change, not to information e.g. none of the refences are evidence regarding the change to scoring) after 2013. Whilst we understand most of oceanographic and foodweb rationale) the SEAPODYM work was carried out then, considerations has been there is newer information on which to included in the rationale, most base this rationale that might be explored. notably WCPFC-SC outputs from 2016-2019 and Griffiths et al. 2019. Yellowfin Handline 3.1.1 Yes No NA Not all the Scoring Guideposts are The scoring narrative has been Accepted tuna (change individually justified in the rationale. For updated to show that, as (no score to instance, in Scoring Issue (b) I cannot see aprropriate, each of SG 60, 80 change, rationale any analysis that it meets SG 60 and SG 80 and 100 is met for each SI. change to expected, before it moves on to consider SG 100. rationale) not to This issue is not confined to this SI and scoring) should be checked throughout the assessment's scoring. Yellowfin Handline 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) Reviewer's comments (as ponse Code included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Yellowfin Handline 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. No response needed NA (No tuna response needed)

9.9.2 SCS Responses to PR-B

General Comments Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Public initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers Comment Draft Report - PCDR) should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery Yes consistent with the MSC standard, and clearly based on the evidence presented in the assessment report?

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Public initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers Comment Draft Report - PCDR) should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Are the condition(s) raised No The wording of the Condition summary The assessment team agrees that overly prescriptive milestones are appropriately written to (Table 6, p.27-28) needs to be revised to take problematic and has since revised the condition and milestones for Condition achieve the SG80 outcome out prescriptive solutions (e.g. "at least 80% 9 (Section 9.11.7). In general, the assessment team employed a more within the specified of municipal tuna handline vessels are qualitative approach to allow greater flexibility of scenarios in which progress timeframe? registered and 75% are licensed in each of could be achieved by the fishery, while still requiring measurable, incrimental [Reference: FCP v2.2, Lagonoy Gulf and Occidental Mindoro progress. 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] Strait"). The assessment team respectfully disagrees that each PI can only have a The two separate conditions raised for maximum of one condition. As per, 7.18.1, "the CAB shall set 1 or more PI3.2.3 corresponding to separate SI, need to auditable and verifiable conditions for continuing certification if the UoA be combined into one condition for the PI, as achieves a score of less than 80 but equal to or greater than 60 for any per FCP v2.2 #7.18.1.1. individual PI." In this instance, given the fundamentally diverse challenges to address and timelines to fulfill to ensure progress within the UoA and UoC, Without letters of support and Client Action the assessment team elected to keep Conditions 8 and 9, both regarding 3.2.3 Plan, I am not sure it is fair to ask a PR the (a) and 3.2.3 (c), respectively. question "Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s performance to the Please note that due to the 1) socioeconomic constraints on fishers within the SG80 level?" My Yes answer for column J UoA to effectively and efficiently fulfill licensing and registration indicates that I agree with the condition requirements in the Gulf of Lagunoy and Mindoro Strait regions and 2) the being set in principle and to the provisional extensive inter-government collaboration that is necessary at the local, proposed milestones. regional, and national levels to ensure progress regarding licensing and registration, the assessment team acknowledges that successful implementation may take longer than the certification period. As per clause 7.18.1.6 of the FCP v. 2.2, the assessment team grants up to the Year 3 Surveillance following the Re-Assessment to close this condition due to exceptional circumstances.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Public initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers Comment Draft Report - PCDR) should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Optional: General NA Some edits necessary, including: English Spellcheck has been conducted, cross-referencing for figures and tables Comments on the Peer spellcheck; conducted, text on pg 209 revised, rationale on pg 1.2.3 revised to be Review Draft Report Lagonoy or Lagunoy; p.42 refs to the figure complete, and stakeholder names corrected. Thank you! (including comments on numbers; the adequacy of the page numbers bug in list of references after background information if p.209; section 9.8.2 take out the text necessary). Add extra rows referring to another fishery (highlighted in if needed below, including blue); the codes in Columns A-C. PI1.2.3b some words missing in the rationale: "...about stock", section 9.10 Staholders, "Maurice Brown" is most likely "Maurice Brownjohn" Optional: General NA Most of the references given for Principles 1 Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The assessment team has Comments on the Peer and 2 are not listed anywhere not even provided missing references now in section 8 (references section). Review Draft Report abbreviated in many scoring tables (e.g. (including comments on McKechnie et al - several, Williams et al the adequacy of the 2016a, 2017a, several by Williams etc) and background information if some Principle 3 references are also missing necessary). Add extra rows from the list (e.g. Banks et al. 2011). if needed below, including the codes in Columns A-C. Optional: General NA I would be helpful to make reference to the Thank you for this suggestion. A small paragraph has been added to the Comments on the Peer P1 harmonisation discussions and agreed background section of P1 to better guide the reader as suggested. Review Draft Report harmonised scores of section 9.14 in the (including comments on background section, before the scoring tables the adequacy of the for Principle 1. background information if necessary). Add extra rows if needed below, including the codes in Columns A-C.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Public initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers Comment Draft Report - PCDR) should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Optional: General NA The statement p.69 is not correct for version Thank you for the suggestion - revised now on pg 70. Comments on the Peer 2 of the standard: "species that are retained Review Draft Report for sale or personal use (assessed under (including comments on Performance Indicator 2.1), bycatch species the adequacy of the that are discarded (Performance Indicator background information if 2.2)" necessary). Add extra rows if needed below, including the codes in Columns A-C. Optional: General NA Still p.69 the sourcing of bait needs to be Table 12 does indicate bait species, however only a couple are identified as Comments on the Peer clarified. Adding all the quantities for bait they were above .1% of the UoA catch. In total there were nine species Review Draft Report indicated in Table 12 (p.70 and 71) gives identified with quanitative reports of weights and percentage of total UoA (including comments on small quantities compared to the weight of catch. In total these species represent 5% of UoA catch - see Appendix 9.16 the adequacy of the YFT and ALB caught. I see a stakeholder for raw data catch for full species list, which includes 6 more bait species. background information if commented on this already (ISSF General necessary). Add extra rows Comments p.7(!). These quantitative estimates represent both bait caught and purchased by if needed below, including I am not convinced all bait used (including fishermen in the UoA. the codes in Columns A-C. caught by other gear and in other fisheries) have been included in the analysis. The assessment team will continue to monitor the approximate ratio of bait p.19 the sentence: "a different FAD made of purchased vs. bait reported as catch by the UoA itself in future survaillance coconut fronds attached to their boat is audits. deployed to catch bait (unless bait has already been purchased or caught)" would suggest that not all bait is caught while fishing for YFT and that some may even be bought. If bait is bought, the quantities by species/stocks need to be included in the "catch" summary Table 12, p70.

PI Comments

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellowfin Handline 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 1.1.2 NA (PI not NA (PI not NA No response needed NA (No Tuna scored) scored) response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Harmonised score and condition for No response needed NA (No Tuna SIa response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Harmonised score and condition for No response needed NA (No Tuna SIa, b and c response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 1.2.4 No (scoring No (scoring NA The rationale for SIb mentions a Thank you. The background and Accepted Tuna implications implications Target reference point. This rationales have now been updated to (no score unknown) unknown) contradicts your statement that include the updated 2020 WCPFC YFT change, there is none agreed for YFT p.45 Stock Assessment. As noted in Figure change to I realise that the score is 23 others pgs in section 7.2.1.2, the rationale) harmonised, but this is justified in team indicates and describes the the Appendix on the basis of the target limit reference point now in 2020 WCPFC YFT stock assessment, place. which is not referenced in the background report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellowfin Handline 2.1.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA Please confirm that the catch data See response to general comment. NA (No Tuna implications implications table 12 includes all quantities of response unknown) unknown) bait used, including those that may needed) be bought.

Yellowfin Handline 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Agreed, apart from concern No response needed NA (No Tuna mentioned for 2.1.1 above response regarding bait species/stocks. needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Agreed, apart from concern No response needed NA (No Tuna mentioned for 2.1.1 above response regarding bait species/stocks. needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA Agreed, apart from concern No response needed NA (No Tuna mentioned for 2.1.1 above response regarding bait species/stocks. needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.2.1 No (scoring No (scoring NA Please confirm that the catch data See response to general comment. NA (No Tuna implications implications table 12 includes all quantities of response unknown) unknown) bait used, including those that may needed) be bought.

Yellowfin Handline 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Agreed, apart from concern No response needed NA (No Tuna mentioned for 2.2.1 above response regarding bait species/stocks. needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Agreed, apart from concern No response needed NA (No Tuna mentioned for 2.2.1 above response regarding bait species/stocks. needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellowfin Handline 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Agreed, apart from concern No response needed NA (No Tuna mentioned for 2.2.1 above response regarding bait species/stocks. needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellowfin Handline 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Yellowfin Handline 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review stage) comments (as included in the Public ponse Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellowfin Handline 3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes There are presently two conditions We do interpret FCP v2.2 #7.18.1.1. as Not Tuna set one for SIa and the other for requiring a sincgle condition for each accepted SIc. They need to be combined as PI. However given the difference in (no one condition for the PI as per FCP each SI it would not be practical to change) v2.2 #7.18.1.1. write a single condition for this PI. As noted in the response to general comments, FCP v2.2 #7.18.1 refers to 1 or more (our emphasis) for each auditable and verifiable conditions for continuing certification if the UoA achieves a score of less than 80 but equal to or greater than 60 for any individual PI. Furthermore, FCP v2.2. clause 7.17.73 b. states that "b. If 1 or more of the SG80 scoring issues is not met, the PI shall be assigned a condition (or conditions)." Yellowfin Handline 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA No response needed NA (No Tuna response needed)

9.9.3 SCS Responses to PR-C

General Comments

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Public initial Peer Review stage). Peer Reviewers Comment Draft Report - PCDR) should provide brief explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of No The assessment and scoring is based largely This site visit was conducted remotely as per MSC's COVID Derogation the fishery on teleconference interviews and a large for MSC fishery assessments. While the assessment team did consistent with amount of this information is anecdotal. aknowledge some limitations in the ACDR prior to the site visit, further the MSC The Assessment Team acknowledges information gathered at the remote site visit either 1) reaffirmed gaps in standard, and limitations in information in their information or 2) adequately mitigated potential limitations identified at clearly based assessment and scoring in certain areas in the ACDR stage. Where information remained largely anecdotal and/or on the evidence Principal 2. There is a large body of qualitative only, conditions were issued. presented in scientific work for the Western Pacific the assessment Central Ocean scale but less detailed Extensive interviews and evidence were collected that is articulated report? information at the Philippines’ sub-regional throughout principal 2 regarding the sub-regional level. In particular, the level. role of LGUs to administer local ordinances, regional measures (e.g. regional Tuna Management Plans), national measures and/or regulations administered and enforced through BFAR, DENR, NFRDI, and others, and RFMO CMMs.

Some additional information has been added into the background and rationales, in particular regarding the management PIs (e.g. 2.1.2, 2.2.2, and 2.3.2 in particular).

Are the Yes In reference to Conditions 1 and 2, these are No response needed condition(s) tied to work by the WCPFC and the raised development of suitable harvest rules and appropriately timescales may require some revisiting in written to the future. All other Conditions are achieve the considered viable within the alloted SG80 outcome timescales. within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.2, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses]

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

PI Comments

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review comments (as included in the Public ponse stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellow- Handline 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 1.1.2 NA (PI not NA (PI not NA fin scored) scored) tuna

Yellow- Handline 1.2.1 No (change Yes It would be beneficial if more The assessment team agrees that this NA (No fin to rationale Philippine specific fisheries data information could improve the response tuna expected, could be incorporated, for background and context of the needed) not to example [Bigelow, K., Garvilles, assessment. However, ultimtely all tuna scoring) E., Garcia, L., Barcoma, S., and stocks are required to be harmonized Cecilio, MA. (2020). Relative under Principal 1 and these resouces, abundance of yellowfin tuna for while helpful, are not critical to the the purse seine and handline scoring under the MSC Standard and FCP fisheries operating in the at this time. Philippines Moro Gulf (Region 12) and High Seas Pocket #1. WCPFC- SC16-2020/ SA-IP-19 (Rev.01). Electronic Meeting, 12-20 August 2020.] Yellow- Handline 1.2.1 No The success of this Condition is SCS is very concerned about this timeline NA (No fin linked to the proposed revisions as well. Although the recent MSC response tuna to the WCPFC’s Harvest Strategy derogation extended Principal 1 needed) Work plan which may have some harmonized tuna stocks by 6 months, we risk due to COVID-19 and other are concerned there will be issues with possible constraints. fulfilling the milestones in time before June of 2022. We have in routine contact with MSC about this issue.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review comments (as included in the Public ponse stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellow- Handline 1.2.2 No (change Yes It would be beneficial if more The assessment team agrees that this NA (No fin to rationale Philippine specific fisheries data information could improve the response tuna expected, could be incorporated, for background and context of the needed) not to example [Bigelow, K., Garvilles, assessment. However, ultimtely all tuna scoring) E., Garcia, L., Barcoma, S., and stocks are required to be harmonized Cecilio, MA. (2020). Relative under Principal 1 and these resouces, abundance of yellowfin tuna for while helpful, are not critical to the the purse seine and handline scoring under the MSC Standard and FCP fisheries operating in the at this time. Philippines Moro Gulf (Region 12) and High Seas Pocket #1. WCPFC- SC16-2020/ SA-IP-19 (Rev.01). Electronic Meeting, 12-20 August 2020.] Yellow- Handline 1.2.2 No The success of this Condition is SCS is very concerned about this timeline. NA (No fin linked to the proposed revisions Although the recent MSC derogation response tuna to the WCPFC’s Harvest Strategy extended Principal 1 harmonized tuna needed) Work plan which may have some stocks by 6 months, we are concerned risk due to COVID-19 and other there will be issues with fulfilling the possible constraints. milestones in time before June of 2022. We have in routine contact with MSC about this issue. Yellow- Handline 1.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 1.2.4 No (scoring No (scoring NA Data for the WCPO is being used The assessment team agrees that this NA (No fin implications implications to detail stock dynamics when the information is noteworthy, however from response tuna unknown) unknown) fishery under assessment is at a a stock assessment perspective, yellowfin needed) more finite scale. While tuna is considered the same stock inferences can be made from this throughout the philippines archipelago on yellow-fin tuna stocks, the and the broader WCPO. UoA is actually covering two distinct areas that are on

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review comments (as included in the Public ponse stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code opposite sides of the Philippines archipelago.

Yellow- Handline 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.1.3 Yes No (change NA At what level is the detailed fleet For the Unit of Certification, the specified Accepted fin to rationale information referring to given the list of vessels are licensed and registered. (non- tuna expected, actions set in Condition 9 However, progess on licensing and material not to prescribes that a significant registration is needed for broader score scoring) number of tuna handline vessels municipal handline fleets in the broader reduction) are yet to be registered/licensed? Unit of Assessment (within the two specific regions). The specified list of vessels in appendix 9.17 submits all catch information to ensure quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty the impact of the UoC on albacore, however, in response to this comment the assessment team actually wishes to downscore this scoring issue to SG80 out of precaution. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status, thus SG80 is met.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review comments (as included in the Public ponse stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellow- Handline 2.2.1 Yes No (change NA It is unclear how this PI was As per an Interpretation Log “Minor Accepted fin to rationale assessed as part (a) was 'NA' and species and scoring element approach at (no score tuna expected, part b was 'not met'. SG100 (FCR v2.0 - 7.10.7, Annex SA PI change, not to 1.1.1, 2.2.1),” SG100 is not met and SG80 change to scoring) is met by default. rationale)

Yellow- Handline 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review comments (as included in the Public ponse stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellow- Handline 2.4.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.4.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 2.5.3 No (scoring No (scoring NA Data for the WCPO is being used Minor changes to rationale conducted. Accepted fin implications implications to detail ecosystem dynamics (no score tuna unknown) unknown) when the fishery under change, assessment is at a more finite change to scale. rationale) Yellow- Handline 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review comments (as included in the Public ponse stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code Yellow- Handline 3.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 3.2.3 Yes Yes Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Yellow- Handline 3.2.3 No Under this Condition, it has been The assessment team has revised the Accepted fin proposed that at least 80% of all milestones to allow for steady, (no score tuna municipal tuna handline vessels increimental progress with each change, are registered and that 75% of all surveillance audit. The assessment team change to tuna handline vessels in the UoA elected for a more qualitative approach, rationale) are licensed. It would be better if yet still requiring measurable progress there was an incremental step each year on the percentage of vessels listed in the Condition for the licensed and registered within the UoA. expected number of vessels Ultimately, the only numeric, prescriptive registered/licensed each year. milestone is now the final milestone, in which the UoA must demonstrate approximately 90% or greater proportion of vessels are licensed and registered in order to close the condition.

Please note that due to the 1) socioeconomic constraints on fishers within the UoA to effectively and efficiently fulfill licensing and registration requirements in the Gulf of Lagunoy and Mindoro Strait regions and 2) the extensive inter-government collaboration

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

UoA UoA PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Res- stock gear Information Scoring Condition given at initial Peer Review comments (as included in the Public ponse stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code that is necessary at the local, regional, and national levels to ensure progress regarding licensing and registration, the assessment team acknowledges that successful implementation may take longer than the certification period. As per clause 7.18.1.6 of the FCP v. 2.2, the assessment team grants up to the Year 3 Surveillance following the Re-Assessment to close this condition due to exceptional circumstances.

Yellow- Handline 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed. No response needed. NA (No fin response tuna needed)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 286

SCS Global Services Report

9.10 Stakeholder input

All stakeholder comment was received during the ACDR public consultation period as required under the FCP v 2.1. Only ISSF and PNA issued formal comment, and remaining stakeholder organizations only indicated they wish to registered and continue receiving information through the FCP. The SCS assessment team responded to all stakeholder in a timely manner and offered to meet via teleconference as part of the remote site visit meetings conducted in early December 2020. Ultimately only the PNA requested to meet and discuss potential concerns, which were discussed and are documented in the stakeholder comments and responses below.

Table 24. Summary of Stakeholder Submissions

Stakeholder Name Organization Quote/Summary Medium of submission Parties to Nauru (PNA) Comments RE: P3 MSC Input Form v 4.0 Maurice Brownjohn Parties to Nauru (PNA) Comments RE: P3 MSC Input Form v 4.0 Richard Banks Solomon Islands No comments; only registration MSC Input Form v 4.0 Edward Honiwala Government as stakeholder RARE No comments; only registration MSC Input Form v 4.0 Dennis Calvan as stakeholder International Sustainable Comments RE: P1 and P2 MSC Input Form v 4.0 Ana Justel Seafood Foundation (ISSF) WWF Denmark No comments; only registration MSC Input Form v 4.0 Karen Bilo as stakeholder

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

9.10.1 ACDR Stakeholder Comments and Responses Parties to Nauru (PNA)

General Comments – PNA

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 288

SCS Global Services Report

CAB General Evidence or CAB response to stakeholder input Response comments references Code Philippines Para 16 & 17; We reviewed our rationale for scoring 3.1.1a in the context of the stakeholder comments. The totality of the does not and Para 50-51 Philippine national legal system meets SG 80 referencing GSA4.3 Legal and/or Customary Framework PI (PI 3.1.1a). meet the https://www.w Specifically, our re-assessment confirms that there is an effective national legal system and organised and effective requirement cpfc.int/doc/cm cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles s of SG 80 m-2018- 1 and 2 thereby meeting SG 80. While it could be argued that one or two of the many, many BFAR FAO are 'organised 01/conservatio inconsistent with the cited CMM paragraphs, this isn't the focus of 3.1.1a. as per GASA4.3 (as follows): and n-and- effective management- Scoring issue (a) – Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management cooperation measure- The first scoring issue for this PI relates to the presence or absence of an appropriate and effective legal system, with other bigeye- including at the international level a legal and/or customary framework that is capable of delivering sustainable parties' and yellowfin-and- fisheries in accordance with P1 and P2. To score this part of the PI, assessment teams should focus on the existence effective skipjack-tuna- of a national and/or international framework itself and if it is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries, including national western-and. through management cooperation where required. legal system Philippines has This may be determined by examining: and a implemented • The presence or absence of the essential features of an appropriate and effective structure within which to deliver FAO 226 Series management takes place; Not managemen of 2015 • If those features are hard or soft; accepted t outcomes • If the framework has a focus on long term management rather the short term; (no score consistent • How it manages risk and uncertainty; change) with MSC • If the framework is transparent and open to scrutiny, review and adaptation as new information becomes Principles 1 available. and 2 (SG 60) (3.1.1) The essential features needed to deliver sustainable fisheries are defined by their relevance to achieving sustainable fisheries in accordance with P1 and P2 appropriate to the size and scale of the UoA, and may include: • Establishing when and where people can fish; • Who can fish; • How they may fish; • How much they can catch; • What they can catch; • Who they talk to about the “rules” for fishing; • How they might gather relevant information and decide what to do with it; • How they know that people are abiding by whatever rules are made and • How they catch, sanction or penalise wrongdoers.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

CAB General Evidence or CAB response to stakeholder input Response comments references Code With these features, the operational framework could be said to be compatible with local, national or international laws or standards.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

PI Comments - PNA

Performance Suggested CAB Input Indicator Input detail Evidence or references score CAB response to stakeholder input response summary (PI) change code Philippines Para 16 & 17 (FAD control Para 16 & 17; and Para 50-51 WCPFC has not measures); and Para 50-51 https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm- The WCPF Convention provides clear long- implemented (other commercial fisheries) 2018-01/conservation-and- term objectives that guide decision-making, effective of WCPFC CMM 2018-01 are management-measure-bigeye- consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria control not met by Philippines has yellowfin-and-skipjack-tuna- and the precautionary approach. These are measures implemented FAO 226 Series western-and. Philippines has explicit at a range of levels, including within consistent of 2015 - Regulation on the implemented FAO 226 Series of applicable CMMs, and national laws and with the Mesh Size of Tuna Purse 2015 plans of the Philippines. Tropical Tuna Seine Nets and Trading of Measure Small Tuna,and continuous While the precautionary approach is a (2018-01). fishing during the FAD closure stated requirement for WCPFC, in practice These as an alternative to the FAD it is less clear that the precautionary include the control measure which has approach is applied uniformly or effective not been accepted as an consistently across member decisions. Not 3.1.3 - Long application alternative by WCPFC. It is Earlier stock assessments in 2010, 2011 and accepted term of FAD also noted that the 2014 indicated that bigeye fishing mortality (no score objectives closures Management Plan advocates exceeded levels consistent with MSY. While change) (CMM 2018- expansion in production for precautionary limit reference points have 01) and the the municipal fleets by 5% by since been set and CMMs updated, clear application 2023 at a time when WCPFC precautionary action that sufficiently of limits to is seeking to limit effort. reduced exploitation levels were not other Failure to implement the evident before an updated assessment commenrcial CMM requirements, the indicated that the stock was in better fisheries introduction of an alternative condition than previously thought. with measure to the FAD control Princoples 1 rule and a commitment to Philippines and increase in tuna production The Philippine National Tuna Management consistent do not constitute ''organised Plan 2018 defines conservation and with their and effective cooperation management principles embodied in obligations with other parties". SG 80 is international fisheries agreements, the to WCPFC not. Philippines has also failed Philippine Constitution, and applicable

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Performance Suggested CAB Input Indicator Input detail Evidence or references score CAB response to stakeholder input response summary (PI) change code to implement any effort or domestic laws, regulations and policies. It catch limitation scheme on includes broad objectives (e.g. to maintain vessels < 3 GT. In WCPFC tuna catches at sustainable levels; to terms these constitute ‘other prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, commercial fisheries'. This unreported and unregulated fishing) to means that evidence shows guide decision making and also has as one that there is not an effective of its Principles the precautionary approach. national legal system in place The NTMP 2018 applies to all form of to implement catch or effort municipal and commercial fishing for tuna. controls on vessels < 3GT, It contains explicit fishery specific and effectively allowing for an measurable long-term objectives, outcomes open access regime for this or activities which are consistent with sector. Hence evidence that achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s effective measures are not in Principles 1 and 2. place, and By 2023, (SG 60 is not met). The Tuna fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan promote clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Fisheries Standards. These plans include requirements and activities to be addressed at the regional, national and local level. FAO 263, series of 2019 – Establishment of Fisheries Management Areas (FMA) for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries in Philippine Waters enhances these arrangements by providing for a science- based, participatory and transparent governance framework and mechanism to sustainably manage fisheries in such FMAs, consistent with the principles of EAFM anchored on food security, and supplementary livelihood for poverty

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Performance Suggested CAB Input Indicator Input detail Evidence or references score CAB response to stakeholder input response summary (PI) change code alleviation.

Overall, clear explicit objectives incorporating the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based management meet the MSC Principles and Criteria, meeting SG 60, SG 80 and the first part of SG 100 across jurisdictions. However, there are elements of the management system where it is not yet clear that the precautionary approach while explicit in policy, it is not required in Municipal Fisheries Ordinances at the LGU level therefore SG 100 is only partially met.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

ISSF

General Comments – ISSF

CAB Evidence or CAB response to General comments Response references stakeholder input Code CUMULATIVE IMPACTS - Although some fisheries do not meet the MSC guidance requirements that trigger the evaluation of https://fisheryp cumulative impacts, this does not mean that existing cumulative impacts are not significant. This is rogress.org/dire especially evident in terms of ETP species, as current guidance considers that the combined impact needs ctory to be evaluated “only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits Thank you for these for ETP species”. However, we consider that cumulative impacts to ETP species mortality should be suggestions. The assessed in reference to the species’ biological limits, stock assessment results, and management advice, assessment team has Accepted regardless of whether catch limits are in place or not (e.g. when management advice requests to reduce considered cumulative (no score catches but catch limits are not agreed). impacts accordingly in this change - Additionally, there are currently a number of Western and Central Pacific Ocean purse seine and longline assessment. additional tuna fisheries involved in Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs), some of them with prospects to proceed evidence to a full MSC assessment in the near future. Although the MSC standard only requires cumulative effects SCS has passed along these presented) to be evaluated and managed for MSC-certified fisheries (including those in evaluation) under suggestions to the fishery overlapping UoAs, we believe these should be carefully assessed (for ETP species, as well as other P2 client. components such as habitats) and managed for all tuna fisheries with MSC aspirations. All currently certified and prospective MSC tuna fisheries should conduct a joint assessment for cumulative impacts on ETP species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and prepare a joint management strategy. The fishery client could coordinate with already certified fisheries, fisheries under assessment, and also seek support on this task from Western and Central Pacific Ocean FIPs.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

CAB Evidence or CAB response to General comments Response references stakeholder input Code BAIT SPECIES The bait species were While the report lists the species used as bait by the fishery, ISSF is concerned that the report does not quantified and are listed in describe in detail the specific stocks where bait catches come from, the status of those stocks (if known), the catch composition nor what measures or strategies are in place to manage them. accordingly. These stocks have been examined and Accepted given the current status of (no score stocks and management change - measures in place additional regarding those species. evidence Bait is sourced from areas presented) with legitimte management measures, SCS has no concerns regarding the bait species indicated at this time.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

CAB Evidence or CAB response to General comments Response references stakeholder input Code aFAD MANAGEMENT - ISSF non- ISSF recommends that the PCDR includes a description of the fishery’s anchored FAD (aFAD) management entangling and strategy. A comprehensive aFAD management plan would comprise data collection and analysis to biodegradable address aFAD impacts on habitat and P2 species, including cumulative effects with other tuna fisheries in FADs guide Thank you for this the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (see comment on cumulative impacts). https://iss- information. The Please see below the six elements of FAD management that ISSF considers to be of utmost importance, foundation.org/ assessment team as well as some practical examples the fishery could adopt to implement them. For further examples and knowledge- describes the FAD recommendations, please see ISSF Technical reports 2019-11 and 2020-11. While these elements are tools/guides- management regime focused on drifting FAD management, we believe they apply to an extent to anchored FADs fisheries as best- under several locations in well. practices/non- Principal 2, particularly (1) Comply with flag state and RFMO reporting requirements for fisheries statistics by set type entangling- with respect to While some of the regional (WCPFC) and national conservation and management measures on FADs do fads/download- examination of 2.3.2 (ETP not apply to the fishery under assessment, ISSF suggests the fishery’s anchored FAD management plan info/non- management) and 2.4.2 includes the requirement to comply with all those measures that do apply (e.g. catch reporting by aFADs, entangling-and- (habitat management). reporting of lost aFADs). biodegradable- Accepted (2) Voluntarily report additional FAD buoy data for use by RFMO science bodies fads-guide- The fishery under (no score In order to meet ISSF´s best practices on this aspect, ISSF recommends the client fishery provides english/ assessment has a change - information on position and on any replacements, losses, etc. of anchored FADs to scientific research combination of measures additional institutes or to WCPFC and the WCPFC Science Provider. - ISSF Technical at the LGU, BFAR, and evidence (3) Support science-based limits on the overall number of FADs used per vessel and/or FAD sets made Report 2019-11 WCPFC level that provides presented) In order to meet ISSF’s best practice on this aspect, ISSF recommends that the client fishery supports https://iss- a overarching science-based limits on the overall number of aFADs in an area and set maximum aFAD limits per area. foundation.org/ management structure to (4) Use only non-entangling FADs to reduce ghost fishing knowledge- address concerns o A new ISSF non- entangling and biodegradable FADs guide was published in August 2019 and, tools/technical- regarding aFADs. As noted thus, ISSF encourages fisheries to commit to the new definition of fully non-entangling FAD (without any and-meeting- in the report, the netting). This will allow following the best practice of Technical Paper 2019-11 to commit to using only reports/downlo assessment team has non-entangling aFADs. ad-info/issf- voiced some concerns o ISSF encourages incorporating in the FAD management plan actions to reduce and remove 2019-11- where relevant and has entangling FADs from the water, including encountered FADs not owned by the fishery client. recommended- issued conditions (5) Mitigate other environmental impacts due to FAD loss including through the use of biodegradable best-practices- regarding FAD FADs and FAD recovery policies for-fad- management as a result. ISSF recommends the FAD management plan incorporates specific actions to address the impact of FAD management- losses. For example, ISSF suggests the fishery under assessment works towards an early adoption of in-tropical- biodegradable FADs in the Pacific Ocean and the construction and deployment of simpler, smaller tuna-purse- biodegradable anchored FADs. seine-fisheries/

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

CAB Evidence or CAB response to General comments Response references stakeholder input Code (6) Implement further mitigation efforts for sharks ISSF supports the adoption by the fishery under assessment of measures to reduce shark bycatch (e.g. - ISSF Technical developing and implementing a Code of Good Practices for bycatch) and suggests the fishery further Report 2020-11 develops measures to ensure that shark mortality is reduced. https://iss- foundation.org/ knowledge- tools/technical- and-meeting- reports/downlo ad-info/issf- 2020-11- recommended- best-practices- for-tropical- tuna-purse- seine-fisheries- in-transition-to- msc- certification- with-an- emphasis-on- fads/

TRACEABILITY SCS has made several Accepted ISSF is concerned by some of the risks described in the Traceability section of the report: (i) Fishing within improvements to the (no score and outside the UoC geographic areas, (ii) no clarity on whether transshipment occurs and how, (iii) risk traceability section, change - of mixing at unloading /while at the buying station. The risk of mixing MSC-eligible and not eligible including ports of landing additional catches might jeopardize the final product’s traceability. In order for the fishery to achieve certification, it where CoC will start and evidence must be verified that there is a strong Chain of Custody established. be required. There is no presented)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

CAB Evidence or CAB response to General comments Response references stakeholder input Code transhipment in this fishery.

HS ADVOCACY ACTIONS - According to the ACDR preliminary scores, the CAB will likely set conditions towards the implementation https://ngotuna by WCPFC of a robust Harvest Strategy for Western Pacific yellowfin tuna. As regards the Client Action forum.org/glob Plan to meet these conditions, ISSF would like to suggest specific actions for the Client to consider: al-tuna- 1) Publicly support the high-level appeals for RFMOs developed by global NGOs that are participants in advocacy- the NGO Tuna Forum . appeal/ For 2020, the global appeal letter was focused on key asks for each RFMO this year. We note that PTHP did not sign the letter this year. This letter that contains the Forum's high-level appeal to the tuna - https://iss- RFMOs, along with all the logos of current and new company signatories, is a living public statement of foundation.org/ support available on the NGO Tuna Forum's website. (https://ngotunaforum.org/global-tuna-advocacy- what-we- appeal/) do/influence/p PTHP should publicly support the high-level appeals for RFMOs developed by the global NGO Tuna Forum osition- and attach its logo to the living statement of support. In order to be included in the 2020 version, please statements Accepted contact Mr. Robin Teets ([email protected]). Thank you for these (no score In 2020 and 2021, companies will also have the opportunity to engage in other direct RFMO advocacy suggestions. SCS will pass change - tactics to demonstrate market support for specific tuna sustainability asks. NGO participants in the NGO these along to the MSC additional Tuna Forum will be reaching out to market partners with these opportunities in the coming months. Client Group. evidence 2) Advocate for accelerated progress on the adoption and implementation of Harvest Strategies and presented) Harvest Control Rules through WCPFC, such as through continued direct engagement with national delegations to WCPFC. ISSF also encourages PTHP to directly engage in the WCPO MSC Alignment Group and the Group’s advocacy initiatives for harvest strategies and other priorities. 3) Urge the Philippines delegation at WCPFC to take a strong public position on advancing harvest strategies as part of the deliberations WCPFC will undertake virtually this year and at future in-person meetings, including by making proposals for the development of harvest strategies including harvest control rules, and to underscore that the MSC has established hard deadlines for P1 conditions for certified tuna fisheries, which for WCPO yellowfin HCR is by June 2022. If these deadlines are not met, the corresponding WCPO yellowfin MSC certifications will be suspended. 4) Have meetings, calls or other direct contact with all other relevant WCPFC delegations where PTHP has business interests to advocate for the adoption of Harvest Strategies and HCR; and 5) Publicly support ISSF Position Statements that contain detailed asks on Harvest Strategies and

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

CAB Evidence or CAB response to General comments Response references stakeholder input Code Harvest Control Rules to the virtual sessions of the WCPFC in 2020 and future in-person meetings, and document that support (e.g. by submitting a letter or some other communication citing the Position Statement).

LETTER OF SUPPORT Final Report of The ACDR states that the CAB will likely set conditions for PIs 1.2.1 (Harvest strategy) and 1.2.2 (HCR) for the Solomon the WCPO yellowfin tuna stock. Taking into account that Philippine’s national government will probably Islands longline have a relevant role in the action plan for these conditions, ISSF is concerned that, without a letter of albacore and support from BFAR, there is no clear expectation that the Client Action Plan will achieve its objectives. yellowfin tuna In PCDRs from other tuna fisheries that have obtained MSC certification in recent years, the evidence of fishery: government support and involvement presented consisted of a letter from the national fisheries agency Accepted The CAB will have letters or ministry of fisheries stating their conformity and commitment to the milestones and actions described https://cert.ms (no score of support from BFAR and in the Client’s Action Plan (see for example the Final Report of the Solomon Islands longline albacore and c.org/FileLoade change - other relevant entities yellowfin tuna fishery (P.279)). r/FileLinkDownl additional included in the PCDR oad.asmx/GetFi evidence Report. le?encryptedKe presented) y=+qi2N83wZ9 VnJ8Ep4QpeFEJ +aZOZ23KSTEFg oorNggDjrCzt+p TxDh47ZcdaRb6 A

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

9.11 Conditions

9.11.1 Condition 1 (PI 1.2.1) Yellowfin

Performance PI 1.2.1a (Yellowfin) There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Indicator Score 70 Justification See rationale for PI 1.2.1a (Yellowfin) By the second surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

Via the 2019 MSC-approved Mega Variation CABs agreed to align the condition milestones for the WCPO stocks with the Proposed Revisions to Harvest Strategy Work plan (WCPFC14-2017- Condition DP27_rev2), which indicates the harvest control rule will be adopted in 2021. Consistent with MSC COVID 19 derogations in March of 2020 and March of 2021, the proposed timeline has been extended by 18 months to June 2023. The adoption of harvest strategies would be expected at the Commission meeting, which takes place in December. Given the that the necessary evidence from the WCPFC will not be available until after the December 2022 WCPFC meeting, the team will review the evidence on the Year 2 surveillance, expected to take place in early 2023. See recent Mega-Variation Request from all CABS.2021

Year 1: Provide evidence of progress that a harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is in place that Milestone is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together Year 1 towards achieving the management objectives reflected PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Expected score: 75 Activities: - Conduct a roundtable discussion with BFAR and the Philippine Delegation to the WCPFC - Seek representation at the National Tuna Industry Council in order to advance for compatible HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans Client Action Plan - Draft a position statement from the MSC client group Expected Progress on the proposed harvest strategy measures for yellowfin tuna, outcome: both the WCFPC and national level - Come up with an agreement and a position for the Philippine Delegation to the WCPFC to support the advancement of harvest control rules (HCRs) and harvest strategy of yellowfin tuna at the RFMO

20https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=7BvbkXYXvtLirUx2M4+DrxC3Im3 u3NIQGaWGfPWo9F2/HEgxLoqhWj0TsvnC6su9 21 https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/for-business/program-documents/chain- of-custody-supporting-documents/msc-derogation-6-covid-19-fishery-conditions-extension.pdf

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 300

SCS Global Services Report

- NTIC is convened to discuss the advancement of HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans - HS and HCRs are incorporated into the National and Local Tuna Management Plans as an amendment - Draft position statement from MSC client group with a response received from the Philippine delegation Responsible - PTHP, BFAR, National Tuna Industry Council (NTIC) Party/ies:

Year 2: Provide evidence that a harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is in place that is Milestone responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together Year 2 towards achieving the management objectives reflected PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Expected score: 80 Activities: - Client will attend WCPFC seek BFAR endorsement to attend WCPFC meeting re: establishment of HCRs and HS, as part of the Philippine Delegation - Work with the NTIC to come up with a work plan to implement HS and HCRs through the National and Local Tuna Management Plan; NTIC to regularly evaluate the implementation of HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans - Through the NTIC, lobby for the amendment of FAO 226 to amend the definition for a juvenile tuna (currently, any juvenile tuna is defined at a weight of 500 grams) Client Action Plan - Access minutes of WCPFC meeting re: establishment of HCRs and HS

Expected WCPFC has put in place CMMs for HCRs and HS for yellowfin tuna outcome: Philippines has put in place compatible HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans - Conservation Management Measures are put in place for yellowfin tuna HCRs and HS - Work plan from the NTIC drafted for the implementation of HS and HCRs - Annual review of National and Local Tuna Management Plans

Responsible WCPFC, BFAR, Philippine Delegation to WCPFC, PTHP Party/ies: Consultation Letters of support from BFAR, NTIC on condition The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous assessment or Progress on surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from the assessment team. Condition Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition from previous surveillance (Year X) audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, Status ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays Additional The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here. information

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.2 Condition 2 (PI 1.2.2) Yellowfin

Performance PI 1.2.2 (Yellowfin) There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in Indicator place Score 60 Justification See rationale for PI 1.2.2 (Yellowfin) By the second surveillance audit, the client must be in a position to demonstrate that the SG80 requirements for yellowfin have been met:

SI a) well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. SI b) evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules are robust to address the main uncertainties. SI c) the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required Condition under the harvest control rules. Via the 2019 MSC-approved Mega Variation CABs agreed to align the condition milestones for the WCPO stocks with the Proposed Revisions to Harvest Strategy Work plan (WCPFC14-2017- DP27_rev2), which indicates the harvest control rule will be adopted in 2021. Consistent with MSC COVID 19 derogations in March of 2020 and March of 2021, the proposed timeline has been extended by 18 months to June 2023. The adoption of harvest strategies would be expected at the Commission meeting, which takes place in December. Given the that the necessary evidence from the WCPFC will not be available until after the December 2022 WCPFC meeting, the team will review the evidence on the Year 2 surveillance, expected to take place in early 2023. See recent Mega-Variation Request from all CABS.2223

Milestone Year 1 Surveillance: Client will provide evidence of progress that there are well defined and Year 1 effective harvest control rules (HCR) in place for yellowfin tuna. Expected score: 60 Activities: - Conduct a roundtable discussion with BFAR and the Philippine Delegation to the WCPFC - Seek representation at the National Tuna Industry Council in order to advance for compatible HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans Client Action Plan - Draft a position statement from the MSC client group Expected Progress on the proposed harvest strategy and harvest control rule outcome: measures for yellowfin tuna

- NTIC is convened to discuss the advancement of HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans

22https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=7BvbkXYXvtLirUx2M4+DrxC3Im3 u3NIQGaWGfPWo9F2/HEgxLoqhWj0TsvnC6su9 23 https://www.msc.org/docs/default-source/default-document-library/for-business/program-documents/chain- of-custody-supporting-documents/msc-derogation-6-covid-19-fishery-conditions-extension.pdf

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

- HS and HCRs are incorporated into the National and Local Tuna Management Plans as an amendment - Come up with an agreement and a position for the Philippine Delegation to the WCPFC to support the advancement of harvest control rules (HCRs) and harvest strategy of yellowfin tuna at the RFMO Responsible PTHP, BFAR, National Tuna Industry Council (NTIC) Party/ies:

Milestone Year 2: provide evidence that there are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCR) Year 2 in place for yellowfin tuna. Expected score: 80 Activities: - Client will attend WCPFC seek BFAR endorsement to attend WCPFC meeting re: establishment of HCRs and HS, as part of the Philippine Delegation - Work with the NTIC to come up with a work plan to implement HS and HCRs through the National and Local Tuna Management Plan; NTIC to regularly evaluate the implementation of HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans - Through the NTIC, lobby for the amendment of FAO 226 to amend the definition for a juvenile tuna (currently, any juvenile tuna is defined at a weight of 500 grams) Client Action Plan - Access minutes of WCPFC meeting re: establishment of HCRs and HS

Expected WCPFC has put in place CMMs for HCRs and HS for yellowfin tuna outcome: Philippines has put in place compatible HS and HCRs within the National and Local Tuna Management Plans - Conservation Management Measures are put in place for yellowfin tuna HCRs and HS - Work plan from the NTIC drafted for the implementation of HS and HCRs - Annual review of National and Local Tuna Management Plans

Responsible WCPFC, BFAR, Philippine Delegation to WCPFC, PTHP Party/ies: Consultation Letters of support from BFAR, NTIC on condition

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.1 Condition 3 (PI 2.2.2) Secondary Species Management Strategy

Performance Indicator 2.2.2 (d) Secondary Species Management Strategy – shark finning Score 75 Justification Though considerable attention and efforts to monitor and prevent shark finning is currently in place in the Philippines, out of precaution, the assessment team cannot unequivocally determine it is highly unlikely that shark finning is taking place given the low levels of external validation and regulations in place. The assessment team will closely monitor species specificity surrounding sharks to determine potential risk of shark finning, and seek additional evidence that would fulfil good external validation requirements under SA 2.4.4.1.

Condition By the year four surveillance audit, demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place in the fishery as per secondary species management for shark finning .

By the first surveillance audit, hold meetings with relevant industry, NGO’s and/or Milestone government personnel to identify potential actions and systems, and draft a preliminary plan Year 1 to ensure shark finning is not taking place.

Expected score: 75

Activities: - Conduct series of consultative meetings and planning sessions with relevant stakeholders - Draft a preliminary plan to ensure shark finning is not taking place, and incorporate it into the Local Tuna Management Plans of Client Action Mindoro Strait and Lagonoy Gulf Plan - Commission a study to provide external validation that shark finning is not taking place Expected Amendment is added to the LTMP outcome: Responsible Party/ies: BFAR, NTIC, PTHP, LGUs, Provincial Agricultural and Fisheries Council (PAFC) By the second surveillance audit, finalize and approve a plan which identifies and describes Milestone feasible mechanisms for ensuring shark finning is not taking place. Year 2 Expected score: 75

Activities: - Finalization and approval of plan for shark finning Present plan to MFARMC for endorsement to local legislative body Client Action Plan Expected Adoption of shark finning plan by local legislative body, as annex to outcome: the LTMP Responsible Party/ies: LGUs, PTHP, M/IFARMCs By the third surveillance audit, demonstrate that a plan has been implemented, working with Milestone relevant stakeholders to collect information and evidence as needed. Year 3 Expected score: 75

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Activities: - Commission a study that provides external validation that shark finning is not taking place Expected Evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that shark finning is Client Action outcome: taking place Plan - External validation report on shark finning Responsible Party/ies: PaNaGaT fisheries CSO network, academes/research institutions, PTHP, LGUs (municipal and barangay level) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that recent efforts demonstrate adequate Milestone external validation that shark finning is not taking place. Year 4 Expected score: 80 Activities: - Monitor and evaluate the implementation of the plan Expected Evidence shows that it is highly unlikely that shark finning is Client Action outcome: taking place Plan - M&E report Responsible Party/ies: External consultant/agency (e.g. state universities, etc) Consultation Letters of support from X and X in relation with action plan on condition Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.1 7.19.8 The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous assessment Progress on or surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from the assessment Condition team. Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition from previous (Year X) surveillance audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been Status closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons. The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays Additional information The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.2 Condition 4 (PI 2.3.3) ETP Species Information Strategy Performance Indicator 2.3.3 (a) – Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Score 60 Justification Quantitative information of animals have been provided that are not species-specific in some cases and indicate family level or generic information (e.g. “shark”). These incidences for all purposes are very small, however they are still worth noting. Though quantitative information is provided through the catch reported via landings data, there is no independent verification of data through either an observer program or robust port samples program for the UoA as it relates to ETP species 2.3.3 or combination of qualitative and quantitative as outlined in GSA3.6.3. Thus, the assessment team cannot determine whether the UoA may be a threat to ETP species, not can it assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts on ETP species.

Condition By the year four surveillance, implement systems to ensure information adequacy for assessment of impacts to ETP species.

By the first surveillance audit, hold meetings with relevant industry, NGO,s and/or Milestone government personnel to identify potential actions and systems and develop and preliminary Year 1 plan to ensure robust ETP species information.

Expected score: Activities: Conduct a series of consultative meetings with relevant stakeholders to come up with a robust catch monitoring plan to include ETPs and sharks Expected A robust catch monitoring plan is developed Client Action outcome: - A catch monitoring plan to be annexed into the Local Tuna Plan Management Plan - Field guide to ETP species and sharks with local names for ease of identification Responsible Party/ies: BFAR, DENR (Department of Environment and Natural Resources – responsible for ETPs), PTHP, LGUs, NGOs By the second surveillance audit, finalize and approve a plan which identifies and describes Milestone feasible mechanisms for ensuring robust ETP species information is collected. Year 2 Expected score:

Activities: - Finalization and approval of catch monitoring plan for ETPS and sharks - Review/updating of Local Tuna Management to incorporate catch Client Action monitoring plan for ETPs and sharks Plan - Present plan to MFARMC for endorsement to local legislative body Expected Adoption of a robust catch monitoring plan by local legislative body, as outcome: annex to the LTMP Responsible Party/ies: FARMCs, PTHP, LGUs

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

By the third surveillance audit, demonstrate that a plan has been implemented, working with Milestone relevant stakeholders to collect information and evidence as needed. Year 3 Expected score: Activities: - Gather and consolidate catch monitoring reports Expected Catch monitoring report data is consolidated, summarized and Client Action outcome: analyzed Plan - Catch monitoring overall report Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, academes, LGUs, BFAR By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that independent, robust ETP species information systems are in place. Milestone Year 4 Expected score: 80 Activities: - Conduct external monitoring and evaluation study Expected Evaluation report shows that an independent, robust ETP species Client Action outcome: information system is in place Plan - M&E report Responsible Party/ies: External evaluator/consultant Consultation Letters of support from X and X in relation with action plan on condition Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.1 7.19.8 The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous assessment Progress on or surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from the assessment Condition team. Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition from previous (Year X) surveillance audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been Status closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons. The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays Additional information The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.3 Condition 5 (PI 2.4.2) Habitat management strategy

Performance Indicator 2.4.2 (a) Management strategy in place Score 75

Though the UoA has initiated activities to register, deploy, and manage its own AFAD assets, Justification the assessment team cannot fully verify registration and management of AFADs used by the UoA, and therefore no management measures and/or partial strategy are considered in place expected to achieve the habitat outcomes for SG80.

By the third surveillance audit, provide at least some quantitative evidence that the UoA Condition complies with both its management requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant.

Milestone Surveillance Year 1: Meet with relevant stakeholders to develop plans to implement Year 1 adequate management strategy for anchored FADs in the UoA. Expected score: 75

Activities: - Conduct a series of consultative meetings with relevant stakeholders to develop plans to implement adequate management strategy for anchored FADs in the UoA - Revisit National FAD management plan to include measures to regulate the registration and deployment of FADs in municipal Client Action waters Plan Expected FAD management measures are developed (e.g. on the outcome: registration, usage, deployment and retrieval) and consolidated into a plan as annex to the Local Tuna Management Plan - FADs to be tagged with identification numbers, and a hotline for reporting lost FADs to be established Responsible Party/ies: BFAR, LGUs, PTHP, FARMCs Surveillance Year 2: Provide information that there is progress to develop plans to Milestone implement adequate management strategy for anchored FADs in the UoA. Year 2 Expected score: 75

Activities: - Consolidate and finalize FAD management measures into a plan (to be annexed into the LTMP) for the endorsement of MFARMCs - Present plan to be approved by the local legislative body Client Action Plan Expected FAD management plan is endorsed by FARMCs and presented to outcome: the local legislative body - MFARMC resolution for the enactment of the plan Responsible Party/ies: FARMCs, LGUs, PTHP Surveillance Year 3: Provide evidence that vessels in the UoA have effective management Milestone strategy to manage FADs in the UoA. Year 3 Expected score: 80

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Activities: - Lobbying the local legislative body for the approval of the FAD plan - Monitor and evaluate the FAD management plan Client Action Plan Expected Approval of FAD plan by local legislative body, including monitoring outcome: and evaluation strategy Responsible Party/ies: LGUs, PTHP Consultation Letters of support from LGUs, BFAR, and FARMCS in relation with action plan on condition The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous assessment Progress on or surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from the assessment Condition team. Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition from previous (Year X) surveillance audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been Status closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons. The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays Additional information The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.4 Condition 6 (PI 2.4.3) Habitats Information

Performance Indicator 2.4.3 (b) Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Score 75 Justification Though efforts have begun to track AFADS deployed by the UoA fishing vessels, the assessment team did not get reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear, including AFADs.

BFAR has anecdotally confirmed that the municipal handline fishery is encouraged to track, recover, and reduce the incidence of anchored FADs that have been dislodged but this is not formally adopted or mandated at this time. As a result, ability to monitor impacts to main and VME habitats needs improvement.

By the third surveillance audit, provide evidence that the information available and Condition continues to be collected to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the timing and location of use of the

fishing gear and, to the degree possible, the spatial extent of interaction.

Milestone Develop and provide a plan for determining the spatial extent, timing and location of FAD Year 1 interactions with coral reefs and other sensitive habitats. Expected score: 75

Activities: - Conduct a FAD mapping study with ground-truthing - Consultations with LGUs on the monitoring of drifting FADs as part of regular seaborne patrolling (Bantay Dagat) - Encourage fishers’ voluntary reporting of lost FADs to the LGU Expected Commitment from LGUs to monitor FADs as part of regular Client Action outcome: seaborne patrolling Plan Spatial extent, timing and location of FADs is determined - Validated FAD map and baseline information on FADs in the UoA - Executive order issued by local chief executive to their municipal agriculturist’s office (MAO) or to the Bantay Dagat Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, LGUs, Bantay Dagat, TFA Provide information on the number of FADs lost by the fishery that might interact with coral Milestone reefs. Year 2 Expected score: 75

Activities: - Develop FAD monitoring and reporting tool for the Bantay Dagat and fishers - Consolidate information from monitoring and reporting tool as Client Action Plan well as FAD mapping study Expected Lost and drifted FADs are reported and retrieved outcome: - Report with estimated number of lost FADs and their locations Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, LGUs, Bantay Dagat, TFA

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Provide information on the spatial extent, timing, and location of FAD interactions with coral Milestone reefs, and evidence that information continues to be collected. Year 3 Expected score: 80 Activities: - Regular collection and consolidation of FAD monitoring reports Client Action Expected FAD monitoring report data is compiled and readily available Plan outcome: Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, LGUs, Bantay Dagat, TFA Consultation Letters of support from X and X in relation with action plan on condition Include details of any verification required to meet requirements in FCP v2.1 7.19.8 The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous assessment Progress on or surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from the assessment Condition team. Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition from previous (Year X) surveillance audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been Status closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons. The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays Additional information The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.5 Condition 7 (PI 3.2.1) Fishery-Specific Objectives Performance Indicator 3.2.1(a) – Fishery-specific objectives Score 60 Justification The Tuna Fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf, and Occidental-Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan have been approved by the Lagonoy Gulf IFARMC and Mindoro Strait IFARMC respectively, consistent with Section 16 of the Philippine Fisheries Code (1998). The Plan has general goals and objectives covering the sustainable level of tuna production, the Improved condition of fisherfolk and equitable access to tuna resources and Strengthening the governance/management of tuna fisheries. These are supported by monitoring and evaluation plans containing benchmarks, indicators, management actions/measures and proposed outcomes. The plans also assign specific tasks, responsible agencies and timelines for the objectives under the main goals. However, though both regional management plans have been agreed at the IFAMC level, they have yet to be ratified by individual LGUs in each region and therefore the legal standing of the regional tuna management plans is unclear.

SG 60 is met as short and long-term 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. However, the standing of the regional tuna management plans within each of the LGUs is unclear. This means it cannot be concluded that short and long-term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit (our emphasis) within the fishery-specific management system. Therefore, SG80 is not met.

Condition By the fourth surveillance audit, short and long-term fishery-specific objectives are explicit within the fishery specific management system, which are consistent with achieving the

outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Milestone By the first surveillance audit, provide an assessment of which LGUs have adopted the Year 1 fisheries specific objectives from each of the respective Tuna management plan. Expected score: 60 Activities: - Assess which LGUs have adopted the fisheries-specific objectives from each of the respective tuna management plans Client Action Expected Baseline information on the adoption of LTMP by LGUs Plan outcome: - Assessment report Responsible Party/ies: LGUs, PTHP, NGO, BFAR, FARMCs By the second surveillance audit, provide evidence that each LGU has been informed of the need to adopt the identified fisheries specific objectives from each of the respective Tuna Milestone management plan and that each LGU is aware of this requirement. Year 2

Expected score: 60 Client Action Activities: - Conduct consultative meetings with LGUs to inform them on the Plan need to adopt and implement fisheries-specific objectives

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Expected Commitment from LGUs and FARMCs to adopt LTMP outcome: - 21 MFARMC resolutions to endorse the LTMP to the local legislative body (Sangguniang Bayan) - Municipal resolutions (SB resolution) from all 21 LGUs in Lagonoy Gulf and Mindoro Strait Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, LGUs, NGO, BFAR, FARMCs By the third surveillance audit, provide evidence that each LGU has in place a plan to adopt Milestone the identified fisheries specific objectives from each of the respective Tuna management Year 3 plan. Expected score: 60 Activities: - Lobby for the adoption of the local tuna management plans Expected Increased number of LGUs that have adopted the LTMP Client Action outcome: - Municipal ordinance for the adoption of the local tuna Plan management plans Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, LGUs, NGO, BFAR, FARMCs By the fourth surveillance audit, fisheries specific objectives requiring action by LGUs, as outlined in the Tuna Fishery Management Plan for Lagonoy Gulf, and in the Occidental- Milestone Mindoro Strait Local Tuna Management Plan have been adopted by each of the LGUs in the Year 4 UoA or where not formally adopted, a clear public time bound intent to do so is documented. Expected score: 80

Activities: - Assessment of adoption and implementation of LTMP by LGUs - Develop a monitoring and evaluation tool to document the progress of adoption and implementation of the LTMP Client Action Expected Majority of LGUs have adopted the LTMP Plan outcome: - Assessment report - M&E report Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, LGUs, NGO, BFAR, FARMCs Consultation Letters of support from LGUs, NGO, BFAR, FARMCs in relation with action plan on condition The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous assessment Progress on or surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from the assessment Condition team. Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition from previous (Year X) surveillance audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been Status closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons. The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Additional information The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.6 Condition 8 (PI 3.2.3) Compliance and Enforcement Performance Indicator 3.2.3(a) MCS Implementation Score 70 Justification WCPFC

At the WCPFC level there is a well-developed MCS system that, when applied appropriately, results in effective compliance with management arrangements. The basis of this system for the WCPFC is its Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS). The CMS is a contemporary, integrated framework to ensure that Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) implement and comply with obligations arising under the Convention, as well as CMMs adopted by the Commission.

WCPFC members are required to submit annual TCC reports reflecting the status of fishery compliance in the WCPFC. TCC summary reports publicly identify member compliance (or non- compliance).

Philippines

Key national MCS programs and related initiatives include (NTMP 2018):

▪ Data collection policy (log sheets, landing declarations, port sampling, and observers) ▪ Traceability ▪ Catch certification ▪ Inspections ▪ Enforcement ▪ Adjudication of administrative penalties

Over the last decade the Philippines has improved its national Monitoring, Control and Surveillance systems (PEMSEA. 2018). A compliance system is in place for municipal vessels (< 3 GT). This includes BFAR registration (Boat R) and a municipal registration for fishers (Fish R) and the requirement to obtain gear licenses (Boat R). However, commitment to licensing and registration is very variable in each fishing location and the arrangements can not demonstrate an ability to effectively enforce these rules in the overall handline fishery in the municipalities defined by the UoA: fishers who are part of the Fishing Associations working with PPTST are licensed and registered as required by law (the scope of the UoA cannot be constrained to only these participants because there is a requirements for P3 to be scored at the scale of the “fishery-specific” system, which must include all Tuna handline fishers within the relevant LGUs comprising the UoA).

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

The Occidental-Mindoro Strait local tuna management plan states (p.28): On the aspect of governance relative to the management of tuna fisheries in the Strait, NSAP data showed that the bottlenecks is on the compliance to the increasing management measures and other requirements of RFMOs, by-catch and catching sharks and the concern for the high number of tuna fishing vessels unlicensed and high percentage of catch production from tuna handline fisheries coming from the unlicensed fishing operation. Similar comments can be found in the Lagonoy Gulf Strait local tuna management plan.

An issue of relevance to the UoA are dated, and inconsistent MCS provisions in Municipal Fisheries Ordinances for LGUs in both Lagonoy Gulf and Mindoro Strait. BFAR led efforts are underway to encourage LGUs to adopt an integrated Municipal Fisheries Ordinance that would create a unified MCS across all LGUs in the UoA.

SG 60 is met since monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms exist, and are implemented in the fishery and there is a reasonable expectation that they are effective. However, SG 80 is not met because although a monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery it has not demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

Condition By the fourth surveillance audit, it is demonstrated that harmonized MCS system including LGU fishery ordinances in the UoA has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated ability to enforce relevant measures, strategies and/or rules. Milestone By the first surveillance audit, provide an assessment of which LGUs need to adopt Year 1 harmonized MCS provisions Expected score: 70

Activities: - Conduct a policy review of all municipal fisheries ordinances

- Draft a harmonized municipal fisheries ordinance on the MCS management measures - Through the NTIC, monitor and evaluate the implementation of the MCS provisions within the NTMP Expected A harmonized MFO has been drafted according to a policy review Client Action outcome: At the national level, implementation of MCS provisions have been Plan evaluated - Policy review report - Draft harmonized MFO - Evaluation report on the implementation of MCS provisions within the NTMP Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG (Department of Interior and Local Government), LGUs, BFAR, FARMCs By the second surveillance audit, provide evidence that each LGU has been informed of the Milestone need to adopt the harmonized MCS provisions and that each LGU is aware of this Year 2 requirement. Expected score: 70

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Activities: - Conduct consultative meetings with LGUs to inform them on the need to adopt and implement harmonized MCS measures - Develop a work plan through the NTIC to address MCS issues, together with relevant national government enforcement authorities (e.g. PNP Maritime, MARINA, BFAR) Expected Secured commitment and support from LGUs outcome: At the national level, work plan has been developed to address Client Action MCS issues Plan - 21 MFARMC resolutions to endorse the harmonized MCS measures to the local legislative body (Sangguniang Bayan) - Municipal resolutions (SB resolution) from all 21 LGUs in Lagonoy Gulf and Mindoro Strait - Work plan to address MCS issues Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG (Department of Interior and Local Government), LGUs, BFAR, FARMCs By the third surveillance audit, provide evidence that each LGU has in place a plan, including Milestone a timetable, to adopt the identified harmonized MCS provisions. Year 3 Expected score: 75

Activities: - Lobby for the adoption of harmonized MCS measures - Implementation of work plan for MCS provisions at the national level Expected Municipal fisheries ordinances are amended to include Client Action outcome: harmonized MCS measures Plan - Amended municipal fisheries ordinance to include harmonized MCS measures - Work plan for MCS is being implemented Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG (Department of Interior and Local Government), LGUs, BFAR, FARMCs By the fourth surveillance audit, it is demonstrated that harmonized MCS provisions are contained within the Municipal Fisheries Ordinances of the majority of LGUs in Occidental Milestone Mindoro Strait and the majority of LGUs in Lagonoy Gulf and an agreed timetable for the Year 4 adoption of harmonized MCS provisions in the Municipal Fisheries Ordinances of the remaining LGUs is in place. Expected score: 80

Activities: - Monitoring and evaluation of the progression of the adoption and implementation of harmonized MCS measures

Client Action - Monitoring and evaluation of the implementation of MCS work Plan plan Expected Majority of LGUs have adopted and implemented harmonized outcome: MCS measures - M&E reports

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG (Department of Interior and Local Government), LGUs, BFAR, FARMCs Consultation Letters of support from DILG, LGUs, BFAR, FARMCs in relation with action plan on condition The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous assessment Progress on or surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from the assessment Condition team. Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition from previous (Year X) surveillance audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been Status closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons. The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays Additional information The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.11.7 Condition 9 (PI 3.2.3) Compliance and Enforcement Performan ce 3.2.3(c ) Compliance Indicator Score 70 Justificatio n WCPFC

In relation to the UoA and for this Scoring Issue, the appropriate management system is that of the WCPFC and the suite of MCS arrangements implemented under the Convention. Individual flag States play an important role in ensuring arrangements are complied with at the individual fisher level and from an overall flag State performance perspective, however the overall efficiency and effectiveness of management arrangements rests with the WCPFC.

All WCPFC Members and in this case the Philippines, are bound to implement all WCPFC CMMs. Any detected non-compliance with these arrangements is reported in National Part 2 Country Reports and annually assessed by the TCC. CCMs performance is reported in the Compliance Monitoring Report and available to the Commission. A review of the 2019 CMR indicates that identified non-compliance with CMMs by some flags, including the Philippines and vessels which remains a problem.

In any large commercial fishery, some level of non-compliance is expected. Nonetheless, the WCPFC has a comprehensive MCS system in place supported by at-sea compliance monitoring and very high levels of coverage by trained scientific observers. This is recognized as contributing to generally strong compliance outcomes and improving the quality of both catch and effort and ecosystem related data collection. The MCS system also requires that logbook and other data be supplied as part of license requirements.

The TCC reports, observer reports, logbook and other data requirements and regional MCS operations coordinated by FFA, provide reliable evidence that there is compliance with the management system.

Philippines

The Philippines are fully compliant with reporting scientific and operational (catch and effort) fishing data to the WCPFC, recognizing that improvements are required in the reporting of data from municipal tuna fisheries.

The enforcement of the fisheries regulations in municipal waters is through the Bantay Dagat (Fish Warden), a community-based surveillance team which is composed of fisher’s volunteers and supported by the respective LGU and BFAR regional offices. Bantay Dagat are deputized by BFAR after undergoing mandatory training. Their enforcement activities include:

▪ Seaborne patrolling and monitoring.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

▪ Surveillance and evidence collection.

▪ Regular meetings with law enforcement staff.

▪ Information, education, and communication activities related to fisheries laws and marine conservation in local communities.

▪ The detection, pursuit and apprehension of violators of fisheries laws.

Each of 21 LGUs in the UoA has Bantay Dagat acting as the Fishery Law Enforcement Team for the LGU. In national waters, the competent authorities are the National BFAR office, Philippine Coast Guard (PCG) and the Maritime group of the Philippine National Police are responsible for enforcing fishery law.

Other significant operational compliance challenges remain for municipal fisheries. The available information suggests that compliance with the system of registration, licensing and catch reporting is variable and improvements need to be made across the range of the PPTST landing sites and all tuna handline fishers in the LGUs within scope of the UoA. There is evidence available that PPTST fishers comply with catch reporting, facilitated by WWF, but there is also evidence that other municipal handline fishers do not. For example, in Lagonoy Gulf in October 2020 some 20% of municipal tuna vessels are unregistered, while for Mindoro Strait 10% of municipal tuna vessels are estimated to be unregistered. Figures for municipal tuna vessels without an annual license are higher. In October 2020, 78% of tuna vessels were unlicensed in Lagonoy Gulf and 25% were unlicensed in Mindoro Strait.

SG60 is met because there is evidence to show that fishers are generally thought to comply with the management system for the fishery under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. SG 80 is not met because insufficient evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.

Due to the 1) socioeconomic constraints on fishers within the UoA to effectively and efficiently fulfill licensing and registration requirements in the Gulf of Lagunoy and Mindoro Strait regions and 2) the extensive inter-government collaboration that is necessary at the local, regional, and national levels to ensure progress regarding licensing and registration, the assessment team acknowledges that successful implementation may take longer than the certification period. As per clause 7.18.1.6 of the FCP v. 2.2, the assessment team grants up to the Year 3 Surveillance following the Re-Assessment to close this condition due to exceptional circumstances.

By the third surveillance audit following the Re-Assessment, some evidence exists Condition regarding licensing and registration within the UoA to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing

information of the importance to the effective management of the fishery.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

By the first surveillance audit, identify LGUs consistently with, and likely reasons for, Milestone lower levels of registration and licensing for municipal tuna handline vessels, and identify Year 1 capacity shortages where UoA may fail to demonstrate that fishers comply with the ETP management system.

Expected score: 70 Activities: - Assess the rates of fisheries compliance (registration, licensing, catch reporting, ETP management) for each LGU and reasons for these rates Client Expected Baseline information on the rates of fisheries compliance across all Action Plan outcome: LGUs - Assessment report Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO By the second surveillance audit, have developed in cooperation with LGUs with lower levels of registration and licensing for municipal tuna handline vessels, a plan (or plans) Milestone to increase registration and licensed handline vessels, and to demonstrate system that Year 2 ensures fishers comply with ETP management system.

Expected score: 70 Activities: - Develop an information and education campaign for voluntary compliance as well as an enforcement plan for strict implementation of fisheries compliance policies

Client Expected IEC plans and enforcement plans are developed and implemented Action Plan outcome: - IEC plan and materials - Enforcement plan and violation monitoring tool Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, Police Enforcement Desk Officer By the third surveillance audit, provide evidence that the plan (or plans) is being implemented and that progress is being made to demonstrate measurable increases in Milestone the percentage of tuna handline vessels registered and licensed to operate within the Year 3 UoA compared to the previous year. Expected score: 70 Activities: - Monitor the progress of the implementation of the IEC and enforcement plan towards increasing levels of fisheries compliance Expected Increased levels of fisheries compliance Client outcome: Monitoring report Action Plan - - Documentations of violations Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, Police Enforcement Desk Officer By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence to demonstrate progress including Milestone measurable increases in the percentage of tuna handline vessels registered and licensed Year 4 to operate within the UoA compared to the previous year. Expected score: 70

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Activities: - Monitor the progress of the implementation of the IEC and enforcement plan towards increasing levels of fisheries compliance Expected Increased levels of fisheries compliance Client outcome: Action Plan - Monitoring report - Documentations of violations Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, Police Enforcement Desk Officer By the Re-Assessment, provide evidence to demonstrate progress including measurable Milestone increases in the percentage of tuna handline vessels registered and licensed to operate Year 5 within the UoA compared to the previous year. Expected score: 75 Activities: - Monitor the progress of the implementation of the IEC and enforcement plan towards increasing levels of fisheries compliance Expected Increased levels of fisheries compliance Client outcome: Monitoring report Action Plan - - Documentations of violations Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, Police Enforcement Desk Officer By the first surveillance audit following the Re-Assessment, provide evidence to demonstrate progress including measurable increases in the percentage of tuna handline Milestone vessels registered and licensed to operate within the UoA compared to the previous Year 6 year. Expected score: 75 Activities: - Monitor the progress of the implementation of the IEC and enforcement plan towards increasing levels of fisheries compliance Expected Increased levels of fisheries compliance Client outcome: Action Plan - Monitoring report - Documentations of violations Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, Police Enforcement Desk Officer By the second surveillance audit following the Re-Assessment, provide evidence to demonstrate progress including measurable increases in the percentage of tuna handline Milestone vessels registered and licensed to operate within the UoA compared to the previous Year 7 year. Expected score: 75 Activities: - Monitor the progress of the implementation of the IEC and enforcement plan towards increasing levels of fisheries compliance Expected Increased levels of fisheries compliance Client outcome: Monitoring report Action Plan - - Documentations of violations Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, Police Enforcement Desk Officer

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

By the third surveillance audit following the Re-Assessment, provide evidence to demonstrate progress including measurable increases in the percentage of tuna handline Milestone vessels registered and licensed to operate within the UoA. In particular, the fishery must Year 8 demonstrate that approximately 90% or more of vessels are licensed and registered to operate in the UoA. Expected score: 80 Activities: - Monitor the progress of the implementation of the IEC and enforcement plan towards increasing levels of fisheries compliance Client Expected Fisheries compliance has reached target levels Action Plan outcome: - Monitoring report Responsible Party/ies: PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, Police Enforcement Desk Officer Consultatio Letters of support from PTHP, DILG, LGUs, BFAR, NGO, Bantay Dagat, PNP Maritime, n on Police Enforcement Desk Officer in relation with action plan condition The progress made by the fishery client to address conditions from the previous Progress assessment or surveillance audit(s) shall be detailed, along with any observations from on the assessment team. Additional rows may be added to include progress on condition Condition from previous surveillance audits. The text on progress may be duplicated from previous (Year X) years or summarised.

Indicate conclusion of assessment team as to whether this condition is ‘new’, ‘on target’, ‘ahead of target’, ‘behind target’ or should be closed. Any conditions that have not been Status closed out with the previously agreed timescales shall be detailed together with the reasons. The report shall detail what actions are required by the fishery, including revised timescales, and what the implications are for continued certification. Teams should note FCP v2.1 section 7.28, and advise clients accordingly in the case of delays Additional informatio The CAB may provide any additional information for this condition here. n

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.12 Client Action Plan

See section 9.5 above.

Surveillance

Table 25. Fishery surveillance audit

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level On-site surveillance audit Level 6 Onsite surveillance Onsite surveillance Onsite surveillance & re-certification site visit

Table 26. Timing of surveillance audit

Anniversary date Proposed date of Year Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1 August 2021 August 2022 Additional stock assessment updates from the WCPFC should be completed by June 2022.

Table 27. Surveillance level rationale

Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors 1 On-site audit 2 auditors onsite Information will be needed to address Principal 1 with 1 auditor conditions for the Year 1 Surveillance Audit given the remote status of the WCPO yellowfin stock under the WCPFC

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.14 Harmonised fishery assessments

9.14.1 Principle 1

Principle 1 tuna fisheries in the WCPO have been the subject of several harmonization discussions. In 2016 CAB representative and team members participated in a Harmonization Workshop, which resulted in agreed scores for Principle 1 for the yellowfin tuna, albacore, and skipjack tuna stocks in the western Pacific managed by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). The harmonization outcome report was peer-reviewed, the details of which can be provided upon request.

Following the 2016 Harmonization Workshop, CABs have reviewed new information, participated in harmonization discussions and adjusted rationales, and relevant scores. The sections below describe subsequent harmonization discussions in which SCS participated. Currently, all scores are harmonized except for some minor differences in the SG80-100 bracket. These differences do not affect the overall outcome of the Principle 1 assessment.

In 2018, in recognition of different timelines to address Principle 1 conditions across MSC certified tuna fisheries, the MSC required all tuna and tuna-like fisheries (herein, tuna fisheries) certified against MSC Fisheries Standard v1.3 to update to v2.0. Additionally, there are requirements to harmonize timelines for P1 conditions (limited to those concerning harvest strategies and harvest control rules). For the WCPO, timelines are aligned against the WCPFC 2017 work plan.

In 2020 in response to the Covid-19 Derogation issued by MSC, six months was added to all fishery conditions, including harmonized conditions.

Yellowfin This fishery overlaps with severak other WCPO yellowfin tuna fisheries in the MSC programme (Table 6). See Table 3 above for more information on recent harmonization discussions for yellowfin in the WCPO.

Table 6 Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization for Principle 1 for yellowfin stocks as of June 2020. Fishery name CAB Recent Report 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Version Philippine Small-Scale Yellowfin SCS Global ACDR Sept 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 Tuna (Thunnus albacares) Services Handline Fishery American Samoa EEZ albacore and Control Union 2nd Surv April 90 NA 70 60 80 95 yellowfin longline fishery 2020 Australian Eastern Tuna and q.inspecta GmbH PCDR May 2020 90 NA 70 65 80 100* Billfish Fishery (albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna and swordfish)

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Fishery name CAB Recent Report 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Version Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna Acoura January 2018 90 NA 70 60 90* 95 longline

French Polynesia albacore and Control Union 1st Surv Nov 2019 90 NA 70 60 80 95 yellowfin longline fishery

Indonesia pole-and-line and SAI Global ACDR Jan 2020 100 NA 90 60 90* 95 handline, skipjack and yellowfin tuna of Western and Central Pacific archipelagic waters Kiribati albacore, bigeye and Control Union NA TBC NA TBC TBC TBC TBC yellowfin tuna longline fishery North Buru and Maluku Fair Trade SCS Global PCR May 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 Fishing Associations, Indonesian Services Handline Yellowfin Tuna Owasebussan Co. Ltd. North SCS Global ACDR Jan 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 Pacific Longline Tuna Fishery for Services Albacore, Yellowfin Tuna & Bigeye Tuna Pan Pacific yellowfin, bigeye and Control Union PCR May 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 albacore longline fishery

PNA Western and Central Pacific Lloyds Register 2nd Surv Anmt Feb 90 NA 70 60 90* 95 skipjack and yellowfin, 20 unassociated / non FAD set, tuna purse seine PNG Fishing Industry Association’s SCS Global PCR May 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 purse seine Skipjack & Yellowfin Services Tuna Fishery PT Citraraja Ampat, Sorong pole DNV 1st Surv Anmt Apr 90 NA 70 60 90* 95 and line skipjack and yellowfin 2020 tuna Solomon Islands longline albacore SCS Global PCR Nov 2019 90 NA 70 60 80 95 and yellowfin tuna fishery Services Solomon Islands skipjack and SCS Global ACDR May 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 yellowfin tuna purse seine and Services pole and line SZLC CSFC & FZLC FSM EEZ Control Union 2nd Surv Jan 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 Longline Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna SZLC CSFC FZLC & MIFV RMI EEZ Control Union PCR Oct 2019 90 NA 70 60 80 95 Longline yellowfin and bigeye Tuna SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Islands Control Union PCDR May 2020 90 NA 70 60 80 95 EEZ South Pacific albacore & yellowfin longline (certified) Tri Marine Western and Central SCS Global 3rd Surv Aug 2019 90 NA 70 60 80 95 Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna Services

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Fishery name CAB Recent Report 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Version Tropical Pacific yellowfin and Control Union PCR Oct 2019 90 NA 70 60 80 95 skipjack free- school purse seine fishery WPSTA Western and Central SCS Global 2nd Surv Anmt May 90 NA 70 60 80 95 Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free Services 2020 school purse seine MSC harmonization scores (v1.3) 90 NA 70 60 80 95

* Differences in scoring

Table 7 Rationale for scoring differences If applicable, explain and justify any difference in scoring and rationale for the relevant Performance Indicators (FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.6) The differences in scoring noted above in Table 6 under 1.2.3 have been discussed and the fisheries have agreed to harmonize with the agreed upon scores at the time of their next audit. The scoring difference in 1.2.4 is due to stock assessment information available for the Australian fishery only. This score will remain.

Table 3 Overlapping fisheries WCPO Yellowfin/Skipjack Supporting information Describe any background or supporting information relevant to the harmonisation activities, processes and outcomes.

2019 2019 triggered harmonization discussions amongst CABs to review the previously agreed-upon scores for these skipjack/yellowfin stocks. The harmonization discussions did not result in a change to scores, however, they led CABs to seek further guidance on interpretation of the standard from MSC. The interpretation remains unanswered, but the MSC

The issues reviewed included:

• Higher score for PI 1.2.1a- The MSC identifies a Harvest Control Rule in place (even if just a generally understood one) as one of the key elements required in a harvest strategy (MSC Standard v2.01 GSA2.4) and so the lack of any form of HCR is relevant to the logic behind whether the harvest strategy elements (as defined by MSC) work together as required by the SG80 level for Scoring Issue a for PI 1.2.1. Applying the MSC definition of a harvest strategy, it is understood that a harvest strategy for a fishery could not be given an unconditional pass for PI 1.2.1 without an HCR being in place. Nevertheless, SCS with other CABs recognize the potential validity of this argument and have in response submitted an interpretation request to MSC on July 2019, to clarify whether the second part of 1.2.1a can meet SG80 if a generally understood or well-defined HCR is not in place. MSC did not provide a response to the interpretation request, and acknowledging that the intent isn’t clear in the requirements and guidance, that an interpretation request was not appropriate in this case and that this issue has been incorporated into the policy development cycle for the upcoming FSR. CABs have agreed that for now this condition cannot be closed until the related condition on PI 1.2.2 is closed.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Supporting information • PI 1.2.2a. argument that a generally understood HCR is in place and not just available. This does not affect the score for this PI but could affect how PI 1.2.1a is scored and would also allow a different approach for PI 1.2.2c There has previously been agreement among CABs that there is not even a generally understood HCR for skipjack tuna (or other tuna species). A 60 score has been achieved for 1.2.2a on the basis of ‘available’ HCRs not one that is ‘in place’. All measures introduced by WCPFC have been negotiated outcomes that, although important and positive for stock conservation, had not been considered to follow even a generally understood HCR. The MSC Interpretation on HCRs instructs CABs that, when there is uncertainty over whether a HCR meets the requirements of ‘generally understood’, they should follow the precautionary approach and award a lower score. So, in the absence of new and stronger evidence that the previous decision was incorrect, the status quo should apply, and a condition be maintained.

2020 Harmonization discussions amongst CABs was initiated via email in early 2020 by SAI Global (email Feb. 5, 2020) as they prepared to announce the ACDR for the Indonesian Pole-and-Line and Handline fisheries in the WCPO. SAI Global scores for WCPO skipjack/yellowfin stocks in the ACDR were higher for PI 1.2.1 than previously agreed-upon scores for these stocks by CABs (SAI PI1.2.1 score=85; other CABs PI1.2.1 score=70). The harmonization discussions did not result in a change to scores, and it was recognized that a new assessment for yellowfin tuna, as well as bigeye tuna, were to be completed in late 2020, and they should form the basis of further harmonization efforts. As a new assessment for skipjack tuna is scheduled for 2022, previous scoring for skipjack tuna remains in place.

2021 With the adoption of the 2020 WCPO yellowfin stock assessment by the WCPFC in December 2020, harmonization discussions amongst CABs were reinitiated via email in January 2021 with the new assessment forming the basis of the scoring. After a thorough vetting of differences in scoring CABs reached agreement on scores for the WCPO yellowfin stock; PI1.1.1=100, PI1.2.1=70, PI1.2.2=60, PI1.2.3=80, and PI1.2.4=95. Harmonization discussions for skipjack tuna will commence after the assessment is completed in be 2022. Current scoring for skipjack tuna is PI1.1.1=100, PI1.2.1=70, PI1.2.2=60, PI1.2.3=90, and PI1.2.4=95.

Was either FCP v2.1 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonising? Yes Date of harmonisation meeting July 16 2019 No agreement was reached and lowest score was adopted (i.e. scores from 2016 harmonization pilot workshop remained in place).

9.14.2 Principle 2

As Principle 2 evaluates fleet specific impacts, the scores may vary based on each fleet’s catch behavior and interactions. Therefore, harmonization is considered for consistency, but scores may vary. Explanations for these differences are provided only in cases where results vary more than a score of 15

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report points on the same performance indicators, among assessments. MSC v2.1 requires additional considerations under Principle 2 for Cumulative Impacts. v2.01 of the MSC standard requires that any fishery under assessment that has spatial overlap with the Units of Assessment of any other MSC certified fisheries, be explicitly considered in Principle 2 for cumulative impacts. To ensure that the cumulative impact of all MSC fisheries is within sustainable limits, a UoA assessed against standard v2.01 may need to consider the combined impact of itself and other overlapping UoAs. This determination will include other UoAs assessed against earlier versions of the CR (e.g., v1.3). However, the MSC Interpretations log1 has clarified that “...the first two paragraphs of guidance on ‘MSC UoAs and the assessment of cumulative impacts’ in Table GSA3 may be taken as a suggestion and does not need to be implemented. The expectation would be that fisheries assessed against v2.0 of the standard shall only be required to consider cumulative impacts with other v2.0 fisheries”. In this case SCS has only considered cumulative considerations for this v2.0 fishery, relative to other overlapping v2.0 fisheries.

‘Overlapping UoAs’ are assessed at different levels depending on which PI is evaluated.

Primary Species

For P2 primary species, teams need to evaluate whether the cumulative impact of overlapping MSC UoAs hinders the recovery of ‘main’ primary species. According to FCP v2.1 Table GPB1, PI 2.1.1 a should be harmonized for ‘stocks that are ‘main’ in both UoAs, harmonise status relative to PRI (at SG60,80 and 100), and if below PRI, harmonise cumulative impacts at SG80 (not at SG60).’

North Pacific Albacore is the only main primary species given the catch composition of the UoA, and consideration of the cumulative impacts of all version 2.01 fisheries would apply. The overall status of north pacific albacore is described in PI 2.1.1. For the purposes of this assessment, no other fisheries identified list albacore as a main primary species for north pacific albacore stocks that are subject to harmonization under the MSC Standard v 2.01 and FCP v 2.2.

Secondary Species

For secondary species, cumulative impacts only need to be considered in cases where two or more UoAs have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being 10% or more or the total catch. The MSC requires that 2.2.1 a is harmonized for stocks that are ‘main’ in both UoAs, harmonise status relative to Biologically Based Limits (at SG60, 80, and 100), and if below Biologically Based Limits, harmonise cumulative impacts at SG80 (not at SG60) (FCP v2.1, Table GPB1).

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.14.3 Principle 3

Harmonisation requirements for PIs 3.1.1 – 3.1.3 is situation dependent. If both UoAs are part of the same larger fishery or fleet or have stocks in either P1 or P2 that are at least partially managed by the same jurisdiction(s) (nation states, RFMOs, or others) or under the same agreements, then the fisheries are required to be harmonized (FCP v2.1, Table GPB1). Harmonisation may sometimes be possible for those management arrangements that apply to both UoAs (noting the limitations accepted in GPB1.3). The MSC accepts that it may be impractical to attempt full harmonisation, due to the large number of fisheries that may be managed under the relevant policy framework, and the differences in application between them.

PI’s 3.2.1 – 3.2.4, harmonization is also situation dependent and required when both UoAs have stocks within either P1 or P2 that are at least partially managed by the same jurisdiction(s) (nation states, RFMOs, or others) or under the same agreements. Harmonisation is needed for those management arrangements that apply to both UoAs e.g. at the RFMO level but not the national level in the case of 2 separate national fleets both fishing the same regional stock.

In this particular case, given this is classified as a small-scale fishery and operates in Philippine territorial and EEZ waters, no other fisheries were identified that would be subject to Principal 3 harmonization.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.15 Objection Procedure

To be added at Public Certification Report stage if necessary

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

9.16 Raw Catch Data – Lagonoy Gulf and Occidental-Mindoro Strait (Combined)

Total Total 2013 Catch 2014 Catch 2015 Catch 2016 Catch 2017 Catch 2018 Catch 2019 Catch Catch % Species Species Count (Common (Scientific (kgs) Name) Name) (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count

Thunnus Yellowfin tuna albacares 18 7 2329 2077 1848 1556 742 510 1785 1626 3951 3667 2356 2156 13029 11599 59.16 Thunnus Albacore alalunga 106 78 714 537 823 497 862 593 746 633 247 178 171 132 3669 2648 16.66 Katsuwonus Skipjack tuna pelamis 6 4 113 92 191 153 195 80 196 166 235 179 56 31 992 705 4.50 Common dolphinfish Coryphaena (Mahi-Mahi) hippurus 8 5 172 151 503 365 52 30 68 53 97 58 56 33 956 695 4.34 Pusit (bait) - - 300 - 112 - - - 120 - 530 - 2.41 Abobngon ------(bait) 207 46 1 254 1.15 Acanthocybium Wahoo solandri 2 1 84 80 201 161 15 13 11 8 63 27 30 15 406 305 1.84 Promethichthys Roudi escolar premetheus 24 21 156 124 47 12 11 2 44 5 47 17 329 181 1.49 Opah Lampris guttatus 28 26 54 35 22 17 26 20 32 14 13 8 175 120 0.79 Rainbow Elagatis runner bipinnulata 1 12 8 42 24 44 17 20 9 44 18 2 165 76 0.75 Indo-Pacific Blue Marlin Makaira mazara 0 0 20 10 53 23 5 4 12 10 33 24 18 16 141 87 0.64 Great Sphyraena barracuda barracuda 1 0 14 12 50 37 5 4 6 6 30 10 10 4 116 73 0.53 Langkoy (bait) - - 56 - 59 - - - - 115 - 0.52

Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus 92 91 1 1 4 4 8 4 3 3 108 103 0.49 Indo-Pacific Istiophorus Sailfish platypterus 0 0 19 18 55 41 1 1 5 4 17 8 5 3 102 75 0.46 jacks Caranx spp. 1 1 9 9 47 47 38 15 3 98 72 0.44

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 1

SCS Global Services Report

Total Total 2013 Catch 2014 Catch 2015 Catch 2016 Catch 2017 Catch 2018 Catch 2019 Catch Catch % Species Species Count (Common (Scientific (kgs) Name) Name) (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count

Sibobog 0 - 0 - 63 - 20 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 83 - 0.38 Swordfish Xiphias gladius 0 0 4 4 45 44 0 0 3 3 12 9 11 10 75 70 0.34 Lobotes Tripletail surinamensis 58 48 7 4 65 52 0.30 Requiem sharks Shark (sablihan) 8 7 10 9 15 12 5 5 14 11 10 9 62 53 0.28 Big eye Trevally Caranx sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 44 4 4 1 1 49 49 0.22 Turingan (bait) 0 - 0 - 0 - 47 - 0 - 0 - 2 - 49 - 0.22 Buraw (bait) - - 34 - 13 - - - - 47 - 0.21 Salay-salay ------(bait) 0 0 38 3 0 0 0 41 0.19 Diamondback Thysanoteuthis squid rhombus 1 1 6 4 2 1 28 28 38 33 0.17 Narrow-barred spanish Scomberomorus mackerel commerson 0 0 8 8 10 9 0 0 8 8 6 2 0 0 32 27 0.15 Ruvettus Oilfish pretiosus 1 3 3 23 19 1 1 2 2 1 32 24 0.15 Snake Gempylus mackerel serpens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 20 12 12 0 0 32 32 0.15 Tamban (bait) - - 26 - 5 - - - - 31 - 0.14 Black marlin Makaira indica 3 2 10 8 5 3 2 6 1 3 1 29 15 0.13 Gymnosarda Dogtooth tuna unicolor 3 3 21 21 5 29 24 0.13 Frigate tuna Auxis thazard 2 2 17 12 2 2 2 2 25 16 0.11 Mackerel Tuna (Kawakawa) affinis 9 9 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 18 15 0.08 Atoloy (bait) - - 18 - - - - - 18 - 0.08 ------(bait) 16 16 0.07

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Total Total 2013 Catch 2014 Catch 2015 Catch 2016 Catch 2017 Catch 2018 Catch 2019 Catch Catch % Species Species Count (Common (Scientific (kgs) Name) Name) (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count (kgs) Count

Shark - 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 5 2 2 0 0 9 9 0.04 Longtail tuna 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 3 0.02 Pick-handle barracuda Sphyraena jello 5 4 5 4 0.02 Carcharhinus Spottail shark sorrah 1 1 4 4 5 5 0.02 Double-lined mackerel bilineatus 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 0.01 Blacktip Reef Carcharhinus Shark melanopterus 2 2 2 2 0.01 Giant manta Manta birostris 1 1 1 1 2 2 0.01 Mackerel - 2 2 2 2 0.01 Grand Total 143 95 3667 3167 4923 3182 2363 1307 3035 2680 4956 4302 2938 2445 22023 17178 100.00

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

9.17 List of Vessels in Unit of Certification Table 28. List includes 201 vessels and 379 vessels licensed and registered to operate in Lagonoy Gulf, and Mindoro Strait, respectively.

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0001 hammerhead 1 '0017/6109294 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0002 Jemric 0263/6116873 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0003 CARL JUSTIN 0262/6116872 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0004 Tuna Fishers Association (TFA) '0273/6116956 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0005 EASTERN EAGLE '0315/6117131 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0006 poineer '0281/6117176 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0007 Invictus '0325/6117455 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0008 Sunriser '0326/6117456 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0009 Kaizen 2020-002 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0010 Judy Grace 2020-001 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0011 Lex 2020-004 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0012 Rodel 2 2020-023 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0013 Leon 2020-044 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0014 No Name 2020-007 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0015 5 Brothers 2020-015 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0016 Tala 2020-025 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0017 Rodel 1 2020-027 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0018 Jericson 2020-012 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0019 Jericson 2020-011 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0020 Bryan 2020-040 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0021 Maeann 2020-013 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0022 Marylyn 2020-046 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0023 Vicky 2020-005 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0024 Emmer 2020-039 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0025 R-Uy 2020-041 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0026 Jonas 2020-016 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0027 Harly Quinn 2020-021 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0028 Harly Quinn 2020-022 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0029 Dolie Ben 2020-026 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0030 J B 2020-017 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0031 No Name 2020-042 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0032 No Name 2020-043 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0033 EM 2020-019 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0034 GLTFF SAG-0260-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0035 GLTFF Inc-Tabaco TFA#5 SAG-0227-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0036 Pia Mae SAG-0163-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0037 Ian Rose 1 SAG-0220-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0038 GLTFF, INC. 2020-036 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0039 Karen Boots SAG-0194-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0040 Bunso SAG-0160-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0041 No Name SAG-0077-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0042 Jakejillian Mae SAG-0231-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0043 No Name SAG-0076-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0044 John Ely SAG-0154-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0045 Terry SAG-0130-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0046 Eralin SAG-0237-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0047 Jeric SAG-0156-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0048 Samantha SAG-0216-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0049 Emmel SAG-0208-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0050 Ian Vanes 1 SAG-0226-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0051 Delyn 2020-031 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0052 Jeanne Princess SAG-0121-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0053 Jessa Marie SAG-0078-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0054 Chris Joules Faye SAG-0177-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0055 Kimbert SNR-0041-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0056 Jayralee 2020-030 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0057 Anthony 2020-029 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0058 Grazy RAW-0133-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0059 Monica RAW-0071-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0060 Ralph Michael RAW-0054-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0061 Twin Boys RAW-0079-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0062 Gian 1 RAW-0063-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0063 Althea Lyn SAG-0150-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0064 No Name 2020-033 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0065 No Name 2020-032 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0066 Emmer 2020-003 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0067 F/B Eric 1 FV-2020-020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0068 F/B Eric 2 FV-2020-021 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0069 F/B MJ FV-2020-023 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0070 BFAR5 TW-0276-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0071 No Name TW-00183-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0072 F/B Tin-Tin 2 FV-2020-032 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0073 No Name TW-0068-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0074 Patricia #2 TW-0067-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0075 No Name TW-0084-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0076 No Name TW-0083-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0077 No Name TW-00186-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0078 F/B Ernie FV-2020-003 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0079 No Name TW-0092-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0080 No Name TW-00115-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0081 No Name TW-0096-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0082 No Name TW-0097-13 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0083 No Name TW-0085-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0084 No Name TW-00101-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0085 F/B 7 Brothers 2 FV-2020-025 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0086 F/B Geremy Cope FV-2020-012 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0087 F/B Clint James FV-2020-035 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0088 Noel TW-00278-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0089 No Name TW-00128-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0090 No Name TW-00130-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0091 No Name TW-00221-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0092 No Name TW-00133-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0093 No Name TW-00131-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0094 No Name TW-00145-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0095 Jobert TW-00279-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0096 No Name TW-00144-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0097 No Name TW-00154-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0098 No Name TW-00147-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0099 F/B Palolo 1 FV-2020-019 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0100 Patricio / Timothy TW-0088-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0101 No Name TW-00146-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0102 No Name TW-00151-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0103 No Name TW-00148-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0104 No Name TW-00132-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0105 No Name TW-00155-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0106 No Name TW-00138-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0107 No Name TW-00137-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0108 Big / R TW-00149-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0109 No Name TW-00160-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0110 GLTFF/STFA FV-2020-016 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0111 F/B Compit FV-2020-017 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0112 F/B GLTFF/STFA FV-2020-018 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0113 F/B Homer FV-2020-028 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0114 F/B Vince Yechen FV-2020-008 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0115 F/B JRC FV-2020-015 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0116 F/B GLTFF/STFA FV-2020-034 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0117 F/B Gemalyn FV-2020-024 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0118 F/B Tin-Tin 1 FV-2020-033 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0119 F/B 7 Brothers 1 FV-2020-026 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0120 F/B Rotary Club of Bongalon FV-2020-014 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0121 F/B Mark Ryan FV-2020-027 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0122 F/B Palolo 2 FV-2020-004 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0123 FB TFARCT 2 CAS-25-024-20-24 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0124 No Name CAS-25-003-20-3 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0125 FB Sherwin CAS-25-015-20-15 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0126 FB RCA CAS-25-004-20-4 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0127 FB JASLYN CAS-25-001-20-1 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0128 F/V Johnny SJ-0215-20-05 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0129 F/V Bitang SJ-0224-20-09 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0130 F/V Baby Lyka SJ-0127-20-08 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0131 F/V Jay SJ-0183-20-46 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0132 F/V Christian Jonard SJ-0317-20-02 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0133 F/V Angeline SJ-0304-20-04 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0134 F/V Alvin SJ-0254-20-03 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0135 F/V GLTFF, INC. SJ-0260-20-01 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0136 F/V Mark Rovin SJ-0300-20-06 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0137 GLTFF Inc_LETFA1 69419559 Z Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0138 GLTFF Inc_LETFA2 6944842 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0139 FB Gabby 6944843 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0140 FB MIKA HANA 2 6944844 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0141 No Name 0008-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0142 No Name 0007-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0143 No Name 0056-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0144 No Name 0078-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0145 No Name 0446-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0146 No Name 0070-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0147 No Name 0091-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0148 No Name 0474-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0149 No Name 0415-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0150 No Name 0045-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0151 No Name 0025-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0152 No Name 0386-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0153 No Name 0061-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0154 No Name 0092-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0155 No Name 0059-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0156 BOBOY SAT-003-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0157 Andy SAT-007-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0158 Jammel SAT-001-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0159 JR SAT-004-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0160 Ryan SAT-002-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0161 Gift of God SAT-006-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0162 FHER SAT-005-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0163 Saldomar SAG-0219-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0164 No Name TW-0248-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0165 No Name TW-0057-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0166 No Name TW-0056-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0167 No Name TW-0234-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0168 No Name TW-0062-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0169 No Name TW-0232-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0170 No Name TW-0059-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0171 No Name TW-0275-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0172 No Name TW-0203-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0173 No Name TW-0233-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0174 No Name TW-00140-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0175 No Name 6708996 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0176 No Name 6709360 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0177 No Name 6708953 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0178 El Salvador 6708995 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0179 MTFA 1 6709185 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0180 Jhon Abby SAG-0180-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0181 4J SAG-0125-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0182 MHACSHE SAG-0127-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0183 Emean Nelse SAG-0153-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0184 TRIPLY BOYS SAG-0207-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0185 Erven SAG-0176-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0186 NOLIMER 3 SAG-0223-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0187 Jocel SAG-0158-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0188 ADAM GABRIEL SAG-0242-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0189 DON LEE 2 SAG-0230-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0190 JOHN REY SAG-0218-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0191 EL JANZA SAG-0205-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0192 Ivy Jon SAG-0162-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0193 BABY JOHNY SAG-0172-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0194 JOMARIE SAG-0124-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0195 REIN GRACE SAG-0214-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0196 John Lyn SAG-0155-2020 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0197 No Name TW-0086-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State GLTFFI-0198 No Name TW-0282-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0199 No Name TW-0141-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0200 No Name TW-0116-19 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines GLTFFI-0201 No Name TW-0162-20 Lagonoy Gulf Philippines OMFTFA-0001 Alysa Mae 2 RL-176 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0002 Dodong RL-111 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0003 Jhay Boy 1 RL-057 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0004 John Martin RL-138 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0005 Sam Milby RL-136 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0006 Dendon RL-091 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0007 Aira RL-140 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0008 Yanang RL-172 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0009 Christian RL-173 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0010 Yuri RL-123 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0011 Adrian RL-052 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0012 Double AA RL-0127 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0013 Erton RL-122 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0014 Justin Lieco RL-060 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0015 Jieyarn RL-048 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0016 Kiana Jellea RL-049 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0017 Queen 6 RL-067 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0018 Queen 5 RL-066 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0019 Queen 7 RL-068 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0020 Shuqiline RL-047 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0021 Christine RL-043 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0022 3R2 RL-143 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0023 Neil Mar RL-084 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0024 Nicole RL-130 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0025 2 Brothers RL-088 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0026 JM RL-090 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0027 Angie RL-065 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0028 Angie Rose RL-064 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0029 Gemar RL-062 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0030 Marge RL-061 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0031 Bon RL-063 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0032 Jha-Jha RL-015 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0033 Diofel RL-097 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0034 Jomelyn 1 RL-012 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0035 Jomelyn 2 RL-013 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0036 Jorsos RL-170 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0037 Mhec-Mhec RL-001 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0038 Dan RL-104 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0039 Karding RL-101 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0040 Justine 2 RL-175 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0041 Five R RL-146 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0042 Rubtier 2 RL-164 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0043 Budwiser RL-162 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0044 Jhay Boy 2 RL-058 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0045 Jette Angelo RL-050 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0046 Rubie RL-051 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0047 E John Crister RL-151 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0048 Julia RL-100 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0049 Princess Ariane RL-035 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0050 Nicole RL-053 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0051 Big Bhoy RL-103 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0052 Princess Ganda RL-102 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0053 Edrick Mae RL-125 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0054 Rigine RL-059 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0055 Jag Lits RL-073 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0056 Andrea Yvone RL-165 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0057 Andrenel RL-077 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0058 John-Son RL-112 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0059 Zian Lei RL-021 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0060 Lester RL-131 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0061 Jovelyn RL-152 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0062 Gwen RL-113 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0063 Raymart RL-128 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0064 Queen Lei Anne RL-074 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0065 Jonash RL-038 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0066 Kambal RL-037 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0067 Cris Jhay RL-165 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0068 Jay & Joy RL-055 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0069 Three Brothers RL-040 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0070 Gian Miel RL-042 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0071 GM3 RL-078 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0072 Crystal RL-072 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0073 Trina RL-039 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0074 John Kenneth RL-075 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0075 Sophia RL-022 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0076 Allan K RL-032 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0077 Jhonny RL-041 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0078 Jeann Joy RL-139 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0079 Bunso RL-116 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0080 3 DJ RL-079 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0081 Three Kids RL-080 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0082 3 Kids RL-009 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0083 Oragon RL-010 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0084 Princess Carla 1 RL-105 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0085 Princess Carla 2 RL-106 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0086 Princess Carla 3 RL-107 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0087 Princess Carla 5 RL-109 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0088 Princess Carla 4 RL-108 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0089 Joshin 2 RL-024 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0090 Joshin 1 RL-023 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0091 Solo Sister RL-016 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0092 Solo Sister 4 RL-018 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0093 Solo Sister 3 RL-017 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0094 Rezelyn 2 RL-169 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0095 Yenel RL-029 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0096 Perlita 3 RL-026 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0097 Perlita 1 RL-025 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0098 Ley Juris Ava RL-133 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0099 Two Brothers RL-004 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0100 Angel 2 RL-193 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0101 Rey John RL-191 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0102 Eriel RL-179 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0103 Ronlie Mae RL-176 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0104 Ken-Ken RL-188 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0105 Dhanica RL-187 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0106 John Rey RL-180 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0107 Tristar 4 SBY-2020-103 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0108 Xian Lee SBY-2020-219 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0109 Jerlyn 11 SBY-2020-204 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0110 Jerlyn 12 SBY-2020-200 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0111 King Xian 5 SBY-2020-203 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0112 Bianca Janine 6 SBY-2020-199 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0113 Bianca Janine 10 SBY-2020-201 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0114 Bianca Janine 7 SBY-2020-202 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0115 Bianca Janine 3 SBY-2020-198 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0116 C-Jay 1 SBY-2020-062 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0117 Chris John Yan 1 SBY-2020-130 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0118 Chris John Yan 2 SBY-2020-129 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0119 John Vincent SBY-2020-223 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0120 May Ann SBY-2020-180 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0121 Jociel 2 SBY-2020-229 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0122 Jociel 4 SBY-2020-235 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0123 Aya SBY-2020-248 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0124 R.A SBY-2020-249 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0125 Zaddison Lexus SBY-2020-264 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0126 E-Jay SBY-2020-244 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0127 Evelyn SBY-2020-169 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0132 King SBY-2020-088 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0133 Fish Keeper SBY-2020-089 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0134 Ebay Nagasat SBY-2020-090 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0135 King Gabriel SBY-2020-091 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0136 God's Will SBY-2020-063 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0137 GJM 1 SBY-2020-226 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0138 GJM 2 SBY-2020-227 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0139 Elisha SBY-2020-093 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0140 Gil Angelo SBY-2020-063 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0141 Reymark SBY-2020-175 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0142 John Leian SBY-2020-061 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0143 John Leian 2 SBY-2020-060 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0144 Renmar SBY-2020-177 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0145 John Paul SBY-2020-106 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0146 Say-Say SBY-2020-251 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0147 Biyaya 1 SBY-2020-254 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0148 Biyaya 2 SBY-2020-256 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0149 Biyaya 3 SBY-2020-257 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0150 Biyaya 4 SBY-2020-258 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0151 Biyaya 5 SBY-2020-259 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0152 J.A 1 SBY-2020-007 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0153 J.A 2 SBY-2020-008 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0154 J.A 3 SBY-2020-009 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0155 Jeboy 5 SBY-2020-010 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0156 Jeboy 7 SBY-2020-011 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0157 Solo Brother SBY-2020-179 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0161 Oy-oy SBY-2020-233 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0162 Zhel Jake 1 SBY-2020-094 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0163 Zhel Jake 2 SBY-2020-095 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0164 Zhel Jake 3 SBY-2020-096 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0165 Easytrip SBY-2020-231 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0166 John Lloyd SBY-2020-0107 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0169 Princess Lara 2 SBY-2020-006 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0170 Princess Lara 1 SBY-2020-005 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0171 Rosalyn SBY-2020-136 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0172 Relax Lang SBY-2020-250 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0173 King Jhonas SBY-2020-092 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0174 Triple M 2 SBY-2020-038 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0175 Triple M 4 SBY-2020-039 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0176 Triple M 5 SBY-2020-040 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0177 Triple M 7 SBY-2020-041 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0178 Triple M 8 SBY-2020-042 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0179 Triple M 10 SBY-2020-043 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0180 Triple M 11 SBY-2020-044 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0181 Triple M 12 SBY-2020-045 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0182 Triple M 15 SBY-2020-046 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0183 Triple M 17 SBY-2020-047 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0184 Triple M 18 SBY-2020-048 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0185 Chris SBY-2020-176 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0186 Mark Paul SBY-2020-236 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0187 Rodelyn SBY-2020-252 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0189 Safeguard SBY-2020-197 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0190 Biyaya SBY-2020-0109 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0191 Navigator 6 SBY-2020-0110 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0192 Gift of God SBY-2020-222 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0193 God's Grace SBY-2020-212 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0194 Marah SBY-2020-174 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0196 Divine Mercy 1 SBY-2020-029 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0197 Boy Mariel 1 SBY-2020-068 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0198 Boy Mariel 2 SBY-2020-069 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0200 Gerabuenas 5 SBY-2020-192 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0201 Ninos 4 SBY-2020-193 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0202 Gerabuenas 4 SBY-2020-191 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0203 Gerabuenas 7 SBY-2020-195 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0204 Ninay 6 SBY-2020-194 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0205 Gerabuenas 1 SBY-2020-189 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0206 Gerabuenas 2 SBY-2020-190 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0207 Princess Yasha SBY-2020-105 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0208 Jenelle SBY-2020-239 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0209 Dapny SBY-2020-084 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0210 Edcelle SBY-2020-213 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0211 J-Mer SBY-2020-234 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0213 Jean SBY-2020-173 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0215 Kobe Rej SBY-2020-056 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0216 Khimberly SBY-2020-240 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0219 Princess Jobelle 2020-0069 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0220 Marish Ashley Kate 1 2020-0027 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0222 Redine SBY-2020-058 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0224 Straight Flash SBY-2020-221 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0225 Princess Rhea 1 SBY-2020-14 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0226 Princess Rhea 2 SBY-2020-15 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0228 Arn Joe 1 SBY-2020-146 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0229 Arn Joe 2 SBY-2020-147 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0230 Arn Joe 3 SBY-2020-148 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0231 Arn Joe 4 SBY-2020-149 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0232 Arn Joe 5 SBY-2020-150 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0233 Arn Joe 6 SBY-2020-151 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0234 Arn Joe 7 SBY-2020-152 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0235 Arn Joe 8 SBY-2020-153 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0236 Arn Joe 9 SBY-2020-154 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0237 Arn Joe 10 SBY-2020-155 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0238 Arn Joe 11 SBY-2020-156 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0239 Arn Joe 12 SBY-2020-157 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0240 Arn Joe 13 SBY-2020-158 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0241 Arn Joe 14 SBY-2020-159 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0242 Arn Joe 15 SBY-2020-160 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0243 Arn Joe 16 SBY-2020-161 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0244 Arn Joe 17 SBY-2020-162 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0245 Arn Joe 18 SBY-2020-163 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0246 Nicole 2 SBY-2020-0113 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0247 Nicole 4 SBY-2020-0114 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0248 Nicole 5 SBY-2020-0115 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0249 Nicole 6 SBY-2020-0116 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0250 Nicole 7 SBY-2020-0117 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0251 Nicole 1 SBY-2020-0112 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0252 M/BCA "LADY JAZZ" 2020-0002 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0253 M/BCA "ANGEL KYLE II" 2020-0004 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0254 M/BCA "AMARA" 2020-0001 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0255 M/BCA "ANGEL I" 2020-0003 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0256 KAMBAL 2020-0005 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0257 Angels of God 2020-0001 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0258 Queen Melissa 2020-0111 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0259 EJ 2020-0020 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0260 Erich Jane 2020-0021 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0261 Jaylhen Rose 2020-0098 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0262 M/BCA "QUADRO KING" 2020-0014 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0263 M/BCA "SEA QUEEN" 2020-0015 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0264 M/BCA "STARLITE" 2020-0016 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0265 Prince Jericho 2020-0101 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0266 Ren-Ren 2020-0124 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0267 LADY RHEINCEL 2020-0048 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0268 Rich Amber 2020-0049 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0269 Rhianna Queen 2020-0122 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0270 Christ Jane 2020-0031 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0271 Crissa Jane 2020-0032 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0272 Christian 2020-0030 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0273 Spoiled Denzel 2020-0062 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0274 Princess Weng 2020-0050 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0275 Patricio Miguel 2020-0051 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0276 Rich & Pearl 2020-0095 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0277 Revie Jean 2020-0089 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0278 Shanne Vallery 2020-0084 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0279 Jhon Dave 2 2020-0033 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0280 Jhon Dave 1 2020-0059 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0281 Lady Loriebel 3 2020-00105 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0282 2 Brothers 2020-0090 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0283 Lyka Ivan 2020-00152 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0284 King Jacob 2020-00114 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0285 Japeth 2020-00125 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0286 The Smart C 2020-0099 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0287 Atasha 3 2020-0096 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0288 Grace Ann 2 2020-0095 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0289 Grace Ann 2020-00117 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0290 Amia Samantha 2020-0060 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0291 John Joseph 2020-00136 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0292 Princess Baby Jane 2020-0005 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0293 Sea Star 2020-00126 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0294 Precious Bien 2 2020-00108 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0295 E.G Boy 2020-0097 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0296 April Ann 2020-0100 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0297 Ate Nel's 2020-0102 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0298 Queen Roga 2020-0114 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0299 Three Brothers 2020-00166 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0300 Patricia 2020-00165 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0301 Baby Ruby Ann 2020-0070 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0302 Rex Roy 2020-00168 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0303 Mr. Pogi 2020-0078 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0304 M/BCA "ROXAN JANE" 2020-0054 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0305 M/BCA "ROXAN JANE II" 2020-0010 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0306 M/BCA "ROXAN JANE III" 2020-0011 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0307 Al Francis 2020-0052 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0308 Boy Chronel 2020-0104 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0309 Rea Ruselle 2020-0105 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0310 King Jun 4 2020-0101 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0311 King Jun 2 2020-00120 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0312 Queen Krizza Jane 2020-0004 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0313 Tuna Queen 8 2020-0082 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0314 Tuna Queen 2020-0081 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0315 M/BCA "MYRLANDA II" 2020-00112 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0316 Ren 2020-0086 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0317 Unico Hijo 2020-00123 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0318 Lhiam Jade 2020-00122 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0319 Sweet Gina Dave 2020-00143 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0320 Savion Miracle 2020-0086 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0321 Jemica Lyiel 2020-0088 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0322 Von Russel 2020-00173 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0323 Disciple 2 2020-00133 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0324 John Francis 2020-00106 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0325 Lady Loraine 2020-00107 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0326 Golden Boy 2020-0112 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0327 LEER ACHILLES 2020-0065 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0328 ACE ACHILLES 2020-0066 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0329 Lexus 2020-0065 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0330 Kiesha 2020-0064 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0331 ASHLEY KAECEER" 2020-0056 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0332 Prince Arman 2020-00142 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0333 Kristel Lyka Lei 2020-0070 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0334 Lyra Ann 1 2020-0041 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0335 Guilyen 2020-0014 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0336 Princess Norelyn 2020-0023 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0337 Billy Jones 1 2020-0026 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0338 Billy Jones 2 2020-0025 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0339 Unlimited 1 2020-0072 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0340 Gian Carlo 2020-0013 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0341 Guia Alianna 2020-0066 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0342 Freedom 2020-0075 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0343 Blessing of God 2 2020-0062 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0344 Blessing of God 2020-0063 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0345 Sevene 2 2020-0068 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0346 Sevene 2020-0092 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0347 Ronnie Boy 2020-00100 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0348 Blessing of God 1 2020-0074 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0349 Blessing of God 5 2020-0073 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0350 Princess Zandra 2 2020-0057 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0351 Katas ng Blesssing of God 2020-0067 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0352 Annaron 2 2020-0011 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0353 Annaron 3 2020-0007 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0354 Annaron 4 2020-0013 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0355 Annaron 5 2020-0010 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0356 Annaron 6 2020-0012 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0357 Ronalyn 2020-0009 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0358 Aileen 2020-0008 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0359 Lanie J-Ar 2020-00152 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0360 Lady Coreen 2020-0023 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0361 Londel 8 2020-0022 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0362 John Dol 2020-0024 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0363 Mariel 2020-0025 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0364 Mac 2020-0026 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0365 Queen Argelyn 2020-0028 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0366 Tita Nhor 4 2020-0045 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0367 Tita Nhor 5 2020-0047 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0368 Tita Nhor 10 2020-0046 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0369 Tita Nhor 6 2020-0052 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0370 TYL Precious 1 2020-0018 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0371 Princess CJ 2020-0033 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0372 Jezrah 2020-0720 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0373 Princess Jelliane 2020-0668 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0374 Jayson 2020-0647 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0375 Cristalee 2020-0672 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0376 Princess Odre 2020-0646 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0377 Irene 2020-0730 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0378 Jeffrey 2020-0594 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0379 Kiara 2 2020-0716 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0380 Ed 2020-0482 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0381 Bon-bon 2020-0671 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0388 Nagel Kim 2020-0669 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0389 Clarisse 2020-0638 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0390 Justine 2020-0649 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0391 Prince Xyz 2020-0681 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0392 Berlyn 2020-0697 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0393 Ricks Lee 2020-0696 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0394 Bogie 2020-0650 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0395 Angel Khate OM-22 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0396 Prince Albert OM-21 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0397 Swabe 4 OM-29 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0398 Swabe 5 OM-18 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Code Vessel Name License No. Fishing Ground Flag State OMFTFA-0399 Swabe 3 OM-19 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0400 Johny Gean OM-28 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0401 King Daisy OM-25 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0402 Lourince OM-26 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0404 Lady Chriza OM-23 Mindoro Strait Philippines OMFTFA-0405 Janica OM-20 Mindoro Strait Philippines

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

9.18 Letters of Support In coordination with the MSC Fishery Client Group, the Philippine Tuna Handline Partnership, letters of support were provided representing local, regional, and national authorities in the Philippines. Entities included LGUs, Provincial Government (e.g. Occidental-Mindoro) IFARMC’s, BFAR, and other relevant and supporting organizations such as WWF Philippines.

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 1

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 1

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

SCS Global Services Report

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 7

10 Template information and copyright This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’.

The Marine Stewardship Council’s ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’ and its content is copyright of “Marine Stewardship Council” - © “Marine Stewardship Council” 2020. All rights reserved.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

1.2 25 March 2020 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.2

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org).

Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]

Version 1-1 (July 2020) | © SCS Global Services Page 1