Final Report Expedited Assessment Of

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Final Report

Expedited assessment of yellowfin tuna and new client groups

The SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery

On behalf of Luen Thai Fishing Venture

Prepared by ME Certification Ltd

FEBRUARY 2017

Authors: Jo Gascoigne Chrissie Sieben

ME Certification Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.me-cert.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Contents

CONTENTS ...... 1 GLOSSARY ...... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 5 1 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 10 2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 12 2.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 12 2.1.1 Existing UoC and new UoAs to be added ...... 12 2.1.2 Fishing vessels ...... 18 2.1.3 Final UoC(s) ...... 19 2.1.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 20 2.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 20 2.1.6 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 20 2.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 21 2.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 22 2.3.1 Pilot harmonisation for WCPFC stocks ...... 22 2.3.2 Landings ...... 22 2.3.3 Stock status (yellowfin) ...... 22 2.3.4 Reference points ...... 23 2.3.5 Harvest strategy and control rules ...... 24 2.3.6 Information and stock assessment...... 25 2.3.7 Key Low Trophic Level (LTL) species ...... 25 2.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 26 2.4.1 P2 requirements for expedited assessment ...... 26 2.4.2 Main retained and bycatch species ...... 26 2.4.3 ETP species ...... 32 2.5 Principle Three: Management System Background...... 33 3 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 34 3.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 34 3.2 Previous assessments ...... 34 3.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 39 3.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 39 3.4.1 Site Visits ...... 39 3.4.2 Consultations ...... 40 3.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 40 4 TRACEABILITY ...... 42 4.1 Eligibility Date ...... 42 4.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 42 4.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 43 4.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 44

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 1 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

5 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 45 5.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 45 5.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 46 5.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 48 5.4 Recommendations ...... 52 5.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 52 6 REFERENCES ...... 53 APPENDICES ...... 55 APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 56 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 56 Appendix 1.2 Conditions and Client Action Plan ...... 101 APPENDIX 2 PILOT WCPFC PRINCIPLE 1 HARMONISATION MEETING: REPORT ...... 115 Appendix 2.1 Harmonisation Meeting for Western Pacific Tuna Fisheries ...... 115 Appendix 2.2 Skipjack tuna ...... 118 Appendix 2.3 Yellowfin Tuna ...... 120 Appendix 2.4 South Pacific albacore ...... 122 Appendix 2.4 North Pacific Albacore ...... 124 Appendix 2.5 Harmonisation meeting participants ...... 127 APPENDIX 3 PEER REVIEW REPORT ...... 128 Appendix 3.1 Peer review P1 harmonisation ...... 128 Appendix 3.2 Peer review expedited assessment ...... 137 APPENDIX 4 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 148 Appendix 4.1 Submissions received prior to publication PCDR ...... 148 Appendix 4.2 Submissions received after publication PCDR ...... 149 APPENDIX 5 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 152 APPENDIX 6 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 153

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 2 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Glossary

Term Description

B0 equilibrium unexploited total biomass

BMSY equilibrium total biomass at MSY CAB Conformity Assessment Body WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating non-Members, and participating CCM Territories CFA China Southern Fishery Shenzhen Co. Ltd CI Cook Islands Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and CITES Flora CMM WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort CSFC China Southern Fishery Shenzhen Co. Ltd EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, threatened or protected species FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

Fcurrent Average fishing mortality at age, July 2007 – June 2010 FFA Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency

FMSY Fishing mortality at age resulting in MSY Liancheng Overseas Fishery (FSM) Co. Ltd (FZLC) - This used to be the FZLC company called China Fishing Agency (CFA) and has just had a change in name. The actual company remains the same. HCR Harvest Control Rule IPOA International Plan of Action International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna like Species in the N. ISC Pacific Ocean IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature LRP Limit Reference Point LTFV Luen Thai Fishing Venture Ltd MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MEC ME Certification Ltd (previously MacAlister Elliott and Partners Ltd) MMR Ministry of Marine Resources of the Cook Islands MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 3 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MSY, equilibrium yield at FMSY YFMSY NPOA National Plan of Action Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) within the SPC Division of Fisheries, OFP Aquaculture and Marine Ecosystems PCDR Public Comment Draft Report PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement

SB0 Equilibrium unexploited spawning potential

SBFcurrent Average current spawning potential in the absence of fishing SC Southern Committee OR Scientific Committee SC12 Scientific Committee 12th Regular Session SIDS Small Island Developing States Spawning potential - equivalent measure to spawning stock biomass under the SP assumption that reproductive output is proportional to biomass over the size at maturity – but can take account of other patterns of reproductive output SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community (formerly South Pacific Commission) SPREP Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme SRP WCPFC Strategic Research Plan SZLC Liancheng Overseas Fishery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd TAC Total Allowable Catch TCC Technical Compliance Committee of the WCPFC TVM Te Vaka Moana UoC Unit of Certification VDS Vessel Day Scheme VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean WWF World Wildlife Fund

YFcurrent Equilibrium yield at Fcurrent

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 4 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Executive Summary

This report covers the expedited assessment for the addition of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and new client groups to the SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery (MEP-F-031). The assessment team consisted of Chrissie Sieben (Team Leader) and Jo Gascoigne. A site visit was held on the 18th to the 21st July 2016 in Rarotonga, Cook Islands at the same time as the Year 1 surveillance audit for the already certified fishery. The expedited assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) version 2.0 for assessment procedure and the MSC CRv1.3 (Annex CB) for scoring. The Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was not used in this assessment.

The new proposed client groups were separated into different UoAs due to the species and flag states of the vessels involved: in total, 5 new UoAs are proposed to be added to the existing certificate (itself corresponding to one UoA). Besides the client groups listed there are no other eligible fishers.

Fishing patterns and operations of the vessels covered by the new proposed UoAs are similar to those described in the initial assessment. Prior to the announcement of the expedited assessment, a gap analysis was carried out, indicating the rescoring of:

 Principle 1 for yellowfin (UoAs 2, 4 and 6);

 Components 2.1 – 2. 3 (retained, bycatch and ETP species) for all UoAs (2 to 6); and

 Performance indicator 3.1.4 (Incentives for sustainability) for the Cook Islands flagged vessels (UoAs 3 and 4).

In April 2016 a pilot harmonisation exercise for Principle 1 across all the WCPFC stocks with certified fisheries was hosted by MSC in Hong Kong. Principle 1 for yellowfin was therefore assessed in accordance with the harmonisation outcome. The conclusion of the most recent (2014) stock assessment is that 2012 catch was around the MSY level, ‘current’ fishing mortality is estimated to be below FMSY, spawning biomass is estimated to be at ~40% of the unfished level, and above SBMSY with ~95% probability. This stock is not managed via a

Total Allowable Catch (TAC). A limit reference point is however in place at 20%SBcurrent,F=0, where ‘current’ is defined as the most recent 10-year period for which data are available for the stock assessment. Under CMM 2015-01, the stated management objective for yellowfin is to maintain F below FMSY; hence FMSY, and by extension BMSY, are implicit target reference points. In addition, a workplan has been set out under CMM 14-06 which commits WCPFC to develop a formal harvest strategy for the key stocks, including yellowfin.

The scoring of Retained, Bycatch and ETP species was based on logbook and observer data for the fleet under assessment. For UoAs 5 and 6 no track record existed in the Cook Islands EEZ at the time of assessment; however the new proposed vessels will be operating under the standard operating procedures and adhere to a full-scope training programme as laid out by LTFV. Under the assumption that fishing operations will be the same as those used by the already ceritified fleet, the evaluation of these components was extrapolated from the available data on UoAs 1 to 4 and assessed in a precautionary manner. Main

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 5 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015) retained species were bigeye (Thunnus obesus) and blue marlin (Maikara nigricans) with the Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps) as bait. No main bycatch (discarded) species were identified. The only ETP species recorded in the observer data which were not included in the assessment of UoA1 (MEC, 2015) are blacktip shark and great white shark. For both species, interaction rates were found to be low.

The new proposed UoAs operate under the same management framework as was described in the initial assessment; the sole exception being PI 3.1.4 (Incentives for sustainability) in relation to yellowfin and in relation to those vessels which are Cook Islands rather than Chinese flagged.

The aggregate scores for each Principle for each of the UoAs are given below:

Score Principle UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 UoA4 UoA5 UoA6 Principle 1 – Target Species 81.3 83.1 81.3 83.1 81.3 83.1 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 81.7 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 82.0 Principle 3 – Management 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 System

UoA1 was initially certified by MEC on the 9th June 2015 with 8 conditions and one recommendation. Following the Year 1 surveillance audit, 1 additional recommendation was raised. The existing and new proposed conditions and recommendations on all UoAs with their current status are summarised below.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 6 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Condition Condition Performance Stock Apply to Current number Indicator (P1) which status UoAs? The management system should formally adopt a target reference point for the South Pacific albacore stock which is consistent with maintaining the stock at BMSY or some 1 1.1.2 albacore UoA1,3,5 open other measure with similar intent or outcome. This target reference point should be used for management purposes. The fishery should put in place a regional harvest strategy, incorporating limit and target reference points (management objectives), a harvest control rule and management actions, such that the strategy is responsive to the status of the stock and the elements of the strategy work together to maintain the stock at or around the target level. 2 1.2.1 albacore UoA1,3,5 open The key missing elements of the harvest strategy at present are 1. a target reference point formally adopted by the regional management system, and 2. a well-defined harvest control rule with associated management actions. These issues are also addressed specifically in conditions 1 and 3. The fishery must put in place a well-defined regional-level harvest control rule, and associated management actions (in the form of a CMM or another form as appropriate) which together act effectively to reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is 3 1.2.2 albacore UoA1,3,5 open approached. The selection of the harvest control rule should take into account the main uncertainties regarding the status of the stock or the impact of the fishery (or other uncertainties if considered important). The occurrence and outcome of all catches of ETP species by UoA vessels (sharks, seaturtles, seabirds and cetaceans) should be systematically and accurately reported on so that fishery-related mortality on ETP species can be quantitatively determined 4 and the effectiveness of the management strategies can be determined. Where a need 2.3.1, 2.3.3 both all UoAs open has been identified, the collected data should enable further development of management strategies to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species. The client should provide evidence that all Cook Islands regulations on fishery interactions with sea turtles are consistently respected and adhered to by UoA crew so 5 that it can be demonstrated that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to sea 2.3.2 both all UoAs open turtles, mortality of sea turtles is minimized and the fishery does not hinder recovery of vulnerable sea turtle populations.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 7 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Condition Condition Performance Stock Apply to Current number Indicator (P1) which status UoAs? The client must provide evidence that processes at national level are put in place to i) regularly engage with key stakeholders to seek and accept relevant information, and ii) 6 3.1.2 both all UoAs open demonstrate that the information obtained from such engagement has been duly considered. The client should demonstrate that the subsidies identified by FFA and acknowledged by the client do not lead to perverse incentives that are inconsistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC principles 1 and 2; Or 7 3.1.4 both all UoAs open Implement a harvest strategy that includes strengthened harvest control rules that are more responsive to increasing effort in the albacore fishery, such that the impact of subsidies is restricted to lowering the operating costs of subsidized fleets, rather than acting as an incentive to increase effort. By working with the relevant Cook Islands management agencies, the client should demonstrate i) that decision-making processes at national level 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 8 wider implications of decisions and ii) that information on fishery performance and 3.2.2 both all UoAs open management action at national level is available to stakeholders on request, and that explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The fishery should put in place a regional harvest strategy, incorporating limit and target reference points (management objectives), a harvest control rule and management actions, such that the strategy is responsive to the status of the stock and the elements of the strategy work together to maintain the stock at or around the target level. 9 1.2.1 yellowfin UoA2,4,6 new

The key missing element of the harvest strategy at present is a well-defined harvest control rule with associated management actions. This issue is also addressed specifically in condition 10. The fishery must put in place a well-defined regional-level harvest control rule, and 10 associated management actions (in the form of a CMM or another form as appropriate) 1.2.2 yellowfin UoA2,4,6 new which together act effectively to reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 8 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Condition Condition Performance Stock Apply to Current number Indicator (P1) which status UoAs? approached. The selection of the harvest control rule should take into account the main uncertainties regarding the status of the stock or the impact of the fishery (or other uncertainties if considered important).

Recommendation Status at Year 1 surveillance

1 The audit team reviewed 2012 and 2013 observer reports and noted frequent infringements against Marpol regulations To be reviewed at the due to the dumping at sea of plastics, metals, chemicals, and old fishing line. The exact frequency of these types of next surveillance audit. incidents is unknown and therefore the impact cannot be estimated. While there is no provision in the MSC standard to assess this type of activity against the scoring guideposts, any fishery proclaiming to provide the best environmental choice in seafood (through the MSC logo) should be discouraged from any form of dumping at sea. The team acknowledges that this is a widespread problem across global fisheries; however it is recommended that incidents of dumping at sea are demonstrably reduced.

Note: In October 2016, during preparation of the Client Draft Report, the client group adopted and started implementation of a garbage management plan. 2 The audit team noted some confusion within the MMR regarding the procedure to be followed in the case of To be reviewed at the contraventions against the Marine Resources (Shark Conservation) Regulations 2012 (i.e. for the Shark Sanctuary) and next surveillance audit. have made the following recommendation: The formal process for MMR to respond to infractions of this kind should be documented and should be presented at the next (year 2) surveillance audit. The audit team will then also verify the outcome of the decision-making process regarding the shark finning incidents mentioned in the Year 1 surveillance report.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 9 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

1 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Chrissie Sieben (Team Leader)

Chrissie Sieben has a Master’s Degree in Marine Environmental Protection which she obtained at the University of Wales, Bangor. She is the MSC Fisheries Scheme Manager at MEC and specialises in marine and fisheries ecology, marine environmental impact assessment and sustainable fisheries. Previous to joining MEC, she worked as a fisheries consultant for MacAlister Elliott and Partners (MEP), where she worked on a number of projects including the application of WWF Common Methodology to wild capture and aquaculture fisheries for the WWF Hong Kong ‘Good Fish Guide’, Sustainable fisheries in the Trilateral Wadden Sea, acted as Fisheries Liaison for the London Gateway Project and carried out socio-economic characterisations and impact assessments of commercial fisheries for coastal developments. Prior to her work at MEP, she worked inter alia as a marine ecologist on environmental impact assessments (EIAs) and completed an internship with the Global Environment Facility / UNDP International Waters Programme. She is a fully qualified MSC Team Leader with particular expertise in Principle 2 and is involved in MSC full assessments, pre-assessments and fishery surveillance audits. Chrissie participates regularly in MSC CAB training sessions and workshops and has received in-depth Risk- Based Framework training. Within MEC she has also worked as a Chain of Custody auditor.

Chrissie acted as Team Leader for this assessment while also providing P2 input to the process.

Dr Jo Gascoigne

Dr. Gascoigne is a former research lecturer in marine biology at Bangor University, Wales. She is an expert on fisheries science and management, with over 15 years’ experience as a consultant, working mainly on MSC pre-assessments and full assessments, as well as FIP scoping, planning and implementation. Jo has been involved as expert and lead auditor in the majority of MEP’s and MEC’s full MSC assessments and numerous pre-assessments. She regularly participates in the MSC training sessions and workshops, the most recent of which was the MSC scoring calibration workshop for the new fisheries standard.

In addition to numerous pre-assessments, Jo’s experience with tuna fisheries includes the SZLC, CSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ South Pacific albacore longline fishery and the Walker Seafood’s Australian Eastern tuna and billfish tuna fishery.

The peer reviewer for this report was Peter Trott:

Prior to co-founding FishListic, Peter had been with WWF-Australia fisheries program for over eight years, where he led work on international and domestic seafood markets, providing technical expert advice concerning imported and domestic seafood products, supply chains and traceability. Peter was the architect of developing and establishing several key strategic seafood market partnerships between WWF and a major Australian seafood retailer (Coles), brand owners (John West, Birdseye, I&J, Blackmores) and aquaculture companies (Tassal). He has also been involved in the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 10 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015) and fishery certifications across the globe for many years, including as a co-client on several high-profile Australian fisheries. Peter sits as a full member on the MSC Stakeholder Council Public Chamber and is the Co-Chair of the stakeholder Council and has a seat on the MSC Board of Trustees, the Australian Tropical Tuna Ministerial Advisory Committee, the Commonwealth Fisheries Research Advisory Board, and the Great Australian Bight Trawl Ministerial Advisory Committee. He has attended numerous international fisheries forums as a member of Australian Government delegations, including at meetings of Regional Fisheries Management Organisation’s for tunas at the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission. Peter has also worked in fisheries management with two Australian state fisheries agencies (Tasmania and Western Australia) managing sharks, squid, octopus, small pelagics, rock lobster, and scalefish. Peter has over 15 years’ experience in fisheries management, resource sharing, ecosystem principles, seafood markets and supply chains. Peter holds a Bachelor of Science in Fisheries Management and Aquaculture and an Honors degree in Aquatic Sciences (aquaculture systems and disease) from Deakin University.

Note that a peer review was also carried out for the P1 WCPFC harmonisation pilot (see Section 2.3.1). The peer reviewer for this was Dave Japp; the results are presented in Appendix 3.1.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 11 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2 Description of the Fishery

2.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought

2.1.1 Existing UoC and new UoAs to be added

This report covers the expedited assessment for the addition of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and new client groups to the SZLC, CSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery (MEP-F-031). The new proposed UoAs are shown in Table 1. The main reason for the separation of the new client groups into separate UoAs is the flag states of the vessels involved: vessels covered by UoAs 3 and 4 are Cook Islands-flagged while those covered by UoAs 5 and 6 are Chinese-flagged. Besides the client groups listed in Table 1 there are no other eligible fishers. The UoA is therefore the same as the UoC.

This fishery remains in conformity with the MSC scope requirements (FCR 7.4):  The fishery does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals;  The fishery does not use poisons or explosives;  The fishery does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement;  None of the client groups listed in Table 1 include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years;  The fishery management framework includes a mechanism for resolving disputes and the fishery is not overwhelmed by disputes.

Table 1. Proposed new UoAs to be added to the existing Cook Islands albacore certificate (MEP-F-031)

Species Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) Geographical range Area 81 Pacific, Southwest - Cook Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (excluding the internal waters and territorial sea of the Cook Islands) Method of capture Longline Stock South Pacific albacore Management At national level: Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources System/s At regional level: Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Client group UoA 1: Luen Thai Fishing Venture (LTFV), with Liancheng Overseas Fishery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd (SZLC); China Southern Fishery Shenzhen Co. Ltd (CSFC); and Liancheng Overseas Fishery (FSM) Co. Ltd (FZLC)1 (note: this client group is part of the originally certified albacore fishery) UoA 3: C.F Incorporated C/- Cook Islands Trust Corporation Ltd / C.B. Incorporation Ltd. UoA 5: Shenzhen Shengang Overseas Industrial Co., Ltd / Rongcheng

1 This used to be the company called China Fishing Agency (CFA) and has just had a change in name. The actual company remains the same.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 12 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd.

Species Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) Geographical range Area 81 Pacific, Southwest - Cook Islands Exclusive Economic Zone (excluding the internal waters and territorial sea of the Cook Islands) Method of capture Longline Stock Western Central Pacific yellowfin Management At national level: Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources System/s At regional level: Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Client group UoA 2: Luen Thai Fishing Venture (LTFV), with Liancheng Overseas Fishery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd (SZLC); China Southern Fishery Shenzhen Co. Ltd (CSFC); and Liancheng Overseas Fishery (FSM) Co. Ltd (FZLC) (note: this client group is part of the originally certified albacore fishery and the expedited yellowfin assessment) UoA 4: C.F Incorporated C/- Cook Islands Trust Corporation Ltd / C.B. Incorporation Ltd. UoA 6: Shenzhen Shengang Overseas Industrial Co., Ltd / Rongcheng Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd.

Prior to the announcement of the expedited assessment, a gap analysis was carried out. The results of this gap analysis were made available to the fishery’s stakeholders as part of the announcement and are repeated in Table 3 for clarity. Based on the gap analysis, the following performance indicators (PIs) will need assessing:

Table 2. Performance indicators to be assessed during expedited assessment (based on gap analysis shown in Table 3).

Prin- PI Component Performance Indicator To be assessed? ciple number

1 Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 1.1.2 Reference points 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding For WCPO yellowfin Management 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy only (UoAs 2, 4 and 6) 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools 1.2.3 Information and monitoring 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 2 Retained 2.1.1 Outcome species 2.1.2 Management Yes, for UoAs 2 to 6 2.1.3 Information Bycatch 2.2.1 Outcome species 2.2.2 Management Yes, for UoAs 2 to 6 2.2.3 Information

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 13 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Prin- PI Component Performance Indicator To be assessed? ciple number

ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 2.3.2 Management Yes, for UoAs 2 to 6 2.3.3 Information Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 2.4.2 Management No 2.4.3 Information Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 2.5.2 Management No 2.5.3 Information 3 Governance 3.1.1 Legal and customary framework No and Policy 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities No 3.1.3 Long term objectives No 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainability Yes, for UoAs 3 and 4 only Fishery- 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives No specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes No management system 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement No 3.2.4 Research plan No 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation No

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 14 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Table 3. Gap analysis carried out for the expedited assessment covering the addition of yellowfin tuna and new client groups to the existing albacore certificate (MEP-F-031). Note: text in black refers to UoA 2. Text in blue refers to UoAs 3 to 6 only.

Component Original client group: Luen Thai New proposed client New proposed client group Gap analysis Fishing Venture (LTFV), with group 1: C.F Incorporated 2: Shenzhen Shengang Liancheng Overseas Fishery C/- Cook Islands Trust Overseas Industrial Co., Ltd (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd (SZLC); China Corporation Ltd / C.B. / Rongcheng Ocean Fishery Southern Fishery Shenzhen Co. Ltd Incorporation Ltd. Co., Ltd. (CSFC); and China Fishing Agency Ltd. (CFA) UoA 1 (South UoA 2 (Western UoA 3 UoA 4 UoA 5 UoA 6 Pacific Central Pacific (South (Western (South (Western albacore – yellowfin) Pacific Central Pacific Central currently albacore) Pacific albacore) Pacific certified) yellowfin) yellowfin)

P1 Outcome South Pacific Western Central South Western South Western These are different stocks and a full evaluation of albacore stock. Pacific yellowfin Pacific Central Pacific Central the P1 YFT outcome component will be carried out. stock. albacore Pacific albacore Pacific The additional vessels will be operating under the stock. yellowfin stock. yellowfin existing license cap and catch limit as assessed stock. stock. during the initial albacore assessment. Other than the P1 YFT evaluation mentioned above, no additional assessment is required. P1 Harvest Management Management by Managemen Manageme Managemen Management The national aspects of the harvest strategy are strategy by WCPFC and WCPFC and t by WCPFC nt by t by WCPFC by WCPFC likely to be similar between both UoAs; however Cook Islands Cook Islands and Cook WCPFC and Cook and Cook they differ at WCPFC level. A full evaluation of this Ministry of Ministry of Marine Islands and Cook Islands Islands component will therefore be carried out. Marine Resources. Ministry of Islands Ministry of Ministry of As per Outcome above. Resources. Marine Ministry of Marine Marine Resources. Marine Resources. Resources. Resources. P2 Retained Main retained Same catch Catch Catch Catch profile Catch profile The removal of yellowfin as scoring element in P2 species species were profile as profile of profile of of new of new may lead to scoring changes. This component will bigeye albacore UoA; new vessels new vessels may vessels may therefore be re-evaluated. (Thunnus yellowfin no may be vessels be different. be different. Analysis of catch data new vessels required; this obsesus), longer assessed different. may be component will need to be rescored for UoAs 2 to yellowfin under P2. different. 6. (Thunnus albacares) and blue marlin

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 15 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

(Makaira nigricans). No conditions raised.

P2 Bycatch No main Same catch Catch Catch Catch profile Catch profile No re-evaluation is required. species bycatch profile as profile of profile of of new of new Analysis of catch and observer data new vessels species; no albacore UoA. new vessels new vessels may vessels may required; this component will need to be rescored conditions may be vessels be different. be different. for UoAs 3 to 6. raised. different. may be different. P2 ETP Identified ETP Same catch Catch Catch Catch profile Catch profile No re-evaluation is required. Same conditions species species include profile and profile of profile of of new of new apply. seabirds, sea operations as new vessels new vessels may vessels may Analysis of catch and observer data new vessels turtles, sharks albacore UoA. may be vessels be different. be different. required; this component will need to be rescored and rays and different. may be for UoAs 3 to 6. cetaceans. different. Conditions raised in relation to outcome (2.3.1), management (2.3.2) and information and monitoring (2.3.3). P2 habitats No habitat Same operations New New New vessels New vessels No re-evaluation is required. impacts and fishing vessels vessels operate the operate the No re-evaluation is required identified grounds as operate the operate the same way same way as (pelagic albacore UoA. same way same way as original original longline fishery) as original as original UoAs – no UoAs – no UoAs – no UoAs – no change change change change P2 No significant Same operations New New New vessels New vessels No re-evaluation is required. ecosystem ecosystem and fishing vessels vessels operate the operate the No re-evaluation is required impacts grounds as operate the operate the same way same way as identified albacore UoA. same way same way as original original as original as original UoAs – no UoAs – no UoAs – no UoAs – no change change

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 16 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

change change P3 Regional Same Same management New vessels are Chinese- No re-evaluation is required. Same conditions Governance WCPFC management framework as for UoAs 1 flagged; same management apply. and policy management framework as for and 2 for both WCPFC framework applies as for Re-evaluation of performance indicator 3.1.4 is framework for albacore UoA for and the Cook Islands with UoAs 1 and 2 for both required for UoAs 3 and 4. P3 Fishery- ‘in-zone’ both WCPFC and the following exception: WCPFC and the Cook specific fisheries; the Cook Islands. the new vessels are Cook Islands. managemen yellowfin in Islands flagged and are t system identical therefore not affected by position as People’s Republic of albacore in China management. relation to the development of a harvest strategy (see CMM 14-06). Cook Islands management system. Conditions raised in relation to PI 3.1.2 - Consultation, roles and responsibilities; PI 3.1.4 - Incentives for sustainability; PI 3.2.2 - Decision- making processes

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 17 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2.1.2 Fishing vessels

A list of the vessels in each UoA is given in Table 4 below.

Table 4. Vessels in each UoA (Note: the Lu Yuan 23 and Lu Yuan 24 were dropped from the certificate over the course of the assessment; their data had, however, already been considered in the Principle 2 analyses)

Flag UoA Vessel Name FFA VID IRCS Reg Number State 1,2 CFA21 35771 V6P021 FSM VR0112 1,2 GUANG YUAN YU 338 36598 BZWY47 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)FT-200009 1,2 GUANG YUAN YU 339 36599 BZWY48 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)FT-200010 1,2 HONG YANG 2 35987 BBLY1 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2014)FT100008 1,2 HUA NAN YU 711 36073 BZXD22 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-100051 1,2 HUA NAN YU 712 36074 BZXD23 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-100050 1,2 HUA NAN YU 716 36238 BZXD24 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2011)FT100020 1,2 HUA NAN YU 717 36239 BZXD25 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2011)FT100019 1,2 HUA NAN YU 718 36246 BZXD26 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2011)FT100033 1,2 HUA NAN YU 719 36247 BZXD27 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2011)FT100034 1,2 HUA NAN YU 721 36259 BZXD28 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2011)FT100036 1,2 HUA NAN YU 722 36260 BZXD29 China YUE(CHUANDENG(JI)(2011)FT100035 1,2 HUA NAN YU 723 36261 BZXD32 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2011)FT100037 1,2 HUA NAN YU 731 36435 BZXD33 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200009 1,2 HUA NAN YU 732 36436 BZXD34 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200011 1,2 HUA NAN YU 736 36437 BZXD35 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200010 1,2 HUA NAN YU 737 36481 BZXD36 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200020 1,2 HUA NAN YU 738 36480 BZXD37 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200021 1,2 HUA NAN YU 739 36479 BZXD38 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200022 1,2 LU RONG YUAN YU 212 36628 BBLM6 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2014)FT200134 1,2 LU YUAN 23 36312 BBCH3 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2012)FT200018 1,2 LU YUAN 24 36313 BBCH4 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2012)FT200019 1,2 SHEN LIAN CHENG 760 36212 BZXC32 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT100047 1,2 SHEN LIAN CHENG 761 36208 BZXC33 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT100046 1,2 SHEN LIAN CHENG 881 36498 BZXD92 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200023 1,2 SHEN LIAN CHENG 882 36499 BZXD93 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200024 1,2 SHEN LIAN CHENG 883 36512 BZXD94 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200025 1,2 SHEN LIAN CHENG 884 36513 BZXD95 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200030 1,2 SHEN LIAN CHENG 885 36514 BZXD96 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT200031 3,4 CHONG MYONG 703 34743 E5U2019 Cooks 1091 3,4 CHONG MYONG 709 36077 E5U2352 Cooks 1441 3,4 ESTHER 34742 E5U2018 Cooks 1090 3,4 GRACE 35719 E5U2209 Cooks 1293

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 18 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Flag UoA Vessel Name FFA VID IRCS Reg Number State 3,4 GRACE 1 35720 E5U2210 Cooks 1294 5,6 HONG YANG 3 35988 BBLY2 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2014)FT-100009 5,6 HONG YANG 8 36235 BBIW8 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2016)FT-200044 5,6 HONG YANG 88 36307 BBIO8 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2016)FT-200045 5,6 HONG YANG 9 36236 BBIW9 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2016)FT-200046 5,6 LU RONG YUAN YU 888 36456 BBIV8 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)（2013）FT-200036 5,6 LU RONG YUAN YU 889 36457 BBIV9 China (LU)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013）FT-200035 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 15 36493 BZXD52 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200026 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 16 36494 BZXD53 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200027 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 17 36495 BZXD54 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200028 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 18 36496 BZXD55 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200029 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 19 36506 BZXD56 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200034 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 715 36507 BZXD62 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200035 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 716 36502 BZXD63 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200036 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 718 36504 BZXD65 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200038 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 719 36505 BZXD66 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2013)FT-200039 5,6 SHEN GANG FA 720 36685 BZXD69 China (YUE)CHUANDENG(JI)(2015)FT-200027

2.1.3 Final UoC(s)

(PCR ONLY)

The PCR shall describe: a. The UoC(s) at the time of certification. b. A rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s) in section 3.1(c). c. Description of final other eligible fishers at the time of certification.

(References: FCR 7.4.8-7.4.10)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 19 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2.1.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

This fishery is not managed via a TAC (the Cook Islands are however proposing to introduce a TAC and quota system for albacore in 2017 – see MEC, 2016); only the catch data for yellowin and albacore are therefore reported on in Table 5. Note that no catch data are available for UoAs 5 and 6 as none of these vessels have a Cook Islands EEZ track record.

Table 5. Catch data provided by MMR from logbooks (NB: some logsheets missing for 2015)

Client group Year Total catch (tonnes live weight) 2014 2015

Luen Thai Fishing Venture (LTFV): Albacore 2,928 2,688 Liancheng Overseas Fishery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd (SZLC) (UoA1) China Southern Fishery Shenzhen Co. Ltd (CSFC) Liancheng Overseas Fishery (FSM) Co. Ltd (FZLC) –

This used to be the company called China Fishing Yellowfin 1,229 1,109 Agency (CFA) and has just had a change in name (UoA 2)

Note: original client group

C.F Incorporated C/- Cook Islands Trust Corporation Albacore 770 707 Ltd / C.B. Incorporation Ltd. (UoA 3)

Yellowfin 251 163 Note: new members of client group (UoA 4) Shenzhen Shengang Overseas Industrial Co., Ltd / Albacore N/a* N/a* Rongcheng Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd. (UoA 5)

Yellowfin N/a* N/a* Note: new members of client group (UoA 6) * No catch data available as no track record in Cook Islands EEZ.

2.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

This fishery is not an enhanced fishery. See MEC (2015) for more detail.

2.1.6 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)

This fishery is not an ISBF fishery. See MEC (2015) for more detail.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 20 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2.2 Overview of the fishery

A description of the following is provided in MEC (2015) and is not repeated here:

 History and development of offshore longline fisheries in the Cook Islands EEZ;  Description of the client fleet for UoA1;  Gear  Fishing area  Description of national and regional management system and legal framework

Fishing patterns and operations of the vessels covered by the new proposed UoAs are similar to those described in MEC (2015). The sole difference being for UoAs 3 and 4 which cover Cook Islands-flagged vessels and therefore have to comply with Cook Islands regulations alone. The remaining vessels must comply with Chinese regulations as well as Cook Islands regulations.

The Client Group for this fishery is complex, and for a significant number of vessels in the UoAs, agent agreements are in place which means that vessels operating under one company (i.e. the companies listed in the Client Group) may be owned by another company. This is illustrated in the table below. The agent agreements are formalised in a legally binding agent boat contract requiring inter alia compliance with the relevant regulations, data provisions and measures put in place as a result of the existing MSC certification.

Table 6. Details of vessel ownership vs management for each UoA. (SZLC = Liancheng Overseas Fishery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd; CSFC = China Southern Fishery (Shenzhen) Co. Ltd; FZLC = Liancheng Overseas Fishery (FSM) Co. Ltd - this used to be the company called China Fishing Agency (CFA) and has just had a change in name; GGFGC = Guangdong Guangyuan Fishery Group Co., Ltd; ROFC = Rongcheng Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd; RMOFC = Rongcheng Mashan Ocean Fishery Co., Ltd; LTFV = Luen Thai Fishing Venture Ltd.; CFIC = C.F. Incorporated; CBIL = C.B. Incorporated Ltd; SSOIC = Shenzhen Shengang Overseas Industrial Co., Ltd)

UoAs Vessel flag Vessel ownership Operating under 1 and 2 China, FSM SZLC, CSFC, GGFGC, ROFC, RMOFC, FZLC SZLC, CSFC, FZLC* 3 and 4 Cook Islands CFIC, CBIL CSFC 5 and 6 China SSOIC CSFC

As previously mentioned, the vessels in UoAs 5 and 6 currently do not have a track record in the Cook Islands EEZ. However, other than the aforementioned agent boat agreements, all vessels covered by this assessment must also adhere to standard operating procedures (SOPs) laid out by LTFV which outline the fish handling processes and procedures after hauling and which set out the traceability requirements. A full-scope training programme is also in place where captains are trained on the actual fishing procedures; as such there is a high degree of standardisation of fishing practices across all UoAs. The impact assessment for UoAs 5 and 6 will therefore be extrapolated from the available data for the other UoA vessels that do have a track record. Should the existing certificate be amended to include these new vessels, catch and observer data will be reviewed at the next available opportunity (i.e. the next surveillance audit).

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 21 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

Albacore has already been assessed in this fishery as a target species (see MEC, 2015). This section therefore focuses on Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) yellowfin as a target stock.

2.3.1 Pilot harmonisation for WCPFC stocks

In April 2016 a pilot harmonisation exercise for Principle 1 across all the WCPFC stocks with certified fisheries was hosted by MSC in Hong Kong; this included South Pacific albacore and WCPO yellowfin. The report of this meeting is provided in Appendix 2. The harmonisation was based on the 2015 stock assessment for albacore (Harley et al., 2015) and the 2014 stock assessment for yellowfin (Davies et al., 2014), which are still the most recent available. As agreed by the participants in the harmonisation exercise, the default position for scoring shall be to take the scores agreed during the harmonisation; nevertheless, the team has reviewed each P1 scoring issue for yellowfin for this expedited assessment.

2.3.2 Landings

Yellowfin catch (logbook) data are given for the UoAs in Table 5 above. Trends in yellowfin landings across the whole WCPFC Convention Area are shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Trends in yellowfin landings from the WCPFC Convention Area: green = longline, red = pole and line, blue = purse seine, yellow = other. Figure 12 in Pilling et al., 2016.

2.3.3 Stock status (yellowfin)

The 2014 stock assessment by Davies et al. (2014) estimates stock status in 2008-11 (‘current’) or in 2012 (‘latest’). Taking the ‘grid’ of plausible model runs to provide a reasonable estimate of uncertainty, the conclusion is that 2012 catch was around the MSY level, ‘current’ fishing mortality is estimated to be below FMSY with <95% probability, spawning biomass is estimated to be at ~40% (range 29-55%) of the unfished level, and above SBMSY with ~95% probability.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 22 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Table 7. Key stock assessment outputs (reference case model, grid median and 5% and 95% percentiles), from Davies et al., 2014.

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

Clatest/MSY 1.02 1.04 0.80 1.24

Fcurrent/FMSY 0.72 0.76 0.51 1.09

SBcurrent/SBF=0 0.42 0.41 0.29 0.55

SBlatest/SBF=0 0.38 0.38 0.29 0.52

SBcurrent/SBMSY 1.37 1.37 0.97 1.82

SBlatest/SBMSY 1.24 1.29 1.00 1.69

For SC12 (August 2016), SPC have produced an information paper on fisheries indicators for stocks not assessed in 2016, including WCPO yellowfin (Pilling et al., 2016). Their short- term stochastic projections (assuming recruitment continuing as in recent years) suggest that the spawning biomass is likely to increase at current rates of fishing (SB2016/SBF=0 ~0.49;

F2016/FMSY ~0.8) (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Short-term stochastic projections of yellowfin spawning biomass relative to SBF=0, based on SB2012 (from stock assessment) and actual catch and effort levels through 2015. Recruitment projected based on estimated recruitment variability over the last 10 years prior to the stock assessment. Figure 20 in Pilling et al., 2016.

2.3.4 Reference points

WCPFC has agreed an explicit limit reference point for yellowfin (and other stocks) of

20%SBcurrent,F=0, where ‘current’ is defined as the most recent 10-year period for which data are available for the stock assessment. Under CMM 2015-01, the stated management objective for yellowfin is to maintain F below FMSY; hence FMSY, and by extension BMSY, are implicit target reference points for yellowfin.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 23 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2.3.5 Harvest strategy and control rules

For the moment, yellowfin is managed under CMM 2015-01 (the tropical tuna CMM), which includes the following:

 FAD closures and limits, FAD management plans;  PNA vessel day scheme to limit purse seine effort in PNA EEZs;  Requirement for coastal states to implement effort or catch limits for tropical tunas in their EEZs;  Idem for high seas effort, for non-SIDS;  Requirement on flag states to work not to increase catch of yellowfin by purse seine or longline;  Full retention of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye by purse seiners;  Number of large purse seine vessels and longliners targeting bigeye frozen at current levels, except for SIDS and Indonesia.

CMM 14-06 commits WCPFC to develop a formal harvest strategy for the key stocks, including yellowfin, which should incorporate the following elements (full details provided in Annex 1 to 14-06):

 management objectives  reference points  acceptable levels of risk (of breaching limit reference points)  monitoring strategy  harvest control rules  management strategy evaluation

CMM 14-06 has an associated workplan (as required by paragraph 13) which for yellowfin sets out the following timetable (Table 8). The workplan does not cover the full and final agreement of HCRs and tools, however.

Table 8. Summary of workplan for 14-06 for yellowfin

Year Workplan deadline (should be agreed by WCPFC) 2016  Acceptable levels of risk  Management objectives 2017  Target reference point 2018  Monitoring strategy  Performance indicators to evaluate candidate HCRs

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 24 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2.3.6 Information and stock assessment

The SPC stock assessment (Davies et al., 2014) relies on the following key data sets:

 Catch and CPUE – particularly longline CPUE (catch per hook set) but also purse seine CPUE (catch per day fishing/searching, by set type); the 2014 assessment was able to incorporate some operational-level longline data from Japan, Korea and Taiwan.  Length-frequency data from port sampling programmes.  Tagging data covering the period 1989-2011; most recently the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme which covers 13,500 recaptures.

The stock assessment model uses MULTIFAN-CL (as for other WCPO stocks assessed by SPC). The model requires the identification of individual ‘fisheries’ with similar operational characteristics (selectivity, catchability); this is done partially via spatial and temporal stratification of the data. The model estimates parameter values using Bayesian (‘maximum likelihood’) techniques.

Overall, SPC considers the model output to be relatively robust (‘This result indicates there to be sufficient and coherent information in the observations from which absolute abundance can be inferred’ – Davies et al., 2014, Section 7.2). However, they do note various sources of uncertainty in the reference case model, as given below. A series of one-off sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the significance of these uncertainties, and their impact on model outcome is indicated where given.

 Recruitment in the terminal time period (2012) – low sensitivity;  Conflict between CPUE and tagging data for region 8 [PNG and the Solomon Islands] – low;  Confounding of regional recruitment with movement between regions in some areas – low;  Recruitment estimates for the first 14 years of the model are highly uncertain and had to be removed from parameter-fitting;  Steepness of the stock-recruit relationship – moderate sensitivity but no qualitative difference in outcome;  Natural mortality at age – moderate sensitivity but no qualitative difference in outcome.

2.3.7 Key Low Trophic Level (LTL) species

Yellowfin is not a key LTL species.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 25 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

2.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

2.4.1 P2 requirements for expedited assessment

For this expedited assessment, MEC’s gap analysis (Table 3) indicates that only a subset of P2 components should be re-scored, as summarised in Table 9.

Table 9. Summary of P2 components to be re-scored for each UoA.

UoA Component to be rescored 2.1 – Retained 2.2 – Bycatch 2.3 – ETP 2.4 – 2.5 – species species species Habitats Ecosystem 1 No No No No No 2 Yes No No No No 3 Yes Yes Yes No No 4 No No 5 Yes Yes Yes No No 6 No No

For UoA 2 re-scoring was required due to the removal of yellowfin as P2 species.

For UoAs 3 and 4 the assessment team re-evaluated the list of main retained species based on the catch data for the vessels in the UoA. For bycatch and ETP species the analysis was based on observer data.

For UoAs 5 and 6 no data were available for the Cook Islands EEZ at the time of assessment. Considering that fishing practices across all vessels covered by this assessment will to the extent possible be standardised (see Section 2.1 for further detail), the evaluation of components 2.1 to 2.3 was therefore based on the combined list of retained, bycatch and ETP species from UoAs 1 to 4.

2.4.2 Main retained and bycatch species

2.4.2.1 UoA 2

Up to date catch data for the currently certified fleet is shown in Table 10. These data stem from the available logbook records for all vessels within the UoA and were analysed as per the initial assessment. Overall, the catch profile of the fishery remains the same with only bigeye and blue marlin exceeding the 5% threshold for ‘main’ retained species (yellowfin being assessed under P1).

Table 10. Retained catch aboard all UoA 1 and 2 vessels, shown as volume (tonnes) and % composition for 2013 – 2015 (from SPC logbook data provided by the MMR).

Retained catch % Catch composition Species 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Average

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 26 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Retained catch % Catch composition Species 2013 2014 2015 2013 2014 2015 Average

Albacore 2,597 2,928 2,688 72.57 58.14 58.70 61.88

Bigeye 179 359.12 312.77 4.99 7.13 6.83 6.41

Yellowfin 322 1,229.17 1,108.91 9.01 24.40 24.21 20.04

Striped marlin 0.03 0.81 0.77 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01

Blue marlin 242 242.96 214.83 6.77 4.82 4.69 5.27

Black marlin 0 10.81 10.81 0.00 0.21 0.24 0.16

Swordfish 24.9 27.71 25.20 0.70 0.55 0.55 0.59

Indo-Pacific sailfish 15.8 - - 0.44 - - 0.36

Moonfish/Opah 5.88 - - 0.16 - - 0.13

Oilfish 17.4 - - 0.48 - - 0.39

Mahi mahi 54.0 26.38 22.14 1.51 0.52 0.48 0.77

Wahoo 94.0 103.60 89.14 2.63 2.06 1.95 2.16

Other 26.5 108.10 106.70 0.74 2.15 2.33 1.82

Total 3,579 5,037 4,579

For bycatch, an analysis of up to date observer data revealed no change from the initial certification; i.e. no main bycatch species were identified (see MEC, 2016 for a detailed analysis).

For bait (considered under retained species), the fishery continues to rely on the Indian oil sardine – this is further discussed in the following section.

2.4.2.2 UoAs 3 and 4

For these UoAs, main retained / bycatch species were evaluated in two ways: via the proportion of the declared catch in the logbooks and via relevant observer reports. The latter are considered to be a more reliable way of evaluating discards (henceforth referred to as bycatch species). The observer reports also allow an assessment of minor species, some of which are grouped as ‘other’ in the logbook data. However, only three recent observer reports are available for vessels in UoA3+4: for Grace 1 for 2014 and 2015 and for Esther in 2014.

The logbook data (Table 11) identified only bigeye as main retained species for each UoA. In contrast with UoAs 1 and 2, blue marlin is not a main retained species for these UoAs.

Besides albacore and yellowfin, bigeye made up more than 5% in two of the three observer reports (Table 12) with an average percentage per trip (9.0%) and the total percentage over the three trips (9.5%) well over the threshold level. Wahoo was likewise over the threshold in two of the three trips, but the average and total percentages over the three trips were below

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 27 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

5% (4.9%, 4.7%); this plus the fact that wahoo are a lower percentage in the logbook data combined with their life-history characteristics (fast growing, early maturing, considered ‘Least Concern’ by IUCN - Collette et al., 2011) led the team to conclude that wahoo should not be included in the list of main species for UoAs 3 and 4. Skipjack was over the threshold in one out of three observer reports, and was not included as a main retained species.

Table 11. Catch as declared for vessels in UoAs 3 and 4, 2014 and 2015 (t live weight). From SPC logbook data provided by the MMR.

Species Total landings % of landings Main? 2014 2015 2014 2015 Yellowfin 251 163 20.5 16.0 yes (UoA3 Thunnus albacares Albacore 770 707 62.9 69.4 yes (UoA4) T. alalunga Bigeye 82.5 50.4 6.7 4.9 yes T. obesus Blue marlin 0.55 0.62 <0.05 0.1 no Makaira nigricans Striped marlin 0.28 0.11 <0.05 <0.05 no Kajikia audax Black marlin 10.8 14.0 0.9 1.4 no Istiompax indica Swordfish 3.32 3.75 0.3 0.4 no Xiphias gladius Mahi mahi 0.08 0.12 <0.05 <0.05 no Coryphaena hippurus Wahoo Acanthocybium 27.7 22.5 2.3 2.2 see below solandri Other 80.2 59.5 6.6 5.8 -

Table 12. Data on catch (retained and discarded) from the three observer reports relevant to UoAs 3 and 4 (t live weight, sorted by quantity in first report). Data provided by MMR.

Grace 1 2014 Grace 1 2015 Esther 2014 Species total % total % total %

Albacore 10.4 64.3 20.1 60.0 19.4 53.9

Bigeye 1.30 8.0 0.71 2.1 6.10 17.0

Wahoo 0.86 5.3 1.86 5.5 1.34 3.7

Yellowfin 0.77 4.8 4.99 14.9 2.65 7.4 Oilfish 0.76 4.7 0 0 0.03 0.1 Lepidocybium flavobrunneum Swordfish 0.26 1.6 0.21 0.6 0.17 0.5

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 28 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Grace 1 2014 Grace 1 2015 Esther 2014 Species total % total % total %

Striped marlin 0.26 1.6 0.46 1.4 0.07 0.2 Slender sunfish 0.17 1.0 0.02 0.1 1.44 4.0 Ranzania laevis Sharks (unidentified) 0.16 1.0 0 0 0 0 Blue shark 0.15 0.9 0.17 0.5 0 0 Prionace glauca Skipjack 0.14 0.8 2.41 7.2 1.37 3.8 Katsuwonus pelamis Snake mackerel 0.13 0.8 0.08 0.2 0.16 0.4 Gempylus serpens Short-billed spearfish 0.13 0.8 0 0 0.11 0.3 Tetrapturus angustirostris Mahi mahi 0.12 0.7 0.02 0.1 0.07 0.2 Great white shark 0.09 0.6 0 0 0 0 Carcharodon carcharias Sargent major 0.09 0.6 0 0 0 0 Abudefduf saxatilis Pelagic stingray 0.09 0.5 0.19 0.6 0.53 1.5 Pteroplatytrygon violacea Black marlin 0.06 0.4 0.02 0.1 0 0

Blue marlin 0.05 0.3 1.43 4.3 0.32 0.9 Sickle pomfret 0.04 0.3 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.1 Taractichthys steindachneri Sailfish 0.04 0.2 0.07 0.2 0.09 0.2 Istiophorus platypterus Great barracuda 0.03 0.2 0.04 0.1 0.04 0.1 Sphyraena barracuda Oilfish 0.03 0.2 0.44 1.3 1.45 4.0 Blacktip shark 0.02 0.1 0 0 0 0 Carcharhinus limbatus Silky shark 0.01 0.1 0 0 0.22 0.6 Carcharhinus falciformis Snake mackerel 0.01 0.1 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.01 Pelagic puffer 0.00 0.02 0 0 0 0 Tetraodontidae Rainbow runner 0.00 0.02 0 0 0 0 Elagatis bipinnulata Black mackerel 0.00 0.01 0 0 0.02 0.04 Nealotus tripes Unicornfish 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.04 0

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 29 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Grace 1 2014 Grace 1 2015 Esther 2014 Species total % total % total % Naso spp.

Shortsnouted lancetfish 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.1 0.02 0.06 Alepisaurus brevirostris Longsnouted lancetfish 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.1 0 0 Alepisaurus ferox Olive ridley turtle 0 0 0.01 0.02 0 0 Lepidochelys olivacea Barracudinas 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.1 Longfinned mako shark 0 0 0.2 0.5 0 0 Isurus paucus Oarfish 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 Regalecus spp. Opah 0 0 0.06 0.2 0 0 Lampris guttatus Rays nei 0 0 0 0 0.02 0.04 Red Sea catfish 0 0 0 0 0.1 0.3 Bagre pinnimaculatus shortfin mako 0 0 0 0 0.2 0.6 Isurus oxyrinchus

As was the case for UoAs 1 and 2, no main bycatch species were identified from the data, although there is a long list of minor bycatch species (Table 12). No further analysis is thus required for this component.

For bait, these UoAs operate in the same way as UoAs 1 and 2 in that the vessels rely on the Indian oil sardine, sourced from Oman and China. On average larger vessels are supplied with 35 tonnes per trip while the smaller ones are supplied with 22 tonnes. The total volumes used in this fishery are shown in Table 13 and still only represent a fraction of the total landings of the species.

Table 13. Bait use by UoAs 1 to 4 (volume shown in tonnes). Data provided by client.

Bait 2012 2013 2014 2015

Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps) 2,297 2,688 1,930 1,401

2.4.2.3 UoAs 5 and 6

For UoAs 5 and 6, the lack of track record in the Cook Islands EEZ has meant the assessment is based on an extrapolation of the existing data. The audit team considered the extrapolation to be appropriate as fishing procedures are expected to be the same for these new vessels. In fact, under the management of LTFV, a full-scope training programme for captains as well as standard operating procedures are in place, ensuring a standardisation

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 30 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015) of practices and procedures in terms of gear use, fishing operations, data recording and traceability. In the absence of more specific operational data, the number of vessels contained in the UoAs was used as the main variable in the extrapolation. The team acknowledges that this is a somewhat inaccurate albeit a more precautionary way of assessing the potential impact of these additional vessels with the data available. The extrapolated catch for UoAs 5 and 6 is shown in Table 14. Note that the purpose of this table is to estimate the potential catch volume of these UoAs; main retained species are instead based on the combined lists for UoAs 1 to 4, i.e. bigeye, blue marlin and Indian oil sardine.

Table 14. Extrapolated catch for UoAs 5 and 6 based on UoA 1 – 4 catch. Number of active vessels (based on logbook data provided by MMR) is shown between brackets.

Average annual % catch Extrapolated catch UoAs 1 – 4 catch per compostion UoAs 5 - 6 Species vessel UoA 5 - 6 2015 2014 2015 2014 (25) 2014 2015 2014 2015 (24) (16) (16) Albacore 3,697.96 3,395.76 147.92 141.49 2,366.69 2,263.84 59.05 60.62

Bigeye 441.66 363.18 17.67 15.13 282.66 242.12 7.05 6.48

Yellowfin 1,479.84 1,272.26 59.19 53.01 947.10 848.17 23.63 22.71

Striped marlin 1.09 0.88 0.04 0.04 0.70 0.59 0.02 0.02

Blue marlin 243.51 215.45 9.74 8.98 155.85 143.63 3.89 3.85

Black marlin 21.57 24.81 0.86 1.03 13.80 16.54 0.34 0.44

Swordfish 31.03 28.95 1.24 1.21 19.86 19.30 0.50 0.52

Mahi mahi 26.46 22.26 1.06 0.93 16.93 14.84 0.42 0.40

Wahoo 131.26 111.68 5.25 4.65 84.01 74.45 2.10 1.99

Other 188.26 166.18 7.53 6.92 120.49 110.79 3.01 2.97

Total 6,262.64 5,601.41 250.51 233.39 4,008.09 3,734.27 100.00 100.00

2.4.2.4 Summary

A summary of the main retained and bycatch species considered in the scoring for each UoA is provided in Table 15.

Table 15. Summary of main retained / bycatch species for each UoA (details given below)

UoA Main species Retained vs. Source bycatch UoA1 bigeye, blue marlin, Indian oil All retained MEC, 2015 sardine UoA2 bigeye, blue marlin, Indian oil All retained Table 10, Table 13 sardine

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 31 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

UoA3 bigeye, Indian oil sardine All retained Table 11, Table 12, Table 13 UoA4 bigeye, Indian oil sardine All retained Table 11, Table 12, Table 13 UoA5 bigeye, blue marlin, Indian oil All retained Complete list for UoA1+3 sardine UoA6 bigeye, blue marlin, Indian oil All retained Complete list for UoA2+4 sardine

2.4.3 ETP species

Since observer reports provided detailed but limited data on ETP interactions (8 trips available for 2014 and 2015 across all the UoAs), the team concluded that it was most precautionary to evaluate all UoAs against a composite list of ETP species with interactions reported by observers for any of the UoAs. This gives a list of ETP species as given in Table 16.

Table 16. ETP species noted in observer reports for vessels in any of the UoAs, 2014 and 2015.

Species Source of Number of Status Included Ref. protection interactions in MEC, in 8 trips 2015? Bigeye thresher Cook Islands 9 probably yes Clarke, 2011 shark Alopias shark sanctuary overfished superciliosus Blacktip shark Cook Islands 2 IUCN near no Burgess and Carcharhinus shark sanctuary threatened Branstetter, limbatus 2009 Blue shark Prionace Cook Islands 181 uncertain yes Rice and glauca shark sanctuary Harley, 2013 Great white shark Cook Islands 2 IUCN no Fergusson et Carcharodon shark sanctuary vulnerable al., 2009 carcharias Leatherback turtle CITES Appendix 1 IUCN yes Tiwari et al., Dermochelys 1 critically 2013 coriacea endangered Loggerhead turtle CITES Appendix 3 IUCN yes Casale and Caretta caretta 1 endangered Tucker, 2015 Longfin mako Isurus Cook Islands 56 unknown; yes Reardon et al., paucus shark sanctuary IUCN 2006 vulnerable Oceanic whitetip Cook Islands 31 overfished yes Rice and shark Carcharhinus shark sanctuary Harley, 2012 longimanus Pelagic thresher Cook Islands 5 unknown yes Clarke, 2011 shark Alopias shark sanctuary pelagicus Sharks unidentified Cook Islands 7 - - - shark sanctuary Shortfin mako Isurus Cook Islands 25 unknown; yes Cailliet et al.,

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 32 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Species Source of Number of Status Included Ref. protection interactions in MEC, in 8 trips 2015? oxyrinchus shark sanctuary IUCN 2009 vulnerable Silky shark Cook Islands 75 overfished yes Rice and Carcharhinus shark sanctuary Harley, 2013a falciformis Olive ridley turtle CITES Appendix 1 IUCN yes Abreu-Grobois Lepidochelys 1 vulnerable and Plotkin, olivacea 2008

The only ETP species identified here which are not included in the assessment of UoA1 (MEC, 2015) are blacktip shark and great white shark. For both species, it appears that interaction rates are low (four individuals in total across all the observer reports from 2014 and 2015; zero interactions in the observer reports used in the previous assessment). The impact of UoAs 2 to 6 on ETP species is further discussed in the scoring tables (Appendix 1.1).

2.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

According to the gap analysis (Table 3), the only element of P3 that requires additional analysis here is PI 3.1.4, in relation to yellowfin and in relation to those vessels which are Cook Islands rather than Chinese flagged (i.e. UoA 3 + 4). This is done in Appendix 1 below.

All other elements of P3 are as described and assessed during the initial assessment; for more information please see MEC (2015).

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 33 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

3 Evaluation Procedure

3.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

This fishery overlaps with a number of other South Pacific albacore and WCPO yellowfin fisheries in the MSC programme:

 AAFA and WFOA South Pacific albacore tuna  Fiji albacore tuna longline  New Zealand albacore tuna troll  PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna  Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine  Walker Seafood Australia albacore, yellowfin tuna and swordfish  Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine and pole & line  Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna

Principle 1 has been harmonised with the above fisheries following MSC’s pilot harmonsation process, as described under Section 2.3.1; the minutes of the harmonisation meeting are provided in Appendix 2. The harmonisation outcome report was also peer reviewed, as shown in Appendix 3.1.

This expedited assessment has had no implications on the harmonisation for P3, which remains as described in MEC (2015).

3.2 Previous assessments

This fishery (UoA 1 only) was initially certified by MEC on the 9th June 2015 with 8 conditions and one recommendation. Following the Year 1 surveillance audit which took place on the 18th – 21st July, 1 additional recommendation was raised. The existing conditions and recommendations with their current status are summarised in Table 17 and Table 18.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 34 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Table 17. Summary of UoA 1 (MEC-F-031) Conditions and scoring and status.

Condition Status at Year 1 surveillance PI original PI revised score score

1 1.1.2 - The management system should formally adopt a target There is no milestone for this condition for 75 - reference point for the South Pacific albacore stock which is Year 1. There is evidence that attempts have consistent with maintaining the stock at BMSY or some other measure been ongoing via FFA and the HSW process with similar intent or outcome. This target reference point should be to propose a TRP for South Pacific albacore used for management purposes. to WCPFC, and that the Cook Islands have been participating in, and are supportive of, this process. The condition is on target. 2 1.2.1 - The fishery should put in place a regional harvest strategy, There is no milestone for this Condition 70 - incorporating limit and target reference points (management before Year 5. The development of a formal objectives), a harvest control rule and management actions, such that harvest strategy is a process that includes the the strategy is responsive to the status of the stock and the elements agreement of a formal TRP (Condition 1) and of the strategy work together to maintain the stock at or around the a formal HCR with tools (Condition 3), as well target level. as other elements (monitoring, stock assessment) which are already in place. The The key missing elements of the harvest strategy at present are 1. a harvest strategy therefore cannot really be target reference point formally adopted by the regional management evaluated separate from these more concrete system, and 2. a well-defined harvest control rule with associated requirements. The 14-06 timetable (and management actions. These issues are also addressed specifically in hence the new milestones) do not result in an conditions 1 and 3. agreed and implemented HCR before Year 5, so the harvest strategy cannot be argued to be in place until then either. Meanwhile, however, there has been progress as outlined above. The condition is on target. 3 1.2.2 - A well-defined regional-level harvest control rule should be put Overall, in both regional fora (WCPFC and 60 - in place, with associated management actions (in the form of a CMM FFA/Tokelau Arrangement) there has been or another form as appropriate) which together act effectively to extensive discussion, consultation and reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is approached. representation on HCRs for albacore, and The selection of the harvest control rule should take into account the some progress. In terms of the milestone for main uncertainties regarding the status of the stock or the impact of Year 1, the Cook Islands is putting in place the fishery (or other uncertainties if considered important). the requirements to meet its (voluntary) obligations under the Tokelau Arrangement via the TAC/quota system. The condition is

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 35 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Condition Status at Year 1 surveillance PI original PI revised score score

on target.

4 2.3.1 / 2.3.3 - The occurrence and outcome of all catches of ETP On target in relation to condition milestones 75 - species (sharks, sea turtles, seabirds and cetaceans) by LTFV (although behind target for action plan) vessels should be systematically and accurately reported on so that fishery-related mortality on ETP species can be quantitatively determined and the effectiveness of the management strategies can be determined. Where a need has been identified, the collected data should enable further development of management strategies to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species. 5 2.3.2 - The client will provide evidence that all Cook Islands On target in relation to condition milestones 75 - regulations on fishery interactions with sea turtles are consistently (although behind target for action plan) respected and adhered to by LTFV crew so that it can be demonstrated that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to sea turtles, mortality of sea turtles is minimized and the fishery does not hinder recovery of vulnerable sea turtle populations. 6 3.1.2 - The client must provide evidence that processes at national The team decided that the current state of 75 - level are put in place to i) regularly engage with key stakeholders to development of a formal public consultation seek and accept relevant information, and ii) demonstrate that the process meets the requirements of the Year 2 information obtained from such engagement has been duly milestone (demonstrate that the development considered. by MMR of formal stakeholder consultation processes has started). The condition is therefore ahead of target. 7 3.1.4 - The client should demonstrate that the subsidies identified by The status of this condition is the same as for 60 - FFA and acknowledged by the client do not lead to perverse Condition 2 – i.e. on target following revised incentives that are inconsistent with achieving the outcomes milestones expressed by MSC principles 1 and 2;

Implement a harvest strategy that includes strengthened harvest control rules that are more responsive to increasing effort in the albacore fishery, such that the impact of subsidies is restricted to

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 36 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Condition Status at Year 1 surveillance PI original PI revised score score

lowering the operating costs of subsidized fleets, rather than acting as an incentive to increase effort. 8 3.2.2 - By working with the relevant Cook Islands management None of the stakeholders who previously 75 - agencies, the client should demonstrate i) that decision-making expressed concern about this issue have processes at national level respond to serious and other important contacted MEC in relation to this audit. It issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and appears that information will now be more consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take available to stakeholders, and decision- account of the wider implications of decisions and ii) that information making will be more transparent, but the team on fishery performance and management action at national level is concluded that they would prefer to see the available to stakeholders on request, and that explanations are new system in full operation before closing provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and the condition. For the moment, the condition relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, is on target. evaluation and review activity.

Table 18. Summary of UoA 1 (MEC-F-031) Assessment Recommendations and status.

Recommendation Status at Year 1 surveillance

Note: In October 2016, during drafting of the CDR, the client group adopted and started implementing a garbage management plan. 2 The audit team noted some confusion within the MMR regarding the procedure to be followed in the case of To be reviewed at the contraventions against the Marine Resources (Shark Conservation) Regulations 2012 (i.e. for the Shark Sanctuary) and next surveillance audit. have made the following recommendation: The formal process for infractions of this kind should be documented and

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 37 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Recommendation Status at Year 1 surveillance

should be presented at the next (year 2) surveillance audit. The audit team will then also verify the outcome of the decision-making process regarding the shark finning incidents mentioned in the Year 1 surveillance report.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 38 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

3.3 Assessment Methodologies

The expedited assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) version 2.0 for assessment procedure and the MSC CRv1.3 (Annex CB) for scoring. This is in line with the requirements stipulated under FCR 7.22. Adjustments to the Default Assessment Tree were not required.

The MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 was used to produce the report, with amendments to accommodate for the expedited assessment and for scoring against the CRv1.3.

The Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was not used in this assessment.

3.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

3.4.1 Site Visits

The site visit for this expedited assessment was held at the MMR offices in Rarotonga, Cook Islands from the 18th to the 21st July 2016, at the same time as the Year 1 surveillance audit for UoA1. During the audit, the team had the opportunity to visit one of the client vessels whilst moored in Rarotonga, the Hua Nan Yu 736, and interview the captain and crew on matters including fishing practices, what to do in the event of interactions with ETP species, waste disposal and view the fishing gear. The site visit participants are listed in Table 19.

Note that the expedited assessment was initially announced on the 24th May 2016 for the addition of yellowfin only. On the 12th July 2016, the addition of several new client groups (UoAs 3 to 6) was announced, the process of which was merged with the ongoing expedited assessment. As a site visit had already been arranged at that time, a remote site visit via video conferencing was proposed for the 15th August 2016. This was approved by the MSC following a variation request. However no stakeholders came forward for this separate event.

Table 19. Expedited site visit participants

Name Role / organisation

Ben Ponia Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, Secretary Tim Costello Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, Director, Offshore Division Andrew Jones Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, Senior Fisheries Officer, Offshore Division Georgia Langdon Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, Senior Fisheries Officer, Data Manager Varanisese Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, Policy Officer Bulabalvu Latishia Mani Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, Fisheries Officer Joe Murphy LTFV (remote participant) Eric Gilman LTFV (remote participant) Vincent Dong Huanan Fishery (Cook Islands) Co.,Ltd.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 39 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Name Role / organisation

Jickey Lin Huanan Fishery (Cook Islands) Co.,Ltd. Reuben Tyler Lawyer, recreational fisher Jo Gasoigne MEC Chrissie Sieben MEC

3.4.2 Consultations

The audit was attended by the participants and stakeholders listed in Table 19. A separate meeting took place between the assessment team and Reuben Tylor to discuss the outcome of a court case involving the former Fisheries Minister (see Appendix 4.1). The remainder of the interviews with site visit participants focused on the provision of information and no concerns were raised about the fishery under assessment.

3.4.3 Evaluation Techniques a) Media announcements

The fishery’s expedited assessment was announced on the MSC website on the 24th May 2016. The MSC press release targeted a wide range of stakeholders within the sustainable seafood industry. As it is not a process requirement under the MSC FCR version 2.0, the fishery was not announced in another media post. b) Methodology for information gathering

Information for the assessment was gathered during the site visit and in separate correspondence with individual stakeholders. The MMR were key in providing most of the operational information on the fishery and were very cooperative throughout the assessment process. c) Scoring process

Both team members attended the site visit and scoring was therefore partly completed during the site visit and partly completed afterwards. Some Principle 2 information was lacking during the site visit (for reasons outside the control of the assessment team or the client) and PIs 2.2.1 - 2.3.3 were therefore mainly scored after the site visit, by remote discussion.

The scores were decided as follows:

How many scoring issues met? SG60 SG80 SG100

All 60 80 100 Half FAIL 70 90 Less than half FAIL 65 85 More than half FAIL 75 95

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 40 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Note that where there is only one scoring issue in the SG, the issue can be partially scored – in this case the team used their judgement to determine what proportion of it was met, e.g. at the 100 level, a small part met = 85, about half met = 90, nearly all met = 95. d) Decision rules for final outcome

The decision rule for MSC certification is as follows:

 No PIs scores below 60;  The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above.

The aggregate score for each Principle is calculated by taking the average score for each Component followed by the average of all the Component scores. e) Scoring elements

The set of scoring elements that were considered in each outcome PI in Principles 1 and 2 are listed in Table 20.

Table 20. Scoring elements

UoA Components Scoring elements Main/Not Data- Scored in main deficient this or not assessment? UoA 3,5 Principle 1 (target species) South Pacific albacore n/a no No UoA 2,4,6 Principle 1 (target species) WCPO yellowfin n/a no Yes UoA 2 - 6 Retained species Indian oil sardine yes no Yes UoA 2 - 6 Retained species WCPO bigeye yes no Yes UoA 2,5,6 Retained species Blue marlin yes no Yes UoA 2 - 6 Retained species See Table 11 no n/a Yes UoA 2 - 6 Bycatch species None yes n/a Yes UoA 2 - 6 Bycatch species See Table 11, Table no n/a Yes 12 UoA 2 - 6 ETP species Seabirds, sea turtles n/a n/a Yes and sharks

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 41 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

4 Traceability

4.1 Eligibility Date

The eligibility date shall be the date of publication of the PCDR. Any product caught during the 2017 fishing season, which commences in February/March, and conforming to the UoAs detailed in Section 2.1 shall thus be eligible to carry the MSC ecolabel, pending the successful outcome of this evaluation.

4.2 Traceability within the Fishery

The tracking, tracing and segregation systems which apply to UoAs 2 to 6 are identical to those already described in MEC (2015). This includes the following:

 The type of processing aboard the vessels  The absence of at-sea transhipment.  Client fleet record keeping  MMR MCS system with VMS for all vessels  The identified risk of mixing between high seas and in-zone (EEZ) sets during a trip (see further on)  The possible risk to substitution related to the commencement and completion of fishing trips with fish remaining in the holds (see further on).  Eligible landing sites: Rarotonga, Pago Pago and Papeete. Note that since the initial assessment, the client fleet plans to land at 2 other landing sites: Apia (Samoa) and Penhryn (Puka Puka; Northern Cook Islands).  The procedures after landing.

Note: Radio frequency identification tags (RFIDs) have been in use in the fishery since April 2016. When landed onboard, crew scan the RFID to record information on the vessel name, fish species, weight, vessel position when the fish was hauled aboard, and date and time when the fish was hauled aboard. Upon landing in port, additional information is added to each individual RFID attached to a fish to record the seaport name, offload date and time, assign a unique identification number to the fish, weight for fresh fish, and the reefer number and box number into which the fish is loaded.

A summary of the traceability risk-assessment is shown in Table 21.

Table 21. Traceability Factors within the Fishery:

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s Only pelagic longine used aboard the vessels – minimal risk. to be used within the fishery

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 42 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for vessels from the UoC Identified risk of mixing between high seas and in-zone (EEZ) to fish outside the UoC or in sets during a trip. Therefore, any trips which include sets in the different geographical areas (on high seas area (or other areas outside the Cook Islands EEZ) the same trips or different trips) shall be classed as non-MSC certified.

Potential for vessels outside of The WCPO yellowfin and SP albacore stocks are fished by the UoC or client group fishing the several other nations throughout the Western Central Pacific. same stock However, the eligible vessels under this certificate are clearly identified and the traceability and segregation systems in place are considered robust to the extent that the risk of mixing of the target species from this fishery with that of another, non-certified fishery is minimal. Risks of mixing between certified After unloading, the fish are loaded into containers. In most and non-certified catch during cases each fishing vessel will use one container, in order to storage, transport, or handling minimise mixing of catches. In the event that more than one activities (including transport at vessel uses a container there are two measures in place to sea and on land, points of identify catches: 1) a net to divide catches within the container, landing, and sales at auction) and 2) different coloured rope are tied to the tails of the fish. Photos and records are taken of each container including interior and exterior photos. A traceability tag presenting information about the cargo, packing date and vessel details are also included before the container is sealed (MEC, 2015). Risks of mixing between certified There is minimal risk of mixing during processing. Albacore and and non-certified catch during yellowfin are two morphologically very distinct species and are processing activities (at-sea unlikely to be substituted with each other or with other species. and/or before subsequent Chain As previously discussed, there is a risk of mixing in-zone of Custody) catches with high seas catches and any trips which include sets in the high seas area (or other areas outside the Cook Islands EEZ) shall be classed as non-MSC certified. Risks of mixing between certified There is no at-sea transhipment. Some transhipment from the and non-certified catch during fishing vessels to a carrier vessel does take place in port after transhipment landing under the supervision of the fisheries authorities.

Any other risks of substitution Another area that was considered as a possible risk to between fish from the UoC substitution related to the commencement and completion of (certified catch) and fish from fishing trips with fish remaining in the holds. Stakeholders have outside this unit (non-certified raised the concern that should this happen then fish that was on- catch) before subsequent Chain board from trips that did not qualify under the above ruling may of Custody is required well be included in MSC product inventories. As a result, the client has committed to ensuring that all fishing trips shall commence and end with empty holds and that a fishing trip shall be defined as a ‘trip that commences and finishes with an empty hold and only fishes in MSC certified waters in between’.

4.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

South Pacific albacore and Western Central Pacific Ocean yellowfin caught by the vessels listed in Table 4 within the Cook Islands EEZ and after the date of publication of the PCDR will be eligible to enter further chains of custody, pending the outcome of this evaluation. However, any trips which include sets in the high seas area (or other areas outside

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 43 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015) the Cook Islands EEZ) shall be classed as non-MSC certified and will not be eligible to enter further chains of custody.

The Client Groups also commit to ensuring that all fishing trips (defined as a ‘trip that commences and finishes with an empty hold and only fishes in MSC certified waters in between’) shall start and finish with empty holds.

Separate chain of custody certification will be required after the point of landing (and as required by the MSC Chain of Custody requirements Version 2.0). Note that ownership does not change at this point in all cases (for instance some processing plants in the supply chain are owned by LTFV). However those facilities (and any other parties wishing to handle or make a claim on MSC certified product after the point of landing) will be subject to separate CoC certification.

There are five eligible points of landing:

 Pago Pago, American Samoa  Rarotonga, Cook Islands  Papeete, French Polynesia  Apia, Samoa  Penhryn, Cook Islands

It is also noted that MSC CoC Certification requirements (Version 2.0) do not require transportation companies to be certified for chain of custody unless they take ownership of the product.

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

There are no IPI stocks in this fishery.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 44 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

5 Evaluation Results

5.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 22. Final Principle Scores. Note: UoA1 score and score for components and elements which are not included in this expedited assessment are taken from MEC (2015)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 45 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

5.2 Summary of PI Level Scores

Prin Component Weighting PI nb. Performance Indicator UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 UoA4 UoA5 UoA6 ciple

1.1.1 Stock status 100 90 100 90 100 90 Outcome 0.5 1.1.2 Reference points 75 90 75 90 75 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a N/a 1 1.2.1 Harvest Strategy 70 70 70 70 70 70 1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools 60 60 60 60 60 60 Management 0.5 1.2.3 Information and monitoring 80 80 80 80 80 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 90* 95 90* 95 90* 95 2.1.1 Outcome 80 85 85 85 85 85 Retained 0.2 2.1.2 Management 80 80 80 80 80 80 species 2.1.3 Information 80 80 80 80 80 80 2.2.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 80 80 Bycatch 0.2 2.2.2 Management 80 80 80 80 80 80 species 2.2.3 Information 80 80 80 80 80 80 2 2.3.1 Outcome 75 75 75 75 75 75 ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management 75 75 75 75 75 75 2.3.3 Information 75 75 75 75 75 75 2.4.1 Outcome 100 100 100 100 100 100 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management 80 80 80 80 80 80 2.4.3 Information 95 95 95 95 95 95

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 46 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Prin Component Weighting PI nb. Performance Indicator UoA1 UoA2 UoA3 UoA4 UoA5 UoA6 ciple

2.5.1 Outcome 80 80 80 80 80 80 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 80 80 80 80 80 80 2.5.3 Information 85 85 85 85 85 85 3.1.1 Legal and customary framework 85 85 85 85 85 85

Governance 3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities 75 75 75 75 75 75 0.5 and Policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 90 90 90 90 90 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainability 60 60 60 60 60 60 3 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 90 90 90 90 90 Fishery- 3.2.2 Decision making processes 75 75 75 75 75 75 specific 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement 85 85 85 85 85 85 management system 3.2.4 Research plan 90 90 90 90 90 90 3.2.5 Management performance evaluation 80 80 80 80 80 80 * This score was increased from 85 to 90 due to re-scoring of scoring issue a at the Year 1 surveillance audit (as a result of the P1 harmonisation meeting outcome)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 47 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

5.3 Summary of Conditions

This expedited assessment raises two new conditions on PIs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 which apply to UoAs2, 4 and 6 (i.e. yellowfin). No new conditions are required for UoAs3 and 5 other than those which are carried over from the existing certification (MEC, 2015).

For clarity the full list of conditions is presented in Table 23, including those already in place for UoA1. Although the new conditions from this expedited assessment apply to Principle 1, they have been numbered consecutively with the existing conditions. (note: as Conditions 4 and 5 apply to all UoAs, they were reworded slightly to reflect this)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 48 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Table 23. All conditions on this fishery, including all UoAs

Condition Condition Performance Stock Apply to Current number Indicator (P1) which status UoAs? The management system should formally adopt a target reference point for the South Pacific albacore stock which is consistent with maintaining the stock at BMSY or some 1 1.1.2 albacore UoA1,3,5 open other measure with similar intent or outcome. This target reference point should be used for management purposes. The fishery should put in place a regional harvest strategy, incorporating limit and target reference points (management objectives), a harvest control rule and management actions, such that the strategy is responsive to the status of the stock and the elements of the strategy work together to maintain the stock at or around the target level. 2 1.2.1 albacore UoA1,3,5 open The key missing elements of the harvest strategy at present are 1. a target reference point formally adopted by the regional management system, and 2. a well-defined harvest control rule with associated management actions. These issues are also addressed specifically in conditions 1 and 3. The fishery must put in place a well-defined regional-level harvest control rule, and associated management actions (in the form of a CMM or another form as appropriate) which together act effectively to reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is 3 1.2.2 albacore UoA1,3,5 open approached. The selection of the harvest control rule should take into account the main uncertainties regarding the status of the stock or the impact of the fishery (or other uncertainties if considered important). The occurrence and outcome of all catches of ETP species by UoA vessels (sharks, seaturtles, seabirds and cetaceans) should be systematically and accurately reported on so that fishery-related mortality on ETP species can be quantitatively determined 4 and the effectiveness of the management strategies can be determined. Where a need 2.3.1, 2.3.3 both all UoAs open has been identified, the collected data should enable further development of management strategies to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species. The client should provide evidence that all Cook Islands regulations on fishery 5 interactions with sea turtles are consistently respected and adhered to by UoA crew so 2.3.2 both all UoAs open that it can be demonstrated that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to sea

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 49 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Condition Condition Performance Stock Apply to Current number Indicator (P1) which status UoAs? turtles, mortality of sea turtles is minimized and the fishery does not hinder recovery of vulnerable sea turtle populations. The client must provide evidence that processes at national level are put in place to i) regularly engage with key stakeholders to seek and accept relevant information, and ii) 6 3.1.2 both all UoAs open demonstrate that the information obtained from such engagement has been duly considered. The client should demonstrate that the subsidies identified by FFA and acknowledged by the client do not lead to perverse incentives that are inconsistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC principles 1 and 2; Or 7 3.1.4 both all UoAs open Implement a harvest strategy that includes strengthened harvest control rules that are more responsive to increasing effort in the albacore fishery, such that the impact of subsidies is restricted to lowering the operating costs of subsidized fleets, rather than acting as an incentive to increase effort. By working with the relevant Cook Islands management agencies, the client should demonstrate i) that decision-making processes at national level 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 8 wider implications of decisions and ii) that information on fishery performance and 3.2.2 both all UoAs open management action at national level is available to stakeholders on request, and that explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. The fishery should put in place a regional harvest strategy, incorporating limit and target reference points (management objectives), a harvest control rule and management actions, such that the strategy is responsive to the status of the stock and the elements of the strategy work together to maintain the stock at or around the target level. 9 1.2.1 yellowfin UoA2,4,6 new

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 50 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Condition Condition Performance Stock Apply to Current number Indicator (P1) which status UoAs? associated management actions (in the form of a CMM or another form as appropriate) which together act effectively to reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is approached. The selection of the harvest control rule should take into account the main uncertainties regarding the status of the stock or the impact of the fishery (or other uncertainties if considered important).

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 51 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

5.4 Recommendations

Other than the recommendations already listed in Table 18, no new recommendations were made by the team.

5.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

Following consideration of all stakeholders’ inputs and comments to the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR), the fishery assessment team concludes that the fishery should be certified against the MSC standard. This determination remains a recommendation pending the completion of the formal objections process and the final certification decision by the MEC official decision making entity.

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 52 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

6 References

Abreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008.Lepidochelys olivacea. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T11534A3292503.en. Andrews, J.W., Appukuttan, K.K., Medley, P. 2008. Certification Report for Indian Oil Sardine Gillnet Fishery Ref. 82033v1, Moody Marine Ltd., 85 pp. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B4vsguvq0XUgMlNKVngtMF80N28/edit Burgess, H. G. & Branstetter, S. 2009. Carcharhinus limbatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T3851A10124862. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009- 2.RLTS.T3851A10124862.en. Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A., Clo, S., Macias, D., Baum, J., Kohin, S., Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J.A., Acuña, E., Amorim, A. & Domingo, A. 2009. Isurus oxyrinchus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. . Casale, P. & Tucker, A.D. 2015. Caretta caretta. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T3897A83157651. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015- 4.RLTS.T3897A83157651.en. Clarke, S. 2011. A Status Snapshot of Key Shark Species in the Western and Central Pacific and Potential Management Options. Scientific Committee, 7th session. 9-17 August 2011. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-04. 37pp. CMFRI, 2012. Annual Report 2011-12. Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Cochin, 186 p. http://eprints.cmfri.org.in/9053/1/CMFRI_Annual_Report_2011-12.pdf Davies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J. and McKechnie, S. 2014. Stock Assessment of Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee. 10th Regular Session. Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10- 2014/SA- WP-04. Available online at: http://www.spc.int/Oceanfish/en/ofpsection/sam/sam/216-yellowfin-assessment- results#2014 Fergusson, I., Compagno, L.J.V. & Marks, M. 2009. Carcharodon carcharias. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009- 2.RLTS.T3855A10133872.en. Harley, S. J, N. Davies, L Tremblay-Boyer, John Hampton and S McKechnie 2015.Stock assessment for south Pacific albacore tuna. Rev 1 (4 August 2015). SA-WP-06. See https://www.wcpfc.int/node/21776. ISC BILLWG. 2013. Annex 10 - Stock assessment of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean in 2013. Billfish Working Group. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna- like Species in the North Pacific Ocean. 17-22 July 2013. Busan, Korea. 125pp. MEC, 2015. MSC Public Certification Report: SZLC, CSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. June, 2015. https://www.msc.org/track-a- fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/certified/pacific/cook-islands-tuna/assessment- downloads-folder/2719R07A_Public_Certification_Report.pdf MEC, 2016. Year 1 Surveillance Audit Report: SZLC, CSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. December 2016. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/szlc-CSFC-fzlc-cook-islands-eez-south-pacific- albacore-longline/@@assessments

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 53 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Munroe, T.A. & Priede, I.G. 2010. Sardinella longiceps. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T154989A4684198. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010- 4.RLTS.T154989A4684198.en. Pilling G., Scott R., Williams P. and Hampton J. 2016. A compendium of fisheries indicators for tuna stocks not assessed in 2016 (bigeye and yellowfin tuna). WCPFC Scientific Committee 12, Bali, 3-11 August 2016. WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-03 Pilling, G., R. Scott, P. Williams and J. Hampton 2016b. Biologically reasonable rebuilding timeframes for bigeye tuna Scientific Committee Twelfth Regular Session Bali, Indonesia 3-11 August 2016 WCPFC-SC12-2016/MI-WP-02. Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC12-MI-WP-02 Bigeye biological rebuilding timeframes.pdf Pilling G., Harley S., Davies N., Rice J. and Hampton J. 2014. Status quo stochastic projections for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas. WCPFC Scientific Committee 10, Majuro, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC‐SC10‐2014/SA‐WP‐06 PNA 2014. Revised PS VDS TAE for 2014-2016. VDS Technical and Scientific Committee 3rd Meeting, Working Paper 1a. Reardon, M.B., Gerber, L. & Cavanagh, R.D. 2006. Isurus paucus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2006: http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2006.RLTS.T60225A12328101.en. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7‐15 August 2012, 8th. WCPFC‐SC8‐2012/SA‐WP‐06 Rev 1. 53pp. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013. Potential catch and CPUE series to support a stock assessment of blue shark in the south Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 9th. WCPFC- SC9-2013/SA-WP-04. 24 p. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013a. Updated stock assessment of silky sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 9th. WCPFC-SC9-2013/ SA-WP-03. SC10 2014. Summary Report, 10th Regular Session of the Scientific Committee, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014. Available at: http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/10th-regular-session-scientific-committee Tiwari, M., Wallace, B.P. & Girondot, M. 2013. Dermochelys coriacea (West Pacific Ocean subpopulation). The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T46967817A46967821.http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2013- 2.RLTS.T46967817A46967821.en. Downloaded on07 October 2016. Williams, P. 2013. Scientific data available to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. SC 9th Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013. WCPFC-SC9-2013/ST WP-1.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 54 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendices

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 55 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation table 1 - PI 1.1.1 – yellowfin (UoAs 2,4,6)

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 Guide It is likely that the stock is above the point It is highly likely that the stock is above There is a high degree of certainty that the stock post where recruitment would be impaired. the point where recruitment would be is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 100 cation Estimates of biomass and fishing mortality in relation to reference points are given in Table 7 of the main report. According to the stock assessment, there have been no particular trends in recruitment for WCPO yellowfin throughout the assessment period (see figure below), although the overall average of estimated recruitment since 1990 average is ~6% lower than long-term mean (but this is most likely within the range of uncertainty in the estimates). Current spawner biomass in the absence of fishing (SBF=0) is 4% lower than SB0, likewise indicating slightly lower recent recruitment than the overall average of the assessment period, but again, most likely with no statistical difference.

Estimate of recruitment from 1960 to 2011 for the whole WCPO region (millions), with 95% confidence intervals, from Davies et al., 2014.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 56 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

According to the 2014 stock assessment, SBcurrent and SB2012 have a probability of being above the MSY level of ~95%, and short-term projections suggest that SB2016 is likely to be higher. In addition, none of the sensitivity analyses (at least singly) resulted in a median estimate of SBcurrent which was below SBMSY (lowest estimated of SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.16 – see table).

Outcome of sensitivity analysis for SBcurrent relative to SBMSY, for yellowfin stock assessment:

Feature Sensitivity analysis MSY reference points SBcurr/SBMSY Natural Estimated by the model rather that fixed 1.55 mortality Steepness Steepness = 0.95 1.68 Ref. case 1.37 model Standardised Include Philippines handline fishery index, which apparently 1.37 CPUE indices conflicts with others in Region 7 Tag mixing Reduce the tag mixing period to one quarter 1.37 Relative Downweighted relative to ref. case 1.34 weighting of size data Steepness Steepness = 0.65 1.16

In summary, the team considered the following:  There is a probability of ~~95% that spawner biomass is above the level giving MSY.  Current fishing mortality is estimated to be below the MSY level; catches are approximately at the MSY level (noting, however, that confidence intervals in these estimates are quite wide).  Estimates of recruitment from the stock assessment model suggest that it has been fluctuating without trend.  The assessment report was welcomed by members of the WCFPC scientific committee (see report SC10 pp.38-41) who, although making some suggestions, did not find anything significant to criticise the approach taken by SPC. On this basis, the team concluded that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point at which recruitment would be impaired, since the MSC definition of ‘a high degree of certainty’ is 95% confidence.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 57 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

b Guide The stock is at or fluctuating around its There is a high degree of certainty that the stock post target reference point. has been fluctuating around its target reference point, or has been above its target reference point, over recent years.

Met? Y N

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 cation

There is no explicit TRP but CMM 15-01 provides an implicit TRP of FMSY, and by extension BMSY. The most recent stock assessment estimated that SB is above SBMSY with almost but not quite 95% probability (SBcurrent/SBMSY 5% confidence intervals 0.97-1.82, Bcurrent/BMSY 5% confidence intervals 1.00-1.69). Fcurrent/FMSY is estimated to be 0.72 (0.51-1.09). Short-term projections estimated F2016/FMSY at ~0.8.

In terms of trends ‘over recent years’ (SG100) – these are shown (as estimated by the stock assessment) in the figure below.

Kobe plot showing SB and F in relation to MSY reference points since the start of the assessment period (1960), with the pink dot representing the situation as assessed in 2014.

In other words, taking MSY reference points as the current target (see rationale for PI 1.1.2 below), while B is above BMSY with ~95% probability, SB/SBMSY and F/FMSY do not quite meet the requirement for a ‘high degree of certainty’; projections show that F is likely to

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 58 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

have increased somewhat since the assessment. SG100 is therefore not met.

Davies et al., 2014 References Pilling et al., 2016 CMM 15-01

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Current stock status relative to reference Type of reference point Value of reference point point

Target SBMSY 607,000 t (median estimate) SBcurrent 881,000 t (median), 998,600 t (ref. reference 728,300 t (ref. model) model) point SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.37, 1.37

Limit 20%SBcurrent,F=0 398,100 t (median estimate) SBcurrent/(0.2SBcurrent,f=0) = 2.05, 2.1 reference 473,700 t (ref. model) point

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 59 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 2 - PI 1.1.2 – yellowfin (UoAs 2,4,6)

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide Generic limit and target reference points Reference points are appropriate for the post are based on justifiable and reasonable stock and can be estimated. practice appropriate for the species category.

Met? Y Y Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 cation CMM 2015-01 states the following (our emphasis): paragraph 1. Compatible measures for the high seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are implemented so that bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna stocks are, at a minimum, maintained at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors including the special requirements of developing States in the Convention Area as expressed by Article 5 of the Convention. The Commission will amend, or replace the objectives with target reference points after their adoption. … paragraph 4. [for yellowfin] the fishing mortality rate is not greater than Fmsy, i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1.

In other words, while WCPFC, in drafting CMM 2015-01 does not consider MSY reference points as formal targets (as per the last sentence of paragraph 1), both BMSY (‘levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield’) and FMSY are nevertheless explicitly set out as the objective of WCPFC management for the moment. The stock assessment estimates stock status in relation to MSY reference points. A formal target reference point is under discussion by WCPFC, and according to the workplan for CMM 14-06 should be agreed not later than 2017.

A formal biomass limit reference point is agreed by WCPFC for the yellowfin stock, in the form 20%SBcurrent,F=0, where ‘current’ is defined as the most recent 10-year period for which data are available for the stock assessment. The stock assessment estimates stock status relative to this reference point. SG80 is met.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 60 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

b Guide The limit reference point is set above the The limit reference point is set above the level at post level at which there is an appreciable risk which there is an appreciable risk of impairing of impairing reproductive capacity. reproductive capacity following consideration of precautionary issues.

Met? Y Y

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 100 cation

In the most recent stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014), the limit reference point, 20%SBcurrent,F=0, equates to ~~65-70% of SBMSY (taking median estimates, LRP/SBMSY=0.67, taking the reference model LRP/SBMSY = 0.65).

MSC notes that a default limit reference point for a stock not requiring additional precaution could be appropriately set as 20%B0 ~ 50%BMSY. WCPFC have deliberately steered away from MSY-based reference points for level 2 and level 3 stocks (including all the main commercially-exploited species) because uncertainty in the stock-recruit relationship leads to larger uncertainties in estimates of MSY- related parameters than in other (e.g. depletion-based) reference point options. Nonetheless, based on the above analysis, the team concluded that the limit reference point has been set at a precautionary level. In relation to impairing reproductive capacity (recruitment, specifically) the team noted that there has been considerable discussion within the Scientific Committee around the issue of how recruitment should be dealt with in estimating the value of the limit reference point. Two options were considered: one where recruitment estimates were adopted directly from the model, and one where recruitment was scaled according to the stock-recruit relationship (i.e. recruitment expected to be somewhat higher in the absence of fishing). The latter option was found to be consistently more precautionary, and was the option selected by the Scientific Committee and endorsed by the Commission. On this basis, the team felt that relevant precautionary issues had been considered, and that SG100 is met. c Guide The target reference point is such that the The target reference point is such that the stock post stock is maintained at a level consistent is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or with BMSY or some measure or surrogate some measure or surrogate with similar intent or with similar intent or outcome. outcome, or a higher level, and takes into account relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock with a high degree of certainty. Met? Y N

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 61 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 cation As per CMM 2015-01, which outlines the the main management measure currently in place, the stated objective of the WCPFC in relation to yellowfin tuna is to maintain fishing mortality below FMSY (see also SIa). Consistent with CR1.3 CB2.3.2.3, exploitation at the explicit target reference point of FMSY implies an implicit target biomass reference point of SBMSY. An explicit biomass target reference point has not yet been established although it is under discussion (scheduled in the CMM 14-06 workplan to be agreed by 2017). Issues being considered are similar to those being currently discussed for biomass limit reference points – use of the recent 10-year window to estimate SBCURRENT and consideration of uncertainty in the stock – recruitment steepness parameter. It is therefore evident that the target reference point of FMSY is consistent with maintaining the stock at SBMSY. SG80 is therefore met. Estimates of MSY reference points are, however, reportedly quite uncertain, which is why the Scientific Committee favours an approach based on depletion reference points (B/BF=0). There is also no particular consideration of the ecological role of the stock in the stock assessment or in setting reference points and other management objectives. On this basis, SG100 is not met. d Guide For key low trophic level stocks, the target post reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock. Met? Not relevant

Justifi cation Yellowing is not a key LTL stock.

CMM 15-01 References Davies et al., 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 62 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 3 - PI 1.2.1 – yellowfin (UoAs 2,4,6)

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepost The harvest strategy is expected to The harvest strategy is responsive to the The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of achieve stock management state of the stock and the elements of the the stock and is designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in the target harvest strategy work together towards management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. achieving management objectives and limit reference points. reflected in the target and limit reference points. Met? Y N N Justification Agreed harmonised score: 60

MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE’ (MSC CR v1.3). The stated objective of the WCPFC harvest strategy (as defined in the target reference points) is to maintain the stock at the MSY level (see rationale for PIs1.1.1 and 1.1.2). CMM 14-06 commits WCPFC to developing a formal harvest strategy for yellowfin and the other key stocks; none of the milestones for yellowfin have yet been met, however (see 14-06 workplan). For the moment, the elements of the WCPFC harvest strategy are the following:  Data collection on the stock and fishery (considered in detail in PI 1.2.3 below)  Stock assessment process (considered in detail in PI 1.2.4 below)  Limit reference point (explicit) and target reference point (implicit or at least provisional) (discussed in detail in PI 1.1.2 above)  Harvest control rule (CMM 15-01) (considered in detail in PI 1.2.2 below)  Monitoring of implementation of CMM 15-01 via data gathering and Part 2 reports to the Commission This management strategy is reviewed annually during the Commission meeting. Given that the stock status of WCPO yellowfin is healthy, as it has been since stock assessments started, the efficacy of the harvest strategy for yellowfin has not been tested. The most recent stock assessment suggests that catches are approximately at MSY level, such that in the long run, this level of fishing mortality would result in biomass declining to ~MSY levels, which is the current target biomass (target of FMSY set out in CMM 15-01). Fishing effort on yellowfin has increased more or less continuously over the last few decades. Since 2000, catches have stabilised at just over 500,000 t. Overall, the fishery is achieving stock management objectives (reference points), since F is estimated to be

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 63 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

FMSY). The harvest strategy for bigeye over the last few years, as set out in CMMs 12-01, 13-01, 14-01 and 15-01, is somewhat responsive to the state of the stock, in that 2012-01 (the first management measure) was a response to the 2011 stock assessment showing the F was too high, while the impact of this and subsequent management measures are yet to be evaluated by a stock assessment (since the 2014 assessment uses data only to the end of 2012). Nevertheless, several WCPFC members, and NGOs, expressed their disappointment at the weakness of the response.

PNA harvest strategy: PNA operate a vessel day scheme (VDS) which limits effort by setting an overall ‘TAE’ (total allowable effort) which is divided up for each of the parties to the agreement. The TAE is set annually based on objectives of ‘optimal exploitation’ as well as WCPFC provisions (which presumably means MSY, given that this is the stated objective of CMM 15-01) – the focus of the scheme is, however, skipjack rather than yellowfin. For skipjack, fishing effort in 2010 is suggested as a proxy reference point for 50%SBF=0 (VDSTSC3 Working Paper 1a), but this reference point is not apparently applied to yellowfin. Nevertheless, the document shows that the stock status of yellowfin is taken into account in setting the TAE. The PNA harvest strategy applies to ~half the total catch of the stock.

Overall scoring: Overall, given the following points, the team considered that SG60 is met:  The stock status is good, and status quo projections suggest that it will remain above the MSY level (Pilling et al. 2016)  A combination of WCPFC and PNA harvest strategies are able to limit effort to an appropriate level  WCPFC and PNA are able to be at least somewhat responsive to the status of the stocks (cf bigeye) The team concluded, however, that SG80 is not met, because the harvest strategy is insufficiently responsive to the status of the stock. The team were not confident based on past form that, should yellowfin stock status be revealed at the next stock assessment to be approaching or below target levels, WCPFC and/or PNA would be able to stabilise or decrease fishing mortality in a fully effective and timely way.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 64 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

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

Justification Agreed harmonised score: 80

As noted above, the current estimates and status quo projections of stock status provide evidence that the harvest strategy is working; despite uncertainties, the projections suggest a probility of the stock falling below the limit reference point, or F increasing above FMSY by 2032 of <1%. SG80 is met. c Guidepost Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y

Justification Agreed harmonised score: 60 met

Monitoring of the fishery for the purposes of stock assessment is considered in PI 1.2.3 below, and the analysis of data is considered under PI 1.2.4. Monitoring of the implementation of the harvest strategy (notably CMM 15-01) is carried out via self- assessment by CCMs, included in their Part 2 reports submitted to WCPFC annually. The Cook Islands monitors catches in its waters via logsheets, corrected according to landings reports and VMS data. SG60 is met. d Guidepost The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Met? Not evaluated

Justification Not all SG80s are met, so there is no need to score.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 65 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

e Guidepost It is likely that shark finning is not It is highly likely that shark finning is not There is a high degree of certainty that shark taking place. taking place. finning is not taking place.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justification Shark is not a target species; this scoring issue is not relevant.

CMMs 12-01, 13-01, 14-01, 14-06 and 15-01 References Pilling et al., 2016 VDSTSC3 Working Paper 1a OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 66 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 4 - PI 1.2.2 – yellowfin (UoAs2,4,6)

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide Generally understood HCRs are in place Well-defined harvest control rules are in post or available that are expected to reduce place that are consistent with the harvest the exploitation rate as the point of strategy and ensure that the exploitation recruitment impairment (PRI) is rate is reduced as limit reference points approached. are approached. Met? Y N Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 60 cation SA2.5.2 In scoring issue (a) at the SG60 level, teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs (instead of HCRs that are ‘in place’) in cases where: ‼ a. 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; or b. In UoAs where BMSY estimates are not available, the stock has been maintained to date by the measures in use at levels that have not declined significantly over time, nor shown any evidence of recruitment impairment.

SA2.5.3 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 is in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY.

For the WCPFC harvest strategy, the harvest control rule is set out in CMM 15-01 (WPCO bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack). For PNA, the harvest control rule is to adjust the TAE to maintain ‘optimal exploitation’ (assumed to be likewise a proxy for FMSY). In practice, because yellowfin stock status is good (target F being achieved with ~~90% probability, as noted above), and has always been good (meeting the requirements of SA2.5.2a), limits on the fishery have not really been required up till now. CMM 14-06 (described in 1.2.1a above) requires WCPFC to adopt a HCR for this stock, with an associated workplan. Status quo projections suggest that the stock will remain above BMSY over this time period (Pilling et al., 2016). Therefore the requirements of SA2.5.3b are met. The team concluded on this basis that responsive HCRs are ‘available’ at WCPFC. In addition, the combined impact of CMM 15-01 and

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 67 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

the PNA vessel day scheme imply that the existing HCRs, although somewhat weak, are somewhat responsive to the status of the stock. On this basis, SG60 is met for WCPO yellowfin. The team did not consider, however, that this approach could be described as ‘well-defined’ pre-agreed rules, nor can it be said to ‘ensure’ that the exploitation rate is reduced. SG60 is met, but SG80 is not. b Guide The selection of the harvest control rules The design of the harvest control rules takes into post takes into account the main uncertainties. account a wide range of uncertainties.

Met? N N

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 not met (NB: Typo in the harmonisation meeting report suggests score agreed was 80, but this is wrong.) cation While the stock assessment considers a wide range of uncertainties, CMM 15-01 is expressed mainly in terms of restricting effort. This means that there is some uncertainty as to how effective the CMM will be since a given reduction in vessel days (or some other measure of effort) does not necessarily equate to a proportionate reduction in catch. This is also true of the PNA vessel-day scheme to some extent, although days are adjusted for vessel size category. CMM 15-01 does specify that CCMs should ‘take measures not to increase their catch of yellowfin tuna’ for both purse seine and longline fisheries, but does not specify any details; i.e. since the HCR is not clearly defined, it is necessarily unclear how uncertainties are taken into account. Overall, given the robust nature of the stock assessment (‘(the) result indicates there to be sufficient and coherent information in the observations from which absolute abundance can be inferred’) and its conclusions regarding the stock status (above target levels), the team considered that there are no large looming uncertainties that might threaten the outcome if CMM 15-01 and the vessel-day scheme are implemented. It is nonetheless not clear, if uncertainties are uncovered, how the HCR could react to them. The situation for bigeye shows that the management system can be reactive, but slowly (e.g. first response by WCPFC in December 2012 to stock assessment from summer 2011). On this basis, the team concluded that it is difficult to argue that the HCR is ‘robust’, and SG80 is not met. c Guide There is some evidence that tools used Available evidence indicates that the tools Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are post or available to implement HCRs are in use are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the exploitation levels appropriate and effective in controlling achieving the exploitation levels required required under the harvest control rules. exploitation under the harvest control rules. Met? Y N N

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 60 cation SA2.5. In scoring issue (c) at the SG60 level, where HCRs are recognised as ‘available’, teams shall include in their 5 rationale: ‼ a. Evidence that HCRs are being ‘effectively’ used in other named UoAs, also managed by the same management body, including the basis on which they are regarded as ‘effective’; or b. A description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 68 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

As noted above, CMM 14-06 formally commits WCPFC to the development of a HCR for yellowfin, within an associated timeframe (described in 1.2.1a above). The workplan does not extend to cover the full process, but is due for review in 2017. SA2.5.5b is met. In terms of the stock status, the most recent assessment and status quo projections provide some evidence that the tools in use are sufficiently effective at controlling exploitation rates. SG60 is met. However, since HCRs are ‘available’ rather than ‘in place’, SG80 is not met. CMMs 12-01, 13-01, 14-01, 14-06 and 15-01 References Pilling et al., 2014; 2016 VDSTSC3 Working Paper 1a (PNA, 2014) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 69 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 5 - PI 1.2.3 – yellowfin (UoAs 2,4,6)

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide Some relevant information related to Sufficient relevant information related to A comprehensive range of information (on stock post stock structure, stock productivity and stock structure, stock productivity, fleet structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, fleet composition is available to support composition and other data is available to stock abundance, fishery removals and other the harvest strategy. support the harvest strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 cation The following information is available, and is used as part of the harvest strategy – notably to inform the stock assessment model: 1. Fishery-dependent information Catch, effort and CPUE: It is a requirement for all CCM fisheries to provide catch and effort data to WCPFC/SPC. The logsheet data are raised to best estimates of total catch by SPC-OFP, to account for missing data. CPUE data are standardised as described in Davies et al., 2014. Data go back to 1960, although as expected, historical data are sparser and generally less reliable than more recent data. It is often not clear what the relevant factors are for effective catch rate standardization, and they may not be recorded in the logbooks – this is a particular problem for purse seine data. Length-frequency data: Length-frequency data comes from various port sampling programmes and some observer reports, and goes back to 1962. These data are weighted in the stock assessment according to spatial representation, to account for differences in length- frequency by geographic region. Fleet composition: Each CCM provides information to WCPFC annually on their active fleet, in their Part 1 reports. 2. Fishery-independent information Size and age data: Data on age and growth are available to inform the stock assessment, although growth rates remain somewhat uncertain. Natural mortality: Estimating natural mortality is always a big problem; however there are sufficient tagging data available for yellowfin to allow the stock assessment model to estimate natural mortality, although the outcome was somewhat different to the reference case model where natural mortality was fixed (more optimistic). Environmental data: The Ocean Fisheries Programme of SPC undertaken environmental research as part of their ecosystem monitoring programme, focusing particularly on potential environmental drivers of tuna population dynamics. 3. Information inferred from the stock assessment

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 70 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

A significant range of information relating to stock status comes as the output of the stock assessment (Davies et al., 2014), including estimates of stock abundance, fishery impact etc. 4. Data gaps Stock structure - the WCPO yellowfin fishery is assessed and managed as a single stock. However, suggestive evidence for population structure is emerging for the tropical tunas (e.g. Kolody et al., 2013). Observer coverage (providing external verification of logbook data and information about discards) is low, particularly for the longline fishery and particularly on the high seas.

Overall, given the size and complexity of the fishery, the range and comprehensiveness of the data available is impressive and improving all the time. Nonetheless, some data gaps do constrain stock assessments – as does bias and lack of precision in some of the data sets, particularly historical data. Perhaps more importantly, the stock assessment continues to rely on commercial CPUE as an index of stock abundance, and although these data are carefully analysed and standardised as far as possible, there are no fishery-independent data sets with which they can be compared, while issues such as spatial and temporal changes in catchability remain problematic. On this basis, the team concluded that SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met. b Guide Stock abundance and fishery removals Stock abundance and fishery removals All information required by the harvest control post are monitored and at least one indicator is are regularly monitored at a level of rule is monitored with high frequency and a high available and monitored with sufficient accuracy and coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and there is a good frequency to support the harvest control the harvest control rule, and one or more understanding of inherent uncertainties in the rule. indicators are available and monitored information [data] and the robustness of with sufficient frequency to support the assessment and management to this harvest control rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 cation Fishery removals are monitored by individual CCMs via logsheets 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 either aggregated (5o squares by month) or (preferably) at operational level (individual logsheets). Despite some gaps in this dataset noted above, coverage is good overall. This catch, effort and CPUE dataset is the key indicator for stock assessment. Other key fisheries data which support management are length-frequency data (collected via port sampling and observer programmes) and tag returns. Port sampling covering is high, but observer coverage is low, particularly for longline fisheries. Biological data are also collected via research programmes. Formal stock assessments have taken place every few years (2011, 2014). In between formal stock assessments, SPC provide some information on trends in fishery indicators (total catch, nominal CPUE, catch at length and at weight), to guide management (e.g. Pilling et al., 2016). On this basis, the team felt that SG80 was met. SG100 is not met, for the following reasons:  The characteristics of tuna longline CPUE are often poorly understood and it is unclear how successful most effort standardization analyses are or how to properly represent the uncertainties

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 71 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

 Purse seine catch and length-frequency data can be biased by grab-sampling techniques used to estimate species composition  Some data gaps remain in fishery-dependent data (see above)  Some key fleets provide only aggregated data or do not permit operational data to be used in stock assessments (e.g. Japan for the most recent yellowfin assessment)  The requirement to ‘raise’ logsheet data by estimates of total catch (to account for missing logsheets) results in some loss of precision  Historical data are often lacking in precision  Although the frequency of stock assessments is reasonable, they are not carried out with ‘high frequency’ (i.e. not always updated annually); it is not completely clear how robust the management is to uncertainty – the management system is still a work in progress. c Guide There is good information on all other post fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 cation The stock assessment covers all fishery removals from the stock, and despite some data gaps (notably Vietnam, also Philippines, Indonesia and some smaller coastal fleets), overall the data coverage is quite comprehensive. Where data gaps exist, the WCPFC Secretariat and SPC are working to support and develop data collection systems (see information in Williams, 2013). Davies et al., 2014 References Pilling et al., 2016 Williams, 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 72 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 6 - PI 1.2.4 – yellowfin (UoAs2,4,6)

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide The assessment is appropriate for the The assessment is appropriate for the stock and post stock and for the harvest control rule. for the harvest control rule and takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the fishery. Met? Y Y Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 100 cation The stock assessment is summarised in the main report. The model, which has been developed for the stock assessment, is complex and sophisticated, and takes into account the biology of the species (e.g. by incorporating the results of research into age and growth by sex and region, maturity and fecundity at size and age etc.). The model is able to estimate a variety of reference points which are or might be used as limit and target reference points for management (see discussion under PI 1.1.2 above). SG80 is met. In relation to SG100, the assessment takes into account major features of the biology of yellowfin, including growth curves, spatial structuring of the stock and movement patterns. One remaining issue is that MULTIFAN cannot be structured by sex, to take into account of sex-specific growth and natural mortality curves, but this is a research direction of the MULTIFAN development team at the moment. The stock assessment also takes into account the nature of the fishery, in as much as considerable research effort has gone into trying to standardise CPUE time series to reflect operational changes in each fishery. Overall, the team considered that SG100 is met. b Guide The assessment estimates stock status post relative to reference points.

Met? Y

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: SG60 met cation The output of the stock assessment in relation to reference points is given in the rationale for PI 1.1.1 above.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 73 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

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

Met? Y Y Y

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 100 cation The stock assessment attempts to reduce uncertainties and biases in input datasets (e.g. via stratification in space and time, and via CPUE standardisation using GLM). It also includes a detailed exploration of uncertainties in the model assumptions, via sensitivity analyses for various different model options (tag mixing, natural mortality, steepness, different treatment of the CPUE dataset). The model uses a statistical framework to estimate states and parameters conditional on a suite of structural assumptions and the data. The model outputs the best (Maximum Posterior Density) point estimates, along with estimates of uncertainty for desired parameters. The most recent assessment emphasizes the uncertainty in point estimates conditional on a broad range of alternative fixed assumptions, rather than the parameter estimation uncertainty estimated conditional on individual models. As a consequence, the probabilistic stock status statements do not have the classical probabilistic interpretation, but are actually expected to provide a broader and more realistic representation of uncertainty than classical approaches. d Guide The assessment has been tested and shown to post be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? Y

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 100 cation Exploration of alternative hypotheses via sensitivity analyses is considered above. The stock assessment has been updated progressively: structural changes in the most recent assessment (Davies et al., 2014) include the following:  Increase in the number of spatial regions to improve modelling of tagging and size data  Catch estimates included from Vietnam and some Japanese coastal longline data  More operational data used  Improved modelling of recruitment  A large amount of new tagging data added, corrected for post-release dynamics Davies et al. (2014) made an impressive effort to evaluate a range of structural assumptions, and the results demonstrated that the key

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 74 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

stock status conclusions are very robust to this range of assumptions (and their interactions). In such a large and complex fishery, it is inevitable that unresolved issues will remain (e.g. conflicts between datasets, sensitivity to intractable issues such as estimates of natural mortality and steepness etc.), and these issues remain a priority for consideration in future work. Overall, the team concluded that as issues arise in the assessment, the stock assessment explores and deals with them, and while the assessment is not perfect, nor probably ever will be, the exploration of alternative hypotheses and assumptions has been rigorous. SG100 is met. e Guide The assessment of stock status is subject The assessment has been internally and post to peer review. externally peer reviewed.

Met? Y N

Justifi Agreed harmonised score: 80 cation The stock assessment is internally peer reviewed within the WCPFC system (by the Scientific Committee). A process of formal external peer review has been started and applied to some WCPFC stock assessments (e.g. bigeye) but not so far this one specifically. Although, the results of the bigeye review have been applied by SPC more generally across the whole set of recent tuna stock assessments (see WCPFC‐SC10‐2014/SA‐WP‐02), the harmonisation meeting concluded, and this assessment team agreed, that this does not constitute formal external peer review of this assessment specifically. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met. Davies et al., 2014 References SC10 report, 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 75 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 7 - PI 2.1.1 (UoAs 2-6)

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted PI 2.1.1 retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide Main retained species are likely to be Main retained species are highly likely to be There is a high degree of certainty that post within biologically based limits (if not, go within biologically based limits (if not, go to retained species are within biologically based to scoring issue c below). scoring issue c below). limits and fluctuating around their target reference points.

Met? Y Y N N – Bigeye (see scoring issue c) N – Bigeye (see scoring issue c) Justifi Main retained species (Table 15): cation  UoA 2,6, 5: bigeye, blue marlin, Indian oil sardine  UoA 3, 4: bigeye, Indian oil sardine

Bigeye The most recent stock assessment for bigeye was carried out in 2014, the draft version of which was considered in the initial scoring (MEC, 2015); there were no significant changes between draft and final version. Pilling et al. (2016; 2016a) provided stochastic projections of the WCPO stock and estimated that F2016/FMSY = 1.11 (overfishing), and SB2016/SBF=0 = 0.17. These projections do not change the conclusion of the stock assessment that the stock is outside biologically-based limits – see further scoring under scoring issue c.

Blue marlin There have been no updated stock assessments or projections for this species since the initial assessment; the same rationale applies here: no target or limit reference points have been established for this species. Compared to MSY-based reference points, the current (2011) spawning biomass is 29% above SSBMSY and the current fishing mortality (average across 2009-2011) is inferior to FMSY and 1- SPRMSY by 19% and 6%, respectively. Therefore, the blue marlin stock in the Pacific Ocean currently is not being overfished and is not in an overfished state. The stock assessment also provided projections through 2020. At ‘current’ (2009-11; F23%) levels of fishing mortality, the biomass is projected to remain stable and above the MSY level. If F increases to ~FMSY (F18%), then projections suggest that biomass would decline to ~SSBMSY by 2020. F would have to decline to F16% for biomass to decline below BMSY by the end of the projection period, but this would imply catches of blue marlin in 2012-13 of >25,000 t – higher than seen in the entire time series. In practice, catches of blue marlin have remained ~constant since the stock assessment period at ~15,000 t. This means that some other very large magnitude change (e.g. in stock or recruitment dynamics or in unrecorded fishing mortality) would be required for biomass to have declined below BMSY since the stock assessment. Given the magnitude of the change required over a short time period, the team concluded that there is a high degree of certainty that the species remains within biologically based limits and fluctuating around its target reference points (bearing

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 76 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

in mind that the quantitative probability level required by MSC for a ‘high degree of certainty’ for 2.1.1 is 90%; half that required for Principle 1). SG100 is met. Indian oil sardine There have been no updated stock assessments for this species since the initial assessment; the same rationale applies here: stock structure for this species is uncertain and no recent stock assessments have been conducted. Rohit and Bhat (2003) did, however, carry out a study on the biology, growth and stock structure of the Indian oil sardine along the Mangalore-Malpe coast, based on investigations made during 1997-98 to 2001-02.The study concluded that the oil sardine was underexploited and that the yield could be optimised by increasing effort by 21%. Currently, fishery output and population parameters are being monitored by the Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (CMFRI) and used as a proxy for stock survey (Andrews et al., 2008). Analysis of catch data for 2010 - 2011 indicates that the average length at capture exceeded the size at maturity and optimum size for exploitation for the species (CMFRI, 2012). This, in addition to the life history characteristics (broadcast spawner, fast growth and short life span) suggests that the Indian oil sardine is highly likely to be within biologically safe limits. Furthermore, the use of S. longiceps as bait in the fishery under assessment represents a fraction of the total landings at less than 1% (see section 2.4.2). SG80 is therefore met. Minor species include striped marlin, black marlin, swordfish, Indo-Pacific sailfish, moonfish/opah, oilfish, mahi mahi and wahoo. These species are only assessed at the SG100 level. In the absence of stock assessments and reference points for these minor retained species, SG100 is not met. b Guide Target reference points are defined for post retained species.

Met? Y – bigeye N – blue marlin, Indian oil sardine, minor species Justifi Bigeye has target reference points defined in CMM 15-01. The other species do not have target reference points defined. SG100 is not cation met. c Guide If main retained species are outside the If main retained species are outside the post limits there are measures in place that are limits there is a partial strategy of expected to ensure that the fishery does demonstrably effective management not hinder recovery and rebuilding of the measures in place such that the fishery depleted species. does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 77 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Justifi Bigeye is outside biologically based limits according to the latest stock assessment. A partial strategy is in place to manage bigeye effort cation (CMM-2015-01) which focuses mainly on purse seine catches, because they are expanding while longline catches have been stable for several years and because they tend to take juveniles and thereby depress reproductive output, MSY and stock productivity. The Cook Islands considered developing an exploratory fishery for bigeye in 2012 but cancelled the licences after a year. There is therefore no targeted fishery for bigeye in the Cook Islands. Overall, the bycatch of this fishery is estimated at ~ 725 tonnes in 2015 (all UoAs), representing less than 1% of the catch on the stock, and on this basis it is demonstrably extremely unlikely that the fishery is hindering recovery and rebuilding. d Guide If the status is poorly known there are post measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Met? Y

Justifi Formal stock assessments have been carried out for bigeye and blue marlin and despite a degree of uncertainty in each, the status is well cation known. For the bait species, S. longiceps, no formal stock assessments are carried out and the species is not managed through harvest control tools. Monitoring is, however, carried out through proxies based on catch data and population parameters by the CMFRI, which indicates that the species is likely to be within biologically safe limits. Stock status is therefore sufficiently known to enable management action if required. The fishery’s use of S. longiceps as bait also corresponds to less than 1% of the total catch of this stock and is unlikely to cause it to be outside biologically based limits or hinder its recovery. SG60 is met. Harley et al., 2014 ISC WGBILL, 2013 References Andrews et al., 2008 CMFRI, 2012 Pilling et al., 2016; 2016a OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

bigeye 90

blue marlin 80

Indian oil sardine 80

Minor species 80

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 78 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

UoA2, UoA 5, UoA6 (bigeye, blue marlin, Indian oil sardine, minor) 85

UoA3, UoA 4 (bigeye, Indian oil sardine, minor) 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 79 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 8 - PI 2.1.2 (UoAs 2-6)

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.1.2 serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide There are measures in place, if There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing post necessary, that are expected to maintain necessary, that is expected to maintain the retained species. the main retained species at levels which main retained species at levels which are are highly likely to be within biologically highly likely to be within biologically based based limits, or to ensure the fishery does limits, or to ensure the fishery does not not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. hinder their recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y – blue marlin, bigeye, Indian oil sardine Y - marlin, bigeye, Indian oil sardine N – blue marlin, Indian oil sardine, bigeye, minor species

Justifi Main retained species (Table 15): cation  UoA 2,6, 5: bigeye, blue marlin, Indian oil sardine  UoA 3, 4: bigeye, Indian oil sardine Blue marlin Blue marlin received a score of 100 in PI 2.1.1. (scoring issue a) – as such, the term ‘if necessary’ applies and management as described under SG60 and SG80 is not required. SG80 is therefore met by default for this species. In the absence of a strategy, SG100 is not met. Bigeye Bigeye is managed through CMM-2015-01. The CMM recognises that bigeye is currently subject to overfishing and seeks to reduce fishing mortality (F) so that the stock is - at a minimum - maintained at MSY. The CMM includes measures on FAD reduction, effort control, catch limits and capacity management. At the Cook Islands level, there is no targeted fishery for bigeye at present (an exploratory fishery was tried but dropped). The Cook Islands is meeting its obligations under CMM 2015-01 on this basis (in actual fact, the Cook Islands EEZ is outside the core range of bigeye tuna in any case, which is a more equatorial species). The catch of bigeye of the UoC is negligible compared to the overall catch of fisheries targeting the stock (<1%). Overall, the team concluded that these measures (CMM 2015-01, Cook Islands policy) form a partial strategy which meet SG80 for bigeye but not SG100. Indian oil sardine S. longiceps is evaluted as ‘least concern’ by IUCN. The species is subject to very large natural fluctuations in biomass and catch but shows no long-term trends (Munro and Priede, 2010) and remains highly abundant (~30% of all marine fish biomass in Indian coastal waters). India has the largest fishery (~150,000 t out of a total of ~500,000 t in 2014, according to FAO). Management in India is supported in terms of science by the CMFRI, who monitor stock status through proxies based on fishery output and size composition data. While the species remains above biologically based limits, the monitoring activities at the core of the stock in Indian west coast

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 80 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

waters can be regarded as constituting a partial strategy. As previously mentioned, the fishery’s use of S. longiceps as bait also corresponds to less than 1% of the total catch of this species and is unlikely to cause the species to be outside biologically based limits or hinder its recovery. SG80 is therefore met but not SG100. Minor species Minor species are only assessed at the SG100 level. A management strategy is not in place for the minor species which include striped marlin, black marlin, swordfish, Indo-Pacific sailfish, moonfish/opah, oilfish, mahi mahi and wahoo. SG100 is not met. b Guide The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for Testing supports high confidence that the post work, based on plausible argument (e.g., confidence that the partial strategy will strategy will work, based on information general experience, theory or comparison work, based on some information directly directly about the fishery and/or species with similar fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y – blue marlin, bigeye, Indian oil sardine Y – blue marlin, bigeye, Indian oil sardine N – blue marlin, bigeye, Indian oil sardine, minor species Justifi As stated in scoring issue a above, blue marlin received a score of 100 in PI 2.1.1. and management as described under SG60 and cation SG80 is not required in this PI. SG80 is therefore met by default for this species. In the absence of a strategy, SG100 is not met. For bigeye, the CMM-2015-01 has only recently come into force and its effectiveness can therefore not yet be assessed. Pilling et al. (2013), however, did carry out a review of the implementation and effectiveness of key management measures for tropical tuna (as outlined in CMM 2008-01 and subsequent CMMs), using the most current data and stock assessments available. The study concluded that although tropical purse seine effort had not decreased, bigeye catches did decrease strongly during FAD closure periods and there was an overall decline in bigeye longline catch in comparison to the 2001 – 2004 average. Although the study also pointed out that the length of the FAD closure may not be sufficient for overfishing to be completely eliminated by 2018, there is some objective basis for confidence in the effectiveness of this partial strategy –while the level of confidence is enough for bigeye to meet SG80, this is not the case for SG100. For the Cook Islands aspect of the partial strategy, the Cook Islands does not have a licensed fishery targeting bigeye in its waters at present, and bycatch levels are low compared to targeted catches. SG80 is met. As far as the assessment team is aware, there has been no review of the effectiveness of the management strategy for the bait species, S. longiceps. The fact that the species is currently considered to be within biologically based limits provides some confidence that management is working. SG80 is therefore met; however, there is insufficient information available for SG100 to be met. In the absence of a strategy for any of the minor species (only assessed at SG100), SG100 is not met. c Guide There is some evidence that the partial There is clear evidence that the strategy is post strategy is being implemented successfully. being implemented successfully. Met? Y – blue marlin, bigeye, Indian oil sardine N – blue marlin, bigeye, Indian oil sardine, minor species Justifi As stated in scoring issue a above, blue marlin received a score of 100 in PI 2.1.1. and management as described under SG60 and cation SG80 is not required in this PI. SG80 is therefore met by default this species For bigeye, Pilling et al. (2013) show a decline in catch during FAD closure periods, suggesting that CMM-2015-01 (or its predecessor) is being implemented. CCMs of WCPFC report annually on their implementation of each CMM to the Commission, although these

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 81 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

reports (Part 2 reports) are confidential. The team considered that this constituted ‘some evidence’ but not ‘clear evidence’ for bigeye. SG 80 is met. Likewise for S. longiceps, the stock status provides some evidence of successful management. Overall, SG80 is met, but not SG100. In the absence of a strategy for any of the minor species (only assessed at SG100), SG100 is not met. d Guide There is some evidence that the strategy is post achieving its overall objective.

Met? N

Justifi In the absence of a strategy, this scoring element is not met. cation e Guide It is likely that shark finning is not taking It is highly likely that shark finning is not There is a high degree of certainty that shark post place. taking place. finning is not taking place.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Justifi The fishery takes place in a shark sanctuary and no sharks may be retained. They are therefore not classified as retained species so are cation not relevant here. CMM 2015-01 References Harley et al., 2015 Munro and Priede, 2010 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 (all UoAs)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 82 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 9 - PI 2.1.3 (UoAs 2-6)

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the PI 2.1.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide Qualitative information is available on the Qualitative information and some Accurate and verifiable information is post amount of main retained species taken by quantitative information are available on the available on the catch of all retained species the fishery. amount of main retained species taken by and the consequences for the status of the fishery. affected populations. Met? Y Y N Justifi For the UoAs 2 to 4, the principal data source used to quantify main retained species are the SPC logbooks, detailing estimated volume cation (tonnes) and number of individuals of retained catch per species. These data are typically collected and processed by the MMR which involves verification and adjustment of the dataset in accordance with unloadings and VMS data before forwarding to the SPC for use in stock assessments and associated analyses. Note, however, that for blue marlin, the fishery under assessment has had issues with misindentification of blue, black and striped marlin. Although most marlin catches in this fishery are likely to be blue marlin, this means the data are probably not as accurate as they could be. At a regional level, information supporting the harvest strategy for bigeye is provided by each CCM to the SPC/OFP which manage and process the data for use in stock assessments and associated analyses with the output scientific advice used by the WCPFC, other regional or sub-regional organisations (e.g., FFA, PNA) and individual SPC members to manage the fishery. The data include fisheries- dependent data structured by flag state, region of operation and gear-type obtained through vessels, observers, port samplers and agents (e.g. catch and effort data, unloadings data, port sampling data, transhipment data, size composition data and observer data based on 5% coverage of the longline fleet and 100% coverage of the purse seine fleet in the WCPFC convention area), as well as tagging data, oceanographic data and data from biological research undertaken by CCMs and SPC. For blue marlin, although there have been significant advances in understanding the species’ biology and ecology, historically there has been a lack in biological, ecological and fisheries-dependent data at regional level. Furthermore, the identification issues present in the fishery under assessment also affect fisheries at a regional level. For Indian oil sardine, the amount of bait used in the fishery annually is known. Although a good deal of quantitative information is available for all species concerned, the accuracy of those data could be improved on - for this reason, SG80 is met for UoAs 2 to 4, but not SG100. For UoAs 5 and 6, the lack of track record in the Cook Islands EEZ has meant the assessment is based on an extrapolation of the existing data, based on the assumption that fishing practices across all vessels covered by this assessment will be the same (a full scope-training programme for captains and standard operating procedures are in place ensuring a level of standardization in fishing practices, gear use, data recording and traceability). Table 14 in the main report provides estimates of the potential catch for these UoAs both in terms of volume and catch composition. The team considered that this qualifies as ‘qualitative and some quantitative information’ and that SG80 should therefore be met. Logsheet and observer data will, however, be reviewed at the next available opportunity (I.e. the

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 83 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Year 2 surveillance audit). b Guide Information is adequate to qualitatively Information is sufficient to estimate Information is sufficient to quantitatively post assess outcome status with respect to outcome status with respect to biologically estimate outcome status with a high degree biologically based limits. based limits. of certainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi The information available on this fishery’s removals of main retained species and bait usage are sufficient to determine the level of risk cation the fishery poses to the overall stock status of the species concerned. For bigeye and blue marlin, fisheries-dependent and independent data have been sufficient for use in stock assessments that estimate stock status with respect to biologically based limits. There remains some uncertainty in these stock assessments but they are considered robust. For blue marlin, the lack of sex-specific size data and the simplified treatment of the spatial structure of Pacific blue marlin population dynamics are considered important sources of uncertainty. As for oil sardine, the available information on the species, stemming mainly from India has so far indicated whether it is likely to be within biologically based limits. Overall, SG80 is met but not SG100. c Guide Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a strategy post measures to manage main retained strategy to manage main retained species. to manage retained species, and evaluate species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N Justifi For all main retained species, the available information is sufficient to determine whether the respective stocks are likely to be within cation biologically based limits and therefore whether or not management action is required. While a partial strategy exists for bigeye (CMM 2015-01), a species-specific management strategy for blue marlin and S. longiceps has not been required so far. On this basis, the team considered that SG80 was met for these species. SG100 however is not met as there is no high degree of certainty whether these management approaches are achieving their objective for all retained species. d Guide Sufficient data continue to be collected to Monitoring of retained species is conducted post detect any increase in risk level (e.g. due to in sufficient detail to assess ongoing changes in the outcome indicator score or mortalities to all retained species. the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the strategy) Met? Y N Justifi As above, sufficient information is collected for all main retained species to determine stock status and therefore to detect any increase cation in risk level. SG80 is met. Monitoring is, however, not conducted for all retained species. SG100 is therefore not met. CMM 2015-01, 2015-02 Davies et al., 2014 References Harley et al., 2015 ISC WGBILL, 2013

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 84 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Andrews et al., 2008 CMFRI, 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 (all UoAs) CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 85 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 10 - PI 2.2.1 (UoAs 2-6)

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch species or species groups and does not hinder PI 2.2.1 recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide Main bycatch species are likely to be Main bycatch species are highly likely to be There is a high degree of certainty that post within biologically based limits (if not, go within biologically based limits (if not, go to bycatch species are within biologically based to scoring issue b below). scoring issue b below). limits. Met? Y Y N Justifi Based on observer data for UoAs 1 - 4, none of the bycatch species could be qualified as ‘main’. SG80 is therefore met by default. cation However, SG100 is not met as there is not a high degree of certainty that all bycatch species are within biologically based limits. b Guide If main bycatch species are outside If main bycatch species are outside post biologically based limits there are biologically based limits there is a partial mitigation measures in place that are strategy of demonstrably effective expected to ensure that the fishery does mitigation measures in place such that the not hinder recovery and rebuilding. fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y

Justifi No main bycatch species were identified, SG80 is therefore met by default. cation c Guide If the status is poorly known there are post measures or practices in place that are expected to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits or hindering recovery. Met? Y Justifi The 2005 Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species (Resolution-2005-03) encourages CCMs to “avoid to the extent practicable, the cation capture of all non-target fish species that are not to be retained. Any such non-target fish species that are not to be retained, shall, to the extent practicable, be promptly released to the water unharmed”. Although rather generic and non-binding, this measure is expected to result in the fishery not causing bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits. SG60 is therefore met. 2005 Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species (Resolution-2005-03) References Observer data

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 86 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

Evaluation table 11 - PI 2.2.2 (UoAs 2-6)

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.2.2 irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide There are measures in place, if There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing and post necessary, that are expected to maintain necessary, that is expected to maintain the minimizing bycatch. the main bycatch species at levels which main bycatch species at levels which are are highly likely to be within biologically highly likely to be within biologically based based limits, or to ensure the fishery does limits, or to ensure the fishery does not not hinder their recovery and rebuilding. hinder their recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y N Justifi Based on UoA 1 - 4 observer data, none of the bycatch species could be qualified as ‘main’. SG80 is therefore met by default. The 2005 cation Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species (Resolution-2005-03) is the main instrument through which bycatch is managed. This measure however is very generic and does not constitute a real strategy. SG100 is therefore not met. b Guide The measures are considered likely to There is some objective basis for Testing supports high confidence that the post work, based on plausible argument (e.g. confidence that the partial strategy will strategy will work, based on information general experience, theory or comparison work, based on some information directly directly about the fishery and/or species with similar fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y N

Justifi The same arguments as those given in scoring issue a apply. SG80 is met but not SG100. cation c Guide There is some evidence that the partial There is clear evidence that the strategy is post strategy is being implemented successfully. being implemented successfully. Met? Y N

Justifi The same arguments as those given in scoring issue a apply. SG80 is met but not SG100. cation

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 87 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

d Guide There is some evidence that the strategy is post achieving its overall objective. Met? N

Justifi There is no overall strategy to manage all bycatch species . SG100 is not met. cation 2005 Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species (Resolution-2005-03) References Observer data OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 88 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 12 - PI 2.2.3 (UoAs 2-6)

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to determine the risk posed by the fishery and the PI 2.2.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide Qualitative information is available on the Qualitative information and some Accurate and verifiable information is post amount of main bycatch species taken by quantitative information are available on the available on the catch of all bycatch species the fishery. amount of main bycatch species taken by and the consequences for the status of the fishery. affected populations. Met? Y Y N Justifi None of the bycatch species could be qualified as ‘main’. SG80 is therefore met by default. However, bycatch is not consistently cation reported by the crew in logbooks and observer coverage is relatively low (<20%). Information is therefore not available for all bycatch species and SG100 is not met. Note: for UoAs 5 and 6 for which no track record exixts as of yet, the audit team based their assessment on the assumption that fishing practices across all vessels covered by this assessment will be the same (a full scope-training programme for captains and standard operating procedures are in place ensuring a level of standardization in fishing practices, gear use, data recording and traceability). Observer data will be reviewed at the next available opportunity (i.e. the year 2 surveillance audit). Until then, scoring is based on an extrapolation of data for UoA 1 – 4 (see Section 2.4.2.3 for more detail). b Guide Information is adequate to broadly Information is sufficient to estimate Information is sufficient to quantitatively post understand outcome status with respect outcome status with respect to biologically estimate outcome status with respect to to biologically based limits based limits. biologically based limits with a high degree of certainty. Met? Y Y N

Justifi The same argument as given in scoring issue a applies. Information is however not available for all bycatch species and outcome status cation of all bycatch species cannot be determined with a high degree of certainty. SG80 is met but not SG100. c Guide Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a strategy post measures to manage bycatch. strategy to manage main bycatch species. to manage retained species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y N

Justifi As above, SG80 is met cation

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 89 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

d Guide Sufficient data continue to be collected to Monitoring of bycatch data is conducted in post detect any increase in risk to main bycatch sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities species (e.g., due to changes in the to all bycatch species. outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the strategy). Met? Y N

Justifi As above, SG80 is met cation References Observer data

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 90 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 13 - PI 2.3.1 (UoAs 2-6)

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guidepost Known effects of the fishery are likely The effects of the fishery are known and There is a high degree of certainty that the to be within limits of national and are highly likely to be within limits of effects of the fishery are within limits of international requirements for national and international requirements for national and international requirements for protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. protection of ETP species. Met? Y N N Justificatio Seabirds: no seabirds were mentioned in the observer reports for any of the UoAs. Information held by the MMR based on observer n data, interviews with vessel operators and the risk assessment conducted by Filippi et al. (2010) suggests that known effects of the fishery are likely to be within international requirements for the protection of ETP bird species. SG60 is therefore met for seabirds. Nonetheless, as concluded in MEC (2015) interactions with ETP species are rarely recorded by crew and observer coverage is considered too low to preclude the possibility of highly threatened seabird populations being impacted by the fishery (see MEC, 2015). Improved data collection would be required for SG80 to be met. Turtles: based on observer data, interactions with sea turtles are also relatively rare (5 specimens encountered in 2014/2015 by observers) and the impacts are likely to be significantly less than those caused by traditional practices in the Cook Islands which includes their consumption. Known effects of the fishery are therefore likely to be within limits of international requirements for the protection of sea turtles and SG60 is met. However, at least 2 Regional Management Units (RMUs – loggerhead and olive ridley) overlap entirely with the Cook Islands EEZ and are considered to be at high risk from bycatch in longlines (see MEC, 2015). Some turtle populations may be sufficiently depleted that apparently small levels of bycatch may have an impact at the population level. On that basis, the available data were not sufficient to ensure that effects are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection. SG80 is not met. Sharks: within the Cook Islands EEZ all shark species have to be discarded in accordance with the 2012 Shark Sanctuary regulations. Key discarded shark species are blue shark, oceanic whitetip shark, thresher sharks (not identified to species level), longfin and shortfin mako shark, and silky shark. The 2014/2015 observer data also identified 2 additional shark species (albeit in low numbers): blacktip shark and great white shark. As of 2013, discards are supposed to be recorded in logsheets as well as during observer trips; however comparison of both datasets revealed discrepancies, with logsheets likely underestimating shark discards and underrepresenting some species due to identification issues – this issue was first highlighted during the initial assessment and continues to be the case. Observer records, however, present an indication of likely shark discards: Species Number of Most recent estimate of individuals captured at the stock level individuals observed in 8

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 91 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

trips Blue shark 181 90,000 – 500,000 ind. (Rice and Harley, 2011) Oceanic white- 31 53,700 – 205,800 ind. (Rice and Harley, 2012) tip Mako (shortfin 81 50,000 – 250,000 ind. (Clarke, 2011) + longfin) Thresher 11 65,000 – 750,000 ind. (Clarke, 2011) Silky 75 238,500 – 633,800 ind. (Rice and Harley, 2013) Blacktip 2 No estimate available Great white 2 No estimate available From the above table it is apparent that the number of sharks caught by the UoAs remains a very small portion of all those taken at the stock level. It is therefore unlikely to have a stock-level effect. SG60 is therefore met. However, in the light of low observer coverage and the continuing problems with underreporting and misidentification in the logsheets (also see MEC, 2016 for more details), the available data are not sufficient to ensure that effects are highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection. SG80 is not met. b Guidepost Known direct effects are unlikely to Direct effects are highly unlikely to create There is a high degree of confidence that create unacceptable impacts to ETP unacceptable impacts to ETP species. there are no significant detrimental direct species. effects of the fishery on ETP species. Met? Y Y N

Justificatio The direct effects of the fishery have been considered in scoring issue a above and are highly unlikely to create unacceptable n impacts on the ETP species discussed. SG80 is met. However, the quality (including quantity) of data available on ETP interactions and the status of affected taxa is considered insufficient to provide a high degree of confidence in this statement. SG100 is therefore not met. c Guidepost Indirect effects have been considered and There is a high degree of confidence that are thought to be unlikely to create there are no significant detrimental indirect unacceptable impacts. effects of the fishery on ETP species. Met? Y N

Justificatio Observer data indicate that on most occasions ETP species are released alive but with uncertainty in the probability of post-release n survival. While survival rates of sharks in particular are difficult to estimate and while it is clear that some practices can be improved on (see PI 2.3.2), it is highly unlikely that this fishery creates unacceptable impacts on the species concerned. SG80 is therefore met. However, as previously stated, because the effects of fishery are not accurately quantified, there is no high degree of confidence in this statement. SG100 is therefore not met.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 92 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Observer data References Clarke, 2011 Rice and Harley, 2011; 2012; 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 93 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 14 - PI 2.3.2 (UoAs 2-6)

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide There are measures in place that There is a strategy in place for managing There is a comprehensive strategy in place post minimise mortality of ETP species, and the fishery’s impact on ETP species, for managing the fishery’s impact on ETP are expected to be highly likely to achieve including measures to minimise mortality, species, including measures to minimise national and international requirements which is designed to be highly likely to mortality, which is designed to achieve above for the protection of ETP species. achieve national and international national and international requirements for requirements for the protection of ETP the protection of ETP species. species. Met? Y – seabirds, turtles, sharks Y – seabirds, turtles, sharks N – seabirds, turtles Y – sharks Justifi Seabirds: Since the initial assessment, a new CMM has come into force for seabirds: CMM 2015-03. However this CCM does not have cation any implications on the existing scoring. Therefore, in accordance with MEC (2015), SG 80 is met based on the presence of the Cook Islands’ National Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catch of Seabirds (NPOA-Seabirds), which continues to be implemented through the Cook Islands Large Pelagic Longline Fishery Plan, in combination with the CMM – both of which were considered to constitute a strategy (see MEC, 2015). The Cook Islands’ NPOA however does not go above and beyond the CMM requirements on the basis that the EEZ is situated in a low-risk zone. As such, SG100 is not met. Turtles: the same CMM applies as during the initial assessment (CMM-2008-03). This CMM, in combination with the Cook Islands’ NPOA-Sea Turtles (see MEC, 2015 for further details) constitutes a strategy which is highly likely to achieve international requirements for the protection of sea turtles. SG80 is therefore met. SG100 requires a comprehensive strategy which aims to go further than the international protection requirements for sea turtles. The team felt that this continues to not be the case for the fishery under assessment; SG100 is therefore not met. Sharks: for the fishery under assessment, there are four management levels for sharks: 1) at WCPFC level: CMM-2014-05 (on the prohibition of wire traces and/or shark lines), CMM-2010-07 (on inter alia the implementation of the IPOA Sharks, reporting requirements, shark finning; shark retention on board); CMM-2011-04 on oceanic white-tips; and CMM-2013-08 on silky sharks; 2) at national level via the overarching Shark Sanctuary Regulations; 3) at national level via the NPOA-sharks and 4) at company level through the LTFV policy on sharks (see MEC, 2015 for further details). In combination, these measures aim at zero capture and retention of any shark or ray species, with maximisation of the survival of any shark that does get caught. The team considers this to be comprehensive strategy which goes above and beyond national and international requirements; SG100 is therefore met for sharks.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 94 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

b Guide The measures are considered likely to There is an objective basis for confidence The strategy is mainly based on information post work, based on plausible argument (e.g., that the strategy will work, based on directly about the fishery and/or species general experience, theory or comparison information directly about the fishery and/or involved, and a quantitative analysis supports with similar fisheries/species). the species involved. high confidence that the strategy will work.

Met? Y Y N

Justifi Seabirds: based on the risk-based analysis carried out by Filippi et al. (2010) there is an objective basis for confidence that the cation management strategy will work. SG80 is therefore met for seabirds (see MEc, 2015 for further detail). Sea turtles: the CMM requires the implementation of the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations, which include the use of wide circle hooks; using fish rather than squid for bait; and setting hooks deeper than turtle abundant depths (40–100 m). These guidelines present best-practice of how to reduce interactions between sea turtles and fishing gear and reduce the proportion of caught turtles that are killed as a result of interactions with marine capture fisheries. All measures mentioned have been shown to reduce sea turtle interactions in longline fisheries significantly without compromising catch rates of target species (FAO, 2009). There is therefore an objective basis for confidence that the management strategy will work. SG80 is met for sea turtles. Sharks: the strategy aims at zero capture and retention of any shark or ray species, with maximisation of the survival of any shark that does get caught. As previously stated, this is a comprehensive strategy which goes above and beyond national and international requirements. There is therefore an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and SG80 is met for sharks. No quantitative analysis has been conducted for this fishery for any of the ETP groups concerned which could support high confidence that the management strategies will work. SG100 is therefore not met. c Guide There is evidence that the strategy is being There is clear evidence that the strategy is post implemented successfully. being implemented successfully. Met? Y – seabirds, sharks Y – seabirds N - turtles N – sharks, turtles Justifi Seabirds: the available evidence in this assessment and from MEC (2015) does not suggest that seabirds are an issue in this fishery. cation Where possible, the animals are released alive. The team considered this to be clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG100 is therefore met. Sharks: Analysis of the 2014/2015 observer reports indicates that no sharks were retained in the fishery under assessment since the establishment of the Shark Sanctuary, as opposed to the 2012 reports when significant numbers were being retained (MEC, 2015). In 2016, at-sea inspections did reveal a few isolated incidents where 1 or 2 shark fins were found aboard the UoA vessels. As the investigation is still ongoing and LTFV are already taking corrective actions, it was decided at the Year 1 surveillance audit not to rescore the fishery, pending the investigation outcome. This issue will therefore be reviewed at the Year 2 surveillance audit. In the meantime, the trends recorded in the observer reports provide evidence that this is not a systematic issue and that the strategy is being implemented successfully overall. As previously mentioned, there also remain problems with the reporting of sharks in logbooks which are most likely due to identification issues. For this reason, SG80 is met but not SG100. Turtles: during the initial assessment (MEC, 2015) it was concluded that although some components of the strategy are being

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 95 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

implemented successfully by the UoA vessels (e.g. use of circle hooks), turtles are most often cut loose and not properly de-hooked; identification is not carried out to species level, and incidents are most often not reported to the MMR. Although progress was noted during the Year 1 surveillance audit (MEC, 2016), the existing scoring remains in place; i.e. SG80 is not met d Guide There is evidence that the strategy is post achieving its objective. Met? N

Justifi Considering the population status of the majority of ETP species under consideration here, it cannot be said that the strategy is cation achieving its objective overall. This scoring issue is not met.

References Observer data

Score seabirds 85

Score sharks 85

Score turtles 75

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 5

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 96 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 15 - PI 2.3.3 (UoAs 2-6)

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  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 Guide Information is sufficient to qualitatively Sufficient information is available to allow Information is sufficient to quantitatively post estimate the fishery related mortality of fishery related mortality and the impact of estimate outcome status of ETP species with ETP species. fishing to be quantitatively estimated for a high degree of certainty. ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi The MEC (2015) rationales stand: for all ETP species concerned, information gathered through observer reports is sufficient to enable a cation qualitative evaluation of fishery-related mortality – SG60 is met. The observer data provide some quantitative estimate of the fishery’s interactions with ETP species, albeit with a high degree of uncertainty: the low level of observer coverage (<20%) and particularly the problems with reporting of interactions with sea turtles and sharks by UoA crew means quantitative estimates for this fishery are likely to be highly uncertain. Some shark species including makos, threshers and silky sharks continue to be significantly underrepresented in the logbook data (in comparison with the observer data – see MEC, 2016 for further details). As such, the team considered that SG80 is met, but not SG100. Note: for UoAs 5 and 6 for which no track record exixts as of yet, the audit team based their assessment on the assumption that fishing practices across all vessels covered by this assessment will be the same (a full scope-training programme for captains and standard operating procedures are in place ensuring a level of standardization in fishing practices, gear use, data recording and traceability). Observer data will be reviewed at the next available opportunity (i.e. the year 2 surveillance audit). Until then, UoAs were scored against a composite list of ETP species with interactions reported by observers for any of the UoAs 1 - 4 (see Section 2.4.3 for more detail). b Guide Information is adequate to broadly Information is sufficient to determine Accurate and verifiable information is post understand the impact of the fishery on whether the fishery may be a threat to available on the magnitude of all impacts, ETP species. protection and recovery of the ETP species. mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. Met? Y N N

Justifi As above, the information is adequate to broadly understand the impact of the fishery; SG60 is met. However, interactions with ETP cation species (seabirds, turtles and sharks) are rarely or inconsistently recorded by UoA crew and observer coverage is considered too low to preclude the possibility of highly threatened seabird or sea turtle populations being impacted by the fishery. SG80 is not met.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 97 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

c Guide Information is adequate to support Information is sufficient to measure trends Information is adequate to support a post measures to manage the impacts on ETP and support a full strategy to manage comprehensive 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? Y Y N

Justifi For all ETP species concerned, information gathered for this fishery and regionally is adequate to support the relevant CMMs, NPOAs cation and, in the case of sharks, Shark Sanctuary – SG60 is met. On the basis that full management strategies are currently implemented for the ETP species concerned (see scoring issue a under 2.3.2) the team considered that information to date has been sufficient to support those strategies. SG80 is therefore met. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, however, SG100 is not met. Observer data References CMMs, NPOAs and Shark Sanctuary Regulations presented and discussed in MEC (2015) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 98 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Evaluation table 16 - PI 3.1.4 (UoAs 3, 4)

The management system provides economic and social incentives for sustainable fishing and does not operate with PI 3.1.4 subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Guide The management system provides for The management system provides for The management system provides for post incentives that are consistent with incentives that are consistent with achieving incentives that are consistent with achieving achieving the outcomes expressed by the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2, and seeks to ensure that perverse 1 and 2, and explicitly considers incentives incentives do not arise. in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices. Met? Y N N Justifi At the national level, a system of annual licences for the majority of the fleet within a four-year framework agreement provides an cation incentive for vessels to fish within the rules, or risk non-renewal. The regional Register of Fishing Vessels, inclusion on which is necessary to fish in the waters of FFA states, provides an incentive for good behaviour given that registration may be withdrawn or suspended if a vessel is involved in a serious violation of the fisheries laws of any FFA member. The system whereby licences to fish in Cook Islands waters are renewed annually, under a multi-year umbrella agreement provides an additional incentive to comply with regulations or risk losing access.

CMM 2010-06 establishes a list of presumed IUU vessels relating to the Convention area. This list provides an incentive to comply with the CMMs adopted by the WCPFC or risk a listing.

Cook Islands has demonstrated in the past that it will terminate fishing agreements where management arrangements are circumvented. This was the case with vessels issued with experimental/exploratory licenses that failed to operate under license conditions requiring them to not target albacore and as a consequence were not re-licensed. By not renewing licenses (or withdrawing licenses) for vessels which do not comply with fisheries regulations, vessels are encouraged to be compliant in order to have access arrangements renewed. The limits on catch and effort in the Cook Islands EEZ provide some certainty to fishing companies operating in the EEZ and an encouragement to licensed vessels to campaign for effective controls to protect the value of their access to the fishery.

The management system therefore provides for some incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2. SG60 is thus met.

SG80 requires in addition that the fishery seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise. In relation to the UoAs with Cook-

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 99 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Island registered and flagged vessels rather than Chinese-flagged vessels; i.e. UoAs 3 and 4: For albacore (P1 species for UoA3), while the most recent stock assessment (2014) estimated that the stock was ‘not overfished’ and ‘overfishing is not occurring’, effort in the fishery has increased over the last two decades quite considerably. This expansion of effort in the albacore fishery has been driven in part by the provision of subsidies (see MEC, 2015 for details). Although no subsidies are provided by the Cook Islands, neither to flagged vessels, nor to those fishing in their waters, nor to those with Cook Islands ownership, the team has established that under certain circumstances, the vessels in these UoCs remain eligible for Chinese subsidies. The situation is therefore no different to UoA1 – i.e. SG80 is not met.

In relation to yellowfin, the team concluded that while there has not been the same concern about economically unsustainable levels of fishing for yellowfin as for albacore, the Chinese subsidies apply in the same way, and hence the same argument in relation to the management system and perverse incentives applies. The conclusions for yellowfin are therefore the same as for UoA1 – SG80 is not met.

MEC, 2015 References Harley et al., 2015 CMM 2010-06 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 100 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Appendix 1.2 Conditions and Client Action Plan The assessment of UoA1 (MEC, 2015) imposed 8 conditions on the fishery. This expedited assessment raises two new conditions on PIs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 which apply to UoAs2, 4 and 6 (i.e. yellowfin) (Conditions 9 and 10). Note that not all conditions apply to all UoAs – this is indicated in the tables below. For a summary of the conditions and which UoAs they apply to, please see Table 23 in the main report.

Following the outcome of the MSC P1 pilot harmonisation process, the milestones for conditions on Principle 1 for each stock have been aligned with the WCPFC agreed workplan for developing a formal harvest strategy for each stock (Workplan for CMM 14-06). This is the case for both the pre-existing conditions (Conditions 1-3; see MEC, 2016: Year 1 surveillance audit report for details) and the new conditions (Conditions 9 and 10).

Note: the timing for the new conditions has been aligned with the existing certification which was at the end of Year 1 when this expedited assessment was carried out. There are therefore no Year 1 milestones for Conditions 9 and 10; the milestones for Year 2 will be reached in 12 months’ time (at the same time as the Year 2 milestones for UoA1, Conditions 1-8).

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 101 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 24. Condition 1

Performance PI 1.1.2 - Reference points Indicator

Score 75 (South Pacific albacore)

UoAs UoA1 (MEC, 2015), UoA3, UoA5

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

The management system should formally adopt a target reference point for the South Condition Pacific albacore stock which is consistent with maintaining the stock at BMSY or some other measure with similar intent or outcome. This target reference point should be used for management purposes One of the agreed outcomes of the pilot harmonisation process for Principle 1 for WCPFC stocks (Hong Kong, April 2016) was that milestones for 1.1.2 should be aligned with the CMM 14-06 workplan. Milestones By the second annual surveillance audit (i.e. at WCPFC 2016) a target reference point for regional management of the South Pacific albacore stock should be formally adopted by the WCPFC, as set out in the agreed workplan for CMM 14-06. Client Actions: Action 1. During 2017 and ongoing as necessary, encourage WCPFC, through client submission of a position statement to the Cook Islands delegation to WCPFC, to adopt an explicit target reference point for south Pacific albacore to be used in management of regional pelagic longline fisheries. Action 2: From 2017 onwards, participate in meetings and joint activities of the WCPO Tuna MSC Alignment Group to pursue adoption of a WCPFC target reference point for south Pacific albacore. The Group is comprised of client groups of fisheries certified and under assessment against the Marine Stewardship Council Client action (MSC) standard and of participants of Fishery Improvement Projects (FIPs) for plan tuna fisheries in the Convention Area of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), and other stakeholders. The Group participants work

together to coordinate and align policy activities of relevant MSC client groups and participants of FIPs related to sub-regional and regional management of tuna fisheries in the Convention Area of the WCPFC. (see https://sites.google.com/site/seafoodcompaniestunamanagement/home/wcpo_tun a-p1_alignment). Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1. By the 2017 annual surveillance audit (i.e., at WCPFC13 in December 2016), WCPFC formally adopts a target reference point for regional management of south Pacific albacore.

The client will consult and coordinate with other members of the WCPO Tuna MSC Consultation Alignment Group, the Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, and other delegations on condition to WCPFC. See MEC (2015) for letter of support from the MMR.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 102 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 25. Condition 2

Performance PI 1.2.1 - Harvest Strategy Indicator

Score 70 (South Pacific albacore)

UoAs UoA1 (MEC, 2015), UoA3, UoA5

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

The fishery should put in place a regional harvest strategy, incorporating limit and target reference points (management objectives), a harvest control rule and management actions, such that the strategy is responsive to the status of the stock and the elements Condition of the strategy work together to maintain the stock at or around the target level. The key missing elements of the harvest strategy at present are 1. a target reference point formally adopted by the regional management system, and 2. a well-defined harvest control rule with associated management actions. These issues are also addressed specifically in conditions 1 and 3. One of the agreed outcomes of the pilot harmonisation process for Principle 1 for WCPFC stocks (Hong Kong, April 2016) was that milestones for 1.2.1 should be aligned Milestones with the CMM 14-06 workplan. The condition and milestones for 1.1.2 are linked with the condition and milestones for 1.2.1; hence the revised milestones below.

By the end of Year 5 (i.e., at WCPFC16 in Dec. 2019), the client provides evidence that the key missing elements of the harvest strategy have been put in place.

Client Actions: Action 1. During 2017 and ongoing as necessary, encourage WCPFC, through client submission of a position statement to the Cook Islands delegation to the Commission, to adopt a harvest strategy for south Pacific albacore that ensures that if a TRP were to be exceeded, that WCPFC would respond to the change in status of the stock to bring the stock back to within the TRP in a fully effective and timely way. Action 2. From 2017 onwards, participate in meetings and joint activities of the WCPO Client action Tuna MSC Alignment Group to pursue adoption of a WCPFC robust and plan precautionary harvest strategy for south Pacific albacore. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1. By the annual surveillance audit in 2020 (i.e., at WCPFC16 in Dec. 2019), WCPFC adopts a comprehensive harvest strategy, including a target reference point, and harvest control rule and associated management actions, for regional management of south Pacific albacore. Outcome 2. By the end of certification, there is evidence that the harvest strategy for south Pacific albacore 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.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 103 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 26. Condition 3

Performance PI 1.2.2 - Harvest control rules and tools Indicator

Score 60 (South Pacific albacore)

UoAs UoA1 (MEC, 2015), UoA3, UoA5

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

A well-defined regional-level harvest control rule should be put in place, with associated management actions (in the form of a CMM or another form as appropriate) which Condition together act effectively to reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is approached. The selection of the harvest control rule should take into account the main uncertainties regarding the status of the stock or the impact of the fishery (or other uncertainties if considered important). One of the agreed outcomes of the pilot harmonisation process for Principle 1 for WCPFC stocks (Hong Kong, April 2016) was that milestones for 1.1.2 should be aligned with the CMM 14-06 workplan. (Note: this workplan runs only to WCPFC, December 2018 – i.e. as far as the fourth annual surveillance audit for this fishery.)

By the first annual surveillance audit, there shall be evidence that the client has started a process of consultation and representation for the establishment of a precautionary and robust harvest control rule with appropriate regional management bodies. WCPFC will have adopted a target reference point (TRP) for south Pacific albacore, identified an acceptable level of risk of breaching the existing limit reference point (LRP), and identified management objectives and performance indicators to evaluate candidate harvest control rules (HCRs). WCPFC shall also have defined options for a HCR for South Pacific albacore - defined by MSC as, “A set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points.” The HCR should be designed to keep stocks near the proposed new TRP and to have a low risk of exceeding the existing LRP. HCR actions are to be designed to reduce fishing mortality rates as limit reference points are approached and keep stocks fluctuating around the new TRP.

Milestones Note: This milestone has already passed for UoA1; see Year 1 surveillance audit report (MEC, 2016) for further information

By the second annual audit (mid-2017), WCPFC adopts a target reference point (TRP) for south Pacific albacore, WCPFC identifies an acceptable level of risk of breaching the existing limit reference point (LRP), and WCPFC identifies management objectives and performance indicators to evaluate candidate harvest control rules (HCRs).

By the third annual audit (mid-2018), WCPFC has defined options for a HCR for South Pacific albacore - defined by MSC as, “A set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points.” The HCR should be designed to keep stocks near the proposed new TRP and to have a low risk of exceeding the existing LRP. HCR actions are to be designed to reduce fishing mortality rates as limit reference points are approached and keep stocks fluctuating around the new TRP.

By the fourth annual audit (mid-2019), WCPFC has reviewed advice from SPC on the likely effects of alternative HCRs on the south Pacific albacore stock, and WCPFC continues to make progress in considering options for a formal HCR. By the end of certification, WCPFC has adopted a HCR and tools, and begun implementation of the HCR and tools, for South Pacific albacore, as well as monitoring

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 104 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

to assess the efficacy of the TRPs and HCR. Client Actions: Action 1: During 2017 and ongoing as required, encourage WCPFC, through client submission of a position statement to the Cook Islands delegation to the Commission, and through the client’s continued participation in the WCPO Tuna MSC Alignment Group, to adopt a HCR for the stock with explicit pre-agreed actions to be taken to reduce the exploitation rate if the stock approaches or falls Client action below reference points. plan Outcomes & Schedule:

Outcome 1. By the annual surveillance audit in 2020 (i.e., at WCPFC16 in Dec. 2019), WCPFC adopts a well-defined and effective harvest control rule for regional management of south Pacific albacore, and establishes explicit pre-agreed actions to be taken to reduce the exploitation rate if the stock approaches or falls below reference points.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 105 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 27. Condition 4

Performance PI 2.3.1 - ETP species outcome and Indicator PI 2.3.3 - ETP species information and monitoring

Score PI 2.3.1 75

Score PI 2.3.3 75

UoAs All UoAs

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

The occurrence and outcome of all catches of ETP species (sharks, sea turtles, seabirds and cetaceans) by UoA vessels should be systematically and accurately reported on so that fishery-related mortality on ETP species can be quantitatively Condition determined and the effectiveness of the management strategies can be determined. Where a need has been identified, the collected data should enable further development of management strategies to ensure that the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

By the first annual audit, demonstrate that training is underway for vessel crew members in identification, handling and reporting of relevant ETP species.

Milestones Note: This milestone has already passed for UoA1; see Year 1 surveillance audit report (MEC, 2016) for further information. For the remaining UoAs, progress against the Year 1 milestone will be reviewed at the Year 2 surveillance audit. By the second annual audit, it should be demonstrated that an appropriate system for reporting ETP captures is in place and is being used by all UoA crew.

Client Actions: Action 1: Annually as needed (e.g., if new relevant Cook Islands regulations are adopted, if the Cook Islands or WCPFC adopt new or revised guidelines on handling and release protocols for ETP species), review the captain training materials to determine if they require updating, where the workshop is designed to train longline captains in the Cook Islands longline albacore fishery to: (i) understand Cook Islands government longline rules, (ii) improve species identification, (iii) understand proper methods for completing SPC logbook forms, and (iv) understand prescribed handling and release practices for seabirds, sea turtles, cetaceans and elasmobranchs to optimize the probability of post-release survival.

Client action Action 2: Starting by the annual surveillance audit in mid-2018, all captains of vessels plan in the client group annually attend one ETP training workshop. Action 3: If data suggest an issue with ETP interactions (such that PI 2.3.1 is not being met at the 80 level) then the fishery will develop and implement further management actions to address the issue(s) identified. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1: Materials for the ETP workshop, bilingual English/Chinese, were completed in 2015. Materials include: a powerpoint presentation to lead the training workshop, summary of Cook Islands longline rules (which implement all relevant binding WCPFC longline rules), handling/release methods guides for each of the four groups (turtles, cetaceans, seabirds, elasmobranchs), and an SPC bilingual (Chinese/English) species identification guide. Outcome 2: At each annual surveillance audit, records confirm that all captains of vessels in the client group that were active in the fishery during the previous

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 106 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

calendar year attended at least one workshop during that previous calendar year. Outcome 3: At each annual surveillance audit, logbook records of interactions with ETP species during the previous calendar year are consistent with observer records (demonstrated that an appropriate reporting system is in place and is being used by all UoA crew). The client will annually prepare a list of captains of vessels for which there are multiple (more than one trip) discrepancies between logbook and observer data records of ETP catch events. Outcome 4: At each annual surveillance audit, observer records from the previous calendar year of handling and release practices for ETP species demonstrate longline fisher compliance with relevant binding measures. The client will annually prepare a list of captains of vessels for which there are multiple (more than one incident) observer data records of lack of compliance with prescribed ETP handling and release practices. Outcome 5: At each annual surveillance audit, data from the previous calendar year on interactions with ETP species have been analysed and any issues in terms of outcomes for ETP species have been flagged. Outcome 6: At each annual surveillance audit, if necessary, new management measures are agreed and in place to deal with any outstanding issues for ETP species, such that the 80 level is met for PI 2.3.1 for all relevant ETP species.

Consultation Consult with staff of MMR, SPC, and longline fishers to update the ETP training on condition workshop materials, if necessary. See MEC (2015) for letter of support from the MMR.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 107 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 28. Condition 5

Performance PI 2.3.2 - ETP species management Indicator

Score 75

UoAs All UoAs

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

The client will provide evidence that all Cook Islands regulations (which implement all Condition relevant WCPFC binding measures) on fishery interactions with sea turtles are consistently respected and adhered to by UoA crew so that it can be demonstrated that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to sea turtles, mortality of sea turtles is minimized and the fishery does not hinder recovery of vulnerable sea turtle populations. By the first annual audit, demonstrate that training is underway for vessel crew members in identification, handling and reporting of relevant ETP species. Note: This milestone has already passed for UoA1; see Year 1 surveillance audit report (MEC, 2016) for further information. For the remaining UoAs, progress against the Year 1 milestone will be reviewed at the Year 2 surveillance audit.

Milestones By the second annual audit, demonstrate awareness in crew members of the regulations and handling requirements for sea turtles. By the third annual audit, the client should demonstrate that all Cook Islands regulations on fishery interactions with sea turtles are consistently respected and adhered to by UoA crew, including evidence from either or both observer data and dockside inspections that required equipment for sea turtle safe handling and release are onboard each UoA vessel as described in Action 4 and outcome 4.

Client Actions: Action 1. At the annual surveillance audit in 2016, it was determined from observer data on branchline and floatline lengths that hooks are likely soaking deeper than 50 m. Action 2: Improvement in identification of ETP species to the species level (including for sea turtles) and recording on SPC logbook forms by captains and crew of vessels in the client group will be pursued via the training workshop described in condition 4. Action 3: Captains of vessels in the client group will be required to annually attend an ETP training workshop, described under Condition 4, in part to improve Client action compliance with required sea turtle handling and release methods. plan Action 4: Annually provide a summary of evidence from either or both observer data and dockside inspections that UoA vessels possess required sea turtle handling and release equipment onboard. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1: By the annual surveillance audit in mid-2018, client demonstrates that all Cook Islands regulations on fishery interactions with sea turtles are consistently complied with, including through the implementation of the subsequent Outcomes under this condition. Outcome 2: By the annual surveillance audit in mid-2018, all vessels in the client group are employing gear designs that are predicted to result in the terminal tackle soaking below 50 m depth. Outcome 3: (Same as Outcome under Condition 4) - At each annual surveillance

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 108 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

audit, observer records from the previous calendar year of handling and release practices for ETP species demonstrate longline fisher compliance with relevant binding measures Outcome 4: Via MMR review of observer data and/or via dockside inspections of UoA vessels, document at each annual surveillance audit that UoA vessels have onboard all required sea turtle handling and release equipment.

Consultation Consult with staff of MMR, SPC, and longline fishers. See MEC (2015) for letter of on condition support from the MMR.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 109 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 29. Condition 6

Performance PI 3.1.2 - Consultation, roles and responsibilities Indicator

Score 75

UoAs All UoAs

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

The client must provide evidence that processes at national level are put in place to i) Condition regularly engage with key stakeholders to seek and accept relevant information, and ii) demonstrate that the information obtained from such engagement has been duly considered. By the first annual audit, demonstrate that there has been discussion with MMR regarding stakeholder consultation processes. Note: This milestone has already passed for UoA1; see Year 1 surveillance audit report Milestones (MEC, 2016) for further information

By the second audit, demonstrate that the development by MMR of formal stakeholder consultation processes has started. The processes should be in place by the third annual audit

Client Actions: Action 1: In 2015 the client requested in a letter to MMR that MMR convene at least one stakeholder consultation per year to provide a venue to discuss and collect information on the domestic management framework for the Cook Islands longline albacore tuna fishery, and to request that, if the number of applications for longline licenses exceeds the limit, that a consultative Licensing Committee be convened. The client emphasized that the national consultation process should provide opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected Client action parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement, and that the plan management system demonstrate how information received during the stakeholder consultations was considered, and how it was used or not used, and why. Action 2: In 2017, the client will remind MMR of the request to put in place a domestic consultative process that meets the MSC fisheries standard. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1: The domestic consultative process is in place by the annual surveillance audit in mid-2018.

Consultation NGOs with an interest in the Cook Islands longline fishery, MMR. See MEC (2015) for on condition letter of support from the MMR.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 110 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 30. Condition 7

Performance PI 3.1.4 - Incentives for sustainability Indicator

Score 60 (South Pacific albacore)

UoAs All UoAs

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

The client should demonstrate that the subsidies identified by FFA and acknowledged by the client do not lead to perverse incentives that are inconsistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC principles 1 and 2; Condition Or Implement a harvest strategy that includes strengthened harvest control rules that are more responsive to increasing effort in the albacore and yellowfin fisheries, such that the impact of subsidies is restricted to lowering the operating costs of subsidized fleets, rather than acting as an incentive to increase effort.

The milestones and action plan for this condition are the same as for Condition 2 – the Milestones milestone has therefore been revised in line with the revision of milestones for Condition 2 above.

This condition should be met by the end of certification.

Client Actions: Action 1: In implementing defined actions to meet conditions of certification related to MSC principles 1 and 2, and meeting relevant Outcomes for these actions, the client will contribute to achieving effective regional management systems for the south Pacific albacore regional fishery and the WCPO yellowfin fishery, including the adoption of a formal target reference point that maintains the stock at a level consistent with BMSY or similar precautionary management target, a harvest strategy responsive to the state of the stock and designed to achieve the Client action management objectives, and HCR and tools consistent with the harvest strategy plan that reduce fishing mortality as the BRPs are approached and which account for uncertainty. By securing this effective stock management system this will ensure that the impact of government subsidies is not able to result in unsustainable levels of fishing under WCPFC. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1: By December 2019 at WCPFC16 – and at the annual surveillance audit in mid-2020, a robust regional harvest strategy is in place for south Pacific albacore and WCPO yellowfin. For details see Conditions 2 (above) and 10 (below).

The client will consult and coordinate with other members of the WCPO Tuna MSC Consultation Alignment Group, the Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, and other on condition delegations to WCPFC. See MEC (2015) for letter of support from the MMR.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 111 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 31. Condition 8

Performance PI 3.2.2 - Decision-making processes Indicator

Score 75

UoAs All UoAs

Rationale For full rationale see MEC, 2015

By working with the relevant Cook Islands management agencies, the client should demonstrate i) that decision-making processes at national level respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and Condition consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions and ii) that information on fishery performance and management action at national level is available to stakeholders on request, and that explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. By the first annual audit, demonstrate that there has been discussion with MMR regarding decision-making processes. Note: This milestone has already passed for UoA1; see Year 1 surveillance audit report (MEC, 2016) for further information Milestones By the second annual audit, demonstrate that information is available to stakeholders

on request. By the third annual surveillance audit it should be demonstrated that Cook Islands decision-making processes are transparent, timely and adaptive and that information is available to stakeholders on request.

Client Actions: Action 1: In 2015 the client urged the Cook Islands Government to ensure that the national decision-making processes for management of the Cook Islands longline albacore fishery respond to serious and other important issues identified in Client action relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, plan timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. This was done via the letter to MMR written and sent per the activity

under condition 6. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1: The domestic consultative process is in place by the annual surveillance audit in mid-2018. Stakeholder consultations will be open to all interested parties.

Consultation NGOs with an interest in the Cook Islands longline fishery, MMR. See MEC (2015) for on condition letter of support from the MMR.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 112 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 32. Condition 9

Performance PI 1.2.1 - Harvest Strategy Indicator

Score 70 (WCPO yellowfin)

UoAs UoA2, UoA4, UoA6

Rationale For full rationale see Evaluation Table 3 (Appendix 1.1)

The key missing element of the harvest strategy at present is a well-defined harvest control rule with associated management actions. This issue is addressed specifically in Condition 10.

Aligned with workplan for CMM 14-06 as per pilot harmonisation (see Appendix 2) Milestones By the end of Year 5, the client should provide evidence that WCPFC has put in place

the key missing elements of the harvest strategy. Client Actions: Action 1. During 2017 and ongoing as necessary, encourage WCPFC, through client submission of a position statement to the Cook Islands delegation to the Commission, to adopt a harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin tuna that ensures that if a TRP were to be exceeded, that WCPFC would respond to the change in status of the stock to bring the stock back to within the TRP in a fully effective and timely way. Action 2. From 2017 onwards, participate in meetings and joint activities of the WCPO Client action Tuna MSC Alignment Group to pursue adoption of a WCPFC robust and plan precautionary harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin tuna. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1. By December 2019, at WCPFC16, WCPFC adopts a comprehensive harvest strategy, including a target reference point, and harvest control rule and associated management actions, for regional management of WCPO yellowfin tuna. Outcome 2. By the end of certification, there is evidence that the harvest strategy 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.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 113 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 33. Condition 10

Performance PI 1.2.2 - Harvest control rules and tools Indicator Score 60 (WCPO yellowfin) UoAs UoA2, UoA4, UoA6 Rationale For full rationale see Evaluation Table 4 (Appendix 1.1) A well-defined regional-level harvest control rule should be put in place, with associated management actions (in the form of a CMM or another form as appropriate) which Condition together act effectively to reduce exploitation rates as the limit reference point is approached. The selection of the harvest control rule should take into account the main uncertainties regarding the status of the stock or the impact of the fishery (or other uncertainties if considered important). Aligned with workplan for CMM 14-06 as per pilot harmonisation (see Appendix 2)

By the second annual audit (mid-2017), WCPFC identifies an acceptable level of risk of breaching the existing limit reference point (LRP), and WCPFC identifies management objectives to evaluate candidate harvest control rules (HCRs).

By the third annual audit (mid-2018), there is evidence that the Scientific Committee has been working on defining and evaluating options for yellowfin HCRs. WCPFC has reviewed advice from the Scientific Committee on options for HCRs for the WCPO Milestones yellowfin stock, and WCPFC continues to make progress in considering options for a formal HCR.

By the fourth annual audit (mid-2019), WCPFC agrees a monitoring strategy and performance indicators by which to evaluate candidate HCRs. WCPFC has reviewed advice from SPC and the Scientific Committee on MSE of alternative HCRs on the WCPO yellowfin stock, and WCPFC continues to make progress in considering options for a formal HCR. By the end of certification, WCPFC has adopted a HCR and tools, and began implementation of the HCR and tools, for WCPO yellowfin, as well as monitoring to assess the efficacy of the HCR. Client Actions: Action 1: During 2017 and ongoing as required, encourage WCPFC, through client submission of a position statement to the Cook Islands delegation to the Commission, and through the client’s continued participation in the WCPO Tuna MSC Alignment Group, to adopt a HCR for the stock with explicit pre-agreed Client action actions to be taken to reduce the exploitation rate if the stock approaches or falls plan below reference points. Outcomes & Schedule: Outcome 1. By the annual surveillance audit in 2020 (i.e., at WCPFC16 in Dec. 2019), WCPFC adopts a well-defined and effective harvest control rule for regional management of WCPO yellowfin tuna, and establishes explicit pre-agreed actions to be taken to reduce the exploitation rate if the stock approaches or falls below reference points. The client will consult and coordinate with other members of the WCPO Tuna MSC Consultation Alignment Group, the Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources, and other delegations on condition to FFA, PNA and WCPFC.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 114 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Appendix 2 Pilot WCPFC Principle 1 harmonisation meeting: report

Appendix 2.1 Harmonisation Meeting for Western Pacific Tuna Fisheries 1. Background

In July 2015 the MSC Board signed off an internal MSC Tuna Strategy that was developed to address concerns in regard to the certifications of highly migratory species that are managed by Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (RFMO). Specifically, strategy aimed to develop recommendations and actions in relation to tuna and swordfish fisheries. Among a number of key risks and recommendations identified, was the need to reduce CAB inconsistencies in the application of the MSC standard. In early 2016 the MSC developed and consulted on a pilot harmonisation workshop proposal that would apply to RFMO managed stocks, including tuna and swordfish. A key aim of the pilot harmonisation meeting was to create a single point for harmonisation among ‘certified’ and ‘in assessment’ fishery assessments, with a focus of harmonising the scores and justifications for Principle 1.

The first pilot workshop for the proposed harmonisation process for fisheries with multiple assessments on one stock/region was held in Hong Kong on 21-22 April 2016. The first pilot considered four stocks in the western Pacific managed by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). These stocks were: yellowfin tuna, skipjack tuna, North Pacific albacore, South Pacific albacore.

Funding for the pilot was by the MSC and CABs. MSC funded the participation of P1 and P3 assessors, an independent peer reviewer, meeting facilitator, and MSC advisory staff. A participants list is attached as Appendix A.

2. Meeting Outcome

The proposed outcomes of this process leading into the meeting were a complete set of updated P1 scores, rationales and updated condition statuses. In order to get to these outputs, a harmonisation team leader was assigned to each stock and tasked gather new information (namely the latest scientific and management advice from WCPFC) and reports containing the rationales for Principle 1 Performance Indicators from the most recent assessment (PCDR or PCR). In addition, the latest condition statuses were prepared, with all the aforementioned information provided to stakeholders in a public Dropbox. Following a 30-day stakeholders review period, assessment team members then collated information in preparation for the meeting.

As mentioned above, the proposed outcome of the pilot was a complete set of updated P1 scores, rationales and updated condition statuses for each of the four stocks. However, while the process successfully dealt with harmonisation and aided CAB and team discussions, the meeting did not result in definitive text. Therefore, the CAB experts agreed that the information from this meeting would be considered at the next surveillance or full assessment audit for individual fisheries. Additionally, if new information presented at those audits resulted in a change of score/condition, they would initiate further harmonisation discussions to update scores as needed. This was agreed by the MSC and deemed appropriate in this case.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 115 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

3. Document overview

The document presents the outcome from the Hong Kong harmonisation meeting. This is a working document prepared by all involved assessors to inform and guide CAB teams as they assess tuna fisheries in the WCPFC area. It is intended as a point of reference for multiple ongoing assessments as of April 2016. As mentioned above, if new information becomes available, harmonisation between assessment teams will still be required. New information of relevance may come from fisheries under assessment, the WCPFC, other tuna fisheries under assessment in different regions, MSC interpretations, etc.

The initial expectation of definitive P1 texts included that those texts would then be publically available. Though the meeting has only resulted in a working document, there was general agreement that this document should still be made publically available. It should be noted, though, that it is a record of discussions and a point of reference rather than binding in any formal sense.

4. Meeting Record

On Day 1, three of the four species were examined in detail for Principle 1 (Skipjack, Yellowfin and Southern Albacore). Northern Albacore was examined on Day 2, during which there was also a discussion about the process of scoring different management elements in P3.

The main intent of discussions on P1 was to harmonise scores, rationales, core reasoning, etc., but not to produce generic rationales to be used as boilerplate for WCPFC assessments. It was agreed that rationales should be consistent in reasoning and performance scores, but will usually differ in wording by CAB and assessment. It is important to note that in some cases, scores were numerically aligned, but individual wording in the rationales for those scores may have differed. In those cases, rationales were discussed to ensure alignment.

In examining the detail for each element for the examined species, it was found that, for most elements, there was very close alignment which required no further harmonisation.

Skipjack (SKJ): a total of 3/6 Performance Indicators (PI) and 17/20 Scoring Issues (SI) were already harmonised among 4 existing assessments in the WCPFC. PIs that were pre-harmonised were 1.1.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.4. A total of 3 SIs differed. A consensus was reached on these scores and rationales, which will be harmonised at the next surveillance audits or reassessments as appropriate.

Yellowfin (YFT): a total of 3/6 PIs and 15/20 SIs were already harmonised among 4 existing assessments in the WCPFC. PIs that were pre-harmonised were 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.2.1. A total of 5 SIs differed, were discussed, and consensus reached.

Southern Albacore (SPA): a total of 2/6 PIs and 14/20 SIs were already harmonised among 5 existing assessments in the WCPFC. PIs that were pre-harmonised were 1.1.1 and 1.2.2. A total of 5 SIs differed, were discussed, and consensus reached.

Northern Albacore (NPA): A total of 3/6 PIs and 17/20 Sis were already harmonised among three existing assessments. PIs that were pre-harmonised include 1.1.1, 1.1.2 and 1.2.2. A total of 5 SIs differed, were discussed, and consensus reached.

For all stocks, for most SIs, discussions identified similarities in intent and logic such that changes or further harmonisation was not required. There were, however, some SIs that required changes to be adopted by individual assessments. Most of these were relatively minor but a few required changes in scores and wording. The tables below detail these as agreed at the meeting.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 116 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Two generic issues identified during the meeting included: i) the problems that arise from dealing with assessments done under up to 4 different versions of the MSC requirements, and ii) differing timelines under which various assessments are operating.

A major outcome of the meeting was the fact that each assessment team, and all Independent Experts (IE) present, now have a consistent (and harmonised) understanding of how to score, write-up and interpret each element for P1 for the WCDPFC tuna fisheries under MSC assessment. This should provide much more consistent scores, rationales and milestones in future iterations, assessments and surveillance audits.

For all the stocks, Conditions need to be raised at PI1.2.1, SI(A) and Pi1.2.2 SI(A,B,C). For both, to meet various requirements at CR SA7.11, it was agreed that i) the Conditions raised need to have a consistent duration (end point), and ii) that milestones should reflect the work plans on harvest strategies/harvest control rules agreed at the WCPFC Annual Meeting in December 2015.

With regard to scoring at PI 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rules, HCR), consideration was given to December 2015 MSC Interpretation, IA Rulings, and recently published Maldives Pole and Line 3rd surveillance report. It was agreed that for all stocks, at this time, SG60 scoring at SI(A) and SI(C) should use the “availability” criteria as previously agreed in harmonisation calls in 2015.

For each Unit of Certification (UoC), the most recent scores are tabulated below to show where differences in overall PI exist and where Conditions currently exist or may be raised. During the meeting, for each UoC, one IE led the discussion, working through each SI to check consistency of rationales used and scoring. Where Conditions were identified, consideration was given to harmonising milestones and timelines. However, it should be noted that the meeting was a pilot and that the time available did not allow for a detailed review of all conditions and milestones.

Each UoC is summarized below.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 117 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Appendix 2.2 Skipjack tuna The table below shows the summary of scores from most recent reports available for four UoC. Table 1. Summary of scores in most recent reports for WCPFC skipjack and new scores agreed by the meeting.

Date Version Fishery 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Principle published Name PCR 2011 FAM v2 PNA - 100 90 80 60 85* 95 84 skipjack PCDR Dec CR v1.3 Trimarine 100 90 70 60 90 95 86.9 2015 (PI1.2.2 use v2) PCDR CR v1.3 Solomon Isl 100 90 70 60 90 95 86.9 March (PI1.2.2 2016 use v2) CDR CR v1.3 Japan P&L 100 90 70 60 90 95 86.9 August (PI1.2.2 2015 use v2) Harmonised scores 100 90 70 60 90 95 Performance indicator scores with conditions are shown in red text.

* There is full alignment on scores for all SIs for PNA skipjack with the other fisheries (all pass at SG80 and 1 of 2 pass at SG100) but these were combined differently in the PNA assessment to give a score of 85. Two ongoing assessments are at the PCDR stage, and one is at the CDR stage. Initial harmonisation of these three assessments was carried out during July-September 2015 prior to the development of the two PCDRs. There was good agreement between all IEs, peer reviewers and CABs involved in the harmonisation. The three ongoing assessments differ from the one existing PCR (for PNA unassociated purse seine) which is now due for re-assessment. The changes are due to differences in certification standard used (CR V1.3/2 vs FAM V2), fishery developments over the past five years, but, most importantly, to the considerations of a now larger set of IEs and its interpretation of the CR. The table below shows for each PI and SI, whether rationales and scores are aligned between the three ongoing assessments, need amendment, etc. The basis for comparison is the most recent, publically available assessment – the Solomon Islands unassociated purse seine assessment published in March 2016. Scores in the Solomon Islands PCDR are shown in brackets in the first column for each PI and SI. Table 2. Conclusions of the pilot harmonisation for WCPFC skipjack.

PI (Harmonised SI (Harmonised Issues and workshop conclusions score) score) 1.1.1 (100) A (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. B (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. 1.1.2 (90) A (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. B (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. C (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 118 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

New Information on agreed Target Reference Point (WCPFC CMM 2015-06) needs to be included in updated PCDR and Published Certification Reports (PCR) at appropriate time.

D (N/R) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. 1.2.1 (70) A (60) All reports except PNA PCR are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. Consensus on revised scoring. B (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. C (60) All reports except PNA PCR are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. Consensus on revised scoring. D (not scored) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. No need to score given si(A) and si(C) are less than 80; Japanese Pole and Line CDR needs to be amended to remove existing rationale and score.

E (N/R) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. 1.2.2 (60) A (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. Note that discussion on HCR Interpretation, IA Rulings, recently published Maldives Pole and Line 3rd surveillance, etc led to reaffirmation to score using SG60 “availability” criteria as agreed in harmonisation calls in 2015. New Information on agreed Target Reference Point (WCPFC CMM 2015-06) needs to be included in updated PCDR and Published Certification Reports (PCR) as appropriate.

B (<80) All assessments except that for Solomon Islands scored and used SI in condition setting. Solomon Islands assessment requires updating. C (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. Note that discussion on HCR Interpretation, E IA Rulings, recently published Maldives Pole and Line 3rd surveillance, etc led to reaffirmation to score using SG60 “availability” criteria as agreed in harmonization calls in 2015. New Information on agreed Target Reference Point (WCPFC CMM 2015-06) needs to be included in updated PCDR and Published Certification Reports (PCR).

1.2.3 (90) A (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. B (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 119 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Appendix 2.3 Yellowfin Tuna Table 3. Summary of scores from most recent reports for WCPFC yellowfin and new scores agreed by the meeting. Date Fishery Gear(s) 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 P 1 published Name PCR PNA Purse 90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4 4/2/2016 seine PCR Walker Longline 90 90 70 65 80 100 85.0 27/08/2015 Seafood PCDR Dec Trimarine Purse 90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4 2015 seine PCDR Solomon Is. Purse 90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4 March seine 2016 Harmonised scores 90 90 70 60 80 95 Performance indicator scores with conditions are shown in red text. All used CR v1.3, (v2.0 for PI1.2.2 SG60) except for PNA which used FAM v2.0.

Table 4. Conclusions of the pilot harmonisation for WCPFC yellowfin

PI (Harmonised SI (Harmonised Issues and workshop conclusions score) score) 1.1.1 (90) A (100) Scores align. Consensus on evidence to which rationales should refer: Assessments of the likelihood have been variously based on Grid CIs and sensitivity analyses from assessment plus, CIs around spawning potential and recruitment, Likelihood of breaching reference points.

B (80) Agreement about scores. Consensus was to refer to the TRP using the words used in CMM 2014-01 & 2015-01, without attaching a label. Borderline for meeting 100 but need to be precautionary consistent with the declining trend, time until the next assessment, recent high catch levels, & outcomes of grid sensitivities. 1.1.2 (90) A (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. B (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. C (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. New Information on agreed Target Reference Point (WCPFC CMM 2015-06) needs to be included in updated PCDR and Published Certification Reports (PCR) at appropriate time.

D (N/R) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. 1.2.1 (70) A (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. B (80) Agreement on scores.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 120 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Key points in rationales are current status (B & F), projections, and effort constraint by VDS. Effectiveness of FAD measures is also relevant. Impact of coastal fisheries needs to be given greater consideration and potential for CMMs to control these components, but PS sector still has the greater impact. Downward trend in biomass indicates the need to carefully examine future catches and effort, and results of the next assessment. Was considered to be too early to assess impacts of the most recent CMM.

C (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. D (not scored) Only SG100; not all SG80 met

E (N/R) All reports are in alignment for rationales provided and scores. 1.2.2 (60) A (60) Agreement on scores. Rationales differ in level of detail but there are no important inconsistencies

B (80 not met2) All assessments except that for Solomon Islands scored and used SI in condition setting. Solomon Islands assessment requires updating. Consensus that a key point in the rationale should be that, because the HCR is not defined, the consideration of uncertainties is not clear. Measures to implement effort limitations are also unspecified.

C (60) Scores for Walker Seafood determined before Nov 2015 guidance from MSC. Rationales for other fisheries are consistent.

1.2.3 (80) A (80) Consensus for a score of 80 based on concerns about the quality of the data that are available (e.g. the absence of fishery- independent data) and the importance of the generic data gaps identified by Williams (2013). B (80) Scores agree but there are differences in the rationales. Consensus that in future rationales could be more closely aligned to the data needs of the HCR. C (80) Scores and rationales align 1.2.4 (90) A (100) Scores agree and rationales are similar B (100) Scores and rationales are in agreement. C (100) Scores and rationales are in agreement. D (100) Scores and rationales are in agreement. E (80) Consensus score of 80 with agreement that there has been no formal external review for YFT.

2 Note: The agreed version of the meeting report has 80 here, but this was confirmed to be a typo.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 121 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Appendix 2.4 South Pacific albacore Table 5. Summary of scores from most recent reports for WCPFC South Pacific Albacore and new scores agreed by the meeting.

Date Fishery Name Gear 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 P1 published PCR June NZ albacore p&l 100 75 80 60 80 85 81.9 2011 PCR 24 AAFA & WFOA p&l 100 70 80 60 90 85 81.9 Dec. 2012 albacore - south PCR Nov. Fiji albacore longline 100 75 70 60 80 85 80.6 2012 PCR June SZLC, HNSFC & longline 100 75 70 60 80 85 80.6 2015 CFA Cook Islands albacore PCR Aug. Walker Seafood - longline 100 75 70 60 80 95 81.9 2015 albacore Harmonised scores 100 75 70 60 80 95 Performance indicator scores with conditions are shown in red text.

Table 6. Summary of outcome by SI for WCPFC South Pacific albacore

PI SI Issues and workshop conclusions (harmonised (harmonised score) score ) 1.1.1 (100) A (100) Consensus. Updated to 2015 stock assessment B (100) As above 1.1.2 (75) A (80) Consensus B (100) Consensus since limit ref. point is agreed – consistent with other stocks C (-) Fiji and NZ scored 80 as met, but since then stock assessments have shown that BMSY cannot be used as a target (because it is below the agreed limit) – hence no suitable target in place although some options are under discussion. Consensus that 80 is not met (no 60 available). Fiji and NZ to harmonise scores and conditions at next surveillance. D (N/A) 1.2.1 (70) A (60) SG60: Consensus that 2014-06 provides a framework in place hence ‘expect’ to achieve objectives is met as per SG60 (this is consistent with other stocks); Tokelau Arrangement also provides some reassurance. SG80: Consensus that 80 not met as per the other stocks – situation is similar or a little worse. B (80) Consensus – aligned across stocks C (60) Consensus

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 122 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

D (-) Consensus 1.2.2 (60) A (60) Consensus – aligned across stocks. Rationales need to be aligned with commentary about using the ‘availability’ logic from version 2.0 and Dec. 2015 guidance. This can be done at re-assessment. Examples from skipjack and Maldives 3rd surveillance audit report for 2016. B (-) Consensus C (60) Consensus – need to revise rationales as for SI a 1.2.3 (80) A (80) Consensus B (80) Consensus. AAFA previously scored 100 for this issue – may need to adjust (but makes no material difference) C (80) Consensus. Discussion about change in stock assessment to cover only WCPFC Convention Area might affect this scoring, but agreement that does not jeopardise robustness of assessment. 1.2.4 (95) A (100) Aligned with yellowfin. AAFA, Fiji, NZ and Cooks may need to adjust scoring at a suitable opportunity (previously 80) but makes no material difference. B (60) Consensus C (100) Consensus D (100) Consensus that the key issue is that assessment conclusions and management advice is robust – all in the ‘green zone’. Score of 100 would align with the other stocks (NPA, SKJ, YFT). The group was not completely comfortable with assigning a score since most participants were not familiar with the stock assessment in detail. 100 was provisionally agreed but consensus that the P1 expert for the upcoming NZ re-assessment may decide differently. E (80) Aligned with other stocks

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 123 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Appendix 2.4 North Pacific Albacore Table 7. Summary of scores from most recent reports for three North Pacific albacore UoC and new scores agreed by the meeting.

CR Fishery Gear(s) 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 P1 version Name CR v1.2 AAFA & Handlines 100 70 - 85 60 100 95 85 WFOA , Pacific pole lines, albacore Trolling tuna - lines north CR v1.3 CHMSF Trolling 100 70 - 90 60 90 100 85 (PI1.2.2 British lines use v2) Columbia Albacore Tuna North Pacific CR v1.3 Japanese Pole and 100 70 80 60 90 100 83.8 (PI1.2.2 pole & line line use v2) Scores after harmonisation Day 2 100 70 80 60 90 100 Performance indicator scores with conditions are shown in red text. Table 8 shows for each PI/SI, whether scores and rationale are aligned between the 3 assessments or need to be amended for harmonization. The basis for comparing scores and rationales is the most recent CHMSF assessment published in June 2015. Scores for the CHMSF assessment are shown in brackets for PI and SI.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 124 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

Table 8. Summary of outcome by SI for North Pacific albacore PI (harmonised SI (harmonised Issues and preliminary conclusions score) score) 1.1.1 (100) A (100) All reports are in alignment for scores but use different approaches in justifying scores.

It was suggested that alternative graphical displays could be considered in the CHMSF report. B (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores 1.1.2(70) A (80) All reports are in alignment for scores.

Since the WCPFC adopted at its 8th Annual Session a hierarchy of SSB LRPs, with the lower Level default being 20%SSBBF=0.

Rationales for CHMSF and WFOA/AAFA can be aligned B (-) All reports are in alignment for scores (80 N; 100 N) but use different approaches in justifying scores. The WCPFC LRP should be updated to 20%SBF=0 C (-) All reports are in alignment for scores (80 N; 100 N) but use different approaches in justifying scores.

NB Score for all the three fisheries for PI 1.2.2 should be 65 D (N/R) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores 1.2.1(90) A (80) All reports are in alignment for scores but use different approaches in justifying scores B (80) All reports are in alignment for scores but use different approaches in justifying scores C (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores D (100) Japanese P&L denies 100 score. AAFA/CHMSF score at 100. Since no harvest strategy has been formalized and it is not subject to a formal review process the score of 100 is not justifiable. Alignment is needed. 1.2.2(60) A (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores

In scoring issue (A) the rationales need to explicitly state which elements of SA2.5.2 and SA2.5.3 are used.

Note that discussion on HCR Interpretation, E IA Rulings, recently published Maldives Pole and Line 3rd

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 125 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 th V 1.0 (16 March 2015)

surveillance, etc led to reaffirmation to score using SG60 “availability” criteria as agreed in harmonization calls in 2015. It was agreed to follow the logic used for the other stocks.

B (-) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores C (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores

In SI (C) the rationales need to explicitly state which element (a or b) of SA2.5.5 is used.

Note that discussion on HCR Interpretation, E IA Rulings, recently published Maldives Pole and Line 3rd surveillance, etc led to reaffirmation to score using SG60 “availability” criteria as agreed in harmonization calls in 2015. It was agreed to follow the logic used for the other stocks. 1.2.3(90) A (100) All reports are in alignment for scores but use slightly different approaches in justifying scores – needs to be attended to. B (80) Because there are some sources of uncertainty such as the absence of updated estimates of life history parameters, and the simplified treatment of the spatial structure of north Pacific albacore population dynamics, it was agreed that the fishery does not meet the SG 100 as scored by the AAFA/WFOA. A score of 80 was agreed during the meeting. C (80) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores 1.2.4(100) A (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores B (60) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores C (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores D (100) All reports are in alignment for rationales and provided scores E (100) AAFA/WFOA only scored 80 as no external review of the stock assessment was done. The CHMSF and Japanese P&L scored 100, noting the 2011 assessment was externally reviewed by CIE. Agreed to score as 100.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 126 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 2.5 Harmonisation meeting participants

Attendee Organisation/Representing Sandy Morison SCS Sian Morgan SCS Max Stocker MRAG/SAI Kevin Stokes Acoura Adrian Gutteridge MSC Bill Holden MSC Stephanie Good MSC Suzi Keshavarz MSC Peter Watt MEC Steve Kennelly (Facilitator) ICIC Fong Lee South Seas Tuna Corporation Limited Ronald Lo South Seas Tuna Corporation Limited Chris Hsu South Seas Tuna Corporation Limited Bob Trumble MRAG Kenji Matsunaga Meiho Gyogyo KK Andrias Hermawan Meiho Gyogyo KK Jo Akroyd Acoura Dave Japp MSC Maurice Brownjohn PNA Ivan Mateo SAI Global Antonio Hervas ASI Roland Salangsang DD Corporation/Philbest Canning Bayani Fredeluces RD Fishing Group Arnel Gonato RD Fishing Group Jo Gascoine MEC

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 127

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 3 Peer Review Report

Appendix 3.1 Peer review P1 harmonisation Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The harmonization process has effectively synergized the scoring with agreement between CABs where there was disagreement or inconsistency

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: I have not reviewed all the conditions for each assessment as there are numerous assessments and numerous conditions. Conditions relate primarily to the HCR – my task was to review the harmonization process and to provide a technical review of the process. The most essential aspect relating to the conditions set by each CAB for each assessment was that there is consistency across all UoA. In this regard the UoA (Skipjack, YFT, Albacore (North and South) as well as the UoC were effectively aligned with some minor issues to resolve – none of which would make a material difference to the outcomes. The conditions were also aligned and consistent across all UoCs. The only aspect I would emphasize is that because the timing of assessments differs between clients, similar conditions may however have different timelines – this might contradict the milestones required, particularly for a new client / assessment. This was however recognized by the CABs and the team undertaking the harmonization who as far as possible agreed to align the timelines set when similar conditions had been set for different clients. In most cases the conditions required the RFMO to adopt Conservation Measures pertinent to the conditions set.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? N/A [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: I did not address client action plans but in all cases the CABs reported that there was alignment and consistency for each UoC

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 128

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Performance Indicator Review

Table 34: Skipjack tuna

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to relevant and/or rationale raised improve specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers is Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) only required where answers given are ‘No’. (Yes/No)

1.1.1 Yes Yes N/A Pre harmonized PNA/Trimarine/Solomon Is/Japan P&L. Aggregate 100

1.1.2 Yes Yes N/A Aligned and scoring rationales agreed (aggregate 85 or 90?)– noted interpretation relating to V1.3/2 and Fam2.0 with updated in PCR needed for new CMM on TRP

1.1.3 - - - -

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes All aligned aggregate = 70 with some adjustment needed in text of Jap P&L

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Pre Harmonized Aggregate = 60 and aligned with IA response re “availability” in SI a.

1.2.3 Yes Yes N/A All aligned Aggregate = 90

1.2.4 yes Yes N/A Pre Harmonized all aligned and consistent

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 129

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Table 2: Yellowfin tuna

1.1.1 Yes Yes N/A Harmonized (PNA, Walker, Trimarine & Solomon Is.) OK with consensus excpt. Stochastic projections agreed score 90

1.1.2 Yes Yes N/A Aligned / harmonized with consensus – agreed with CMM obectives interpreted as Target Ref Pt (TRP)

1.1.3 - - -

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Aggregate = 70 agreed. Some suggestions to improve the assessment in future incl. weighting “coastal” fishery. Biomass trend (down) possible concern future assessment.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Aggregate 60. Aligned and revised scoring using V2.0. Scored SI b (agreed)

1.2.3 Yes Yes N/A Aggregate 80 – general agreement and harmonised – one dif. with WS pulled score down – relates to data quality otherwise no material impact on outcome

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 130

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

1.2.4 yes Yes N/A Aggregate = 95 agreed – no consensus re “reviews” agreed no material impact but flagged for future

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 131

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Table 3: Albacore - north

1.1.1 Yes Yes N/A Pre Harmonised AAFA&WFOA (V1.2) and CHMSF (V1.3) and Jap. Pole and line (V1.3). 100 aggregate

1.1.2 Yes Yes Yes related Pre Harmonised – aggregate = 70 Noted condition for 1.2.2 slightly diff. justifications used but scores needs consistent harmonising

1.1.3 - - - -

1.2.1 Yes Yes N/A SI d problematic (not 100 agreed for all CABs – need clarity on outcome re “ HS is periodically reviewed) agreed agg. is 80

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Pre Harmonised aggregate of 60. Critically applied IA judgement for HCR and aligned SG60 based on “availability” agreed.

1.2.3 Yes yes N/A SI b Jap P&L and CHMSF score lower due to pop dynamics diffs. Aggreg. Score of 90 agreed

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 132

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

1.2.4 Yes Yes N/A Not clear to PR on final outcome as SI e score lower for AAFA/WFOA aggregate of 100 (was it 90 or 95 finalised? – makes not material difference)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 133

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Table 4: Albacore - south

1.1.1 Yes Yes N/A Pre-harmonized 5 assessments OK [NZ Alb, AAFA&WFOA, Fiji, SZLC,HNSFCn&CFA Cook Isl) Walker Seafood] Scored at 100 consistent

1.1.2 Yes Yes Yes(conditons With one exception (70) all scored 75 need change for needing condition relating to stock rebuilding. NZ and Fiji at Agreement between CABs to harmonize at next audit 75 OK otherwise OK)

1.1.3 - - - -

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Noted NZ and AAFA scored 80 (pass) but CABs agreed on aggregate 70.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Pre-harmonized [NZ Alb, AAFA&WFOA, Fiji, SZLC,HNSFCn&CFA Cook Isl) Walker Seafood] Aggregate score of 60 – conditions milestones will be alligned for most recent work plans

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 134

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

1.2.3 Yes Yes N/A AAFA score higher – aggregate of 80 agreed – some disagreement but does not affect outcome.

1.2.4 yes yes N/A There is some difference in scoring issue d – was not clear – likely aggregate score is 80 (precautionary not 100) otherwise aligned aggr. Score 90

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 135

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

Herewith my general comments :

I think the process is effective and achieved its goals. Harmonization was accomplished with only minor outstanding issues, none of which would have a material effect on the outcome. I expected there to be big differences between the rationales provided by each CAB – however this was not the case. The harmonization process allowed for constructive debate and interrogation of each CAB. This is certainly a process missing at times in the teams when undertaking individual assessments – if the designated assessors for the different principles do not have broad background in the other disciplines there is often (in my view) a tendency to accept scoring of a particular PI without much questioning the rationale.

Although the meeting of CABs to discuss harmonization was constructive, I would think the process could be streamlined in a different manner (rather than through direct personal interaction) – although this is effective, it is also costly – so I assume MSC would in the long term try and streamline the process through appropriate electronic methods.

The harmonization process in this case focused on PIs 1.2.1 (Harvest Strategy) and the Harvest Control Rules (1.2.2) particularly on the SG60 scoring issue (a). I was satisfied that the interpretation of “Generally understood” or “Available” issues were effectively addressed in the alignment process. There was much discussion around the IA “ Echesbaster” ruling – although the interpretation of this SI may still come to the fore in future, I think the harmonization process effectively ensured that the rationale developed addressed the intent of the SI (HCRs design and application).

One area I think was not adequately addressed was the communication with Interested and Affected Parties – e.g. the client base – the responses from the clients or IAPs present suggested they were not entirely happy with the way they were incorporated into the process – this is an aspect that was discussed but could also easily be resolved once the timing of the harmonization process was sorted out. There is a definite need when harmonizing to ensure the clients are informed and that appropriate interaction is maintained. This is particularly important for fisheries (UoC) for which older versions of the methodology have been applied (V1.3) and which have been adapted to the new version for P1.2.2.

An area of concern raised by the PNA representative related to Chain of Custody – “Eligibility” criteria is problematic (at least for the PNA) and interpretation of product from “Free schools” as opposed to “FAD associated” products. The suggestions were that CABs are inconsistent in applying CoC in this case and that the only real solution was increased independent monitoring to separate catches when the same vessels used different targeting practices

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 136

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 3.2 Peer review expedited assessment Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: See the team’s response to the Refer to review comments in below table (Table 1) as they comments below. potentially lead to revision of scores which could alter the outcome for Principle 2.

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: See the team’s response to the comments below. While the current client action plan is capable of ensuring that the conditions of certification are addressed to the SG80 level within the specified timeframes, several amendments have been suggested to improve the client action plan, making it clearer on what each condition is addressing (i.e., UoA, stakeholder involved etc.).

Please refer to comments below for suggested amendments.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 137

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

For reports using one of the default assessment trees:

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and relevant and/or rationale raised improve any relevant documentation where information used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional been used to Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. score this the given score? the SG80 Indicator? (Yes/No) level? Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) answers given are ‘No’.

1.1.1 NA NA NA This peer review did not consider No response required. Principle 1 elements since there had recently (April 2016) been a detailed harmonisation meeting between all relevant CABs and MSC who had previously completed MSC assessments on tuna species within the WCPO. This harmonised assessment was agreed to be all CABs and MSC present and has been subsquently peer reviewed. Therefore, there was no reason to repeat yet another peer review of this process and outcomes.

2.1.1 No No NA Bigeye - Bigeye: Information added to Pilling et al. (2016) provided stochastic rationale. projections of the WCPO stock and estimated that F2016/FMSY = 1.11 Blue marlin: (overfishing), and SB2016/SBF=0 = 0.17. The reviewer makes a good point. References: However, the stock assessment Pilling, G., R. Scott, P. Williams and J. also provides projections through Hampton (2016a). A compendium 2020. At ‘current’ levels of fishing of fisheries indicators for tuna mortality (2009-11; F23%), the

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 138

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by relevant and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where information used to score this the fishery’s possible. Please attach additional been used to Indicator support performance to pages if necessary. score this the given score? the SG80 Indicator? (Yes/No) level? Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) answers given are ‘No’.

stocks not assessed in 2016 biomass is projected to remain (Bigeye and Yellowfin tuna). stable and above the MSY level. If Scientific Committee Twelfth F increases to ~FMSY (F18%), then Regular Session Bali, Indonesia projections suggest that biomass 3-11 August 2016 WCPFC-SC12- would decline to ~SSBMSY by 2020. 2016/SA-WP-03. Available at: F would have to decline to F16% https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files for biomass to decline below BMSY /SC12-SA-WP-03 Indicators for by the end of the projection period, BET and YFT.pdf but this would imply catches of blue marlin in 2012-13 of >25,000 t – Pilling, G., R. Scott, P. Williams and J. higher than seen in the entire time Hampton (2016b). Biologically series. In practice, catches of blue reasonable rebuilding timeframes marlin have remained ~constant for bigeye tuna Scientific since the stock assessment period Committee Twelfth Regular at ~15,000 t (same as the end of Session Bali, Indonesia 3-11 the time series used for the stock August 2016 WCPFC-SC12- assessment). This means that 2016/MI-WP-02. Available at: some other very large change (e.g. https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files in stock or recruitment dynamics or /SC12-MI-WP-02 Bigeye in unrecorded fishing mortality) biological rebuilding would be required for biomass to timeframes.pdf have declined below BMSY since the stock assessment. Therefore, Blue Marlin – Scoring issue (a) – It is the score was not changed, but the agreed that the stocks are most likely rationale was improved along the above SSB and not overfished and not lines outlined above. Bear in mind,

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 139

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

currently experiencing overfishing. But as well, that MSC’s requirement in given that the most recent assessment is terms of quantitative probability for now five years old and the fishing a ‘high degree of certainty’ for 2.1.1 mortality data used to justify the score is is 90%, whereas for P1 it is 95% - also five years old (2009 -2011), then it is i.e. 1 in 10 rather than 1 in 20 – not possible to say that there is enough only half as likely. information to state that there is a high degree of certainty. Therefore, SG100 is not met, but SG80 is met, i.e., it is “highly likely”. Furthermore, it is advised that the CAB consider and use more recent catch statistics from 2011 – 2015 when considering fishing mortality for this species and others. Score should be revised down to 80.

“Average Percentage” figures in Table 10 The averages in Table 10 are need to be re-checked. correct. (The correct way to calculate the average % is not to take the average of the percentages; it is to divide the total bycatch summed over the three years divided by total catch summed over the three years. This would only equal the average of the three percentages if the total catch

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 140

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

were the same each year, which of course it is not.)

2.1.2 No No Yes Blue Marlin – scoring issue a, b and c - See response above for blue The justification requires greater detail in marlin. order to met SG80 given that under 2.1.1 it is considered to be only meeting SG80 and not SG100, thereofre the default SG80 level under 2.1.2 no longer applies.

Indian oil sardine – The information Sardinella longiceps is distributed suggests sourcing from Oman and China from the NW Indian Ocean to SE (Page 30), however, management is only India so does not occur in Chinese detailed for India (CMFRI) in the waters; oil sardine sourced from justification. There is no mention of the China therefore comes from management details from Oman and elsewhere – most likely India since China; these need to be included in the this is the biggest fishery (~150 kt justification. To justify the score given, this out of a total of ~500 kt, according detail is required. to FAO). From Oman, however, it may be fished locally (or in the wider NW Indian Ocean). More information on the general stock dynamics has therefore been added, depending mainly on the synthesis provided in Munro and

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 141

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Priede (2010).

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA The level of information and clear justifcation provided warrants the awarded scores.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The level of information and clear justifcation provided warrants the awarded scores.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The level of information and clear justifcation provided warrants the awarded scores.

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA The level of information and clear justifcation provided warrants the awarded scores.

2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes The level of information and clear justifcation provided warrants the awarded scores. The stated condition raised, should improve the fishery performance to the SG80 level.

2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes The level of information and clear justifcation provided warrants the

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 142

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

awarded scores. The stated condition raised, should improve the fishery performance to the SG80 level.

2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes The level of information and clear justifcation provided warrants the awarded scores. The stated condition raised, should improve the fishery performance to the SG80 level.

3.1.4 Yes No Yes The information provided in the report Please see Table 6 for details on identifies that subsidies (perverse) have vessel ownership within each UoC. been provided to various opertors within Althought the UoA3 and UoA4 the fishery which has lead to the rapid companies are Cook Islands exapnsion of effort in the albacore fishery. registered, the peer reviewer is However, the justification for the score right in that they are eligible for issued states: subisidies from the PRC. This PI was rescored for these UoAs and “However, no subsidies are provided by the score reduced accordingly. The the Cook Islands, neither to flagged condition now applies to these PIs vessels, nor to those fishing in their as well. waters, nor to those with Cook Islands ownership. This therefore does not apply Yellowfin was left out of the here”. rationale and condition (apologies) but has now been included in both. It is not clear from the information and The conclusion is the same as for

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 143

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

justifcation provided by the CAB, whether albacore. other countries (i.e., China) are still providing subsidies to vessels operating under these UoA’s within the Cook Island EEZ. The scoring must take into consideration any and all subsidies that are provided to any vessels operating under the UoA, irrespective of which country provides them and whether or not the Cook Islands allows and provides or prohibits these subsidies. There is clear information and evidence that China, has in the past and continues to, provide subsidies to its fleet operating within the WCPO, and it is highly likely that this includes those vessels considered under the UoA. The assessment report clarifies that the vessels under UoA 3 and 4 are flagged by the Cook Islands, however, it makes no mention of who actually owns the vessels, i.e., are they owned wholly by the Cook Islands or are they owned by China?

The team should consider all subsidies when scoring. The stated condition

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 144

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

raised, should improve the fishery performance to the SG80 level, however, it needs to be updated to include the species Yellowfin tuna.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 145

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Comments on Client Action Plan

Condition 4, 5: Yes but this is for a subset of the UoA’s now falling under this condition, therefore the milestones need to refer to “all” UoA’s and not just LTFV crew and vessels.

Team response: The original condition and milestones have been amended to reflect they apply to all UoAs not just LTFV.

Condition 4, 5, 6, 8: The Terminology “…already passed” is misleading as it could be interpreted as meaning that the condition has been successful and passed the MSC SG80 level, which is not the case. Perhaps better terminology could be “…already lapsed”?

Team response: We disagree that the term ‘passed’ is misleading. The score and whether or not the condition is still open is clearly indicated in this and the year 1 surveillance report.

Condition 4 - Action 1: What does this (‘annually, as needed) actually mean? Does this mean that the materials may or may not be reviewed and if so, who decides if a review is required and if one is required then who carries out the review?

Team response: Examples of what might require revising the training materials have been added (e.g. if new relevant Cook Islands regulations are adopted, if the Cook Islands or WCPFC adopt new or revised guidelines on handling and release protocols for ETP species). Each captain is to annually receive training – even if they received the same training the previous year.

Condition 4 - Action 1:Is this an annual workshop? A one off workshop? Is this linked at all to the “captains training materials”? furthermore, what about crew training?

Team response: See Action 2 – which requires captains to annually attend a workshop. Action 1 is about the training materials, action 2 is about captains receiving the training annually.The client does not require crew to receive the training – the captains are responsible for crew actions. However, crew have been attending the training workshops.

Condition 4 - Action 1:This should also cover WCPFC requirements

Team response: The Cook Islands have adopted the relevant CMMs in their legislation or in the case of sharks exceeded the WCPFC requirements (see MEC, 2015 for more detail). The team considers this action to be adequately worded.

Condition 4 – Outcomes and Schedule: It would also be good to include an outcome that identifies vessels (i.e., captain/crews) that are continually non-compliant with these requirements so that a concerted effort can be made to address individual poor performances therefore not hindering the entire UoA groups and make each captain responsible for their actions. Example countries doing this include the Australian Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery managed by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.

Team response: This has been added to outcomes 3 and 4.

Condition 4 – Outcome 1 (Cook Islands longline rules): Great but what about WCPFC requirements?

Team response: See previous response - The Cook Islands have adopted the relevant CMMs in their legislation or in the case of sharks exceeded the WCPFC requirements (see MEC, 2015 for more detail). Further clarification has been added.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 146

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Conditon 5 (Cook Islands regulations): And WCPFC regs

Condition 5: Should also include that all vessels under all UoA’s have turtle mitigation devices on board that have been approved by WCPF and Cooks, such as turtle dehookers, dip nets, line cutters, etc.

Team response: See previous response. The Cook Islands regulations incorporate the WCPFC CMMs which includes the need for turtle mitigation devices on board longline vessels.

Condition 5 – Milestones: An additional milestone should include that by the second annual audit that all vessels operating under the UoA’s have been audited regarding the carriage and maintenance of all turtle mitigation and survival gear required under the Cooks and WCPFC (i.e., turtle de hookers, dip nets, line cutters, etc.).

Team response: The last milestone has been amended to reflect this; the client action plan now includes a new Action and Outcome 4.

Condition 6 – Action 1: I assume that MMR have agreed to this client action plan as required? I cannot see any evidence of this?

Team response: Yes they have, see MEC (2015) for the letter of support – where relevant, this has now been referred to again.

Condition 7: I agree with this but should also include UoA’s 3 and 4. The report states that's UoA’s are Cooks Island flagged vessels, but it is not clear from the assessment report who actually owns these vessels (i.e., are they owned by Cooks or by China)? This makes a significant difference on this scoring issue.

Team response: See Table 6 for details on vessel ownership. UoA 3 and 4 vessels are owned by C.F. Incorporated and C.B. Incorporated Ltd. The peer reviewer is right in that, although both companies are registered in the Cook Islands, they are eligible for subsidies from the People’s Republic of China. The scoring for UoAs 3 and 4 has been amended.

Condition 8 – Action 1: What was the outcome? Any response yet?

Team response: Please see the Year 1 surveillance report (MEC, 2016) for the fishery’s progress on this condition.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 147

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 4 Stakeholder submissions

Appendix 4.1 Submissions received prior to publication PCDR Prior to the publication of the PCDR, the following stakeholder submissions were received:

Dr Michael White (Hakono Hararanga Incorporated)

Luen Thai already has MSC certification for its longline albacore fishery in Cook Islands waters. The government has said it thinks a sustainably certificate improves our fishery and fish products. The people in the Northern Cook Islands are mainly subsistence fishers and gatherers; we are not a cash economy, although we have a peripheral need for money (e.g. power bills & occasional cargo). At Tongareva we catch mainly yellowfin and then bigeye in deeper sets. We therefore support the extension of the albacore sustainable fishery to cover yellowfin: and it is our deepest hope that in time ALL FISHERIES in the Cook Islands become certified as sustainable. We have a Sacred obligation to pass on a healthy, abundant and diverse ecosystem to our future generations. We would not want them to look back at these times and ask why we left them no food. Meitaki Poria (thank you very much). Michael

MEC response: Dear Michael,

Thank you for letting us know your thoughts and we really appreciate the supportive message. Ensuring the sustainability of our fisheries resources so that future generations can benefit from them lies at the heart of the MSC’s mission so it’s good to see that we are on the same wavelength. As always, if you have any queries or concerns about the assessment process then do let us know. The team will be in Rarotonga the week of the 19th July should you wish to meet with us.

No further action was taken.

Reuben Tylor

Dear Sirs I earlier expressed my concerns at the fact that Luen Thai had applied for certification when the licences they obtained were the subject of a criminal investigation.

The position now is that the then Minister of Marine was today convicted by a jury of accepting bribes from Luen Thai. It is a serious crime carrying 14 years imprisonment. The taking of the bribe is connected to the issue of licences to Luen Thai. It is likely that Luen Thai will also now face prosecution.

I believe this must impact on any certification in favour of Luen Thai.

Regards

Reuben Tylor

MEC response: The audit team met with Mr Tyler during the Rarotonga site visit and discussed the details of the court case as well as the likely implications on the certification status of the fishery. Without Luen Thai being prosecuted or the validity of the fishing licenses being questioned, there are no grounds on which to suspend the fishery MSC certificate.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 148

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 4.2 Submissions received after publication PCDR Following publication of the PCDR, only the MSC’s Technical Oversight comments were received, detailed below:

The team disagrees. Surely an extrapolation of a quantitative dataset is therefore, by definition, also quantitative. In fact, the extrapolation used the exact number of vessels in the UoAs as well as the average catch per vessel of UoAs 1 to 4 as the main variables in the extrapolation (i.e. both known quantities). The results of the extrapolation are expressed in tonnes. As such these data conform to the following definition provided by MSC for ‘quantitative data’:

Quantitative data are data expressing a certain quantity, amount or range. Usually, there are measurement units associated with the data, e.g. metres, in the case of the height of a person. It makes sense to set boundary limits to such data, and it is also meaningful to apply arithmetic operations to the data.

While the team acknowledges that an extrapolation is only an estimate based on current trends, it remains a ‘quantitative’ estimate and as such the SG80 scoring guidepost at scoring issue a for PIs 2.1.3, 2.2.3 and 2.3.3 (Qualitative information and some quantitative information are available on the amount of main retained species taken by the fishery) is met.

Moreover, MSC scoring is often done using data from a subset of vessels or trips; observer data are a case in point, since it is a rare fishery which has 100% observer coverage by haul. Yet observer data (as long as the team conclude that it is sufficient) may be used to score all 3 of these PIs, on the basis that the other vessels operate in the same way – i.e. as long as it is a representative and sufficient subsample. This is what has been done here. It has never been the case that MSC has required observer data from each individual vessel in the fishery for it to be considered ‘quantitative’. Table 4 shows this based on the number of vessels in each UoA (and bearing mind that UoAs 1 and 2 differ from UoAs 3 and 4 only in

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 149

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

flag state and not in any operational details), thus demonstrating that it is a reasonable subsample in this case.

The scoring has not been amended. However, more explanation on the basic assumptions underpinning the extrapolation has been added throughout the report.

Some more punctuation has been added to Table 5, and the new members of the client group indicated explicitly (although this was already clearly explained at the start).

The date has been added. The relevant details on the fishing season have been added.

Clarification has been added on the experimental nature of these tags (their effectiveness is still being evaluated by LTFV). After hauling and processing (de-heading and gutting), the RFID tags are inserted into the nape portion of the fish and the tail rope is also installed. Every individual fish gets a tag and this is for albacore, yellowfin and bigeye tuna. The captain notifies the crew where they are fishing and the correct tag is chosen based on the location. Although the tags can fall off, this is infrequent. They could theoretically be removed but it would be impossible to recreate the data on the chip. Note that the use of these tags was not taken into consideration for the traceability risk assessment.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 150

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

In the unlikely event containers are shared between different vessels, this would be for vessels from the same client group. While landing ports and facilities are shared with non- UoC vessels, the risk of mixing of MSC and non-MSC product is minimal. Offloadings are overseen by port officials as well as LTFV representatives. Catch from every vessel is traceable and the information is carried forward in the traceability documents to the point of sale. Furthermore, from a commercial perspective there is minimal interest in mixing the MSC product (which also adheres to a LTFV-specific quality standard) with that of another, uncertified fleet. Note that the report clearly states that separate CoC certification is required from the point of landing onwards.

At each annual surveillance audit, a review of traceability records for a 10% sub-sample of the MSC trips is undertaken. The review includes a traceback exercise for each trip, covering commercial invoices, certificates of confirmation (to purchasing party), port clearance and permit applications, certificates of clearance (confirming empty holds), logsheets and trip VMS data. These documents are kept by MEC on file. Please note that the client voluntarily commenced the process of getting MSC CoC certification for all vessels covered by this assessment. The CoC audits took place in January 2017. The second surveillance audit will therefore still include a review of traceability for the 2015/2016 fishing season to bridge the gap before CoC was put in place.

The current process is for the fish to be unloaded in one of the bases. It is then handed over to Luen Thai Seafood International (LTSI) who take charge of organising the sales and all associated logistics. The ownership of the product remains with the fishery until the point of sale by LTSI however. Once a sale is agreed they then purchase it from the relevant company operating in the fishery and promptly sell it on to the customer. Because of the relatively complex picture in relation to change in ownership, it was decided that separate CoC certification would be required from the point of landing onwards.

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 151

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 5 Surveillance Frequency

The surveillance level of this fishery will be the default, level 6 surveillance level requiring annual on-site audits.

Table 35. Timing of surveillance audit (note that this is an expedited assessment and as such joins the existing surveillance plan for the already certified fishery)

Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 2 June 2017 August 2017 The 2017 WCPFC scientific committee meeting is due to take place in the Cook Islands from 9-17 August. It would thus make sense, from a practical and information-gathering point of view, to organize the surveillance around that time.

Table 36. Fishery Surveillance Programme

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level 6 On-site On-Site On-Site On-site surveillance audit & re- (already certification site visit held)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 152

MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 V 1.0 (16th March 2015)

Appendix 6 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

3101R05B | ME Certification Ltd. 153