World Animal Protection Name of Point Person Elizabeth Hogan Email [email protected] Click If You Would You Like to Remain Anonymous ☐

World Animal Protection Name of Point Person Elizabeth Hogan Email Elizabethhogan@Worldanimalprotection.Us.Org Click If You Would You Like to Remain Anonymous ☐

Version October 22, 2014

Seafood Watch® Criteria for Fisheries

Please include your contact details below All documents submitted during the public consultation process will be posted on our website. Documents will posted exactly we receive them except that this front page will be removed. The organization/author field below will be displayed as the ‘author’ of the online posted document. If you wish for your document to remain anonymous, please indicate in the check box below. If ‘Anonymous’ is selected, the ‘author’ of this document when posted on our website will then simply read ‘Anonymous.’

Organization/Author World Animal Protection Name of point person Elizabeth Hogan Email [email protected] Click if you would you like to remain anonymous ☐

Version October 22, 2014

Seafood Watch® Criteria for Fisheries

Public comment period – 1

Introduction The Monterey Bay Aquarium is requesting and providing an opportunity to offer feedback on the Seafood Watch Fisheries Assessment Criteria during our current revision process. Before beginning this review, please familiarize yourself with all the documents available on our Standard review website.

Providing feedback, comments and suggestion This document contains the current version of the Seafood Watch criteria. “Guidance for public comment” sections have been inserted and highlighted, and various general and specific questions have been asked throughout. In certain sections, proposed changes have been noted using redlining for proposed new text and strikethrough for proposed deletion. Narrative descriptions and rationale for proposed changes are also described in the respective comment sections. Seafood Watch welcomes feedback and particularly suggestions for improvement on any aspect of the criteria. Please provide feedback, supported by references wherever possible in any sections of the criteria of relevance to your expertise.

Seafood Watch Ratings The Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries are used to produce assessments for wild-capture fisheries resulting in a Seafood Watch rating of Best Choice (green), Good Alternative (yellow), or Avoid (red). The assessment criteria are used to determine a final numerical score as well as numerical subscores and color ratings for each criterion. These scores are translated to a final Seafood Watch color rating according to the methodology described in the table below. The table also describes how Seafood Watch defines each of these categories. The narrative descriptions of each Seafood Watch color rating category, and the guiding principles listed below, compose the framework the criteria are based on, and should be considered when providing feedback on any aspect of the criteria.

Best Choice Final Score >3.21, and no Red Wild-caught and farm-raised seafood on the “Best Criteria, and no Critical2 scores Choice” list are ecologically sustainable, well managed

1 Each criterion is scored from 1 to 5 based on subfactor scores, as described in the document below. Criteria scoring <= 2.2 are considered “red” criteria. The final numerical score for the fishery is calculated as the geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4). 2 Very severe conservation concerns receive “critical” scores, which result in an Avoid recommendation.

Version October 22, 2014

and caught or farmed in ways that cause little or no harm to habitats or other wildlife. These operations align with all of our guiding principles. Good Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Wild-caught and farm-raised seafood on the “Good Alternative Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Alternative” list cannot be considered fully sustainable at Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) this time. They align with most of our guiding principles, are Very High Concern3, and no but there is either one conservation concern needing more than one Red Criterion, and no substantial improvement, or there is significant Critical scores, and does not meet uncertainty associated with the impacts of this fishery or the criteria for Best Choice (above) aquaculture operations. Avoid Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Wild-caught and farm-raised seafood on the “Avoid” list Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch are caught or farmed in ways that have a high risk of Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is causing significant harm to the environment. They do not Very High Concern, or two or more align with our guiding principles, and are considered Red Criteria, or one or more Critical unsustainable due to either a critical conservation scores. concern, or multiple areas where improvement is needed.

1. Follow the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management The fishery is managed to ensure the integrity of the entire ecosystem, rather than solely focusing on maintenance of single species stock productivity. To the extent allowed by the current state of the science, ecological interactions affected by the fishery are understood and protected, and the structure and function of the ecosystem is maintained. 2. Ensure all affected stocks4 are healthy and abundant Abundance, size, sex, age and genetic structure of the main species affected by the fishery (not limited to target species) is maintained at levels that do not impair recruitment or long-term productivity of the stocks or fulfillment of their role in the ecosystem and food web. Abundance of the main species affected by the fishery should be at, above, or fluctuating around levels that allow for the long-term production of maximum sustainable yield. 3. Fish all affected stocks at sustainable levels Fishing mortality for the main species affected by the fishery should be appropriate given current abundance and inherent resilience to fishing while accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty, and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation. The cumulative fishing mortality experienced by affected species must be at or below the level that produces maximum sustainable yield for single-species fisheries on typical species that are at target levels. Fishing mortality may need to be lower than the level that produces maximum sustainable yield in certain cases such as multispecies fisheries, highly vulnerable species, or fisheries with high uncertainty. For species that are depleted below target levels, fishing mortality must be at or below a level that allows the species to recover to its target abundance. 4. Minimize bycatch Seafood Watch defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, pre-catch mortality and

3 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3). 4 “Affected” stocks include all stocks affected by the fishery, no matter whether target or bycatch, or whether they are ultimately retained or discarded.

Version October 22, 2014

ghost fishing. All discards, including those released alive, are considered bycatch unless there is valid scientific evidence of high post-release survival and there is no documented evidence of negative impacts at the population level. The fishery optimizes the utilization of marine resources by minimizing post-harvest loss and by efficiently using marine resources as bait. 5. Have no more than a negligible impact on any threatened, endangered or protected species The fishery avoids catch of any threatened, endangered or protected (ETP) species. If any ETP species are inadvertently caught, the fishery ensures and can demonstrate that it has no more than a negligible impact on these populations. 6. The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all affected species. Management should be appropriate for the inherent resilience of affected marine life and should incorporate data sufficient to assess the affected species and manage fishing mortality to ensure little risk of depletion. Measures should be implemented and enforced to ensure that fishery mortality does not threaten the long-term productivity or ecological role of any species in the future. The management strategy has a high chance of preventing declines in stock productivity by taking into account the level of uncertainty, other impacts on the stock, and the potential for increased pressure in the future. The management strategy effectively prevents negative population impacts on bycatch species, particularly species of concern. 7. Avoid negative impacts on the structure, function or associated biota of marine habitats where fishing occurs. The fishery does not adversely affect the physical structure of the seafloor or associated biological communities. If high-impact gears (e.g. trawls, dredges) are used, vulnerable seafloor habitats (e.g. corals, seamounts) are not fished, and potential damage to the seafloor is mitigated through substantial spatial protection, gear modifications and/or other highly effective methods. 8. Maintain the trophic role of all marine life All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain a functioning ecosystem and food web, as informed by the best available science. 9. Do not result in harmful ecological changes such as reduction of dependent predator populations, trophic cascades, or phase shifts Fishing activities must not result in harmful changes such as depletion of dependent predators, trophic cascades, or phase shifts. This may require fishing certain species (e.g. forage species) well below maximum sustainable yield and maintaining populations of these species well above the biomass that produces maximum sustainable yield. 10. Ensure that any enhancement activities and fishing activities on enhanced stocks do not negatively affect the diversity, abundance or genetic integrity of wild stocks Any enhancement activities are conducted at levels that do not negatively affect wild stocks by reducing diversity, abundance or genetic integrity. Management of fisheries targeting enhanced stocks ensure that there are no negative impacts on the wild stocks, in line with the guiding principles described above, as a result of the fisheries. Enhancement activities do not negatively affect the ecosystem through density dependent competition or any other means, as informed by the best available science.

Version October 22, 2014

Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries

Public comment guidance - This section contains the standards preamble. We are not requesting specific feedback on this section, but feel free to comment on this general background information. Comment

The Monterey Bay Aquarium is committed to inspiring conservation of the oceans. To this end, Seafood Watch®, a program of the Monterey Bay Aquarium, researches and evaluates the sustainability of fisheries products and shares these seafood recommendations with the public and other interested parties in several forms, including regionally specific Seafood Watch pocket guides, smartphone apps and online at www.seafoodwatch.org.

The criteria laid out in this document allow assessment of the relative sustainability of wild-capture fisheries according to the guiding principles and conservation ethic of the Monterey Bay Aquarium. Farmed seafood sources are evaluated with a different set of criteria.

Seafood Watch® defines “sustainable seafood” as seafood from sources, whether fished or farmed, that can maintain or increase production without jeopardizing the structure and function of affected ecosystems. Sustainable wild-capture fisheries should ensure that the abundance of both targeted and incidentally caught species is maintained in the long term at levels that allow the species to fulfill its ecological role* while the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the habitat and ecosystem are all maintained. A management system should be in place that enforces all local, national and international laws to ensure long-term productivity of the resource and integrity of the ecosystem by adhering to the precautionary approach and responding to changing circumstances.

Scope Seafood Watch® recommendations apply to a single stock or species caught in a single fishery as defined by gear type, region and management body.

Version October 22, 2014

Table of Contents

Public comment guidance – The contents page provides an opportunity to see the full list of fisheries criteria. We welcome feedback on this list at the broad level of inclusion; i.e. are these the correct impact categories to be considering in an assessment of fisheries sustainability? Note that Seafood Watch does not currently intend to assess socioeconomic impacts and defers to other organizations with specific expertise, and that we are developing criteria to assess greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with up-to-the-dock or farmgate production of seafood products from fisheries and aquaculture (available for public comment in a separate document). Comment Addition to Criterion 1 Impact of ghost fishing on target species stocks

Addition to Criterion 2 Factor 2.5 Ghost fishing: Continued impacts on incidental species populations

Addition to Criterion 3 Factor 3.3 Management, retrieval, and accounting for lost gear

Introduction ...... 2 Providing feedback, comments and suggestion ...... 2 Seafood Watch Ratings...... 2 Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries ...... 5 Criterion 1 – Impacts on the Species Under Assessment ...... 8 Factor 1.1 Inherent Vulnerability ...... 9 Factor 1.2 Abundance ...... 12 Factor 1.3 Fishing Mortality ...... 19 Criterion 2 – Impacts on Other Species ...... 23 Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability ...... 26 Factor 2.2 Abundance ...... 28 Factor 2.3 Fishing Mortality ...... 30 Factor 2.4 Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use ...... 32 Criterion 3 – Management Effectiveness ...... 34 Factor 3.1 Harvest Strategy ...... 36 Factor 3.2 Bycatch Management Strategy ...... 42 Criterion 4 – Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem ...... 46 Factor 4.1a Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate ...... 47 Factor 4.2 4.1b Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts ...... 48 Factor 4.3 Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management ...... 50 Overall Score and Final Recommendation ...... 53 Glossary...... 55 References ...... 67 Appendices ...... 71

Version October 22, 2014

Appendix 1 – Further guidance on interpreting the health of stocks and fishing mortality ...... 71 Appendix 2 – Susceptibility attributes from the MSC FAM ...... 74 Appendix 3 – Matrix of bycatch impacts by gear type ...... 76 Appendix 4 – Appropriate management strategies ...... 86 Appendix 5 – Bycatch reduction approaches ...... 92 Appendix 6 – Impact of fishing gear on the substrate ...... 97 Appendix 7 – Gear modification table for bottom tending gears ...... 101 Appendix References ...... 102

Criterion 1 – Impacts on the Species Under Assessment

Public Comment Guidance for Criterion 1

Overview – Criterion 1 is used for scoring the impacts of the fishery on the stock being assessed. It incorporates both the current abundance of the stock (i.e., whether it is overfished), and the fishing mortality (i.e., whether overfishing is occurring). The combination of scores for abundance and fishing mortality determines the score for Criterion 1. In addition, the same factors are assessed for all other major species caught in the fishery (including other targeted species as well as bycatch). These other species are assessed under Criterion 2, but the factors are identical. Therefore, the factors detailed below have a particularly significant impact on the scoring of each fishery. These factors are also inherently complex as they take into account multiple considerations, including not just abundance and fishing mortality, but also inherent vulnerability of the species, uncertainty in the stock assessment or other data used to determine abundance and fishing mortality, and the degree to which a fishery is one of the substantial contributors to the cumulative fishing mortality experienced by a species.

Because of its significance and complexity, many of the proposed changes for this criterion review focus on the structure and language in Criterion 1.

Specific proposals are available under each of Factor 1.1 and Factor 1.2. Please see these respective sections and provide comments there.

Feedback no specific proposals for Factors 1.2 and 1.3 should be provided in the boxes under these respective factors. Please provide any general comments or suggestions regarding the structure of Criterion 1 below. Comments

Guiding principles

The stock* is healthy and abundant. Abundance, size, sex, age and genetic structure should be maintained at levels that do not impair the long-term productivity of the stock or fulfillment of its role in the ecosystem and food web.

Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given current abundance and inherent vulnerability to fishing while accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty, and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.

Assessment instructions

Evaluate Factors 1.1–1.3 under Criterion 1 to score the stock for which you want a recommendation. Evaluate Factors 2.1–2.4 under Criterion 2 to score all other main species in the fishery, including both 8

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

bycatch and retained species as well as any overfished, depleted, endangered, threatened or other species of concern that are regularly caught in the fishery.

Note that if wild stocks are assessed only in combination with hatchery-raised populations, the health of the wild stock cannot be considered better than “moderate concern”.

Factor 1.1 Inherent Vulnerability

Public Comment Guidance

Overview Factor 1.1 is used to score the inherent vulnerability of species caught in the fishery, which is then used in Factor 1.2 to determine whether a species’ abundance is considered a moderate or high concern, when stock status is unknown. We are proposing to integrate the current Factor 1.1 into Factor 1.2.

Specific Proposed Changes Factor 1.1 is currently assessed for all species to determine if they are “high”, “medium”, or “low” vulnerability; however, this factor is only relevant to the scoring if the stock status of the species is unknown, and then only if it is of “high” vulnerability (i.e. “medium” and “low” vulnerability species are scored the same). This results in unnecessary work for the assessor and causes confusion in the review process. We are proposing to combine Factor 1.1 with Factor 1.2 so that vulnerability will be assessed only for those species with unknown stock status. In addition, we are proposing several changes to how vulnerability will be assessed.

The text in Factor 1.1 below has been marked with strikethrough to denote that it will be removed from this section (and moved to Factor 1.2). Details and rationale for these proposed changes can be found under Factor 1.2, as that is where the assessment instructions will now reside.

Feedback Please provide feedback below on the option of integrating Factor 1.1 with Factor 1.2. To provide feedback on the specific language used in this factor, please see Factor 1.2 with the information now resides. Questions: 1. Do you believe it is a good idea to integrate Factor 1.1 with Factor 1.2, and score inherent vulnerability only when it will affect the overall score (i.e. when stock abundance is unknown)? Why or why not?

Comments:

Goal: Ensure fishing mortality and other management measures are appropriate for the inherent vulnerability of the stock.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Instructions: Where available, Seafood Watch uses FishBase “vulnerability” scores to assign a score for inherent vulnerability of the stock. The FishBase vulnerability score is derived from Cheung et al. (2005) and is found at www.fishbase.org on the species’ page.

FishBase vulnerability score Corresponding Seafood Watch inherent vulnerability category 0–35 Low inherent vulnerability 36–55 Moderate inherent vulnerability 56–100 High inherent vulnerability

Some fish and all invertebrates do not have a FishBase score. For these species, use the steps below (modified from the MSC Productivity Attributes from PSA Analysis used in Risk-Based Framework. Source (MSC 2009)).

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Step 1: Assign a score for each productivity attribute based on the table below. Scores will be 1, 2 or 3 for each attribute you select (if an attribute falls in between categories, intermediate scores (e.g. 2.5) may be used if well justified). Once all scores are selected, average the values to arrive at an overall vulnerability score (from 1–3). If any attribute is unknown or any value falls into an NA category (for moderate to high fecundity), that attribute is omitted from the average.

Resilience Fish Invertebrates attribute Score = Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = 3 1 Average age > 15 5–15 yrs < 5 yrs >15 yrs 5–15 yrs < 5 yrs at maturity yrs Average > 25 10–25 yrs < 10 yrs > 25 yrs 10–25 yrs < 10 yrs maximum age yrs Fecundity < 100 N/A N/A < 100 eggs/ yr NA NA eggs/ yr Average > 300 100–300 < 100 cm N/A N/A N/A maximum size cm cm Average size > 200 40-–200 < 40 cm N/A N/A N/A at maturity cm cm Reproductive Live Demersal Broadcast Live bearer Demersal egg Broadcast strategy bearer egg layer spawner layer or spawner brooder Trophic Level >3.25 2.75-3.25 <2.75 N/A N/A N/A Density N/A N/A N/A Depensatory No Compensatory dependence dynamics at depensatory or dynamics at low population compensatory low population sizes (Allee dynamics sizes effects) demonstrated demonstrated demonstrated or likely or likely or likely

Step 2: Assign a Seafood Watch inherent vulnerability category of high, medium or low based on the overall inherent vulnerability value calculated above (the average of all attribute scores):

Overall inherent vulnerability score from analysis Corresponding Seafood Finfish Invertebrates Watch inherent vulnerability category 2.44-3 2.46-3 Low inherent vulnerability 1.80-2.43 1.85-2.45 Moderate inherent vulnerability 1-1.79 1-1.84 High inherent vulnerability

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Factor 1.2 Abundance

Public comment guidance

Overview – Factor 1.2 scores the abundance of species caught in the fishery, including whether it is above or below limit and target reference points, if known, or classified as overfished, threatened or endangered. The score from Factor 1.2, combined with Factor 1.3 (which assesses fishing mortality), determines the score for Criterion 1 – Impact on the Species Under Assessment

Specific Proposed Changes We are proposing several changes to Factor 1.2 in order to 1) simplify and streamline its assessment, and 2) allow for consideration of circumstances that are not well captured by the current criteria. Specific proposed changes and their rationale are described below. The text changes proposed can be seen below in red (added text) and strikethrough (deleted text). Note: the text from Factor 1.1 has been moved to this section, but is not shown in red except where we are proposing changes to the text that was previously in Factor 1.2.

Inherent vulnerability – As described under Factor 1.1 in this document, we are proposing integrating the inherent vulnerability calculation (currently under Factor 1.1.) with Factor 1.2, as inherent vulnerability is only used in conjunction with scoring abundance (when abundance is unknown). This will help streamline assessments and avoid unnecessary work and confusion associated with assessing inherent vulnerability when (in most cases) it does not affect the score. In addition, we are proposing a change to how inherent vulnerability is calculated. Our current criteria have two methods of assessing inherent vulnerability – 1) using fishbase whenever a fishbase vulnerability score is available, and 2) using a productivity scoring table (based on Productivity- Susceptibility Analysis methodology) for invertebrates or any fish which do not have a fishbase vulnerability score. However, in practice we have found that the fishbase score is often quite conservative compared both to the PSA score and to expert opinion. We conducted a detailed analysis to compare various published PSA approaches (productivity attributes only; susceptibility is considered under 1.3) with expert opinion and based on the results, we are proposing a combination approach that uses the fishbase score as an initial filter (as fishbase score is always conservative according to our assessment) and then further scores those species that are high vulnerability according to fishbase, using the productivity attributes from the PSA methodology published in Field et al. 2010 to determine their final vulnerability score. This methodology was found in our assessment to have the closest correlation with species-specific expert input.

Reducing table from five to four classification tiers (removal of “very high concern” category) Currently, Factor 1.2 has five classification tiers ranging from “very high concern” (score of 1/5) to “very low concern” (score of 5/5). Stocks classified as “overfished” are classified as “high concern”, while those that are endangered or threatened are classified as “very high concern”. In practice, we have found that this distinction is not always as clear as it needs to be to support the differential scoring. For example, some species (e.g. Pacific bluefin tuna) are very severely depleted (e.g. below 5% of virgin biomass) but are not listed as endangered or threatened, perhaps because the information on their status is relatively new, or for political reasons. Others may be listed as endangered but new data shows that their population is recovering, yet there has not been enough time and/or enough data for delisting. These species are still of concern, but not any higher concern than severely

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

depleted species that are not listed. Finally, differences in procedures for listing species in different states and nations, combined with the often poor fit of international classification systems (e.g. IUCN) with finfish species, further complicates the distinction. As a result, we propose combining these categories.

The change from 5 to 4 categories will streamline the assessments, but potential changes to scoring for overfished and endangered species needs to be considered. Scoring is always scaled linearly from 1 to 5, with the lowest category scored at a 1 (with the exception of critical concerns); therefore, the proposal adjusts the scoring accordingly. While this may appear to result in lower scores, we are proposing concomitant changes to the scoring of Factor 1.3, and the scoring must be considered together. To illuminate this complex issue, we have provided a separate comment section with guidance and examples specifically on scoring of Criterion 1, and ask for your feedback on the scoring there. In this section, please provide any comments on the proposal to group overfished and endangered/threatened species together in the “high concern” category.

Consideration of trend data for species below target biomass levels – In the current criteria, stocks that are above a limit reference point but below a target reference point are scored a “low concern”. This is to avoid overly penalizing fisheries that have rebuilding stocks, especially when rebuilding may take time but the fishery has already implemented strong management, and to account for the consideration that even in well managed fisheries, stocks will fluctuate around target reference points but should not go below limit reference points. However, we have found this structure is not appropriate for the situation in which a stock is below target reference point but showing a clear declining trend, approaching the limit reference point. In such cases, we feel higher caution is warranted. As such, we are proposing that stocks in this situation are classified as a “moderate concern”.

Classifying high vulnerability, data-poor species – In the current criteria, high vulnerability species are classified as high concern under 1.2 if stock status is completely unknown. If there are data demonstrating that the stock is not overfished, they are classified as a low concern. We have found that these criteria do not account for cases where there may be some data indicating the species is not depleted (and therefore it is not appropriate to score as a “high concern”), but the data are not sufficient (due to high uncertainty, lack of stock assessment, etc.) to conclude the stock is necessarily a “low concern”. We are proposing adding guidance to the criteria to allow for scoring as a “moderate concern” in these cases.

Feedback: please comment below on these proposed changes as well as any other comments on this factor (including comments on inherent vulnerability). Please see specific questions for public consultation below as well.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Comments on above proposed changes

Questions for public consultation

1. Do you think it is appropriate to score inherent vulnerability: a) only when stock status is unknown (as proposed here), b) for all assessed species, or c) not at all?

2. Please provide any thoughts on the proposal for scoring inherent vulnerability.

3. In some cases, we have used expert opinion to override the fishbase score where that score was deemed to be inaccurate for a given species. Even though using the fishbase score as a filter combined with the Field et al 2010 productivity metric is expected to provide better correspondence to expert opinion, this method for scoring vulnerability may still disagree with expert opinion in some cases. In such cases, do you believe it is ever advisable to override the vulnerability score based on expert opinion? If so, in what circumstances would you seek expert opinion and use it as the basis of the ranking rather than using the method defined in the criteria?

4. The NMFS methodology (currently under development/not yet finalized) uses a combination of sensitivity attributes and climate factors as expert opinion to assess vulnerability of a fish stock to climate change, and is referred to as the “Fish Stock Climate Vulnerability Assessment”. A description of the methodology can be found here: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/ecosystems/climate/activities/assessing-vulnerability-of fish-stocks.

A 1 page fact sheet can be found here: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/ecosystems/climate/documents/Fish_Stock_Climate _Vulnerability_Assessment.pdf

Do you feel this index, once developed, should be integrated into our assessment of inherent vulnerability? If so, how?

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

5. We are hoping to provide further clarification and guidance on what level and type of uncertainty should be considered evidence that a stock should be scored “low” rather than “very low”, or “moderate” rather than “low concern”. Considerations may include age of the stock assessment, availability of fishery independent vs fishery dependent (e.g. CPUE) data, scientific controversy, etc. Please provide any suggestions or feedback on these considerations, or additional considerations for measuring uncertainty?

6. We have received mixed feedback from scientific advisors as to whether or not any full stock assessment should be considered as valid (i.e. low uncertainty), with “high uncertainty” reserved or situations that lack stock assessments but may have other information such as FAO status available. What is your opinion? If you do not believe all stock assessments are low uncertainty please share any thoughts on how to rate the quality of stock assessments based on considerations such as model type, validity of and sensitivity to model inputs, confidence intervals of model outputs, etc.

7. Do you have any feedback on the proposal to eliminate the “very high concern” category?

8. Do you have any feedback on the proposal to use trend data to distinguish between stocks that are rebuilding, versus those that are below target levels and declining?

9. If you agree with using trend data as described above, do you have any suggested guidance for determining a declining trend (e.g., time period, whether decline must be monotonic, what method to use for determining if it is statistically significant, threshold rate of decline (steepness or slope) etc.?)

10. Do you believe that it would be appropriate to score highly vulnerable species with weak evidence that they are not overfished as a “moderate concern”, rather than as a “low concern” (as lower vulnerability species would score) or “high concern” (as high vulnerability species currently are scored in cases where there are no clear data on abundance relative to reference points)?

Any other comments

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Step 1: If species is of unknown abundance, assess its vulnerability. If species is of known abundance, vulnerability does not need to be assessed, and you can continue to Step 2.

1a: If a FishBase “vulnerability” score is available, use this score to continue as follows: Note: The FishBase vulnerability score is derived from Cheung et al. (2005) and is found at www.fishbase.org on the species’ page.

FishBase Corresponding Seafood Watch Action vulnerability score inherent vulnerability category 0–55 Low to moderate inherent Continue to Step 2. vulnerability 56–100 Inherent vulnerability may be Continue to Step 1b. high No fishbase score Inherent vulnerability may be Continue to Step 1b. high

1b: For species that have a “high” vulnerability classification under fishbase, or no fishbase score, continue with the PSA approach below (adopted from Field et al. 2010) to classify its vulnerability.

Assign a score for each productivity attribute based on the table below. Scores will be 1, 2 or 3 for each attribute you select (if an attribute falls in between categories, intermediate scores (e.g. 2.5) may be used if well justified). Once all scores are selected, average the values to arrive at an overall vulnerability score (from 1–3). If any attribute is unknown or any value falls into an NA category (for moderate to high fecundity), that attribute is omitted from the average.

Resilience Fish Invertebrates attribute Score Score = 2 Score = 3 Score = 1 Score = 2 Score = 3 = 1 Average age > 4 yrs 2-4 yrs < 2 yrs >15 yrs 5–15 yrs < 5 yrs at maturity Average > 40 20-40 yrs < 20 yrs > 25 yrs 10–25 yrs < 10 yrs 16

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

maximum yrs age Fecundity < 100 N/A N/A < 100 eggs/ N/A N/A eggs/ yr yr Average > 80 40-80 cm < 40 cm N/A N/A N/A maximum cm size Reproductiv Live Demersal Broadcast Live bearer Demersal egg Broadcast e strategy bear egg layer spawner layer or spawner er brooder Trophic Level >3.5 2.5-3.5 <2.5 N/A N/A N/A Von 0.10- N/A N/A N/A < 0.10 > 0.20 Bertalanffy 0.20 Growth (K) Natural 0.10- N/A N/A N/A < 0.10 > 0.20 Mortality 0.20 Rate (M) Density N/A N/A N/A Depen- No Compen dependence satory depensatory satory dynamics at or compen dynamics at low satory low population dynamics population sizes (Allee demon- sizes demon- effects) strated or strated or demon- likely likely strated or likely

Assign a Seafood Watch inherent vulnerability category of high, medium or low based on the overall inherent vulnerability value calculated above (the average of all attribute scores):

Step 2: Score according to chart below. If species is of unknown abundance, use the vulnerability category calculated above.

Conservation Description Score Concern 17

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Very Low There is a reliable quantitative stock assessment, and biomass is estimated to 5 be above or fluctuating around an appropriate target reference point with no low uncertainty scientific controversy around that estimate, or Stock is at or very near its historic high or virgin biomass. or Species is non-native Low Stock is classified as not overfished but quantitative stock assessment is 4 lacking, 3.67 or Biomass is above the limit reference point but may be below a target reference point, and there is not a clear declining trend over >1 generation time or Biomass is above the limit reference point and may be estimated to be above a target reference point, but there is significant uncertainty (e.g., widely varied results depending on model or assumptions) or scientific controversy around that estimate or around the suitability of the reference point, and species is not highly vulnerable Moderate There is no evidence to suggest that stock is either above or below reference 3 2.3 points; Unknown and Stock inherent vulnerability is not high moderate or 3 low (as scored in Factor 1.1).

Species is above a limit reference point but below a target reference point, and there is a clear declining trend over >1 generation time,

There is conflicting information about stock status (e.g., IUCN listing disagrees with stock assessment), and there is no clear reason to suggest one set of information is more valid

Species is highly vulnerable AND stock status is not known, or is highly uncertain (i.e. there is no quantitative, robust stock assessment) but there are some data indicating status is not of concern (e.g. increasing population trends, IUCN least concern status, or a stock assessment indicating stock is above a limit reference point, but with high uncertainty) High Probable that stock is below the limit reference point, 2 1 or Stock is listed by management body as overfished or depleted, or is a stock

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

or species of concern (as listed by state or federal management body), an IUCN Near Threatened or Vulnerable species, or equivalent, or There is no evidence to suggest that stock is either above or below reference points; Unknown and Stock inherent vulnerability is high (as scored in Factor 1.1). OR Stock or species is determined by a state, national or international scientific body to be endangered or threatened. Very High Stock or species is listed by a state, national or international scientific body 1 as endangered or threatened.

Factor 1.3 Fishing Mortality

Public Comments Guidance

Overview – Factor 1.3 assessing whether fishing mortality for each species caught in the fishery is at an appropriate level (defined as at or below maximum sustainable yield, or an equivalent proxy). Because these same criteria are used to assess not only targeted species, but also bycatch species (under Criterion 2.3), it is necessary to provide guidance even for species that may be a relatively minor component of the catch and also are impacted by other fisheries. We distinguish between whether or not the fishery under assessment is a “substantial contributor” (which includes all target fisheries, as well as those that are one of the main contributors to fishing mortality experienced by a species; see glossary definition).

In addition to providing separate tables for assessing species depending on whether or not the fishery is a “substantial contributor” to mortality, the current criteria also integrate information on whether the stock is depleted, and management is in place. One goal of this proposal is to streamline this factor by focusing solely on fishing mortality. In addition, we are proposing to combine the “low” and “very low” concern in order to further simplification assessment of this factor.

Specific Proposed Changes: 1. Simplification of the fishing mortality table – Depleted status and whether management is in place when overfishing is occurring are accounted for in other criteria (1.2 and 3.1 respectively). Including those criteria here double-counts these issues and makes this factor unnecessarily complex. We have removed the language regarding these issues in this proposal below. We have checked that these considerations are adequately addressed in factors 1.2 and 3.1. For example, a fishery that has catch of a depleted species, experiencing overfishing, without sufficient management will get a “poor” in management criterion 3.1 which functions as a “critical” (i.e. determines an overall Avoid ranking); therefore, the separate critical score here is not needed. See the separate comment box on Scoring of Criterion 1 for examples of how these fisheries would score under the current and proposed new criteria. Combining low and very low concern categories – Currently, the probability that overfishing is not occurring is used to distinguish “very low concern” from “low concern”. In practice, this information is often not available and it can be difficult to distinguish between “low” and “very

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

low” concern. When they are distinguished, “low concern” species often end up scored too harshly. These species are still considered to be at a level where fishing mortality isn’t threatening the population, yet because they receive a decreased score for Factor 1.3, they may receive a low yellow or even a red score when the species is endangered or overfished (this is primarily a concern for fisheries that have a low, but not negligible, bycatch of overfished or endangered species, which is not adversely impacting that species but still greatly lowers the overall score for the fishery). Combining the categories so that all species with fishing mortality

at or below a sustainable level (i.e. FMSY or equivalent) get full credit would help rectify this scoring concern as well as simplify assessments. See the separate comment box on Scoring of Criterion 1 for examples of how fisheries would score under the current and proposed new criteria. Guidance for alternative reference points – Our current criteria are based on MSY-based reference points, and there is guidance in the appendices that reference points that are not as

conservative as FMSY should not be considered equivalent. However, we felt this guidance needed to be more clearly stated in the criteria table itself to provide more consistency in the common situation that other reference points are used. We have proposed adding language to the “moderate concern” category to account for the case where F is below a reference point,

but that reference point is known to be less precautionary than FMSY. In this case, whether fishing mortality is at a sustainable level must be considered unknown.

Feedback – please provide comments on the proposed changes, and any other comments on this factor, in the box below. Questions for Public Comment 1. Please provide any thoughts on the simplification of Factor 1.3 by removing references to the abundance status and management of a species:

2. Please provide any feedback on the proposal to combine the “low concern” and “very low concern” categories:

Any Other Comments 1.3.1 Impact of ghost gear on target species The need to reduce the amount of fishing gear that is lost is recognized in the international Codes of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries developed by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Furthermore, within the EU’s Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) there is a clear legal basis for taking measures to address ghost fishing given the direct impacts on fish stocks and the wider marine environment. For example, in the Chesapeake Bay over 32,000 lost or abandoned crab pots accumulated over a four year period.1 It is estimated that 1.25

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

million blue crabs are caught annually by abandoned or lost crab pots, in addition to 30 other species including black sea bass, oyster toadfish, Atlantic croaker, flounder, and rare diamondback terrapins.2

There remain significant gaps in knowledge about ghost fishing. Some fisheries have not yet been researched at all, and due to the costs and practical difficulties of underwater survey work and of simulating ghost catches through experiments, estimates of ghost catch rates are imprecise. However, there is sufficient data for certain models and extrapolations to be developed. In terms of the comparison of ghost net catches compared to active catches, over the course of one year, ghost catches for one fleet (i.e. a combination of net panels) are estimated at 15% of the catches made by a similar fleet under the control of a fishermen (assuming nets are fished for 200 days per year). Over a one-year period these ghost catches also represent 5% of the total active catches made for each vessel; i.e. from all the fleets of nets used by that vessel.3

Preventative measures are generally preferable to curative measures because, by preventing gear loss, they can prevent the potentially high costs associated with ghost catches immediately after gear loss from occurring in the first place.

1 Bilkovic, D.m., Havens, K.j., Stanhope, D.m., & Angstadt K.t. (2012). Use of fully biodegradable panels to reduce derelict pot threats to marine fauna. Center for Coastal Studies, Virginia Institute of Marine Science, College of William & Mary. ‘Conservation Biology’, Volume 27, No. 6, 957-966 2 ibid 3 Brown, J, G. Macfadyen, T. Huntington, J. Magnus and J. Tumilty (2005). Ghost Fishing by Lost Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. Fish/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd joint report.

Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for current state of the stock.

NOTE: Ratings are based on fishing mortality/exploitation rate, e.g., F/FMSY. For the purposes of this table, a stock is deemed “not depleted” if rated as Very Low to Moderate Conservation Concern under 1.2; and is deemed “depleted” if rated as High to Very High Conservation Concern under 1.2. When determining whether a fishery is a substantial contributor, and/or whether fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, err on the side of caution when there is uncertainty. For further guidance, see Appendix 1 (guidance on evaluating fishing mortality).

For Target Species or When Fishery is a substantial contributor to Mortality (include cases where fishery is one of many fisheries that equally contribute to overall mortality) Conservation Description Score Concern Very Low • Highly likely that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level that will 5 Concern allow population to maintain current level or rebuild if depleted, OR • Large proportion of population is protected. [NOTE: large proportion protected suffices only if not depleted], OR • Species is non-native Low Concern • Probable (>50% chance) that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable 3.67 level that will allow population to maintain current level or rebuild if 5 depleted, but some uncertainty, OR • Population trends are increasing in short and long term due to

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

management, OR • Large proportion of population is protected. [NOTE: large proportion protected suffices only if not depleted], OR • Species is non-native Moderate • F is fluctuating around FMSY, OR 2.33 Concern • F is unknown, but for any depleted populations, effective management is in 3 place [Note: If F is unknown and population is depleted, effective management must be in place to get ‘moderate’ score]

• F is below reference point but reference point is less conservative than FMSY

High Concern • Overfishing is occurring/cumulative fishing pressure may be too high to 1 allow species to maintain abundance or recover, but for any depleted populations, management that is reasonably expected to curtail overfishing is in place (make sure does not meet critical rating below), OR • F is unknown, population is depleted, and no effective management in place Critical Overfishing is occurring/cumulative fishing pressure may be too high to allow 0 species to maintain abundance or recover; population is depleted; and reasonable management to reduce fishing mortality/curtail overfishing is not in place.

For non-target species in which fishery contribution to mortality may be low or unknown Conservation Description Score Concern Very Low • Fishery’s contribution to mortality is negligible, OR 5 Concern • Meets definition of “Very Low Concern” in table above Low Concern • Fishery contribution to mortality may not be is negligible, or but does not 3.67 adversely affect population, OR 5 • F and/or Fishery contribution is unknown, but population is not depleted and susceptibility (see Appendix 2) to fishery is low, OR • Meets “Low concern” in table above. Moderate Fishery contribution F is unknown, but population may be depleted (and if so, 2.33 Concern management is in place) or susceptibility to fishery is moderate to high 3 (see Appendix 2) High Concern Cumulative overfishing is occurring, fishery contribution is unknown, 1 and susceptibility to fishery is moderate to high (see Appendix 2) but population is depleted and no reasonable management to curtail overfishing is in place.

Criterion 1 Score and Rating

Public Comment Guidance – Scoring of Criterion 1.

Both Factor 1.2 and Factor 1.3 contain proposals to simplify assessments by reducing the number of scoring categories and adjusting the numerical scores (which are scaled linearly from 1 to 5) accordingly. Because scores are assigned for Criterion 1 based on the geometric mean of Factor 1.2 and Factor 1.3,

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

these proposed changes would interact to affect the score and color (red, yellow or green) rating for Criterion 1. Below we have included some examples of how hypothetical fisheries would score under the current criteria as well as with the proposed changes.

Description of hypothetical fishery Current Criteria Rating Proposed Criteria (Score) Rating (Score) Bycatch species that is endangered, and is caught Red (1.92) Yellow (2.24) infrequently or at a level that does not adversely affect the species (but catch is not “negligible”) Overfished species with overfishing occurring Red (1.41)/Critical (0) Red (1) depending on management Stock status and fishing mortality are unknown Yellow (2.63) Yellow (2.64) Species that is below target but above limit Yellow (3.05) Green (3.29) reference point and increasing, fishing mortality is unknown Species that is below target but above limit Yellow (3.05) Yellow (2.63) reference point and decreasing, fishing mortality is unknown

Feedback: Please provide any feedback on these scoring examples in the box below. Comments:

Score = geometric mean (Factors 1.2, 1.3). Factor 1.1 is not included in the calculation; instead it modifies the score of Factor 1.2 in some circumstances (See Factor 1.2 table for more information).

Rating is based on the Score as follows: • >3.2 = Green • >2.2 and <=3.2 = Yellow • <=2.2 = Red

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 is Critical. Criterion 2 – Impacts on Other Species

Guiding principles

The fishery minimizes bycatch. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, pre-catch mortality and ghost fishing. All discards, including those released alive, are considered 23

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

bycatch unless there is valid scientific evidence of high post-release survival and there is no documented evidence of negative impacts at the population level.

Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given each impacted species’ abundance and productivity, accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.

Assessment instructions

Public Comment Guidance - Criterion 2 Instructions

Overview – Criterion 2 is assessed using the same criteria as Criterion 1, but is applied to bycatch and other main species that are caught together in the fishery with the species under assessment (but see specific guidelines for marine mammals, and for cases where bycatch species are unknown). The most challenging aspect of assessing Criterion 2 is determining which species need to be included for assessment. All “main species” are currently required to be fully assessed. This can be a very intensive effort, and the score for Criterion 2 is determined solely by the “worst case” species.

Specific Proposals – Though we do not have specific proposals for defining “main species” yet, we intend that a focus of the criteria review will be revisiting the definition of “main species” to determine a better filter for which species need to be assessed (specifically, one that is easier to assess even in data- limited situations), and one which would streamline assessments by helping analysts to assess only the key species that are likely to limit the score for Criterion 2 (without running the risk of overlooking a potential limiting species).

Feedback – at this time we are seeking all comments and suggestions for how to fine-tune this approach. Please provide comments below.

Questions: Please provide suggested changes to the definition of “main species” (see current definition below):

Please provide other suggestions for how to determine which species need to be assessed (i.e. suggest an alternative approach to defining “main species”, assessing each of them and basing the score on the lowest scoring species):

Other comments:

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

The Criterion 2 score for the stock for which you want a recommendation is the lowest score of all the other main species caught with it, multiplied by the discard rate. A species is included in the assessment as a main species if: • The catch of the species in the fishery under assessment composes >5% of that fishery’s catch, or • The species is >1% of that fishery’s catch and the fishery causes >5% of the species’ total mortality across all fisheries, or • The species is <1% of that fishery’s catch and the fishery causes >20% of species’ total mortality across all fisheries, or • The species is overfished, depleted, a stock of concern, endangered, threatened, IUCN Near Threatened, US MMPA strategic species, and/or subject to overfishing and the fishery causes >1% of species’ total mortality across all fisheries. • If there are no other “main species” (based on the above guidance) besides the one assessed under criterion 1, but the total catch of other discarded and retained species is >5% (i.e. catch of criterion 1 species is <95% of total), assess the top 3 species by volume of catch (if there are only 1-2 other species caught, assess those species).

In some cases, bycatch or retained species in the fishery are not known. If species are unknown, Appendix 3 should be used to aid scoring. If some bycatch or retained species are known but information is incomplete (e.g., some or all retained species are recorded but bycatch species are not), assess each known species following guidance for “known species” and assess the fishery following guidance for “unknown species” under each Factor. Scoring for this criterion is based on the worst case, so the lowest of these scores will be used.

If there is no bycatch and no other species landed, the fishery receives a score of five for this criterion, the remaining questions in Criterion 2 can be skipped, and the assessor can continue with Criterion 3.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability

Public Comment Guidance: This factor is based on Factor 1.1, with additional guidance provided for cases where there is bycatch of unknown species. As we are proposing to integrate Factor 1.1 into Factor 1.2, the same proposal applies here (to integrate Factor 2.1 into Factor 2.2).

Feedback – please provide any comments specific to Factor 2.1 (based on text below) here. If you have comments on the suggestions for Factor 1.1 or for integrating Factor 1.1/2.1 into Factor 2.1/2.2 as described in the Factor 1.1 section, please comment under Factor 1.1 Comments Modifying factor: Ghost fishing gear There is a growing body of evidence to show that abandoned lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear (ALDFG), also known as ‘ghost gear’, poses significant risk to high-vulnerability taxa including marine mammals, turtles, sharks, seabirds. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) conservatively estimate that 640,000 tons of fishing gear are left in oceans globally each year1, persisting in the environment for up to 600 years. Ghost fishing gear has large-scale impacts on marine biodiversity through habitat disturbance and the effects of ghost fishing. It causes direct harm to the conservation of marine animals via entanglement and/or ingestion2. World Animal Protection estimates that 136,000 pinnipeds and cetaceans are entangled annually in ghost fishing gear (in addition to an inestimable number of birds, turtles, and fish) 3. Some nets/pots continue to catch fish and crustaceans more than eight years after being lost4. For example, 870 ghost fishing nets retrieved in Puget Sound, Washington contained more than 32,000 marine animals, including over 500 birds and mammals5. Based on these data, a mortality rate model for ghost gear entanglement led to the development of the following extrapolation:

Mortality rate for animals entangled annually in Puget Sound

Ways to mitigate the impacts of ghost fishing to vulnerable incidental species include the following:

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

• Fishing vessels that have lost gear must report the loss specifying gear type and best approximate location within 24 hours of realization of the loss. State legislation passed in Washington in 2012 (SB 5661) mandating the reporting of lost gear to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife serves as an excellent model for this policy. • Fishing vessels that have sighted an entangled mammal, shark, seabird, or sea turtle should be required to report entangled animals to the relevant authorities who can facilitate a rescue operation. NOAA and stranding networks such as Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, The Marine Mammal Center, and the Northwest Straights Foundation are examples of groups well-placed to provide assistance in the rescue and disentanglement of marine animals and we would therefore welcome notification in these situations. However, reporting should be encouraged (preferably required) irrespective of whether rescue is deemed possible, in order to document the scale and nature of the marine animal entanglement problem at sea. • Fisheries should seek out collaborative opportunities on the issue of ghost fishing, such as the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, to share best practices contacts with similarly impacted fisheries.

1 Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T. & Cappell, R. (2009) Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper, No. 523. Rome, UNEP/FAO. 2 Butterworth, A., Clegg, I. & Bass, C. (2012) Untangled – Marine debris: a global picture of the impact on animal welfare and of animal-focused solutions. London: World Society for the Protection of Animals 3 World Animal Protection (2014) Fishing’s Phantom Menace; How ghost fishing gear is endangering our sea life. London: World Animal Protection 4 Brown, J. G., Macfadyen, T., Huntington, J. M. & Tumilty, J (2005) Ghost Fishing by Lost Fishing Gear. Final Report to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission. Fish/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Poseidon Aquatic Resource Management Ltd joint report. 5 Northwest Straights Initiative (2011) Program accomplishments 2002 – Present. Retrieved 8 April 2014 from http://derelictgear.org/Progress.aspx

Goal: Ensure fishing mortality and other management measures are appropriate for the inherent vulnerability of all bycatch stock(s).

Known species

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Follow the assessment for Factor 1.1 above (the Factors for Inherent Vulnerability, Stock Status and Fishing Mortality are identical for all main species caught in the fishery, whether target, other retained or discarded).

Unknown species

Where the catch composition is not completely known, use Appendix 3 to identify those taxa that are most likely to interact substantially with the fishing gear, defined as taxa scoring a 3.5 or below. The numbers in the unknown bycatch matrix will be used extensively for scoring Criterion 2.3.

Vulnerability is assigned to the taxa that are identified as interacting with the fishery as follows:

High = marine mammals, turtles, sharks, seabirds, deepwater and shallow biogenic habitat (seagrass beds, coral, sponges, etc.). Moderate = invertebrates and fish.

Factor 2.2 Abundance

Public Comment Guidance: This factor is based on Factor 1.2, with additional guidance for cases where there is bycatch of unknown species.

Feedback – please provide any comments specific to Factor 2.2 (based on text below) here. If you have comments on the suggestions for Factor 1.2, please comment under Factor 1.2. Comments

Goal: Stock abundance and size structure of all main bycatch species/stocks is maintained at a level that does not impair recruitment or productivity.

Known species

Follow the assessment for Factor 1.2 above (the Factors for Inherent Vulnerability, Stock Status and Fishing Mortality are identical for all main species caught in the fishery, whether target, other retained or discarded).

Unknown species

If bycatch species and/or other retained species are unknown, use Appendix 3, the unknown bycatch matrix, and additional bycatch guidance (in Appendix 3) to determine the types of taxa that are likely to interact with the fishery based on gear type and location. Factor 2.2 is scored as “moderate concern” for each taxon listed in Appendix 3 for this type of fishery with a score of 3.5 or below unless the taxon is comprised largely of species that are either of high vulnerability as scored in Factor 2.1, or overfished, endangered or threatened within the range of the fishery (e.g., sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals and sharks); in these cases, it is scored as “high concern.” Species scoring a 4 or above do not need to be addressed.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Factor 2.3 Fishing Mortality

Public Comment Guidance for Factor 2.3

Overview – Generally, Criterion 2.3 follows the structure of Criterion 1.3, and the same changes proposed there will be applicable here as well. In addition, there is special guidance for marine mammals which have quantitative information and classifications when caught in US fisheries (managed under the Marine Mammal Protection Act). We are proposing one minor change to this special guidance.

Specific Proposal – SFW has determined that the guidance here is overly harsh in cases where total mortality for a species does not exceed its Potential Biological Removal (PBR). In these cases, a fishery may be scored “moderate” in some instances; however, in all cases if PBR is not exceeded by cumulative fishing mortality, then the mortality is at a sustainable level, and thus a “low concern” would be most appropriate. Here we propose an edit such that all species that are experiencing cumulative fishing mortality levels below PBR are scored as a “low concern” for Factor 2.3 for all fisheries that interact with them. We also propose removing references to the “very low concern” category, as we are proposing removing that category from 2.3 altogether.

Feedback – Please provide comments on this proposed change below: Question Please provide any comments on the proposal to refine the guidance for marine mammals, as described above and shown in redlining below:

Any Other Comments on 2.3:

Goal: Fishing mortality is appropriate for the current state of all main bycatch species/stocks.

Known species

Follow the assessment for Factor 1.3 above (the Factors for Inherent Vulnerability, Stock Status and Fishing Mortality are identical for all main species caught in the fishery, whether target, other retained or discarded).

Additional guidance for scoring of marine mammals caught in US fisheries is given below (due to the availability of data on potential biological removal (PBR) and fishing mortality rates on all bycaught marine mammals, available in marine mammal stock assessments and List of Fisheries reports, see http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/interactions/lof/)

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

% of PBR taken by fishery Stock is “strategic” due to Seafood Watch Rating Fishery category in “List cumulative fisheries of Fisheries” (based on mortality >100% PBR? that species) <1% No Very Low Category III 1-10% No Very Low Cat II (if cumulative take >10%) or III (if cumulative take <=10%) 10-50% No Low Cat II 50-100% No Moderate Low Cat I <5% Yes Very Low Cat III 5-10% and not one of the Yes Low Cat II main contributors to total mortality 10-50% and not one of the Yes Moderate Cat II main contributors to total mortality >50% OR a main Yes High OR Critical depending Cat I contributor to total on management fisheries-related mortality If PBR or fishery mortality relative to PBR is not known, score conservatively given what is known (e.g., fishery and/or species classification) or score as “moderate”. Example: if it is unknown but fishery is classified as Category II and species is not strategic, score as “low”.

Unknown species

If bycatch and/or other retained species are unknown, use Appendix 3, the unknown bycatch matrix, and additional bycatch guidance (in Appendix 3) to determine the types of taxa that are likely to interact with the fishery based on gear type and location. Each score from Appendix 3 has a corresponding fishing mortality conservation concern (below).

* Appendix 3, the unknown bycatch matrix and additional guidance for unknown bycatch species should ONLY be used as a general guide to help rate bycatch potential (for Factor 2.3, mortality caused by the fishery) when no data on the composition of bycatch are available. In these cases, Appendix 3 provides guidance based on gear-type and its potential to interact with species other than the target fishery, as reported in the scientific literature. When assigning a conservation concern for unknown bycatch, other factors to consider before using the unknown bycatch matrix include: geographic range of the fishery, degree of overlap, if any (with foraging areas, breeding grounds, etc.) there is between fishing and potential bycatch species, fishing depth, whether the fishery is operating in coastal (some coastal areas may have a greater impacts on some species) or open-ocean systems, whether the fishery operates seasonally and coincides with breeding season, and other concerns based on fishing region and the conservation concern for the potential bycatch species. Species with scores above 3.5 from the unknown bycatch matrix do not need to be addressed.

Bycatch score from Moderate Concern High Concern species status (under 2.2) Appendix 3 (1–5) species status (under 2.2) 3-3.5 Low Concern Low Concern 2-2.5 Moderate Concern Moderate Concern 31

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

1 High Concern • High concern, if there are some efforts, believed to be effective, to reduce mortality • Critical, if there are no effective efforts to reduce mortality

Factor 2.4 Modifying Factor: Discards and Bait Use

Public Comment Guidance: Another goal of the criteria review, with respect to Criterion 2, will be to collaborate with the aquaculture team regarding the scoring for discard rates and bait use (Factor 2.4) to ensure that there is consistency with the scoring of feed use in aquaculture reports. In addition, because bait use is considered in 2.4 but is rarely quantified, we aim to provide default scores for bait use, based on literature review, for a variety of fishery types (target species and gear). We will provide an opportunity to override these default scores if data specific to the fishery can be provided.

Please provide any comments on these ideas or the current text of Factor 2.4 below.

Comments

Goal: Fishery optimizes the utilization of marine resources by minimizing post-harvest loss and by efficiently using marine resources as bait.

Instructions: This weighting factor is addressed once for each fishery under assessment. Ascertain whether bycatch species are known or not. Both bait and dead discards are considered relative to total landings. This ratio refers to the total dead discards and/or bait use relative to total landings of all species caught in the fishery. The discard mortality rate is generally assumed to be 100% (i.e., all discards count as dead discards). Exceptions include cases where research has demonstrated high post- release survival, including invertebrates caught in pots and traps. Research that demonstrates high post- release survival for the same or similar species caught with the same or comparable gear types may qualify as showing high post-release survival. When discard mortality rates are known, multiply these rates by the amount of discards for the relevant species to determine the amount of dead discards. If the bycatch:landings ratio and/or bait use are unknown, refer to average bycatch rates for similar fisheries (based on gear type, target species and/or location) as given in review papers (e.g., Kelleher 2005 and Alverson et al. 1994). Bait use, if unknown, need only be addressed in cases where it is likely to be substantial relative to landings (e.g., lobster pot fishery). Err on the side of caution when there is no information.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Amount of dead discards plus bait use relative to total landings (in biomass or numbers of fish, whichever is higher)

Ratio of bait + Factor 2.4 discards/landings score

< 20% 1 20–40% 0.95 40–60% 0.9 60–80% 0.85 80–100% 0.8 >100% 0.75

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Criterion 2 Score and Rating

Criterion 2 Score for the stock for which you want a recommendation = Subscore * Discard Rate (Factor 2.4).

• Subscore = lowest score of all other assessed species caught. o Score for each species = geometric mean (Factors 2.2, 2.3). Factor 2.1 is not included in the calculation; instead it modifies the score for Factor 2.2 in some circumstances (See Factor 2.2 table for more information).

Rating is based on the lowest Subscore as follows: • >3.2 = Green • >2.2 and <=3.2 = Yellow • <=2.2 = Red

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 is Critical.

Criterion 3 – Management Effectiveness

Public Comment Guidance

Overview – Criterion 3 (Management Effectiveness) deals with the effectiveness of the harvest strategy, implementation, enforcement and monitoring to control fishing pressure on the managed species, as well as effectiveness of bycatch management. This criterion is composed of two factors – Harvest Strategy (3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (3.2), each of which is composed of numerous subfactors.

Goals for Criteria Review – While we don’t have specific proposals at this time, a goal of the criteria review is to streamline this criterion and improve its ability to distinguish better management systems. Criticisms of the current system are that it is not effectively highlighting the nuances of better management (most management systems score “moderately effective”), and is needlessly complicated, as it involves scoring numerous subfactors that rarely affect the score.

Feedback – We are interested in any and all feedback on this criterion. We have outlined specific questions for consideration under each of Factor 3.1 and Factor 3.2. In addition, please provide general comments on this criterion below. Comments: Addition to Criterion 3 Factor 3.3 Management, retrieval, and accounting for lost gear

Estimates from the National Research Council indicate that up to 300,000 items of debris can be found per square kilometer of ocean surface1. Considering that a single ghost gillnet can kill $20,000 worth of Dungeness crab2, ghost gear clearly impacts the 34

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

economic well-being of the fishery as well as the health of impacted marine species. Furthermore, ghost gear can potentially entangle with active fishing gear and vessel propulsion systems, raising potential safety issues.

• Proper disposal of end-of-life gear, ideally in the form of recycling, should be a requirement for both crewed and single handed vessels. This may require that fisheries call on port management bodies to enable the provision of adequate portside reception facilities, in line with MARPOL Annex V, including recycling opportunities where practicable.

• Fishing vessels should not only possess a procedure for the recovery of lost fishing gear, but should also require vessel operators, where possible, to recover and retain any lost gear that they encounter at sea for disposal on shore irrespective of where the lost gear originated.

• In addition to appropriate equipment, appropriate training for fishermen for the safe recovery of lost gear should form an integral part of the operating practices. The collection of lost gear, particularly large nets or ropes that can lead to propeller fouling, can present a health and safety risk to fishermen, therefore adequate provision of guidelines for safe and responsible retrieval should be incorporated into training.

• Fishermen should be required to report sightings of lost gear even if it did not originate from their own vessel and they are unable to retrieve it as this can allow relevant authorities to co-ordinate the retrieval of potentially hazardous gear, as well as allow for the essential accumulation of data.

• Fisheries should also be encouraged to play an active role in developing, piloting and implementing projects to test the effectiveness of new technologies in mitigating the impact of ghost fishing gear when possible.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

1 National Research Council (2008) ‘Tackling Marine Debris in the 21st Century’. Committee on the effectiveness of national and international measures to prevent and reduce marine debris and its impacts. Retrieved 5 August 2013 from http://www.docs.lib.noaa.gov/noaa_documents/NOAA_related_docs/marine_debris_2008.pdf 2 Northwest Straights Initiative (2011) Program accomplishments 2002 – Present. Retrieved 8 April 2014 from http://derelictgear.org/Progress.aspx

Guiding principles

The fishery is managed to sustain the long-term productivity of all impacted species. Management should be appropriate (see Appendix 4 for more guidance) for the inherent vulnerability of affected marine life and should incorporate data sufficient to assess the affected species and manage fishing mortality to ensure little risk of depletion. Measures should be implemented and enforced to ensure that fishery mortality does not threaten the long-term productivity or ecological role of any species in the future.

Assessment instructions

Assess Factors 3.1 and 3.2 once for each fishery.

Factor 3.1 Harvest Strategy

Public Comment Guidance

Overview – Criterion 3.1 addresses the effectiveness of the harvest strategy for managed species, including the following subfactors: management strategy and implementation, recovery of species of concern, research and monitoring, record of following scientific advice, track record, enforcement, and stakeholder involvement.

We are seeking to streamline this criterion (ideally reducing the number of subfactors) and improve its ability to distinguish better management strategies.

Specific Proposals – We do not yet have specific proposals to streamline this category. We are proposing to eliminate the “critical” category for Factor 3.1 (see redline and strikethrough below), as it is unnecessary because any fisheries scoring a “very high concern” (1) on Factor 3.1 are automatically rated Avoid; therefore the “very high concern” is already operating as a critical factor. In addition, we propose some specific language for the “very high concern” category that would ensure that fisheries that catch species that are overfished with overfishing occurring, and do not have management in place to end overfishing and rebuild the stocks, are scored in this category. This addition is considered to be equivalent to the language previously in Factor 1.3 that scored fisheries as “Critical” in these cases.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Feedback – Please provide feedback on specific questions below. Comments:

Questions:

1. Please consider the subfactors included for each factor below. Which of these seem most important? Should any be weighted more heavily in the final scoring?

2. Which, if any, may be unnecessary to score at all? Should any subfactors be combined?

3. Are there any additional considerations you would like to propose including in this criterion (this may include new subfactors, or changing the descriptions of the categories for each subfactor to include new considerations?

4. Do you have any thoughts on whether it would be more appropriate to have more than three scoring categories (currently highly effective, moderately effective or ineffective) for each subfactor, in order to provide more nuanced differentiation of management effectiveness?

5. Please provide any feedback on eliminating the “critical” concern under 3.1 (keeping in mind that all fisheries rating “very high concern” for 3.1 are already scored “Avoid”.

6. Other comments:

Goal: Management strategy has a high chance of preventing declines in stock productivity by taking into account the level of uncertainty, other impacts on the stock, and the potential for increased pressure in

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

the future. See Appendix 4 for more guidance.

Instructions Step 1: Assign a rating for each of the seven management subfactors using the table below: Highly effective Moderately effective Ineffective Manageme Fishery has highly Some effective Management strategy is nt strategy appropriate strategy and management insufficiently precautionary and goals, and there is evidence (see Appendix 4) is in place, to protect populations or implementa (scientific or other rigorous but there is a need for strategies have not been tion source) that the strategy is increased precaution (e.g., implemented successfully being implemented stronger reductions in TAC successfully when biomass declines, For non-native species, quicker reaction to changes there are known or likely For non-native species, in populations, etc.), or negative impacts on the management policy allows management strategy is ecosystem, fishery is for prevention of further moderately successful at maintained in part through spread and reductions in achieving goals stocking/seeding/etc., biomass over time or and/or stock size or further suppression of biomass to For non-native species, spread are not controlled low levels (e.g. below Bmsy), increases in stock size and by harvesting or other or includes mechanisms to further spread are strategies allow for recovery of species prevented through impacted by the non-native; harvesting or other and management is not management measures; if exacerbating concern with any stocking or seeding the non-native, e.g. through occurs, species is already stocking or seeding. Some established and ongoing examples of highly effective stocking/seeding activity management are included has been demonstrated not in Appendix 4 to contribute to growth or spread of non-native population Recovery of If overfished, depleted, enda If overfished, depleted, end If overfished, depleted, end species of ngered or threatened angered or threatened angered or threatened concern species are targeted and/or species are targeted and/or species are targeted and/or retained, management has retained, management has retained, and fishery is a rebuilding or recovery a rebuilding or recovery a substantial contributor to strategy in place with a high strategy in place whose mortality of the species, likelihood of success in eventual success management lacks an an appropriate timeframe, is probable, or best adequate rebuilding or and best management management practices to recovery strategy and/or practices (Appendix 4) are in minimize mortality of effective practices designed use to minimize mortality of “stocks of concern” are in to limit mortality of these these species to the greatest use where needed and are species extent possible, and harvest believed to be effective control rules are in place that will allow for rebuilding OR

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

OR Fishery is not a substantial contributor to mortality of There are currently these species (i.e., they are no overfished, depleted, end rated as “very low concern” angered or threatened under 1.3 and/or 2.3) species targeted or retained in the fishery Scientific The management process Some collection of data No data or very minimal research uses an independent related to stock abundance data are collected and and up-to-date scientific and health is collected, but monitoring stock assessment or data may be insufficient (or analysis, or other too uncertain) to maintain appropriate method that stock seeks knowledge related to stock status, and this assessment is conducted regularly and is complete and robust, which may include both fishery- independent and appropriate fishery- dependent data and Abundance and geographic range of any non-native target species are monitored Manageme Management nearly always Management only Management has a track nt record of follows scientific advice sometimes follows record of regularly following (e.g., does not have a track scientific advice (e.g., only exceeding recommended scientific record of exceeding advised sets TACs at or below the TACs, or otherwise not advice TACs or otherwise recommended level half of complying with scientific disregarding scientific the time) advice advice) Enforcemen Regulations and agreed Enforcement and/or Enforcement and/or t of voluntary arrangements are monitoring are in place to monitoring is lacking or managemen regularly enforced and ensure goals are believed to be inadequate, t independently verified, successfully met, although or compliance is known to regulations including VMS, logbook effectiveness of be poor reports, dockside enforcement/monitoring monitoring and other similar may be uncertain (e.g., measures appropriate to the regulations are enforced by fishery fishing industry or by voluntary/honor system, but without regular independent scrutiny)

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Manageme Measures enacted by Measures enacted by Management measures nt track management have resulted management have not currently in place have record in the long-term been in place long enough resulted in native stock maintenance of ecosystem to evaluate, or the track declines and/or failed to integrity, including record is uncertain allow depleted native maintaining stock stocks to recover; or have abundance at appropriate helped to support the levels, given its role in the establishment and/or ecosystem and whether it is spread of a non-native native to the ecosystem species Stakeholder The management process is There is limited Stakeholders are not inclusion transparent and transparency, stakeholder included in decision-making includes stakeholder input. input or consultation. and decisions are not made transparently

Step 2: Assign a rating and a score for the fishery’s management of impacts on retained stocks (Criterion 3.1 score) based on the seven subfactors rated above. Conservation Description Score Concern: Very Low Meets or exceeds the standard of “highly effective” management for all seven 5 subfactors Low Meets or exceeds all the standard for “moderately effective “ management for 4 all seven subfactors and Meets or exceeds the standard of “highly effective” management for, at a minimum, “management strategy and implementation” and “recovery of stocks of concern” but Does not fully meet the standard for “very low concern” as defined above Moderate Meets or exceeds all the standards for “moderately effective” management for 3 all seven subfactors but Does not fully meet the standard for “low concern” as defined above High There is management in place where a clear need exists, and there is not a 2 high degree of IUU fishing and Meets or exceeds the standard for “moderately effective” management for, at a minimum, “management strategy and implementation” and “recovery of stocks of concern” but Does not fully meet the standards for “moderate concern” as defined above Very High There is management in place where a clear need exists, and there is not a 1 high degree of IUU fishing But No management exists when a clear need for management exists in the fishery, including where catch regularly includes stocks of concern (overfished, 40

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

depleted, endangered, threatened, etc.), or Substantial IUU fishing; 25% or more of the product is caught illegally. or Fishery has characteristics of “ineffective” management for “management strategy and implementation” and/or “recovery of stocks of concern”, including the case where any main species are overfished, the fishery is a substantial contributor to overfishing occurring and there is not effective management in place to end overfishing and rebuild the stock. Critical No management exists when a clear need for management exists in the 0 fishery, including where catch regularly includes stocks of concern (overfished, depleted, endangered, threatened, etc.), or Substantial IUU fishing; 25% or more of the product is caught illegally.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Factor 3.2 Bycatch Management Strategy

Public Comment Guidance

We are seeking to streamline this criterion (ideally reducing the number of subfactors) and improve its ability to distinguish better management strategies.

Specific Proposal – We do not yet have specific proposals to streamline this category. We are proposing to eliminate the “critical” category for Factor 3.2 (see redline and strikethrough below), as it is unnecessary because any fisheries scoring a “very high concern” (1) on Factor 3.2 are automatically rated Avoid; therefore the “very high concern” is already operating as a critical factor.

In addition to streamlining, we are considering one major change to this factor. Currently, fisheries that are highly selective (e.g. harpoon, etc.) are scored N/A for this factor as bycatch management is unneeded. When 3.2 is scored as N/A, the entire score for management (Criterion 3) is based on the score of 3.1. This has the unintended effect of producing higher scores in some cases for less selective fisheries. We are proposing to score highly selective fisheries as “very low concern” for bycatch management, rather than N/A.

Feedback – Please provide feedback on specific questions below. Comments:

Questions:

1. Do you agree or disagree with the proposal to score highly selective fisheries as “very low concern” for bycatch management? Why?

2. Please consider the subfactors included for each factor below. Which of these seem most important? Should any be weighted more heavily in the final scoring?

3. Which, if any, may be unnecessary to score at all? Should any subfactors be combined?

4. Are there any additional considerations you would like to propose including in this criterion (this 42

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

may include new subfactors, or changing the descriptions of the categories for each subfactor to include new considerations?

5. Do you have any thoughts on whether it would be more appropriate to have more than three scoring categories (currently highly effective, moderately effective or ineffective) for each subfactor, in order to provide more nuanced differentiation of management effectiveness?

6. Please provide any feedback on eliminating the “critical” concern under 3.2 (keeping in mind that all fisheries rating “very high concern” for 3.2 are already scored “Avoid”.

7. Other comments:

Goal: Management strategy prevents negative population impacts on bycatch species, particularly species of concern.

If the fishery has very low or no bycatch (due to highly selective gear, seasonal effort or other), score Factor 3.2 as very low concern (score of 5). as N/A for bycatch management and the management score will be based solely on Factor 3.1.

Instructions Step 1: Assign a rating for each of the four management subfactors using the table below: Highly effective Moderately effective Ineffective Management Fishery has highly effective or Strategy or Management measures strategy and precautionary strategy and implementation such as bycatch limits or implementation goals designed to understand effectiveness is bycatch reduction and minimize the impacts of under debate or techniques (Appendix 5) the fishery on bycatch species, uncertain (e.g., are in place but and there is evidence that the bycatch limits are insufficient given the strategy is being implemented imposed based on potential impacts of the successfully (e.g., there is a assumptions, but fishery (e.g., a fishery well-known track record of limits are disputed or that is heavily or fully consistently setting unsure, or bycatch exploited with no data conservative bycatch limits reduction techniques collection or monitoring 43

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

based on quality information are used but are of to ensure the health of and advice about bycatch, or unknown or bycatch populations), bycatch is minimized to the uncertain or greatest extent possible, effectiveness, or No management if especially for vulnerable management has not bycatch concerns are species such as sharks, been in place long possible (based on seabirds, turtles, marine enough to evaluate region and gear type) mammals and some fish its effectiveness or is but remain unknown through mitigation measures unknown) (see Appendix 5 for guidance), area closures or other bycatch reduction techniques (Appendix 5) that have been shown to be highly effective) Scientific research Adequate observer coverage or Collection of No regular collection or and monitoring effective video monitoring observer or effective analysis of data, or no coverage, data collection and video monitoring significant scientific analysis are sufficient to data exists, but research support determine that goals are being coverage or analysis met is limited Management As in Factor 3.1, but for bycatch As in Factor 3.1, but As in Factor 3.1, but for record of species (set at score for Factor for bycatch species bycatch species (set at following 3.1 if no other reason exists) (set at score for score for Factor 3.1 if no scientific advice Factor 3.1 if no other other reason exists) reason exists) Enforcement of As in Factor 3.1, but for bycatch As in Factor 3.1, but As in Factor 3.1, but for management species (set at score for Factor for bycatch species bycatch species (set at regulations 3.1 if no other reason exists) (set at score for score for Factor 3.1 if no Factor 3.1 if no other other reason exists) reason exists)

Step 2: Assign a rating and a score for the fishery’s management of impacts on bycatch species (Criterion 3.2 score) based on the four subfactors rated above. Conservation Description Score Concern Very Low Meets or exceeds the standard of “highly effective” management for all four 5 subfactors Low Meets or exceeds all the standard for “moderately effective “ management for 4 all four subfactors and Meets or exceeds the standard of “highly effective” management for, at a minimum, “management strategy and implementation” but Does not fully meet the standard for “very low concern” as defined above Moderate Meets or exceeds all the standards for “moderately effective” management for 3 all four subfactors

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

but Does not fully meet the standard for “low concern” as defined above High There is management in place where a clear need exists 2 and Meets or exceeds the standard for “moderately effective” management for, at a minimum, “management strategy and implementation” but Does not fully meet the standards for “moderate concern” as defined above Very High There is management in place where a clear need exists 1 but Fishery has characteristics of “ineffective” management for “management strategy and implementation” Or No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially impacted by the fishery Critical No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or 0 threatened species are known to be regular components of bycatch and are substantially impacted by the fishery.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Criterion 3 Score and Rating

Score = geometric mean (Factors 3.1, 3.2)

Rating is based on the Score as follows: • Green if >3.2 • Yellow if >2.2 and <=3.2 and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern or Critical • Red if <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern

Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Critical.

Criterion 4 – Impacts on the Habitat and Ecosystem

Public Comment Guidance for Criterion 4

Overview – Criterion 4 includes assessment of impacts on the seafloor habitat, and other indirect ecosystem impacts with a focus on food web/trophic impacts. Factor 4.1 scores a fishery’s likely impact on the seafloor habitat based on gear type and substrate, while 4.2 allows the fishery to improve on that score due to mitigation efforts such as gear modification and spatial closures. Factor 4.3 focuses on food web impacts and the use of ecosystem-based management to avoid negative trophic impacts, as well as other ecological impacts not covered elsewhere (e.g. due to hatcheries or FADs).

Specific Proposals – 1) We are proposing a minor restructuring of Factors 4.1 and 4.2. As is, these are scored separately and each is assigned a category, but the seafloor impact is determined by the sum of the two. To emphasize that these two factors combine to create the score for impact on the habitat, we propose to rename these as Factor 4.1a and 4.1b and to assign a category (based on corresponding numerical scores) only for Factor 4.1 as a whole (the sum of 4.1a and 4.1b). Calculation of scoring would not change, therefore this would not lead to any substantive changes in ratings or reports. 2) We are proposing substantial changes to Factor 4.3, primarily to incorporate the specific guidance from the Lenfest Task Force on Forage Species. Please see the box under Factor 4.3 for more details and questions. 3) We are considering moving Factor 4.3 into a new, separate criterion, as it is really a separate impact from habitat effects. This would have potentially significant effects on rankings, especially due to the decision rule that one red criterion results in a Good Alternative at best and two red criteria result in an Avoid ranking. Currently, averaging factors 4.1+4.2 and 4.3 often results in a yellow for Criterion 4 overall, whereas if these two factors were assessed separately, in many cases one of them would be red. Therefore, this change would likely result in downgrades for some fisheries.

Feedback – Please see questions below and provide any general feedback or comments on the proposed structural changes. Please see Factor 4.3 for more details on the proposed changes for that factor, and please provide relevant comments in the box under 4.3. Questions:

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

1. Do you believe that Factor 4.3 (Ecosystem-Based Management, with a focus on Food Web) should be combined with habitat impacts in one criterion as it is currently, or should be a stand alone criterion (or other suggestion)?

Comments:

Include an additional sub-category under 4.1a (Impact of derelict fishing gear on habitat/substrate) to focus specifically on impacts of lost or abandoned gear.

Ghost gear may damage benthic habitats via abrasion, reef entanglement and destruction, ‘plucking’ of organisms, meshes closing around them, and the translocation of sea-bed features.

Include as criterion for evaluation the data gathering and reporting of ghost gear encountered (regardless of ownership) during standard fishing activities so that it can be monitored and analyzed to provide insights into prominent gear types and allow for strategic mitigation efforts. Steady accumulation of data will be essential to understand and effectively tackle this global, trans-boundary issue.

Guiding principles The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained.

Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity.

Assessment instructions Address Factor 4.1–4.2 for all fishing gears separately. Assess Factor 4.3 once per fishery. Factor 4.1a Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate Public Comment Guidance for Factors 4.1 and 4.2

Redlining below demonstrate how we propose to combine the current Factors 4.1 and 4.2 (which would be renamed 4.1a and 4.1b). This rearrangement is for communication purposes and would not materially affect the scoring for these factors in any way. Comments

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Goal: The fishery does not adversely impact the physical structure of the seafloor or associated biological communities.

Instructions: Fishing gears that do not contact the seafloor score 5 for this criterion, and Factor 4.2 can be skipped. Use the table below to assign a score for gear impacts (Appendix 6 provides further guidance). If gear type is not listed in the table, use the score for the most similar gear type in terms of extent of bottom contact. Seafood Watch will not assess a fishery using destructive gear such as explosives or cyanide regardless of habitat type and management actions; therefore, those fishing methods are not included in the table. Where multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain, score conservatively according to the most sensitive plausible habitat type. See Appendix 6 for further guidance and the methods used in developing the table below.

Conservation Description SFW Concern score None Gear does not contact bottom; fishing for a pelagic/open water species 5 Very Low Vertical line fished in contact with the bottom or fishing for a 4 benthic/demersal or reef-associated species Low Bottom gillnet, trap, bottom longline except on rocky reef/boulder and corals 3 Bottom seine (on mud/sand only) Midwater trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (<25% of the time) or purse seine known to commonly contact bottom Moderate Scallop dredge on mud and sand 2 Bottom gillnet, trap, bottom longline on boulder or coral reef Bottom seine (except on mud/sand) Bottom trawl (mud and sand, or shallow gravel) (includes midwater trawl known to commonly contact bottom) High Hydraulic clam dredge 1 Scallop dredge on gravel, cobble or boulder Trawl on cobble or boulder, or low energy (>60 m) gravel Very High Dredge or trawl on deep-sea corals or other biogenic habitat (such as eelgrass 0 and maerl)

Factor 4.2 4.1b Modifying Factor: Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Goal: Damage to the seafloor is mitigated through protection of sensitive or vulnerable seafloor habitats, and limits on the spatial footprint of fishing on fishing effort.

Instructions: Assess Factor 4.2 only for fishing gear that contacts the bottom. Scores from Factor 4.2 can only improve the base score from 4.1. A high level of certainty is required to score a strong or moderate mitigation measure, e.g., good quality seafloor maps, VMS and/or observer coverage is required to document that spatial measures are effective and enforced. Further guidance can be found in Appendix 7.

Assess whether the fishery management’s efforts to mitigate the fishery’s impact on the benthic habitat fall into the categories strong, moderate, minimal or no effective mitigation, based on the table below.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Factor 4.2 allows the habitat score to increase, based on the strength of mitigation measures, by the number of bonus points specified in the table.

Strong At least 50% of the representative habitat is protected from the gear type used in +1 mitigation the fishery under assessment (see Appendix 7). or Fishing intensity is sufficiently low and limited such that it can be scientifically demonstrated that at least 50% of the representative habitat is in a recovered state, based on knowledge of the resilience of the habitat and the frequency of fishing impacts from the gear type used in the fishery under assessment (see Appendix 7), or Gear is specifically designed to reduce impacts on the seafloor and there is scientific evidence that these modifications are effective in this regard and modifications are used on the majority of vessels, or Other measures are in place that have been demonstrated to be highly effective in reducing the impact of the fishing gear, which may include an effective combination of two or more “moderate” measures described below, e.g., gear modifications + spatial protection. Moderate Ongoing, effective measures are reducing fishing effort, intensity or spatial +0.5 mitigation footprint, or A substantial proportion of all representative habitats are protected from all bottom contact and expansion of the fishery’s footprint is prohibited and vulnerable habitats are strongly protected, or Gear modifications or other measures are in use that are reasonably expected to be effective. Minimal Fishing effort or intensity is effectively controlled, but is not actively being +0.25 mitigation reduced, or Vulnerable habitats are strongly protected (e.g., in HAPCs) but other habitats are not strongly protected, or Modifications or measures anticipated to be effective are being tested or developed. No No controls on fishing intensity are in place, or +0 effective No or few efforts exist to limit the spatial extent of fishing, or mitigation No modifications anticipated to be effective are in use, or Modifications are in use but are not effective. Not Not applicable because gear used is benign. +0 applicable

Scoring for Factor 4.1: Impact on the Habitat

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

The score for Factor 4.1 is the sum of the score for 4.1a and the score for 4.1b. The category name for 4.1 is assigned based on score ranges, as below: Score (Sum of 4.1 and 4.2) Category <2.2 High Concern 2.2-3.2 Moderate Concern >3.2 Low Concern

Factor 4.3 Ecosystem-based Fisheries Management

Public Comment Guidance for Factor 4.3

Overview – This factor assess any indirect ecological impacts not captured elsewhere in the criteria, but the focus is on potential trophic impacts, and the effectiveness of management in constraining fishing mortality to levels that are appropriate given the species’ ecological role.

Specific Proposals – At the time of writing the current criteria, there was no scientific consensus on appropriate management with regard to food web impacts. Since that time, the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force (see http://www.oceanconservationscience.org/foragefish/) developed very detailed guidance for the management of forage fisheries. We aim to incorporate that scientific advice into our criteria. We hope, during the course of this consultation, to develop more guidance for ecosystem-based management of fisheries targeting species of exceptional importance to the ecosystem other than forage fish as well (e.g., top predators or foundational species).

The specific proposal is not yet developed into redline in the text below. The aim is to incorporate the detailed advice from the Lenfest report with the following scoring guidance:

• Fisheries on forage species (using Lenfest definition) must conform to all the recommendations of the Task Force in order to score green for this factor. • Fisheries on forage species that do not meet all the recommendations, but at least incorporate a minimum biomass threshold and a fishing mortality limit at the levels recommended by the Task Force will score yellow for this factor. • Fisheries on forage species which have a biomass threshold significantly lower or a fishing mortality threshold significantly higher than Lenfest recommends will score red for this factor.

Feedback – Please provide any thoughts and comments on the proposal in the box below. Questions: 1. Do you agree with the proposal to use the specific guidance in the Lenfest Forage Fish Task Force report in this factor?

2. If so, do you agree with the suggested guidelines for determining green, yellow, or red scores based on the Task Force recommendations?

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

3. Do you have any suggestions for how to score forage fisheries for this factor?

4. Should Seafood Watch also address management of fisheries on top predators in this criterion (with scores based on requirements that are designed to maintain the ecological role of predators)? Is there sufficient information to effectively determine special guidelines for fisheries on predators?

5. Do you have any suggestions for how to score fisheries for species with other ecological roles for this factor?

Any Other Comments:

Goal: All stocks are maintained at levels that allow them to fulfill their ecological role and to maintain a functioning ecosystem and food web. Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any retained species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity. Even non-native species should be considered with respect to ecosystem impacts. If a fishery is managed in order to eradicate a non-native, the potential impacts of that strategy on native species in the ecosystem should be considered and rated below.

Instructions: Assign an ecosystem-based management score for the fishery, taking into consideration the ecosystem role of the main species in the fishery, and whether they are “species of exceptional importance.” Species of exceptional importance are native species that play a disproportionately important role relative to their biomass. These may include habitat-forming species, forage species, top predators, keystone species, ecosystem engineers, etc. A species should not be considered of “exceptional importance” unless it clearly fits in one of these categories or there is clear evidence that it plays a keystone role in the ecosystem.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

Conservation Description Score Concern Very Low There are policies in place designed to protect ecosystem functioning (e.g., a 5 substantial proportion of the fishery area is protected in no-take marine reserves, which are designed and/or demonstrated to be effective for protecting ecosystem function, or there is a maximum catch or a minimum biomass based on ecosystem considerations), or an ecosystem study has been conducted and it has been scientifically proven that the fishery has no negative ecological and/or genetic impacts, and If the fishery catches “exceptional species” (see definition above), the ecological and food web impacts have been scientifically assessed and the management scheme protects enough biomass to allow these exceptional species to fulfill their ecological role (e.g., through the harvest control rule), and For fisheries with hatchery supplementation and/or use of Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs), these practices are demonstrated not to have negative ecological and/or genetic impacts, and For fisheries on non-native species, policies in place to manage the fishery and/or control the spread of the species do not have adverse effects on native species. Low Scientific assessment and management efforts to account for ecological role are 4 underway, and If the fishery catches “exceptional species”, policies are in place to protect ecosystem functioning (e.g., a substantial proportion of the fishery area is protected in no-take marine reserves, or there is a maximum catch or a minimum biomass based on ecosystem considerations), though these may not be explicit or based on scientific assessment, and For fisheries with hatchery supplementation, and/or use of FADs, practices are designed to minimize or mitigate any potential negative ecological and/or genetic impacts, where applicable, and For fisheries on non-native species, policies in place to manage the fishery and/or control the spread of the species do not have adverse effects on native species. Moderate The fishery does not catch “exceptional species” and scientific assessment and 3 management of ecosystem impacts are not yet underway, though they may be in planning stages or

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

The fishery catches “exceptional species” and lacks policies to protect the ecosystem role of these species, but scientific assessment to account for these species’ ecological roles is underway, or For fisheries with hatchery supplementation, and/or use of FADs, negative ecological and/or genetic impacts from these practices are possible and management is not designed to minimize these impacts, or For fisheries on non-native species, the policies to manage the fishery and/or control the spread of the non-native species have an unknown effect on native species. High The fishery catches “exceptional species” and there are no explicit efforts to 2 incorporate ecological role into management, or For fisheries on non-native species, policies in place to manage the fishery and/or control the spread of the species have adverse effects on native species. Very High For fisheries with hatchery supplementation, and/or use of FADs, practices are 1 in use that have been demonstrated or believed to have serious negative ecological and/or genetic impacts, or Scientifically demonstrated trophic cascades, alternate stable states, or other detrimental food web impacts are resulting from the fishery.

Criterion 4 Score and Rating

Score = geometric mean (Factors 4.1+4.2, 4.3)

Rating is based on the Score as follows: • >3.2 = Green • >2.2 and <=3.2 = Yellow • <=2.2 = Red

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4. Overall Score and Final Recommendation

Public comment guidance. Overview –The final scoring system combines the individual criterion scores to produce a numerical final score from 0-5, but also applies decision rules based on the number of “high concerns”, i.e. “red” scoring criteria as outlined below.

Specifics – The following sections show how the final score and final recommendation are calculated from the individual criterion scores. It is the current philosophy of the SFW criteria that regardless of the final numerical score, if there is one red criterion (with a numerical score <=2.2), then the highest possible final recommendation is a yellow “Good Alternative”. If there 53

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

are two red criteria, then the overall final recommendation will be red “Avoid” regardless of the numerical score. If there is one or more “critical concerns” then the final recommendation is red “Avoid” regardless of the numerical score.

Feedback – In general the scoring system has worked, and the final recommendation is often decided by the presence of one or more red scores. The criteria are not weighted in any way at present (i.e. they all have equal weighting). This part of the criteria is critical to the appropriate final recommendation for every Seafood Watch assessment, and we welcome feedback and suggestions for improvement. Comment

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

The overall recommendation is as follows:

• Best Choice = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scores

• Good Alternative = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern5, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)

• Avoid = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern, or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

5 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3). 54

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view. <>

Glossary

Adequate observer coverage: Observer coverage required for adequate monitoring depends on the rarity of the species caught, with fisheries that interact with rare species requiring higher coverage. Similarly, species that are “clumped” instead of being evenly distributed across the ocean also require higher levels of coverage. In addition, fisheries using many different gear types and fishing methods require higher levels of coverage. Bias may also be introduced if some areas, gear and seasons of a fishery are not well sampled. For these reasons, the exact level of coverage required for a particular fishery depends on the distribution of a species within the fishery as well as its associated discard and target species (Babcock and Pikitch 2003). The analyst will need to determine what level of observer coverage is adequate for the fishery of interest; coverage of 17–20% (or as high as 50% for rare species bycatch) may be required in some cases but may not be necessary in all cases.

Appropriate reference points: Determination of the appropriateness of reference points depends on two questions:

1) Is the goal appropriate? Appropriate biomass reference points are designed with the goal of maintaining stock biomass at or above the point where yield is maximized (target reference points; TRPs) and safely above the point where recruitment is impaired (limit reference points; LRPs). Ideally, biomass reference points aim to maintain stock biomass at levels that allow the stock to fulfill its role in the ecosystem. Fishing mortality reference points should be designed with the goal of ensuring that catch does not exceed sustainable yield and has a very low likelihood of leading to depletion of the stock in the future.

2) Is the calculation of the reference points credible? There may be a concern if reference points have been lowered repeatedly or if there is scientific controversy regarding the reference points or the calculations of biomass and fishing mortality relative to reference points. See the guidance for each type of reference point below and in Appendix 1.

Target reference point: Reference points need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but in general: Biomass target reference points (TRPs) should generally not be lower than BMSY or approximately B35–B40%. TRPs below about B35% require strong scientific rationale. See Appendix 1 for more details.

Limit reference point: The point where recruitment would be impaired. Reference points need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, but in general: Biomass limit reference points (LRPs) should be no less than ½ BMSY, or ½ an appropriate target reference point such as B40%. LRPs below about B20% or ½ BMSY require strong scientific rationale.

Spawning potential ratio/fraction of lifetime egg production (SPR/FLEP) reference point: The SPR/FLEP limit reference point should either be derived through scientific analysis to be at or above replacement %SPR for the species (the threshold level of SPR necessary for replacement) based on its productivity and S-R relationship (viz., Mace and Sissenwine 1993), or should be set at about 35–40% of LEP. An exception can be made for species with very low inherent productivity (e.g., rockfish, sharks), in which case a reference point of 50–60% of LEP is more appropriate (Mace and Sissenwine 1993, Myers et al. 1999, Clark 2002, Botsford and Parma 2005).

55 <>

Bycatch: Refers to all fisheries-related injury or mortality other than in the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, pre-catch mortality and ghost fishing. All discards, including those released alive, are considered bycatch unless there is both valid scientific evidence of high post-release survival and no documented evidence of negative impacts at the population level.

Critically endangered: An IUCN category for listing endangered species. A taxon is considered “critically endangered” (CE) when it faces an extremely high risk of extinction in the wild in the immediate future, as defined by any of the relevant IUCN criteria for “critically endangered” (FAO Glossary; IUCN).

Data-moderate: Reliable estimates of MSY-related quantities are either unavailable or not useful due to life history, a weak stock-recruit relationship, high recruitment variability, etc. Reliable estimates of current stock size, life history variables and fishery parameters exist. Stock assessments include some characterization of uncertainty (Restrepo and Powers 1998; Restrepo et al. 1998).

Data-poor: Refers to fisheries for which there are no estimates of MSY, stock size, or certain life history traits. There may be minimal or no stock assessment data, and uncertainty measurements may be qualitative only (Restrepo and Powers 1998; Restrepo et al. 1998).

Data-rich: Refers to fisheries with reliable estimates of MSY-related quantities and current stock size. Stock assessments are sophisticated and account for uncertainty (Restrepo and Powers 1998; Restrepo et al. 1998).

Depleted: A stock at a very low level of abundance compared to historical levels, with dramatically reduced spawning biomass and reproductive capacity. Such stocks require particularly energetic rebuilding strategies. Recovery times depend on present conditions, levels of protection and environmental conditions. May refer also to marine mammals listed as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (FAO Glossary). Classifications of “overfished“ or “depleted“ are based on assessments by the management agency and/or FAO, but analysts can use judgment to override the classification, especially where the prior assessment may be out of date (also includes IUCN listings of “near threatened”, “special concern” and “vulnerable”). Inclusion in this classification based on designations such as “stock of concern” is determined on a case-by-case basis, as such terms are not used consistently among management agencies. Stocks should be classified as “depleted” if the stock is believed to be at a low level of abundance such that reproduction is impaired or is likely to be below an appropriate limit reference point. Marine mammals classified as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act fall into this category, if not listed as endangered or threatened. Also includes stocks most likely (>50% chance) below the level where recruitment or productivity is impaired. Note: Official IUCN listings should be overridden by more recent and/or more specific classifications, where available (e.g., NMFS stock assessment showing stock is above target levels).

Ecological role: The natural trophic role of a stock within the ecosystem under consideration in an assessment (MSC 2010).

56 <>

Effective: Management or mitigation strategies are defined as “effective” if a) the management goal is sufficient to maintain the structure and function of affected ecosystems in the long-term, and b) there is scientific evidence that they are meeting these goals.

Effective mitigation or gear modification: A strategy that is “effective” as defined above, either in the fishery being assessed or as demonstrated in a very similar system (See Appendix 4 and Appendix 5 for a partial list of effective mitigations; this list will be continually developed).

Endangered/threatened: Taxa in danger of extinction and whose survival is unlikely if causal factors continue operating. Included are taxa whose numbers have been drastically reduced to a critical level or whose habitats have been so drastically impaired that they are deemed to be in immediate danger of extinction (FAO Fisheries Glossary). This classification includes taxa listed as “endangered” or “critically endangered” by IUCN or “threatened”, “endangered” or “critically endangered” by an international, national or state government body, as well as taxa listed under CITES Appendix I. This classification does not include species listed by the IUCN as “vulnerable” or “near threatened”. Marine mammals listed as “strategic” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act are also considered as endangered/threatened if they are listed because “based on the best available scientific information, [the stock] is declining and is likely to be listed as a threatened species under the ESA within the foreseeable future.” However, marine mammal stocks listed as “strategic” because “the level of direct human- caused mortality exceeds the potential biological removal level,” or because they are listed as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, are instead classified as species of concern.

Exceptional importance to the ecosystem: A species that plays a key role in the ecosystem that may be disrupted by typical levels of harvesting, including: keystone species (those that have been shown or are expected to have community-level effects disproportionate to their biomass), foundation species (habitat-forming species, e.g., oyster beds), basal prey species (including krill and small pelagic forage species such as anchovies and sardines), and top predators, where the removal of a small number of the species could have serious ecosystem effects. Species that do not fall into any of these categories but that have been demonstrated to have an important ecological role impeded by harvest (e.g., studies demonstrating trophic cascades or ecosystem phase shifts due to harvesting) shall also be considered species of exceptional importance to the ecosystem (Paine 1995; Foley et al. 2010).

FishBase vulnerability: Cheung et al. (2005) used fuzzy logic theory to develop an index of the intrinsic vulnerability of marine fishes. Using certain life history parameters as input variables—maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, von Bertalanffy growth parameter K, natural mortality rate, fecundity, strength of spatial behavior and geographic range—together with heuristic rules defined for the fuzzy logic functions, fish species were assigned to either a very high, high, moderate or low level of intrinsic vulnerability. In this framework, intrinsic vulnerability is also expressed with a numerical value from 1 to 100 with 100 being most vulnerable. This index of intrinsic vulnerability was then applied to over 1300 marine fish species to assess intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch (Cheung et al. 2007). FishBase, the online global database of fish, includes this numerical “vulnerability score” on the profiles of fish species for which this analysis has been conducted (Froese and Pauly 2010).

Fluctuating biomass:

57 <>

• If a stock is trending upwards (based on the most recent assessment) and has just recently exceeded the target reference point (TRP), it can be rated as Very Low Concern. If a stock is not trending but is truly fluctuating around the TRP (exceeding in some years and falling short in others, but with no clear trend), it can be rated as Very Low Concern. However, if a stock is fluctuating around the limit reference point (LRP), it cannot be considered Very Low Concern. • If a stock is trending downward and is currently below the TRP, the rating can be no better than Low Concern. • If a stock is below the LRP, it is considered a High Concern.

Fluctuating fishing mortality:

• If F is trending downwards, or was previously above FMSY (or a suitable proxy) but has recently gone below FMSY (in the most recent assessment), fishing mortality should be rated as Low Concern.

• If F is fluctuating around FMSY, or if F has been consistently below FMSY and has just recently (in the latest assessment) risen above FMSY for just this one year (potentially due to management error or a new stock assessment and the consequent adjustment in reference points or estimates), fishing mortality should be rated as Moderate Concern.

• If F is trending upwards and has just risen above FMSY, fishing mortality should be rated as High Concern unless there is a substantial plan to bring F back down. Such a plan would need to differ substantially from the existing harvest control rules (HCR), as those evidently did not keep F at a sufficiently low level.

Highly appropriate management strategy: Management that is appropriate for the stock and harvest control rules takes into account major features of the species’ biology and the nature of the fishery. Such a management strategy incorporates the precautionary approach while also taking uncertainty into account and evaluating stock status relative to reference points, as these measures have been shown to be robust (modified from MSC 2010). As an example, if management is based on Total Allowable Catch, these limits are set below MSY and/or scientifically advised levels, accounting for uncertainty, and lowered if B

Likelihood: Highly likely: 70% chance or greater, when quantitative data are available; may also be determined by analogy from similar systems when supported by limited data from the fishery and no scientific controversy exists (modified from MSC 2010 and based on guidance from MSC FAM Principle 2). Examples of high likelihood for fishing mortality: • All estimates of fishing mortality are within 70% or greater (e.g., 80% or 95%) confidence intervals, or all estimates of F from all scientifically feasible models and assumptions, are below FMSY or equivalent.

• Estimate of F is at 75% of sustainable levels of F (such as FMSY) or less, or estimates of catch are < 75% MSY if the fishery is at or above BMSY (if F is fluctuating, see “fluctuating F” for more guidance). • Exploitation is very low compared to natural mortality, mortality from other sources or population size

58 <>

Likely: 60% chance or greater, when quantitative data are available; may also be determined according to expert judgment and/or plausible argument (modified from MSC 2010 and based on guidance from MSC FAM Principle 2).

Probable: Greater than 50% chance; can be based on quantitative assessment, plausible evidence or expert judgment. Examples of “probable” occurrence for fishing mortality:

There may be some uncertainty or disagreement among various models; fishing mortality may be above 75% of a sustainable level and/or catch may be above 75% of a sustainable catch level (e.g., MSY) for stocks at BMSY.

Historic high: Refers to near-virgin biomass, or highest recorded biomass, if biomass estimates predate the start of intensive fishing. If a fishery has been historically depleted and then rebuilt, the rebuilt biomass is not considered a “historic high” even though it may be higher than historical levels.

Inherent vulnerability: A stock’s vulnerability to overfishing based on inherent life history attributes that affect the stock’s productivity and may impede its ability to recover from fishing impacts. Marine finfish are considered highly vulnerable when their FishBase vulnerability score falls into the categories high “vulnerability”, “high to very high vulnerability”, or “very high vulnerability” (scores of 55 or above) based on the FishBase vulnerability score (derived from the formula in Cheung et al. 2005). All sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds are considered “highly vulnerable”. Marine invertebrates’ vulnerability is based on the average of several attributes of inherent productivity.

One of the first key papers on this subject (Musick 1999) summarizes the results of an American Fisheries Society (AFS) workshop on the topic and offers proposed low, medium and high “productivity index parameters” (for marine fish species) based on available life history information: the intrinsic rate of increase r, the von Bertalanffy growth function k, fecundity, age at maturity and maximum age. Notably, although a species’ intrinsic rate of increase is identified as the most useful indicator, it is also difficult to estimate reliably and is often unavailable (Cheung et al. 2005). To enable more timely and less data-intensive and costly identification of vulnerable fish species, Cheung et al. (2005) used fuzzy logic theory to develop an index of the intrinsic vulnerability of marine fishes based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, von Bertalanffy growth parameter K, natural mortality rate, fecundity, strength of spatial behavior and geographic range (input variables). The index also uses heuristic rules defined for the fuzzy logic functions to assign fish species to one the following groups: very high, high, moderate or low level of intrinsic vulnerability.

In this framework, intrinsic vulnerability is also expressed by a numerical value between 1 and 100 with 100 being most vulnerable. This index of intrinsic vulnerability was then applied to over 1300 marine fish species to assess intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch (Cheung et al. 2007). FishBase, the online global database of fish, uses the numerical value from this index as a “vulnerability score” on the profiles of fish species for which it has been evaluated (Froese and Pauly 2010).

59 <>

Large portion of the stock is protected: At least 50% of the spawning stock is protected, for example through size/sex/season regulations or the inclusion of greater than 50% of the species’ habitat in marine reserves. Future guidance will improve the integration of marine reserve science into the criteria, based on ongoing research.

Main species: A species is included in the assessment as a main species if: • The catch of the species in the fishery under assessment composes >5% of that fishery’s catch, or • The species is >1% of that fishery’s catch and the fishery causes >5% of the species’ total mortality across all fisheries, or • The species is <1% of that fishery’s catch and the fishery causes >20% of species’ total mortality across all fisheries, or • The species is overfished, depleted, a stock of concern, endangered, threatened, IUCN Near Threatened, US MMPA strategic species, and/or subject to overfishing and the fishery causes >1% of species’ total mortality across all fisheries. • If there are no other “main species” (based on the above guidance) besides the one assessed under criterion 1, but the total catch of other discarded and retained species is >5% (i.e. catch of criterion 1 species is <95% of total), assess the top 3 species by volume of catch (if there are only 1-2 other species caught, assess those species).

Managed appropriately: Management uses best available science to implement policies that minimize the risk of overfishing or damaging the ecosystem, taking into account species vulnerability along with scientific and management uncertainty.

Negative genetic or ecological effects: Hatchery supplementation of fisheries may have negative ecological effects, including competition between hatchery-raised and wild fish, as well as genetic effects, including reduced fitness of populations through genetic introgression and reduced genetic diversity (Kostow 2009; Araki and Schmid 2010). Other fishing practices may have additional detrimental genetic or ecological effects; for example, drifting Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) may act as “ecological traps” that mislead fish into making maladaptive habitat choices that reduce their fitness (Hallier and Gaertner 2008). Unfortunately, these impacts are generally poorly understood for most fisheries, but where impacts are likely (i.e., where FADs are in use or where large-scale hatchery supplementation exists, as in most salmon fisheries), ecosystem-based management should include measures specifically designed, and in the best cases, proven to reduce these impacts.

Negligible: Mortality is insignificant or inconsequential relative to a sustainable level of total fishing mortality (e.g., MSY or PBR); less than or equal to 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality.

No management: A fishery with no rules or standards for regulating fishing catch, effort or methods. Management does not need to be enforced through government regulation or official management agencies but may also include voluntary action taken by the fishery, as long as there is general compliance.

Non-native species:

60 <>

A non-native organism is an organism occurring outside its natural past or present range and dispersal potential, including any parts of the organism that might survive and subsequently reproduce, whose dispersal to the non-native area is caused by direct human action (e.g., introduced through ballast water or intentional translocation of organisms to a new area, but not including indirect anthropogenic effects, such as range shifts due to climate change). Modified from Falk-Petersen et al 2006.

Overfished: A stock is considered “overfished” when exploited past an explicit limit where abundance is considered too low to ensure safe reproduction. In many fisheries, the term “overfished” is used when biomass has been estimated below a biological reference point used to signify an “overfished condition”. The stock may remain overfished (i.e., with a biomass well below the agreed limit) for some time even though fishing mortality may have been reduced or suppressed (FAO Glossary). Classification as “overfished“ or “depleted“ (including IUCN listing as “near threatened”, “special concern” and “vulnerable”) is based on evaluation by the management agency and/or FAO, but an analyst can use judgment to override this classification, especially where the classification may be out of date as long as there is scientific justification for doing so. Inclusion in the “overfished” category based on designations such as “stock of concern” are determined on a case-by-case basis, as such terms are not used consistently among management agencies. Stocks should be classified as “overfished” if the stock is believed to be at such a low level of abundance that reproduction is impaired or is likely to be below an appropriate limit reference point. Marine mammals classified as “depleted” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act also fall into this category if not listed as endangered or threatened. Stocks that are most likely (>50% chance) below the level where recruitment or productivity is impaired are also considered “overfished”. Note: Official IUCN listings should be overridden by more recent and/or more specific classifications where available (e.g., NMFS stock assessment showing that a stock is above target levels).

Overfishing: A generic term used to refer to a level of fishing effort or fishing mortality such that a reduction of effort would, in the medium term, lead to an increase in the total catch; or, a rate or level of fishing mortality that jeopardizes the capacity of a fishery to produce the maximum sustainable yield on a continuing basis. For long-lived species, overfishing (i.e., using excessive effort) starts well before the stock becomes overfished. Overfishing, as used in the Seafood Watch® criteria, can encompass biological or recruitment overfishing (but not necessarily economic or growth overfishing). • Biological overfishing: Catching such a high proportion of one or all age classes in a fishery as to reduce yields and drive stock biomass and spawning potential below safe levels. In a surplus production model, biological overfishing occurs when fishing levels are higher than those required for extracting the

Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) of a resource and recruitment starts to decrease. • Recruitment overfishing: When the rate of fishing is (or has been) high enough to significant reduce the annual recruitment to the exploitable stock. This situation is characterized by a greatly reduced spawning stock, a decreasing proportion of older fish in the catch and generally very low recruitment year after year. If prolonged, recruitment overfishing can lead to stock collapse, particularly under unfavorable environmental conditions. • Growth overfishing: Occurs when too many small fish are being harvested too early through excessive fishing effort and poor selectivity (e.g., excessively small mesh sizes), and the fish are not given enough time to grow to the size at which maximum yield-per-recruit would be obtained from the stock. Reduction of fishing mortality among juveniles, or their outright protection, would lead to an increase in

yield from the fishery. Growth overfishing occurs when the fishing mortality rate is above Fmax (in a

61 <>

yield-per-recruit model). This means that individual fish are caught before they have a chance to reach their maximum growth potential. Growth overfishing, by itself, does not affect the ability of a fish population to replace itself. • Economic overfishing: Occurs when a fishery is generating no economic rent, primarily because an excessive level of fishing effort is applied in the fishery. This condition does not always imply biological overfishing.

(FAO Glossary; NOAA 1997)

Precautionary approach: The precautionary approach involves the application of prudent foresight. Taking account of the uncertainties in fisheries systems and considering the need to take action with incomplete knowledge, the precautionary approach requires, inter alia: (i) consideration of the needs of future generations and avoidance of changes that are not potentially reversible; (ii) prior identification of undesirable outcomes and measures to avoid or correct them promptly; (iii) initiation of any necessary corrective measures without delay and on a timescale appropriate for the species’ biology; (iv) conservation of the productive capacity of the resource where the likely impact of resource use is uncertain; (v) maintenance of harvesting and processing capacities commensurate with estimated sustainable levels of the resource and containment of these capacities when resource productivity is highly uncertain; (vi) adherence to authorized management and periodic review practices for all fishing activities; (viii) establishment of legal and institutional frameworks for fishery management within which plans are implemented to address the above points for each fishery, and (ix) appropriate placement of the burden of proof by adhering to the requirements above (modified from FAO 1996).

Productivity is maintained/not impaired: Fishing activity does not impact the stock, either through reduced abundance, changes in size, sex or age distribution, or reduction of reproductive capacity at age, to a degree that would diminish the growth and/or reproduction of the population over the long-term (multiple generations).

Productivity–susceptibility analysis (PSA): Productivity-susceptibility analysis was originally developed to assess the sustainability of bycatch levels in Australia’s Northern Prawn fishery (Patrick et al. 2009), and has since been widely applied to assess vulnerability to fishing mortality for as number of fisheries worldwide. Productivity-susceptibility analysis is used by NOAA and the Australian Commonwealth Scientific Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) to inform fisheries management. It also constitutes the basis of the risk-based framework used to evaluate data-poor fisheries under the Marine Stewardship Council Fishery Assessment Methodology (MSC FAM). The PSA approach allows the risk of overfishing to be assessed for any species based on predetermined attributes, even in the most data-poor situations.

The exact sets of productivity and susceptibility attributes vary between PSA methodologies, and different weighting of attributes can be employed based on relative contextual importance. Additionally, scoring thresholds can vary depending on the context in which PSA is employed. In the US methodology, productivity is defined as the capacity for a stock to recover once depleted, which is largely a function of the life history characteristics of the species. Generally, productivity attributes are similar to the life history parameters used for the above index of intrinsic vulnerability.

While PSA analysis is a widely accepted approach for evaluating risk of overexploitation of a fished species, for the purposes of Seafood Watch assessments it is useful to separate the productivity

62 <>

attributes—which are intrinsic to a species and neither dependent on nor influenced by fishery practices—from the susceptibility attributes. Fisheries may influence the susceptibility of impacted stocks through the choice of gear, bait species, hook design, mesh size, area or seasonal closures, and other management measures. In addition, where detailed information on fishing mortality (e.g., estimates of F or harvest rates) is available, these data provide a more complete picture of the fishery impact that the susceptibility attributes are designed to predict. Therefore, under the revised Seafood Watch® criteria, the “inherent vulnerability” score will be derived from the FishBase vulnerability score, which address only those characteristics intrinsic to the species and equivalent to the productivity attributes considered under PSA. Susceptibility attributes will be separately considered as part of the evaluation of fishing mortality when more specific data are not available.

Because the FishBase vulnerability index has not been evaluated for application to marine invertebrates (Cheung, pers comm., 2011), we propose the use of “productivity” attributes from the PSA methodology used by the MSC, with adjustments to account for particular aspects of marine invertebrate life history (see Criterion Factors 1.1 and 2.1 for guidance).

Changes to PSA resilience attributes made to increase applicability to invertebrates include:

• Removal of “average maximum size” and “average size at maturity” attributes, as body size has been demonstrated not to correlate with extinction risk for marine invertebrates (McKinney 1997, Finnegan et al. 2009). • Incorporation of fecundity in the average only if fecundity is low, as strong evidence suggests that high fecundity does not necessarily correlate with low vulnerability; however, low fecundity does seem to correspond with high vulnerability (Dulvy et al. 2003, Cheung et al. 2005). • Removal of the “trophic level” attribute. Anecdotally, trophic level does not appear to be a strong predictor of extinction risk for marine invertebrates. Some of the most vulnerable marine invertebrates are at the lowest trophic level (e.g., abalone). Additionally, in a review of Canadian fishes, trophic level was not found to be a strong predictor of extinction risk in marine fishes (O'Malley 2010; Pinsky et al. 2011). • Incorporation of density dependence, particularly the existence of depensatory dynamics, or Allee effects, for small populations. Allee effects may have a profound effect on the resilience of marine invertebrates to fishing mortality (Hobday et al. 2001, Caddy 2004).

Reasonable timeframe (for rebuilding): Dependent on the species’ biology and degree of depletion, but generally within 10 years, except in cases where the stock could not rebuild within 10 years even in the absence of fishing. In such cases, a reasonable timeframe is within the number of years it would take the stock to rebuild without fishing, plus one generation, as described in Restrepo et al. (1998).

Recruitment is impaired: Fishing activity impacts the stock—either through reduced abundance, changes in size, sex or age distribution, or reduction of reproductive capacity at age—to a degree that will diminish the growth and/or reproduction of the population over the long-term (multiple generations); or, the stock is below an appropriate limit reference point, if one is defined.

63 <>

Regularly monitored: Fishery-independent surveys of stocks, or other reliable assessments of abundance, are conducted at least every three years.

Reliable data: Data produced or verified by an independent third party. Reliable data may include government reports, peer- reviewed science, audit reports, etc. Data are not considered reliable if significant scientific controversy exists over the data, or if data are old or otherwise unlikely to represent current conditions (e.g., survey data is several years old and fishing mortality has increased since the last survey).

Species of concern: Species about which management has some concerns regarding status and threats, but for which insufficient information is available to indicate a need to list the species as endangered. In the U.S., this may include species for which NMFS has determined, following a biological status review, that listing under the ESA is "not warranted," pursuant to ESA section 4(b)(3)(B)(i), but for which significant concerns or uncertainties remain regarding their status and/or threats. Species can qualify as both "species of concern" and "candidate species" (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/glossary.htm#s). In addition, marine mammal stocks listed as “strategic” under the Marine Mammal Protection Act are classified as species of concern. The terms “species of concern” or “stock of concern” are used similarly by other federal and state management bodies.

Stakeholder input: A stakeholder is an individual, group or organization that has an interest in, or could be affected by, the management of a fishery (modified from MSC 2010). Stakeholder input may include: involvement in all key aspects of fisheries management from stock assessment and setting research priorities to enforcement and decision-making. In addition, stakeholders may take ownership of decisions and greater responsibility for the wellbeing of individual fisheries (Smith et al 1999). Effective stakeholder engagement requires that the management system has a consultation processes open to interested and affected parties and that roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders are clear and understood by all relevant parties (modified from MSC 2010).

Stock: A self-sustaining population that is not strongly linked to other populations through interbreeding, immigration or emigration. A single fishery may capture multiple stocks of one or multiple species. Stocks can be targeted or non-targeted, retained or discarded, or some combination thereof (e.g., juveniles are discarded and adults are retained).

Ideally, the management unit of “stock” should correspond to the biological unit. However, often the fisheries management unit of “stock” may not be the same as the biological unit. If multiple biological stocks are managed as one, and there is insufficient information to assess the stock status of each biological stock, the management unit is assessed. This situation detracts from the fishery’s “quality of information” score, as it makes it impossible to assess individual stocks’ health. If management occurs on a finer scale than biological stocks so that multiple management unit stocks compose one interbreeding population, the health and abundance of the biological stock should be assessed as a whole based on information aggregated across the management units. The effectiveness of management can be assessed at the finest scale for which meaningful and verifiable differences in management practice exist.

Substantial contributor:

64 <>

A fishery is a substantial contributor to impacts affecting a population, ecosystem or habitat if the fishery is a main contributor, or one of multiple contributors of a similar magnitude, to cumulative fishing mortality. Examples of a fishery that is not a substantial contributor include: (a) catch of the species is a rare or minor component of the catch in this fishery and the fishery is a small contributor to cumulative mortality, relative to other fisheries. However, if there has been a jeopardy determination for that stock in the fishery being assessed it should be considered a substantial contributor regardless of this definition.

Substantial proportion of habitat: Refers to a condition when at least 20% of each representative habitat (where representative habitats can be delineated by substrate, bathymetry, and/or community assemblages), within both the range of the targeted stock(s) and the regulatory boundaries of the fishery under consideration (i.e., within the national EEZ for the fishery under consideration), is completely protected from fishing with gear types that impact the habitat in that fishery.

Susceptibility (low/moderate/high) A stock’s capacity to be impacted by the fishery under consideration, depending on factors such as the stock’s likelihood to be captured by the fishing gear. The susceptibility score is based on tables from MSC’s Productivity- Susceptibility Analysis framework (see Appendix 2). Examples of low susceptibility include: low overlap between the geographic or depth range of species and the location of the fishery; the species’ preferred habitat is not targeted by fishery; the species is smaller than the net mesh size as an adult, is not attracted to the bait used, or is otherwise not selected by fishing gear; or strong spatial protection or other measures in place specifically to avoid catch of the species.

Sustainable level (of fishing mortality): A level of fishing mortality that will not reduce stock below the point where recruitment is impaired, i.e., above F reference points, where defined. The F limit reference points should be around either FMSY or F35–40% for moderately productive stocks; low productivity stocks like rockfish and sharks require F in the range of F50–60% or lower. Higher F values require a strong scientific rationale. The F reference points are limit reference points, so buffers should be used to ensure that fishing mortality does not exceed these levels. Where F is unknown but MSY is estimated, fishing mortality at least 25% below MSY is considered a sustainable level (for fisheries that are at or above BMSY).

Up-to-date data/stock assessment: Complete stock assessments are not required every 1–3 years, but stocks should be regularly monitored at least every 1–3 years, and stock assessments should be based on abundance and fishing mortality data not more than three years old. Data may be collected by industry, but analysis should be independent.

Very limited area: Fishing (with damaging gear, when assessing Criterion D) is limited to no more than 50% of each representative habitat (where representative habitats can be delineated by substrate, bathymetry, and/or community assemblages) within both the range of the targeted stock(s) and the regulatory boundaries of the fishery under consideration (e.g., the national EEZ for the fishery under consideration).

Very low levels of exploitation (e.g., experimental fishery): Fishery is under-exploited or is being conducted experimentally to collect data or gauge viability, such that exploitation rates are far below sustainable yields (e.g., 20% or less of sustainable take). Alternatively, when no other information is available, exploitation levels may be considered very low if a

65 <>

fishery falls into the “low” category for all “susceptibility” questions under Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (see Appendix 2 for more details on scoring susceptibility).

66 <>

References

Alverson, D.L. Freeberg, M.H., Pope, J.G., Murawski, S.A. 1994. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 339. Rome, FA. 233p

Araki, H, and C. Schmid. 2010. Is hatchery stocking a help or harm? Evidence, limitations and future directions in ecological and genetic surveys. Aquaculture 308: S2-S11

Auster, P.J. 2001. Defining thresholds for precautionary habitat management actions in a fisheries context. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:1-9.

Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2007. Commonwealth Fisheries Harvest Strategy: Policy and Guidelines. December 2007. Available at: http://www.daff.gov.au/_media/documents/fisheries/domestic/HSP-and-Guidelines.pdf

Babcock, E., E. Pikitch, and C. Hudson. 2003. “How much observer coverage is enough to adequately estimate bycatch?” Oceana, Washington D.C.

Botsford, L. W., and A. M. Parma. 2005. Uncertainty in Marine Management. Pages 375-392 in E. A. Norse and L. B. Crowder, editors. Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea's Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Caddy, J. F. 2004. Current usage of fisheries indicators and reference points, and their potential application to management of fisheries for marine invertebrates. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 61:1307-1324.

Chaffee C., S. Daume S, L. Botsford, D. Armstrong, and S. Hanna. 2010. Oregon Dungeness Crab Fishery Final Report with Certification Decision. Ver. 4, 27 October 2010. Available at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/certified/pacific/oregon-dungeness-crab/assessment downloads-1/ODC_V4_Final-Report_27Oct2010.pdf

Cheung, W. W. L., T. J. Pitcher, and D. Pauly. 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinction vulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biological Conservation 124:97-111.

Cheung, W. W. L., R. Watson, T. Morato, T. J. Pitcher, and D. Pauly. 2007. Intrinsic vulnerability in the global fish catch. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 333:1-12.

Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, et al. (2003). "Shifting gears: Assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters." Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1(10): 517-524.

Clark, W.G. 1991. Groundfish exploitation rates based on life history parameters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 734-750.

Clark W. G. 2002. F35% revisited ten years later. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:251-257.

67 <>

DFO. 2009. A fishery decision-making framework incorporating the Precautionary Approach. Fisheries and Oceans Canada. Available at: http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/peches-fisheries/fish-ren-peche/sff cpd/precaution-eng.htm

Dulvy, K., Y. Sadovy, and J. D. Reynolds. 2003. Extinction vulnerability in marine populations. Fish and Fisheries 4:25-64.

FAO. 1996. Precautionary Approach to Capture Fisheries and Species Introductions. FAO Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries, 2: 54 p.

FAO Fisheries Glossary. Accessed December 8, 2010. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fi/glossary/

Falk-Petersen, J., T. Bøhn & O. T. Sandlund. 2006. On the numerous concepts in invasion biology. Biological Invasions 8:1409–1424.

Field, J., Cope, J. & Key, M. 2010. A descriptive example of applying vulnerability evaluation criteria to California nearshore finfish species. Managing Data-Poor Fisheries: Case Studies, Models & Solutions, 1, 235–246.

Finnegan, S., S. C. Wang, A. G. Boyer, M. E. Clapham, Z. V. Finkel, M. A. Kosnik, M. Kowalewski, R. A. J. Krause, S. K. Lyons, C. R. McClain, D. McShea, P. M. Novack-Gottshall, R. Lockwood, J. Payne, F. Smith, P. A. Spaeth, and J. A. Stempien. 2009. No general relationship between body size and extinction risk in the fossil record of marine invertebrates and phytoplankton. in GSA Annual Meeting, Portland, OR.

Foley, M.M., Halpern, B.S., Micheli, F. et al. 2010. Guiding ecological principles for marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 34: 955-966.

Froese, R., T.A. Branch, A. Proelß, M. Quaas, K. Sainsbury, and C. Zimmermann. 2010. Generic harvest control rules for European fisheries. Fish and Fisheries: doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00387.x

Froese, R., and D. Pauly. 2010. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org.

Fuller, S.D., C Picco, et al. 2008. How we fish matters: Addressing the ecological impacts of Canadian fishing gear. Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society, and Marine Conservation Biology Institute. 25pp.

Goodman, D., M. Mangel, G. Parkes, T. Quinn, V. Restrepo, T. Smith and K. Stokes. 2002. Scientific Review of The Harvest Strategy Currently Used in The Bsai and Goa Groundfish Fishery Management Plans, North Pacific Fishery Management Council, Anchorage, AK. 153 p. Available at: http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/npfmc/misc_pub/f40review1102.pdf

Hall, M. 1998. An ecological view of the tuna-dolphin problem: Impacts and tradeoffs. Reviews of fish biology and fisheries (8):1-34

Hallier, J.P. and D. Gaertner. 2008. Drifting fish aggregation devices could act as an ecological trap for tropical tuna species. Marine Ecology Progress Series 353:255-264.

68 <>

Hobday, A., M. J. Tegner, and P. L. Haaker. 2001. Over-exploitation of a broadcast spawning marine invertebrate: Decline of the white abalone. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:493-514.

Johannes, R. E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: Examples from tropical nearshore fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243–246.

Jones, J.B. 1992. Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 26: 59-67

Kaiser, M.J., J. S.Collie, S. J Hall, S. Jennings, I. R. Poiner. 2001. Impacts of fishing gear on marine benthic habitats. Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. Reykjavik, Iceland. ftp://ftp.fao.org/fi/document/reykjavik/pdf/12kaiser.PDF Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world’s marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470. Rome, FAO. 131p.

Kostow, K. 2009. Factors that contribute to the ecological risks of salmon and steelhead hatchery programs and some mitigating strategies. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 19:1, 9-31.

Lindeboom, H. J., and Groot, S. J. de (eds) 1998. The effects of different types of fisheries on the North Sea and Irish Sea benthic ecosystems. NIOZ-Rapport 1998-1, RIVO-DLO Report C003/98: 404 pp.

Lindholm, J. B., P. J. Auster, M. Ruth, and L. S. Kaufman. 2001. Modeling the effects of fishing, and implications for the design of marine protected areas: juvenile fish responses to variations in seafloor habitat. Conservation Biology 15:424–437.

Mace, P.M. and M.P. Sissenwine. 1993. How much spawning per recruit is enough? pp 101–118 in S.J. Smith, J.J. Hunt and D.Revered (eds.) Risk Evaluation and Biological Reference Points for Fisheries Management. Canadian Special Publication of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 120. National Research Council of Canada.

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). 2010. Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies, version 2.1, including Default Assessment Tree and Risk-Based Framework. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. 120 p. Available at: http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme documents/methodologies/Fisheries_Assessment_Methodology.pdf

McKinney, M. L. 1997. Extinction vulnerability and selectivity: Combining ecological and paleontological views. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 28:495-516. MSC. 2009. Marine Stewardship Council Fisheries Assessment Methodology and Guidance to Certification Bodies Including Default Assessment Tree and Risk-Based Framework

Myers R. A., Bowen K. G., and Barrowman N. J. 1999. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2404-2419.

Musick, J. A. 1999. Criteria to define extinction risk in marine fishes. Fisheries 24:6-14.

New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. 2008. Harvest Strategy Standard for New Zealand Fisheries. 25 p. Available at: http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/16543/harveststrategyfinal.pdf.ashx

69 <>

NOAA. 1997. NOAA Fisheries Strategic Plan. 48p. Available at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/om2/nmfsplan.pdf

O'Malley, S. L. 2010. Predicting vulnerability of fishes. Masters Thesis. University of Toronto, Toronto.

Paine, R.T. 1995. "A Conversation on Refining the Concept of Keystone Species". Conservation Biology 9 (4): 962–964.

Patrick, W. S., P. Spencer, O. Ormseth, J. Cope, J. Field, D. Kobayashi, T. Gedamke, E. Cortés, K. Bigelow, W. Overholtz, J. Link, and P. Lawson. 2009. Use of productivity and susceptibility indices to determine stock vulnerability, with example applications to six U.S. fisheries. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-101, Seattle, WA.

Pinsky, M.L., Jensen, O.P., Ricard, D., Paulumbi, S.R. 2011. Unexpected pattersn of fisheries collapse in the world’s oceans. PNAS: 108 (20) 8317-8322

Restrepo, V.R. and J. E. Powers. 1998. Precautionary control rules in US fisheries management: specification and performance. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 846–852.

Restrepo, V.R., G.G. Thompson, P.M. Mace, W.L. Gabriel, L.L. Low, A.D. MacCall, R.D. Methot, J.E. Powers, B.L. Taylor, P.R. Wade and J.F. Witzig. 1998. Technical Guidance on the Use of Precautionary Approaches to Implementing National Standard 1 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-137. 54pps.

Roughgarden, J. and F. Smith. 1996. Why fisheries collapse and what to do about it. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., (USA), 93:5078-5083

70 Version October 8, 2014

Appendices

Appendix 1 – Further guidance on interpreting the health of stocks and fishing mortality

The tremendous variability among fisheries makes it impossible to define specific appropriate reference points that would be applicable to all assessed fisheries. Instead, criteria are based on the commonly accepted management goal that target biomass should be at or above the point where yield is maximized, and management should ensure a high probability that biomass is at or above a limit reference point (where recruitment or productivity of the stock would be impaired). Three common types of reference points are MSY-based, SPR-based, and ICES reference points. However, other reference points may be used in some fisheries, and should be evaluated in accordance with the management goal articulated above.

MSY-based reference points While the concept of MSY is far from perfect, MSY-based biomass and fishing mortality reference points are commonly used in some of the most well managed fisheries around the world. When applied appropriately, these reference points are an important tool for maintaining stock productivity in the long term. However, without properly accounting for scientific and management uncertainty, maintaining a stock at BMSY (the biomass corresponding to MSY) and harvesting at MSY runs a high risk of unknowingly either overshooting MSY or allowing biomass to drop below BMSY without reducing harvest rates and thus inadvertently overharvesting (Roughgarden and Smith 1996; Froese et al. 2010). The risk of impacts from inadvertent overharvesting increases with increased uncertainty and with increased inherent vulnerability of the targeted stock. To account for these interactions, the guidance provided for assessing stock health and fishing mortality is based on MSY reference points but requires high scientific confidence that biomass is above target levels and that fishing mortality is below MSY.

Proxies for BMSY are acceptable if shown to be conservative relative to BMSY for that stock, or if they fit within the guidelines for appropriate target level*. Where BMSY or proxy reference points are not known or are not applicable, the stock/population health criteria can be interpreted using relevant indicators that are appropriate as targets and safe limits for abundance of the species (e.g., escapement relative to escapement goals can be evaluated in lieu of biomass relative to limit reference points).

SPR-based reference points In the absence of stock assessments and MSY-based reference points, the stock health can be evaluated based on CPUE, trends in abundance and size structure, and/or simple, easy to calculate reference points such as Fraction of Lifetime Egg Production (FLEP) (equivalent to Spawning Potential Ratio, SPR). Other data-poor or alternative assessment techniques that provide evidence that stocks are healthy (i.e., productivity and reproduction are not impaired) may be used in place of reference points. Guidelines may be added on a continuing basis, but they must be demonstrated to be accurate indicators of stock health. Guidance for assessing stock health and fishing mortality for data-poor stocks is based on O’Farrell and Botsford (2005) and Honey et al. (2010) but can be addressed on a case-by case basis with a goal of ensuring that data-poor fisheries are held to the same standard of likelihood as data-rich fisheries when stocks are above a level where recruitment would be impaired and fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level of harvest.

*Underlined terms have been defined in the glossary. Ctrl + Click to view.

• Examples of evidence that a stock is above the point where recruitment or productivity is impaired. i.e. an appropriate limit reference point, include: o the current lifetime egg production (LEP) or spawning per recruit (SPR) is above an appropriate SPR or Fraction of Lifetime Egg Production (FLEP)-related reference point; o spawning potential is well protected (e.g., females are not subject to mortality, and it can be shown or inferred that fertilization is not reduced); o quantitative analyses conducted by fishery scientists under transparent guidelines indicate sufficient stock • Strong, quantitative scientific evidence from the fishery under consideration is required to consider a stock a “very low concern”. When limited data are available from the fishery, analogy with similar systems, qualitative expert judgments and/or plausible arguments may be used to consider the stock “low concern”. • Use of CPUE requires the absence of hyperstability, that CPUE is proportional to abundance (or adjusted), and that there have been no major changes in technology. • If relying on CPUE rather than a LEP-based reference point, trends in size structure are also needed to ensure the fishery is not reducing stock productivity by depleting the relative proportion of large individuals. • The LEP can be estimated from length frequency data from both unfished (or marine reserve) and current populations, and does not require catch-at-age data. Reference points based on FLEP should be considered limit reference points.

For “very low concern” ratings, there must be no evidence that productivity has been reduced through fisheries-induced changes in size or age structure, size or age at maturity, sex distribution, etc. SPR- based and MSY-based reference points should account for these changes as they are based on productivity of the stock rather than simple abundance. If the metric considers abundance only, or if there is evidence that productivity has been reduced through shifts in age, size or sex distributions, the stock cannot be rated higher than “low concern”.

ICES reference points The ICES reference points Fpa, Flim, Bpa, and Blim are not equivalent to MSY-based reference points. In fact, comparisons have demonstrated that Fpa is typically above FMSY and Bpa is typically below BMSY, such that MSY-based reference points are generally more conservative (ICES 2010). In many cases, Bpa is well below BMSY and even below 1/2BMSY (Kell et al. 2005). Therefore, guidance for evaluating stock health using Bpa and fishing mortality using Fpa is conservative, accounting for the difference between these reference points and MSY-based reference points. ICES plans to transition to an MSY-based approach by 2015 (ICES 2010). If B>Bpa or F

Proxies

For many fisheries, FMSY and BMSY are unknown, and proxies are often used. Most commonly, biomass proxies are based on the percent of unfished or virgin biomass (B0). Fishing mortality proxies are often based on spawning potential ratio (SPR).

Commonly used and acceptable biomass reference points are typically 35–40% of B0 for most stocks (Clark 1991; NZ Ministry of Fisheries 2008). This target may vary according to stock productivity;

however, justifications for lower target levels are often based on assumptions about “steepness6“ that may be highly uncertain or poorly understood. It is now recognized that stock targets lower than approximately 30-40% of B0 are increasingly difficult to justify (NZ Ministry of Fisheries 2008). For these targets to be considered appropriate reference points, solid scientific justification is required. In addition, stocks reduced to this target level or below (equivalent to removing more than 60–70% of the stock’s biomass) would be unlikely to achieve the ecosystem-based management goal of allowing a stock to fulfill its ecological role and should be scored accordingly under ecosystem-based management.

Alternatively, when unfished biomass cannot be estimated, proxy biomass reference points may be based on the equilibrium biomass achieved using appropriate fishing mortality reference points, as described below.

A large body of scientific literature addresses appropriate fishing mortality reference points based on spawner biomass per recruit (SPR). Ideally, these should be shown through scientific analysis to be at or above replacement %SPR (the threshold level of SPR necessary for replacement) for the species, based on its productivity and S-R relationship (viz. Mace and Sissenwine 1993). However, for many species this analysis will not be available. In these cases, guidance is based on the conclusions of numerous analyses demonstrating that, in general, F35-40% (the fishing mortality rate that reduces the SPR to 35–40% of unfished levels) is appropriate for species with moderate vulnerability, while a more conservative fishing mortality rate of about F50-60% is needed for highly vulnerable species such as rockfish and sharks (Botsford and Parma 2005; Mace and Sissenwine 1993; Clark 2002; Myers et al. 1999; Goodman et al. 2002).

Evaluating Fishing Mortality

Evaluation of fishing mortality should reflect the mortality caused by the fishery, but in the context of whether cumulative impacts on the species (including mortality from other fisheries) are sustainable. When determining whether a fishery is a substantial contributor, err on the side of caution. Unknown or missing data are grounds for classification as a substantial contributor.

Reference points Generally, species should be managed with reference points that fit the definition of a sustainable level of fishing mortality and/or an appropriate SPR or Fraction of Lifetime Egg Production (FLEP)-related reference point. Species that are not commercially fished or managed but make up non-target catch in the fishery will generally not have reference points defined. In lieu of reference points, these stocks should be evaluated relative to a level of mortality scientifically shown not to lead to depletion of the stock. For species with high vulnerability, the reference point must be demonstrated to be appropriate for that species’ biology. As a rule of thumb, F40% is not precautionary enough for high vulnerability species; F50% or lower is more appropriate when using SPR-based proxies.

ICES reference points

Because analysis has shown that the ICES reference point Fpa is typically above FMSY, ICES stocks using Fpa as a reference point must be rated more conservatively than stocks using FMSY. If F > Fpa, rate the stock as “high concern”. If F < Fpa, rate the stock as “moderate concern,” unless there is additional evidence that F is below a sustainable level such as Fmsy.

6 Steepness is a key parameter of the Beverton-Holt spawner-recruit model that is defined as the proportion of unfished recruitment produced by 20% of the unfished spawning biomass. Steepness is difficult to estimate, and the calculation of reference points is often very sensitive to estimates of steepness.

Data-poor stocks When no reference points are available (i.e., in data-poor fisheries), fishing mortality can be evaluated based on the likelihood that management actions and characteristics of the fishery constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. For example, fishing mortality could be considered a low concern if the fishery has a low likelihood of interacting with a non-target species due to low overlap between the species range and the fishery, or due to low gear selectivity for the species (resulting in low susceptibility; see below). Fishing mortality on target or non-target species may be considered a low concern if there is a very low level of exploitation, as in an experimental emerging fishery, or if a large portion of the stock’s key habitat is protected in no-take reserves that have been shown to effectively protect the species. We hope to incorporate the results of ongoing research to provide more specific guidance on the amount of habitat that should be protected in marine reserves. In the interim, however, in order to score fishing mortality as a very low concern in the absence of reference points or other information about fishing mortality rates, at least 50% of all representative habitats should be protected in Marine Protected Areas where the assessed stock experiences no fishery mortality.

Appendix 2 – Susceptibility attributes from the MSC FAM

Where no information on fishing mortality is available in a data-poor fishery, susceptibility may be used as a proxy (see Factor 1.3). The concept of susceptibility is based on the “Susceptibility” attributes from the Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) used in the MSC Certification Requirements document (2012). The susceptibility attributes and scoring guide from the MSC are given below. “Selectivity” should be scored only once for the appropriate gear type; where no cut-offs for a particular gear type are provided, the analyst shall develop similar selectivity tables that are appropriate for the gear and shall include a justification for the factors used and cut-offs selected in these cases.

Instructions for use: for each species in each fishery, score each attribute of susceptibility below. The final susceptibility score is the arithmetic mean of each attribute, and is considered “low” susceptibility overall if the final score is <=1.5, moderate if between 1.5 and 2.5, and high if >=2.5

Low susceptibility (low Medium susceptibility High susceptibility (high risk, risk, score: 1) (medium risk, score: 2) score: 3) Areal overlap – Overlap of the fishing effort with a species distribution of the stock. <10% overlap 10–30% overlap >30% overlap Vertical overlap – The position of the stock/species within the water column relative to the fishing Low overlap with fishing Medium overlap with gear. gear fishing gear High overlap with fishing gear Selectivity for set gillnets Selectivity is the potential of gear to capture or Length at maturity < Length at maturity is 1-2 Length at maturity >2 times retain the mesh size, or >5 m in times mesh size or 4-5 m mesh size, to say, 4 m in species length in length length Selectivity for hooks a. Does not eat bait a. Large species, with a. Bait used in the fishery is

Defined by typical (e.g. diet specialist), filter adults rarely caught, but selected for this type of weights of the feeder (e.g. basking juveniles captured by species, and is a known diet species caught relative to shark), small mouth (e.g. hooks. preference (e.g. squid bait the breaking strain of the sea horse). used for swordfish), or snood, the gaffing Most robust scoring b. Species with important in wild diet. method used in the attribute. capacity to break fishery, and by diet of snood when being b. Species unable potential species b. Species with landed. to break snood capacity to break when being landed Scores for hook line when hooked c. Selectivity known susceptibility may be (e.g. large toothed to be medium from c. Selectivity known assigned using the whales, and sharks). selectivity to be high from selectivity categories to the right. If analysis/experiment analysis/experiment there are conflicting c. Selectivity known (e.g. 33-66% of fish (e.g. >66% of fish answers, e.g. Low on to be low from encountering gear are encountering gear point 1 but medium on selectivity selected). are selected) point 2, the higher risk analysis/experiment score shall be used. (e.g. <33% of fish encountering gear are selected) Selectivity for Traps/Pots a. Cannot physically a. Can enter and easily a. Can enter, but cannot Scores for trap enter the trap (e.g. too escape from the trap, but easily escape from the susceptibility may be big for openings, sessile is attracted to the trap trap, and is attracted to assigned using the species, wrong shape, (e.g. does eat the bait, or either the bait, or the categories to the right. If etc.). trap is attractive as habitat provided by the trap. there are conflicting habitat) answers, e.g. b. Can enter and easily b. Species regularly found in Low on point 1 but escape from the trap, b. Can enter, but cannot the trap medium on point 2, the and no incentive to enter easily escape from the higher risk score shall be the trap (does not eat trap, and no incentive to used. bait, trap is not enter the trap (does not attractive as habitat, eat bait, trap is not etc.) attractive as habitat, etc.)

c. Species occasionally found in the trap. Post-capture mortality (scores vary by fishery)

The chance that, if captured, a species would be released in condition that would permit Evidence of post-capture Retained species, or majority subsequent survival release and survival Released alive dead when released

Appendix 3 – Matrix of bycatch impacts by gear type

The matrix shown in this appendix is used to determine the relative impact of a fishery on bycatch species of various taxa for fisheries where species and amounts of bycatch are not available or are incomplete. The matrix represents typical relative impacts of different fishing gear on various taxa based on the best available science. The values in the matrix were developed initially by averaging the findings of two studies that ranked the relative ecological impacts of fishing gear (Fuller et al. 2008; Chuenpagdee et al. 2003). Some values in the matrix have been updated based on a survey of scientific experts on bycatch from around the world to increase the global relevance of the matrix.

The findings of the studies used to construct this matrix were pulled from literature searches, fisheries data and expert opinion. In general, these studies ranked the severity of fishing gear impacts as shown in this table (in order of severity):

Chuenpagdee et al 2003 Fuller et al 2008 Bottom trawl Bottom trawl Bottom gillnet Bottom gillnet Dredge Dredge Midwater gillnet Bottom longline Pot and traps Midwater trawl Pelagic longline Pot and trap Bottom longline Pelagic longline Midwater trawl Midwater gillnet Purse seine Purse seine Hook and line Hook and line Dive Harpoon

Because these studies were based on fisheries operating in Canadian and United States waters, we also conducted a review of literature and expert opinion on bycatch severity by gear type from different regions of the world. Some of the initial values from Fuller et al. (2008) and Chuenpagdee et al. (2003) were adjusted accordingly. These changes are intended to better reflect the array of bycatch issues that occur using the same gear types in different regions of the world. For example, we increased the potential severity of bycatch of seabirds for trawlers operating in regions where there is a high occurrence of albatross and petrel interaction based on studies that found (1) seabirds may collide with net monitoring (net sonde) cables and trawl warps, and (2) seabirds can become entangled in the net (while attempting to feed) when the trawl is at the surface during setting and hauling (Weimerskirch et al. 2000; Wienecke and Robertson 2002; Sullivan 2006; Bull 2007; Abraham et al. 2008).

In addition, we increased the potential severity of midwater trawl impacts on marine mammals based on the study of DuFresne et al. (2007), which found fishing depth (midwater) to be the most important predictor of common dolphin bycatch. Another study by Fertl and Leatherwood (1997) found more cetaceans caught in midwater than bottom trawls. Also, pinniped species have been shown to use trawl fisheries for food and may become trapped in nets and drown (Fertl & Leatherwood 1997; Morizur et al. 1999; Rowe 2007). For example, New Zealand fur seals are attracted to the physical presence of fishing vessels and are thought to become caught when the net is being shot or during hauling (Baird & Bradford 2000).

Bycatch severity for biogenic habitats (coral and sponges) by gear type was determined by averaging the values given in Fuller et al. (2008) and Chuenpagdee et al. (2003). In Chuenpagdee et al. (2003), this category was named “biological habitat” and in Fuller et al. (2008) it was called “coral and sponges.” We did not change these values because it is likely that gear types that contact the bottom have the same potential for severe impacts throughout the world’s oceans. Impacts from fishing on the benthos occur on virtually all continental shelves worldwide (Watling 2005).

We increased the number of trawl types from only bottom and midwater (used in both Fuller et al. (2008) and Chuenpagdee et al. (2003)) to also include bottom trawl categories for tropical/subtropical fish, tropical/subtropical shrimp, coldwater fish, and coldwater shrimp. Shrimp trawls are not designed to drag along the bottom and herd fish, so they receive a lower impact score in the matrix for finfish bycatch. The turtle bycatch score was increased for tropical trawls to account for the severe threats to turtles posed by bottom trawling in tropical waters worldwide.

Other changes to the findings of Fuller et al. (2008) and Chuenpagdee et al. (2003) include separating the different purse seine techniques into FAD/log sets, dolphin/whale sets and unassociated school sets based on the variable bycatch rates found in a study by Hall (1998). Hall (1998) found that log (FAD) sets have the overall greatest bycatch for some species, followed by school sets and dolphin sets. Turtle bycatch potential was derived from research by Wallace and Lewison (2010).

Bottom seines or demersal seines (including Danish seines, Scottish fly-dragging seines and pair seines) were not included in the Fuller et al. (2008) and Chuenpagdee et al. (2003) studies because these gear types are not commonly used in the U.S. or Canada. Like purse seines, these gear types are used to encircle a school of fish, but they are operated in contact with the seafloor. A study by Palsson (2003) compared haddock discards among three demersal gear types in Icelandic waters and found fish bycatch to be lowest in Danish seines when compared with demersal trawls and longline gear. Danish seines targeting benthic fish species can incidentally catch non-target species such as flatfish, cod, and haddock (Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries 2010). Alverson et al. (1996) found that Danish seines generally fell into a low-moderate bycatch group of gear, with lower bycatch ratios than the majority of gear types, including bottom trawls, longlines and pots, but with higher bycatch than pelagic trawls and purse seines. Based on these findings, the bycatch score of Danish seines was estimated from the score for purse seines with an increase in the effects on shellfish to account for Danish seines being operated on the seafloor, an increase in the effect on finfish to account for greater bycatch of benthic fish such as flatfish, cod and haddock, and a decrease in the effect on forage fish, which are typically pelagic.

Unknown bycatch matrix

Highest impacts receive a score of 1 and lowest impacts receive a score of 5. Key: B = Bottom, P = Pelagic, M = Mid-water, BTF = Bottom tropical fish, BTS = Bottom tropical shrimp, BCF = Bottom coldwater fish, BCS = Bottom coldwater shrimp, PF = Purse FAD/log (tuna), PD = Purse dolphin/whale (tuna), PU = Purse unassociated (tuna), Pot = Pot and trap, HD = Harpoon/diver, TP = Troll/pole and line

Longline Gillnet Trawl Dredge Seine Other B P B M B BTF BTS BCF BCS M B P PF PD PU Pot HD TP Benthic Inverts 4.5 5 3 5 2 2 2 2 2 5 1 3 5 5 5 5 3.5 5 5 Finfish 2 2 2 1 2 1 2 2.5 2 1 3 2 4 2 3 2 3.5 5 3 Forage Fish 5 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 1 5 3 3 2 3 2 4 5 4 Sharks 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 3.5 3.5 2 5 3 5 5 3.5 Mammals 4 4 1 1 2 1 4 4 4 2 5 3.5 3.5 5 3 5 4 5 5 Seabirds (within albatross range) 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4.5 Seabirds (outside albatross range) 5 3 3 1 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Turtles (within turtle range) 4 1 2 1 4 1 1 5 5 4 3 4 4 3 5 4 5 5 4 Corals and other biogenic habitats 3 5 2 5 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 5 5 5 5 3.5 5 4.5

Additional guidance for unknown bycatch species

Sea turtles – all endangered/threatened: See Wallace et al. (2010) for global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. In addition, a global program, Mapping the World's Sea Turtles, created by the SWOT (State of the World's Sea Turtles) database is a comprehensive global database of sea turtle nesting sites around the world. The SWOT map is highly detailed and can be customized, allowing location filters and highlights of both species and colony size with variously colored and shaped icons. This map together with the paper by Wallace et al. (2010) can help to determine if the fishery being assessed has potential interactions with sea turtles.

Sharks, marine mammals and seabirds: Identify whether the fishery overlaps with any endangered/threatened or overfished species and err on the side of caution if species-specific and geographic information is inconclusive. For example, if shark populations are data deficient, err on the side of caution and rate as “overfished” or “depleted”.

Sharks: Select “overfished” or “depleted”, when data deficient or select “endangered/threatened” when data exist to support this (see Camhi et al. 2009). Globally, three-quarters (16 of 21) of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays have an elevated risk of extinction due to overfishing (Dulvy et al. 2008). See Camhi et al. (2009) for geographic areas, IUCN status and conservation concerns by shark species. Table 1 illustrates additional resolutions, recommendations and conservation and management measures by RFMO for sharks. Additional region and species-specific shark conservation information associated follows Table 1 in list format (Camhi 2009; Bradford 2010).

Marine mammals: The global distribution marine mammals and their important conservation areas are given by Pompa et al. (2011), who also used geographic ranges to identify 20 key global conservation sites for all marine mammal species (123) and created range maps for them (Figure 1; Table 2; Pompa et al. 2011 and supplt.).

Seabirds: Figures 2 and 3 illustrate the distribution of threatened seabirds throughout the world (Birdlife International 2011). Also see Birdlife International (2010) to locate Marine Important Bird Areas (MIBA). Albatross are the most highly threatened family, with all 22 species either globally threatened or near threatened. The penguins and shearwaters/gadfly petrels also contain a high proportion of threatened species (Birdlife International 2010).

Teleost fish species: Unknown (a Moderate Concern) unless data exist that would indicate an alternative rating.

Table 1. Active resolutions, recommendations, and conservation and management measures by RFMO for sharks. Table from Camhi et al. (2009). a ICCAT = International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas; NAFO = North Atlantic Fisheries Organization; GFCM = General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean; SEAFO = South East Atlantic Fisheries Organization; IATTC = Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission; WCPFC = Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission; IOTC = Indian Ocean Tuna Commission; CCAMLR = Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. b The weight of recommendations and resolutions varies by RFMO. For example, all ICCAT recommendations are binding, whereas resolutions are not.

Ocean/ Res/Rec Title Main actions RFMOa/Y No.b ear Atlantic, ICAAT 1995 Res. 95-2 Resolution by ICCAT on cooperation with the • Urges members to collect species-specific data on biology, bycatch and trade in shark Food and Agriculture Organization of the species and provide these data to FAO United Nations with regard to study on the status of stocks and by-catches of shark species 2003 Res. 03-10 Resolution by ICCAT on the shark fishery • Requests all members to submit data on shark catch, effort by gear, landings and trade in shark products • Urges members to fully implement a NPOA 2004 Rec. 04-10 Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the • Requires members to annually report shark catch and effort data • Requires full utilization conservation of sharks caught in association • Bans finning • Encourages live release • Commits to reassess shortfin mako and blue with fisheries managed by ICCAT sharks by 2007 • Promotes research on gear selectivity and identification of nursery areas 2005 Rec. 05-05 Recommendation by ICCAT to amend • Requires annual reporting of progress made toward implementation of Rec. 04-10 by Recommendation 04-10 concerning the members • Urges member action to reduce North Atlantic shortfin mako mortality conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT 2006 Rec. 06-10 Supplementary recommendation by ICCAT • Acknowledges little progress in quantity and quality of shark catch statistics • Reiterates concerning the conservation of sharks caught call for current and historical shark data in preparation for blue and shortfin mako in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT assessments in 2008 2007 Rec. 07-06 Supplemental recommendation by ICCAT • Reiterates mandatory data reporting for sharks • Urges measures to reduce mortality of concerning sharks targeted porbeagle and shortfin mako • Encourages research into nursery areas and possible time and area closures • Plans to conduct porbeagle assessment no later than 2009 2008 Rec. 08-07 Recommendation by ICCAT on the • Urges live release of bigeye thresher sharks to the extent practicable • Requires bigeye conservation of bigeye thresher sharks shark catches and live releases be reported (Alopias superciliosus) caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT Atlantic, NAFO 2009 Mgt. Conservation and management of sharks • Requires reporting of all current and historical shark catches • Promotes full utilization • Measure Bans finning • Encourages live release • Promotes research on gear selectivity and

Article 17 identification of nursery areas Atlantic, SEAFO 2006 Conservatio Conservation measure 04/06 on the • Same provisions as ICCAT Rec. 04-10, except does not include stock assessments n measure conservation of sharks caught in association 04/06 with fisheries managed by SEAFO Med., GFCM 2005 GFCM/2005/ Recommendation by ICCAT concerning the • Same provisions as ICCAT Rec. 04-10 3 conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT 2006 GFCM/2006/ Recommendation by ICCAT to amend • Same provisions as ICCAT Rec. 05-05 8(B) Recommendation [04-10] concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT Indian, IOTC 2005 Res. 05/05 Concerning the conservation of sharks caught • Requires members to report shark catches annually, including historical data • Plans to in association with fisheries managed by IOTC provide preliminary advice on stock status by 2006 • Requires full utilization and live release • Bans finning • Promotes research on gear selectivity and to ID nursery areas 2008 Res. 08/01 Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC • Requires members to submit timely catch and effort data for all species, including members and cooperating non-contracting commonly caught shark species and less common sharks, where possible parties (CPCs) 2008 Res. 08/04 Concerning the recording of catch by longline • Mandates logbook reporting of catch by species per set, including for blue, porbeagle, fishing vessels in the IOTC area mako and other sharks Pacific, IATTC 2005 Res. C-05-03 Resolution on the conservation of sharks • Promotes NPOA development among members • Work with WCPFC to conduct shark caught in association with fisheries in the population assessments • Promotes full utilization • Bans finning • Encourages live release Eastern Pacific Ocean and gear-selectivity research • Requires species-specific reporting for sharks, including historical data 2006 Res. C-04-05 Consolidated resolution on bycatch • Requires prompt release of sharks, rays and other non-target species • Promotes research (REV 2) into methods to avoid bycatch (time-area analyses), survival rates of released bycatch and techniques to facilitate live release • Urges members to “provide the required bycatch information as soon as possible” Pacific, WCFPC 2008 Cons. & Mgt. Conservation and management measure for • Urges members to implement the IPOA and report back on progress • Requires annual Measure sharks in the Western and Central Pacific reporting of catches and effort • Encourages live release and full utilization • Bans finning 2008-06 Ocean for vessels of all sizes • Plans to provide preliminary advice on stock status of key sharks by (replaces 2010 2006-05)

Southern, CCAMLR 2006 32-18 Conservation of sharks • Prohibits directed fishing of sharks • Live release of bycatch sharks

Additional shark information and citations (Bradford 2010)

• In the Gulf of Mexico, Baum and Myers (2004) found that between the 1950s and the late 1990s, oceanic whitetip and silky sharks (formerly the most commonly caught shark species in the Gulf of Mexico) declined by over 99 and 90%, respectively. • In the Northwest Atlantic, Baum et al. (2003) estimated that scalloped hammerhead, white, and thresher sharks had declined by over 75% between the mid 1980s and late 1990s. The study also found that all recorded shark species in the Northwest Atlantic, with the exception of mako sharks, declined by over 50% during the same time period. • Myers et al. (2007) reported declines of 87% for sandbar sharks, 93% for blacktip sharks, 97% for tiger sharks, 98% for scalloped hammerheads, and 99% or more for bull, dusky, and smooth hammerhead sharks along the Eastern seaboard since surveys began along the coast of North Carolina in 1972. • The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has declared that “32% of all pelagic sharks and rays are Threatened.” The IUCN has declared another 6% to be Endangered, and 26% to be Vulnerable. • In the Mediterranean Sea, Ferretti et al. (2008) found that hammerhead, blue, mackerel, and thresher sharks have declined between 96 and 99.99% relative to their former abundance levels. • Ward and Myers (2005) report a 21% decline in abundance of large sharks and tunas in the tropical Pacific since the onset of commercial fishing in the 1950s. • Meyers and Worm (2005) indicate a global depletion of large predatory fish communities of at least 90% over the past 50–100 years. The authors suggest that declines are “even higher for sensitive species such as sharks.” • Dulvy et al. (2008) state that “globally, three-quarters (16 of 21) of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays have an elevated risk of extinction due to overfishing.” • Graham et al. (2001) found an average decrease of 20% in the catch rate of sharks and rays off New South Wales, Australia, between 1976 and 1997.

Table 2. Marine mammal species in important conservation sites. “Irreplaceable areas” contain species found nowhere else. Figures from Pompa et al. (2011; supplt. material). 1Monachus schauinslandi, 2Arctocephalus galapagoensis, 3A. philippii, 4Inia geoffrensis, Trichechus inunguis (both freshwater) and Sotalia fluviatilis, 5Monachus monachus, 6Platanista minor (freshwater), 7Platanista gangetica (freshwater), 8Lipotes vexillifer (freshwater), 9Pusa sibirica (freshwater), 10Pusa caspica, 11Cephalorhynchus commersonii and A. gazella. *VU = Vulnerable, EN = Endangered, CR = Critically Endangered, LR = Lesser Risk, EX = Extinct, CE = Critically Endangered; V = Vulnerable, RS = Relatively Stable or Intact. Data from Olson and Dinerstein (2002).

Key conservation Number Endemic/ Risk category Number and name of the Estimated sites of small- for each ecoregion* conservation species range ecoregion* status of the ecoregion* Highest richness South African 16 4 VU, EN 209: Benguela Current V 211: Agulhas Current RS Argentinean 15 4 VU, EN 205: Patagonian Southwest V Atlantic Australian 14 4 VU, EN 206: Southern Australian RS 222: Great Barrier RS Baja Californian 25 7 VU, EN, CR 214: Gulf of California CE Peruvian 19 5 VU, EN 210: Humboldt Current V Japanese 25 7 VU, EN, LR 217: Nansei Shoto CE New Zealand 13 2 VU, EN, LR 207: New Zealand V Northwestern 25 7 VU, EN, LR 216: Canary Current CE African Northeastern 25 7 VU, EN, LR 202: Chesapeake Bay V American Irreplaceable Hawaiian Islands 11 1 EN 227: Hawaiian Marine V Galapagos Islands 12 1 VU 215: Galapagos Marine V San Félix and Juan 13 1 VU 210: Humboldt Current V Fernández Islands Amazon River 24 1 VU 147: Amazon River/Flooded RS Forests Mediterranean Sea 15 1 CR 199: Mediterranean Sea CE Indus River 16 1 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed Ganges River 17 1 EN Not Listed Not Listed Yang-tse River 18 1 EX 149: Yang-Tse River And CE Lakes Baikal Lake 19 1 LR 184: Lake Baikal V Caspian Sea 110 1 VU Not Listed Not Listed Kerguelen Islands 111 1 Not Listed Not Listed Not Listed

Figure 1. Geographic distribution of marine mammal species richness (left column) for A. Pinnipeds; B. Mysticetes; C. Odontocetes. Figure from Pompa et al. (2011).

Figure 2. At-sea distribution of threatened seabirds around the globe. Each polygon represents the range map for one threatened species. Areas of darkest blue show the areas of the ocean where the ranges of the greatest number of threatened species overlap. Figure from Birdlife International (2011).

Figure 3. Worldwide distribution of albatross and petrels. Figure from Birdlife International (2011).

Appendix 4 – Appropriate management strategies

Appropriate management procedures may vary greatly between different fisheries, regulatory frameworks and species. To some extent, assessment of harvest control rules and other management strategies must therefore be addressed on a case-by-case basis. However, general guidelines for appropriate management are still relevant and useful. For fisheries managed using catch limits or TACs, these guidelines have been derived largely from the guidance provided for implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act used for fishery management in the U.S. (Restrepo and Powers 1998; Restrepo et al. 1998). While other countries have different regulatory frameworks, similar strategies to those suggested in Restrepo et al. (1998) are used throughout the world where stock assessments are available and catch limits are employed (e.g., Australian Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 2007; NZ Ministry of Fisheries 2008; DFO 2009). Commonly accepted strategies include setting fishing mortality rates safely below FMSY (or equivalent) to account for uncertainty; reducing F when stocks fall below biomass target reference points (generally around BMSY or 40% of unfished biomass); and reducing fishing mortality when stock falls below a critical level where recruitment is impaired. Management reference points are assumed to be valid unless scientific information exists to suggest otherwise, e.g., a scientific assessment or controversy that strongly suggests current reference points are not appropriate for the species under assessment.

In general, the minimal attributes of an appropriate management strategy include: 1. A process for monitoring and conducting “assessments” (not necessarily formal stock assessments). Monitoring should occur regularly, though the frequency of assessments needed may vary depending on the variability of the stock. 2. Rules that control the intensity of fishing activity or otherwise ensure the protection of stock productivity. 3. A process to modify rules according to assessment results, as needed.

Some effective management strategies

For data-rich or data-moderate stocks that have quota-based management, a “highly effective” management strategy is one that: • Incorporates an up-to-date, scientific stock assessment that allows managers to determine if stocks are healthy and to set appropriate quotas; • Uses appropriate limit and target reference points for stock and fishing mortality; • Chooses risk-averse policies rather than risky, yield-maximizing policies; • Includes buffers in the TAC to account for uncertainty in stock assessments o Set Allowable Biological Catch (ABC) and Annual Catch Limit (ACL) at less than the Over- Fishing Level (OFL = long term mean of MSY) to account for scientific uncertainty (survey data on stock size, etc. can reduce scientific uncertainty); o Set Total Allowable Catch (TAC) at less than ABC to account for management uncertainty (monitoring catch, etc. can reduce management uncertainty); o As a rule of thumb, TAC should have less than 30% p* (likelihood) of exceeding OFL; or TAC should be set such that F is 25% below the threshold fishing pressure, e.g. Fmsy (Restrepo et al. 1998) o Stocks with low biomass, high vulnerability, and high uncertainty warrant greater protection against overfishing (e.g., more conservative harvest control rules/ greater buffers in setting TAC and/or closer monitoring of stocks). • Takes into account other sources of mortality (e.g., recreational fishery, bycatch of juveniles, etc.) and environmental factors that affect stock, such as oceanographic regime;

• Incorporates a strategy for maintaining or rebuilding stock productivity: o A no-fishing point when biomass is below the limit reference point; o A decrease in F when biomass is below the target reference point or is declining (whether declines are due to fishery or environmental factors). • Employs an effective strategy to prevent overcapitalization; • Has been demonstrated effective (e.g., stock productivity has been maintained over multiple generations), or if stock productivity has not been maintained or is declining, have adjusted management accordingly.

Effective management in data-poor fisheries (more information on data-poor evaluation methods below)

Whether managed stocks are data-rich or data-poor, management must include a strategy to ensure that stock productivity is maintained in order to be considered effective. This strategy should include a process for monitoring and conducting “assessments” of some kind (not necessarily formal stock assessments), rules that control the intensity of fishing activity or otherwise ensure the protection of a portion of the spawning stock, and a system of adaptive management, such that rules are modified according to assessment results, as needed (Smith et al. 2009; Phipps et al. 2010).

There are some relatively reliable methods for setting catch limits in data-poor fisheries, including: An Index Method (AIM), which involves fitting a relationship between population abundance indices and catch; Depletion-Corrected Average Catch (DCAC), which allows managers to estimate a sustainable yield based on average catch over a set time period, adjusting for initial declines in abundance due to harvesting; and extrapolation methods, or relying on inferences from related or “sister” stocks, with the use of precautionary buffers in case the data-poor stocks are more vulnerable than the related data-rich stocks (Honey et al. 2010). Other techniques recommended for data-poor stocks include the use of productivity-susceptibility analysis (PSA) to highlight stocks that are particularly vulnerable to over exploitation (Patrick et al. 2009; Honey et al. 2010) and setting catch limits based on historical catch from a period of no declines, with targets set at 75% of average catch if biomass is believed to be healthy, 50% of average catch if biomass is expected to be below target levels but above the point where recruitment would be impaired, and 25% of average catch if the stock is depleted (Restrepo and Powers 1998).

Other than constraining fishing mortality (e.g., through TACs), fisheries may be credited for employing alternative strategies that are widely believed to be help maintain stock productivity. Some examples of effective alternative strategies are spatial management, including protecting a large proportion of coastline in reserves and/or protecting known spawning aggregations with seasonal or spatial closures (e.g., Johannes 1998), or protecting females, which preserves the spawning per recruit of the population as long as fertilization does not decrease (e.g., Dungeness crab; Chaffee et al. 2010). Finally, stocks may be subject to low mortality in a data-poor fishery as a result of low susceptibility, e.g., if the species is small enough to fit between the mesh of the nets or is not attracted to the type of bait used (low susceptibility is generally more applicable as protection for non-target stocks).

Management of data-poor stocks – alternatives to MSY-based management

For data-poor stocks, management should:

• Include a process for monitoring and assessment, such as recording trends in CPUE and size structure, or estimating FLEP, or comparison of abundance index to historical high (see glossary), unfished, or marine reserve levels: o Trends in CPUE are appropriate only if technology has not changed, there is no hyperstability, and abundance is shown to be proportional to CPUE; o Trends in size structure must also be monitored to avoid depletion of large individuals. • Include a strategy for protecting spawning stock, such as: o Estimate sustainable yield based on Depletion Corrected Average Catch (DCAC), An Index Method (AIM), or another accepted strategy; o Protect a large portion of spawning stock in marine reserves (at least 50%, including important spawning areas if applicable) or close hotspots to fishing (for bycatch species); o Enforce size, sex, and/or season limitations that are likely to be effective in protecting spawning stock productivity (e.g., Dungeness crab 3-S management); o Extrapolate based on data-rich related or “sister” stocks, with precautionary buffers in place to account for potential differences in the stocks’ life histories; o Maintain exploitation rates at very low levels (e.g., experimental fishery) until more data can be collected, or o Base TAC on average historical catch during a period of time with no declines in abundance (TAC should be set at no more than 75% of average catch if stock is believed to be healthy, 50% if believed to be below target levels, and 25% if believed to be overfished. Note: as there is generally no data to assess whether a stock is healthy, TAC should not be more than 50% of historical catch unless there is a strong scientific reason to believe that stocks are above BMSY). • Allow for adaptive management so that fishing strategy is adjusted if assessment/monitoring indicates that stock is declining or below target levels; • Have been demonstrated effective (e.g., stock productivity has been maintained over multiple generations) or, if stock productivity has not been maintained or is declining, management has been adjusted accordingly.

Procedures for monitoring/assessing stocks and procedures for protecting spawning stock must be in place, and be demonstrated effective, to qualify management strategy as “highly effective”. If measures are expected to be effective, e.g., through analogy with similar systems, but have not been demonstrated effective in this fishery, management is “moderately effective”. If measures are not expected to be effective, management strategy is “ineffective”.

Appropriate management also depends on the conservation concern associated with the stock. In addition to the precautionary elements listed above, stocks that are endangered or threatened also require a recovery plan and/or best management practices designed and demonstrated to reduce mortality and allow the stock to recover. Overfished and depleted stocks require a rebuilding plan.

Data–poor fishery evaluation methods

Sequential trend analysis (index indicators)

Sequential analysis comprises a broad suite of techniques used to analyze time series data in order to detect trends in a variable (or in various indices) and infer changes in the stock or population. Sequential analyses can encompass a wide range of data types and requirements (Honey et al. 2010). Examples

include: DCAC, time series of catch statistics, survey/weight/length-based reference points, trophic indices, and spawning potential ratio (SPR) analogues (Honey et al. 2010).

Depletion-corrected average catch (DCAC) uses only catch time-series data supplemented with educated guesses for a few supplementary parameters. Therefore, it is likely of practical use for many data-poor fisheries on long-lived species (e.g., natural mortality, M < 0.2) (Honey et al. 2010). The ability of this method to identify sustainable yields from simple data input makes DCAC useful as a first-step estimate for an allowable catch level along with other data-poor methods. See: http://nft.nefsc.noaa.gov/ for the NOAA toolbox to perform DCAC analysis (Honey et al. 2010).

Vulnerability analysis

Productivity and susceptibility analysis of vulnerability – The Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis of vulnerability (PSA) method is used to assess a stock’s vulnerability to overfishing, based on relative scores derived from life-history characteristics. Productivity, which represents the potential for stock growth, is rated semi-quantitatively from low to high on the basis of the stock’s intrinsic rate of increase (r), von Bertalanffy growth coefficient (k), natural mortality rate (M), mean age at maturity, and other metrics (Patrick et al. 2009; Patrick et al. 2010; Field et al. 2010; Cope et al. 2011; Honey et al. 2010).

To assist regional fishery management councils in determining vulnerability, NMFS elected to use a modified version of a productivity and susceptibility analysis (PSA) because it can be based on qualitative data, has a history of use in other fisheries, and is recommended by several organizations as a reasonable approach for evaluating risk (Patrick et al. 2010). Patrick et al. (2010) evaluated six U.S. fisheries targeting 162 stocks that exhibited varying degrees of productivity and susceptibility, and for which data quality varied. Patrick et al. (2010) found that PSA was capable of differentiating the vulnerability of stocks along the gradient of susceptibility and productivity indices. The PSA can be used as a flexible tool capable of incorporating region-specific information on fishery and management activity. Similar work was conducted by Cope et al. (2011) who found that PSA is a simple and flexible approach to incorporating vulnerability measures into complex stock designations while also providing information helpful in prioritizing stock- and complex-specific management.

Extrapolation (Robin Hood Method)

When very limited or no data are available for a stock or specific species in a region, then managers may need to rely on extrapolation methods to inform decisions. Often, low-value stocks are data-poor (Honey et al. 2010). This method is termed the “Robin Hood” approach in Australia because it takes information and scientific understanding in data-rich fisheries and “gives” inferences to the data-poor fisheries (Smith et al. 2009). Data may include: (1) the local knowledge of the fishers and resource users; and/or (2) scientific research and ecosystem understanding from “sister” systems thought to be similar (Honey et al. 2010). Extrapolation from similar systems or related species may offer an informed starting point from which managers can build precautionary management (Honey et al. 2010). In these situations, life-history characteristics, potentially sustainable harvest levels, spawning behavior, and other information can be gleaned from nearby stocks, systems, or related species (Honey et al. 2010).

Decision-making methods

Decision trees

Decision trees provide systematic, hierarchical frameworks for decision-making that can scale to any spatial, temporal, or management context in order to address a specific question. A decision tree may be customized to meet any need (Honey et al. 2010). Trees may include: identification of reference points based on stock characteristics and vulnerability (Cope and Punt 2009); fostering of fine-scale, transparent, and local management (Prince 2010); and, estimation and refinement of an appropriate Total Allowable Catch (TAC) level (Wilson et al. 2010).

Management strategy evaluation

Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) is a general modeling framework designed for the evaluation of performance of alternative management strategies for pursuing different objectives (Honey et al. 2010). This approach simulates the fishery’s response to different management strategies (e.g., different TAC levels, seasonal closures, or other effort reductions) (Honey et al. 2010). Assuming sufficient quality data exist, MSE may be useful for assessing the effectiveness of different policy options (Honey et al. 2010).

In addition, a study by Dowling et al. (2008) developed harvest strategies for data-poor fisheries in Australia. Strategies included: (i) the development of sets of triggers with conservative response levels, with progressively higher data and analysis requirements at higher response levels, (ii) identification of data gathering protocols and subsequent simple analyses to better assess the fishery, (iii) the archiving of biological data for possible future analysis, and (iv) the use of spatial management, either as the main aspect of the harvest strategy or together with other measures (Honey et al. 2010).

Cooperative research and co-management to overcome data-poor situations

A recent study by Fujita et al. (2010) identified opportunities for cooperative research and co- management that would complement (but not replace) existing top-down fishery regulations. They conclude that management and data collection would improve for some small-scale fisheries if they started: collecting data at the appropriate spatial scales; collecting local information, improving the quality of data, and overcoming constraints on data; providing ecosystem insight from a small/local scale for new and different perspectives; reducing conflicts among fishermen, scientists, and regulators; and improving the responsiveness of fisheries management to local needs. Fujita et al. (2010) suggest that scientists and managers should further develop cooperative strategies (e.g., cooperative research and co-management) and include them in the management framework.

Effective management of a fishery on a non-native species Effective management of a fishery for a non-native species may include: • Mitigation strategies aimed at eradication, reversing establishment, or maintenance at low abundance, as deemed appropriate and feasible for that particular case, • Adaptation strategies that allow for recovery of species impacted by the non-native species, • Containment measures such as fishing at the boundaries of the stock to prevent further spread, and/or • Provisions to prohibit further introductions of any other alien species.

Appendix 5 – Bycatch reduction approaches

In general, fisheries should address bycatch with the following approaches: • Monitor bycatch rates (using adequate observer coverage), • Have some scientific assessment of impacts on bycatch populations • Incorporate strategies that assure bycatch is minimized, such as: o Enforcing effective and appropriate bycatch caps, o Closing hotspots or implementing seasonal closures, o Promoting effective gear modifications such as BRDs, TEDs, etc. o Adopting bycatch-reducing strategies such as night setting, o Using the best available management techniques that have been demonstrated in this or a similar system to effectively constrain bycatch rates.

The effectiveness of various bycatch reduction approaches is synthesized from primary literature and reviewed below. To be considered “highly effective”, all required measures and at least one primary measures should be in place.

Seabird sources are Løkkeborg (2008) (general conclusions and Table 3, including percent effectiveness of some modification/region strata) and SBWG 2010 (Annexes 3–8). *Secondary measures may be useful in conjunction with primary measures. Turtle sources are FAO 2009 (Tables 1 and page 79) and Gilman and Lundin (2008) (Table 3). Shrimp trawl modifications sources are Eayers 2007 and Gillet 2008 (Box 14). Sharks and marine mammals from Gilman and Lundin (2008) (Table 3). General information on fishing technologies can be found at http://www.fao.org/fishery/en, and a list of bycatch reduction literature can be found here: http://www.bycatch.org/articles.

Primary/ Gear/taxon/modification secondary Effectiveness/notes measure* General strategies (good for all gears/taxa) Considerable difference between experimental and real-world effectiveness. “Three common themes to successful implementation Monitoring and Require of bycatch reduction measures are long-standing collaborations compliance ment among the fishing industry, scientists, and resource managers; pre and post-implementation monitoring; and compliance via enforcement and incentives” (Cox, Lewison et al. 2007). Area/time closures. Generally very effective, though more so when based on data such as tagging or bycatch data. Perhaps only a secondary mitigation measure for birds (Løkkeborg 2008). Avoid bycatch hotspots Primary Alternatively, move when interaction rates are high. Effective for all fisheries, especially with fleet communication. Closures for one taxon without commensurate reduction in effort can increase bycatch of other taxa. Bycatch caps Primary I.e., fishery closes when cap exceeded.

Not effective. “We conclude that, overall, CMMB has little potential for benefit and a substantial potential for harm if implemented to solve most fisheries bycatch problems. In particular, CMMB is likely to be effective only when applied to short-lived and highly fecund species (not the characteristics of most bycatch-impacted species) Bycatch fees, and to fisheries that take few non-target species, and especially few Compensatory Mitigation Secondary, non-seabird species (not the characteristics of most fisheries). Thus, Strategies for Marine at best CMMB appears to have limited application and should only be Bycatch (CMSMB) implemented after rigorous appraisal on a case-specific basis; otherwise it has the potential to accelerate declines of marine species currently threatened by fisheries bycatch” (Finkelstein, Bakker et al. 2008). May be useful, but only as a complementary measure (Žydelis, Wallace et al. 2009). Pelagic longline No single solution to avoid incidental mortality of seabirds in pelagic Seabirds (albatrosses and longline fisheries. Most effective approach is streamer lines combined Best petrels) with branchline weighting and night setting. Best practices are followed for line setting and hauling (e.g., SRWG 2010). Proven effective in Southern Hemisphere. Streamer lines and Night setting Primary weighted lines should also be used when interacting with nocturnal birds/fishing during bright moon. Proven to be effective in North Atlantic. Should be paired and/or Streamer/scarer lines Primary weighted lines in North Pacific. Paired lines need more testing. Light configuration not recommended. Weighted branch lines Primary Must be combined with other measures. Offal discharge Secondary Not yet established but is thought to assist. management Insufficiently researched; there have been operational difficulties on some vessels. Effective in Hawaii in conjunction with bird curtain and Sidesetting Secondary weighted branch lines. Japanese research conclusions must be combined with other measures. Untested in Southern Hemisphere. Line shooter and mainline tension, bait caster, live - Not recommended. bait, thawing bait Underwater setting chute, Insufficient research. Blue-dyed bait may be only effective with squid hook design, olfactory - bait. Results inconsistent across studies. deterrents, blue-dyed bait Turtles Replacement of J and tuna Primary Wide circle hook with bait Fish bait hooking Primary multiple times. Temporal changes Primary Reduce soak time and haul during daylight. Use of intermittent flashing light sticks instead of continuous use non- Lights on gear Secondary luminous gear. Handling and release Primary To reduce mortality of caught turtles. practices Sharks

Bait change Primary Fish instead of squid. Prohibit wire leaders Primary Deeper setting Primary Avoid surface waters. Shark repellants - Insufficient research. Circle hooks Marine mammals Weak hooks, deterrents, - Insufficient research. echolocation disruption Other finfish (including

juvenile targets) Circle hooks May help reduce mortality of billfish and tunas. Shellfish Not problematic Bottom longline (Many measures similar to pelagic longline) No single solution to avoid incidental mortality of seabirds in demersal longline fisheries. No combination specified: assume streamers, weighted and night setting, or Chilean longline method Seabirds (albatrosses and Best (vertical line with very fast sink rates—considered effective even petrels) without other measures; widely used in South American waters and SW Atlantic). Best practices are followed for line setting and hauling (e.g., SRWG 2010). Effective, but must be used properly (streamers are positioned over Streamer/scarer lines Primary sinking hooks). Better when combined with, e.g., night setting, weighting, or offal control. Must be combined with other measures, especially streamers, offal Weighted lines Primary control and/or night setting. Night setting Primary Same as pelagic. Haul curtain (reduce bird Can be effective, but must use strategically as some birds become access when line is being Secondary habituated. Must be used with other measures. hauled) Offal discharge control Must be used in a combo, e.g., with streamers, weighting, or night (discharge homogenized Secondary setting. offal at time of setting) Insufficiently researched; there have been operational difficulties on Side setting Secondary some vessels. Hook design, olfactory deterrents, underwater Insufficiently researched. Blue-dyed bait, thawed bait, and use of line setting chutes, blue-dyed - setter not relevant in demersal gear. bait, thawed bait, use of line setter Turtles, sharks, mammals,

other finfish, shellfish See pelagic longlines Trawl

Little work has been done on seabird bycatch mitigation in trawl fisheries (pelagic and demersal). There is no single solution to avoid incidental mortality of seabirds in trawl fisheries. The most effective Seabirds (albatrosses and approach is offal discharge and discards control, through full retention Best petrels) of all waste or mealing (the conversion of waste into fish meal reducing discharge into sump water) plus streamer lines. Effectiveness of other offal control measures such as mincing and batching is not clear. Minimum requirement Limited waste control No discharge of offal or discards during shooting and hauling. for + modifier Reduce cable strike Scarers recommended even when offal/discard management is in through bird scaring wires Primary place. Snatch block recommended on theory. or snatch block Reduce net entanglement through net binding, net Recommended on theory. weights, net cleaning Net jackets - Not recommended. Reduced mesh size, acoustic scarers, warp - Effectiveness not yet established. scarers, bird bafflers, cones on warp cables Turtles Any modification to the trawl to reduce the capture of turtles, principally in tropical/subtropical shrimp trawls. Typically a grid or large-hole mesh designed to prevent turtles from entering the codend. The only designs approved for use in the US warm-water shrimp fisheries are hard TEDs (i.e., “hooped hard TEDs” such as NMFS, Coulon and Cameron TEDs, “single grid hard TEDs” such as the Turtle excluder device Primary Matagorda, Georgia, or Super Shooter TED, and the Weedless TED) (TED) and the Parker Soft TED (the latter only in offshore and inshore waters in Georgia and South Carolina). Hard TEDs that are not approved for use in the shrimp fisheries are used in the Atlantic summer flounder bottom trawl fishery. TEDs must be used in conjunction with escape hatches, which also vary in size and design. More details on TED/hatch designs and US regulations can be found in Eayers (2007). Sharks TEDs generally allow large animals to escape, e.g., sharks (Belcher and TED Jennings 2010). Highly variable depending on net type and TED used. BRD made little difference (fisheye). Marine mammals TED/BRD Grids generally allow large animals to escape. Other finfish

A BRD is any modification designed principally to exclude fish bycatch from shrimp trawls. Catch separator designs include hard grids (e.g., Nordmore grid) and soft mesh panels attached at an angle inside the Bycatch reduction device trawl net as well as the Juvenile and Trash Excluder Device (JTED), (BRD): Catch separators which has a grid/mesh design partially covering the inside of the trawl net. Hard grids are generally seen as more effective than soft panels. Effectiveness of JTED unknown. Designed for strong-swimming fish to actively escape (shrimp are more passive swimmers). Most are located in the codend (e.g., BRD: Active swimmer fisheye and fishbox) although others can be in the body of the trawl escape hatches (square mesh window, composite square mesh panel, radial escape section). BRD: Square-mesh codend Square mesh stays open under tow (unlike diamond mesh). E.g., the cone. Stimulates fish to swim forward through escape BRD assist hatches like the fisheye, square mesh window or radial escape section. Inclusion of increased mesh sizes in the upper wings and upper netting panel immediately behind the headrope crown, coupled with Coverless trawl reduced headline height, encourages the escape of fish species such as haddock and whiting in and around the mouth of the trawl. Triangular/diamond-shaped cut in the top of the codend (e.g., flapper), changes to ground chain settings, headline height reduction, Rigging modification a length of twine stretched between the otter boards to frighten fish, large mesh barrier across trawl mouth and large cuts in the top panel of the net ahead of the codend. Semi-pelagic rigging Avoid contact with seabed. Trawl separator (Rhule Reduces cod catch in haddock trawls by separating catch and

trawl) releasing cod from the net. Shellfish TEDs generally allow large animals to escape (jellyfish). Downward TED facing TEDs may also allow benthic invertebrates to escape. BRD e.g., Nordmore grid Effective for jellyfish? Longer sweeps between the otter board and trawl can reduce Rigging modification invertebrate bycatch. Semi-pelagic rigging Avoid contact with seabed. Other BRD Seahorses, sea snakes in Australian prawn fisheries. Gillnet Seabirds Less research than for trawls. Visual and acoustic alerts - Pingers may also reduce seabird bycatch (1 study in Lokkeborg 2008). Turtles Reduces entanglement as the net is stiffer. Good for both demersal Use lower profile nets Primary and drift nets. Creates slack in the net, increasing chances of entanglement (rather Use of tie-down ropes Negative than gilling). Set nets perpendicular to - Insufficient research. May reduce interactions with nesting females. shore Use deterrents - Insufficient research. Pingers, shark silhouettes, lights or chemicals. Deep setting - Insufficient research. Avoid upper water column (above 40m).

Sharks Unknown Marine mammals Acoustic devices to keep cetaceans (and possibly pinnipeds) away from nets. Effectiveness appears to vary considerably depending on Pingers fishery and cetacean species: http://cetaceanbycatch.org/pingers_effectiveness.cfm Shellfish Weak buoy lines Mesh size Purse Seine Seabirds Not problematic Turtles Avoid encircling turtles. Restrict setting on FADs, logs and other Avoid turtles Primary debris. Use of modified FAD - Insufficient research. designs Sharks Avoid restrict setting on FADs, logs, other debris and whales. Avoid Avoid sharks Primary hotspots. Shark repellants - For deployment on FADs. Insufficient research. Marine mammals Backdown maneuver, Medina panel, deploy Primary rescuers Avoid mammals Restrict setting on mammals. Other finfish Sorting grids - Insufficient research. Avoid finfish Restrict setting on FADs. Shellfish Not problematic Pots and traps Turtles E.g., Diamondback terrapins in Floridian blue crab pot fishery (Butler BRDs Primary and Heinrich 2005). Marine mammals Weak lines Primary E.g., northern right whales, NE lobster fishery. Finfish, invertebrates BRDs Primary

Appendix 6 – Impact of fishing gear on the substrate

In order to assess fisheries for habitat impacts under the Seafood Watch ® criteria, we developed a matrix to help determine the potential impacts that different fishing gear may have on various habitat

types. The matrix was developed based on similar work done by the New England Fisheries Management Council (NEFMC 2010) and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC 2005).

The NEFMC (2010) created a “Swept Area Seabed (SASI) model” that assessed habitat susceptibility and recovery information. Susceptibility and recovery were scored (0–3) based on information found in the scientific literature and supplemented with professional judgment when research results were deficient or inconsistent.

“Vulnerability was defined as the combination of how susceptible the feature is to a gear effect and how quickly it can recover following the fishing impact. Susceptibility was defined as the percentage change in functional value of a habitat component due to a gear effect, and recovery was defined as the time in years that would be required for the functional value of that unit of habitat to be restored (ASFMC 2010).”

The PFMC (2005) created a similar habitat sensitivity scale (0–3) that represents the relative sensitivity of different habitats to different gear impacts. The sensitivity of habitats from the PFMC (2005) was based on actual impacts reported in the scientific literature.

The relative impacts by gear and habitat type used for the Seafood Watch® matrix were based on the sum of sensitivity and recovery values from tables developed by the NEFMC (2010) (substrates) and the PFMC (2005) (biogenic). The NEFMC (2010) excluded deep-sea corals with extreme recovery times. The values for deep-sea corals in this matrix are the sum of the sensitivity and recovery scores from PFMC (2005). Other biogenic habitats that were not included in the NEFMC (2010) data tables include: seagrass, sponge reefs (rather than individual sponges) and maerl beds. Due to the slow recovery and importance of these habitat types, they have been given the same value as coral and sponge habitats, all of which are listed as “biogenic”.

Hall-Spencer and Moore (2000) examined the effects of fishing disturbance on maerl beds. Maerl beds are composed of a calcareous alga and form complex habitats with a high degree complexity. The associated species assemblages have high diversity (Hall-Spencer and Moore, 2000). Hall-Spencer and Moore (2000) showed that four years after an initial scallop-dredging disturbance had occurred, some fauna, such as the bivalve Limaria hians, had still not re-colonized the trawl tracks. Similarly, work by Sainsbury et al. (1998; in Kaiser et al. 2001) suggests that recovery rates may exceed fifteen years for sponge and coral habitats off the western coast of Australia.

Hydraulic clam dredges are rated as a high concern according to Seafood Watch ®. There are very few studies on the impact of this gear type, so we have relied on expert opinion (NEFMC 2010). Hydraulic clam dredges are used primarily in sand and granule-pebble substrates because they cannot be operated in mud or in rocky habitats (NEFMC 2010). This gear type is effective at pulverizing and/or removing solids and flattening out seafloor topography (NEFMC 2010). In addition, the habitats where this gear type is used are very susceptible to hydraulic dredges; recovery is moderate on average (NEFMC 2010). This leads Seafood Watch® to rate hydraulic dredges as “high concern .” Hydraulic dredges do not operate on deep-sea coral or other biogenic habitats.

Neckles et al. (2005) found significant differences in eelgrass biomass between disturbed and reference sites up to seven years after dragging. The authors projected that it would require a mean of 10.6 years for eelgrass shoot density to recover in areas of intense dragging.

Demersal seines were not evaluated in the reports by Fuller et al. (2008), Chuenpagdee et al. (2003), NEFMC (2010) or PFMC (2005). Demersal seines include: Danish seines, Scottish fly-dragging seines and pair seines. These seines are similar to some bottom trawl gear in that they have a funnel shaped net with a groundrope. They are generally hauled by wires or ropes, and although they are lighter than some bottom trawl gear, they create habitat disturbance (Rose et al. 2000; Thrush et al. 1998; Valdemarason and Suuronen 2001). A review of trawling impacts by Jones (1992) grouped bottom trawling, dredges and Danish seines together as having similar impacts on the benthos when assessing the environmental effects of bottom trawling. However, studies have demonstrated Danish seines to have less impact on the substrate compared to bottom trawls (Gillet 2008). Therefore, in our matrix they are given an intermediate score as more damaging that bottom longlines and bottom gillnets, but less damaging than bottom trawls. Beam trawls were also not included in the reports, but were considered to be similar to otter trawls.

The matrix developed from the sources referenced above is shown on the next page. For use in evaluating the Fisheries Criteria, these data have been summarized into categories (low impact, moderate, moderate-severe, severe, and very severe) to simplify use of the table.

Habitat impacts matrix: Relative impacts by gear and habitat type.

Mud Sand Granule-pebble Cobble Boulder Deep-sea corals ** low high low high low high low high low high Line, Vertical (BL/2) 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.3 Longline, Bottom**** 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.7 2.0 Trap (lobster and deep-sea red crab) 1.3 1.3 1.2 1.2 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.9 2.1 2.1 1.3 Gillnet, Bottom**** 1.3 1.3 1.5 1.4 2.0 1.9 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.3 3.0 Bottom Longline, Gillnet 1.0 1.0 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.6 1.9 1.8 2.0 2.0 2.5 Seine, Bottom (BL,G+TBO/2) 1.8 1.7 2.0 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.5 2.6 2.6 3.6 Trawl, Shrimp (BS+TBO/2) 2.2 2.1 2.5 2.3 3.0 2.6 3.0 2.8 3.0 2.9 4.1 Trawl, Bottom Otter 2.6 2.4 2.9 2.7 3.4 2.9 3.4 3.1 3.3 3.2 4.6 Dredge, New Bedford Scallop 2.6 2.4 3.0 2.8 3.5 3.0 3.5 3.2 3.3 3.2 5.1 Dredge, Hydraulic Clam n/a*** 4.4 4.0 4.9 4.5 n/a*** Explosives/Cyanide 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6

* Shrimp trawls tend to be lighter than bottom otter trawls for fish and do not need to touch the seabed to be effective. ** Most biogenic habitats (macroalgae, cerianthid anemones, polychaetes, sea pens, sponges, mussel and oyster beds) are incorporated into the scores for each substrate/gear combination in the table. NEFMC 2010 specifially excluded deep-sea corals. The numbers for deep-sea corals in this matrix are the sum of the sensitivity and (standardized) recovery scores in PFMC 2005. Other biogenic habitats that were not included in the NEFMC data tables include seagrass meadows, sponge reefs (rather than individual sponges) and maerl beds. Use the 'deep-sea corals' column for these habitats. *** Scores not determined for hydraulic dredges in these habitats as the gear is assumed to not operate in them (NEFMC 2010). **** NEFMC 2010 groups bottom longlines and gillnets as 'fixed gear' (not shown in table). These scores have been disaggregated here for substrate habitats only by adding 0.4 to the aggregated score for gillnets and subtracting 0.4 for longlines, base don the relative impacts shown in PFMC 2005 (i.e. that gillnets are generally more damaging than longlines).

The values above are the sum of sensitivity and recovery values in tables from Section 5.2 in Part 1 of (NEFMC 2010) (substrates) and Tables 4 and 5 in Appendix C, Part 2 of (PFMC 2005) (biogenic). Gear types in black are from the Swept Area Seabed Impact (SASI) model used for the NEFMC EFH process (NEFMC 2010). Gear types in red are derived from those in black. Substrate types are self-explanatory except that mud includes clay-silt and muddy sand, and boulder includes rock. The energy regime is used here as a proxy for natural disturbance, with a cutoff between low and high stability at 60m depth. Most biogenic habitats (macroalgae, cerianthid anemones, polychaetes, sea pens, sponges, mussel and oyster beds) are incorporated into the scores for each substrate/gear combination in the table. NEFMC (2010) specifically excluded deep-sea corals with extreme recovery times. The numbers for deep-sea corals in this matrix are the sum of the sensitivity and (standardized) recovery scores from PFMC (2005). Other biogenic habitats that were not included in the NEFMC data tables include seagrass meadows, sponge reefs (rather than individual sponges) and maerl beds. Use the “deep-sea corals” column for these habitats

100

Appendix 7 – Gear modification table for bottom tending gears

Spatial protection

Reducing the footprint of fishing through spatial management can be one of the most effective ways to mitigate the ecological impact of fishing with habitat-damaging gears (Lindholm et al. 2001; Fujioka 2006). The relationship between gear impacts, the spatial footprint of fishing and fishing effort (i.e., frequency of impact) is complex (Fujioka 2006) and cannot be quantified precisely in Seafood Watch® assessments. Nevertheless, criteria should acknowledge the benefits of conservative habitat protection efforts by adjusting the habitat score. Thresholds for adjusting the habitat score due to habitat protection from the gear-type used in the fishery (50% protected to qualify as “strong mitigation” and 20% protected to qualify as “moderate mitigation”) are based on recommendations for spatial management found in the scientific literature as noted in Auster (2001). Auster recommends use of the precautionary principle when a threshold level of 50% of the habitat management area is impacted by fishing, with a minimum of 20% of regions in representative assemblages and landscape features protected in MPAs in order to minimize impacts on vulnerable species and sensitive habitats.

The table below gives examples of gear modifications that are believed to be moderately effective at reducing habitat impacts based on scientific studies. This table will be continually revised as new scientific studies become available. The main sources for the current table are He (2007) and Valdemarsen, Jorgensen et al. (2007).

Gear Modification Otter Semi-pelagic trawl rigging (trawl doors, sweeps and bridles off the bottom, also includes Trawls modifications such as short bridles and sweeps—most commonly used for shrimp, nephrops and other species that are not herded by sand clouds and bridles due to poor swimming ability) Quasi-pelagic trawl rigging/sweepless trawls (trawl doors remain in contact with the seafloor, remaining gear largely off the bottom, e.g., whiting in New England, flatfish in Alaska, red snapper in Australia) Lighter ground gear (e.g., fewer bobbins) Use of rollers instead of rockhoppers Trawl door modifications such as high aspect (smaller footprint), cambered (generally for fuel efficiency) or soft doors (e.g., self-spreading ground gear)

101

Appendix References

Appendix 1 Botsford, L. W., and A. M. Parma. 2005. Uncertainty in Marine Management. Pages 375-392 in E. A. Norse and L. B. Crowder, editors. Marine Conservation Biology: The Science of Maintaining the Sea's Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC.

Clark, W.G. 1991. Groundfish exploitation rates based on life history parameters. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 48: 734-750.

Clark W. G. 2002. F35% revisited ten years later. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:251-257.

Froese, R., T.A. Branch, A. Proelß, M. Quaas, K. Sainsbury, and C. Zimmermann. 2010. Generic harvest control rules for European fisheries. Fish and Fisheries: doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2010.00387.x

Honey, K.T., J.H. Moxley and R.M. Fujita. 2010. From rags to fishes: data-poor methods for fishery managers. Managing Data-Poor Fisheries: Case Studies, Models & Solutions 1: 159-184.

ICES 2010. General context of ICES advice. Available at http://www.ices.dk/committe/acom/comwork/report/2010/2010/Introduction%20for%20Advice.pdf

Kell, L. T., Pastoors, M. A., Scott, R. D., Smith, M. T., Van Beek, F. A., O’Brien, C. M., and Pilling, G. M. 2005. Evaluation of multiple management objectives for Northeast Atlantic flatfish stocks: sustainability vs. stability of yield. ICES Journal of Marine Science 62: 1104-1117.

Myers R. A., Bowen K. G., and Barrowman N. J. 1999. Maximum reproductive rate of fish at low population sizes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 56:2404-2419

New Zealand Ministry of Fisheries. 2008. Harvest Strategy Standard for New Zealand Fisheries. 25 p. Available at: http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/16543/harveststrategyfinal.pdf.ashx

O’Farrell, M.R. and L.W. Botsford. 2006. Estimation of change in lifetime egg production from length frequency data. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62: 1626-1639.

102

Phipps, K.E., R. Fujita, and T. Barnes. 2010. From paper to practice: incorporating new data and stock assessment methods into California fishery management. Managing Data-Poor Fisheries: Case Studies, Models & Solutions 1: 159-184.

Roughgarden, J. and F. Smith. 1996. Why fisheries collapse and what to do about it. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., (USA), 93:5078-5083

Appendix 2 Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). 2012. MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.2. Marine Stewardship Council, London, UK. 301 p. Available at: http://www.msc.org/documents/scheme documents/msc-scheme-requirements/msc-certification-requirements-v1.2/view

Appendix 3 Abraham, E., J. Pierre, et al. 2009. Effectiveness of fish waste management strategies in reducing seabird attendance at a trawl vessel. 95 (3): 210-219

Alverson, D.L.; Freeberg, M.H.; Pope, J.G.; Murawski, S.A. A global assessment of fisheries bycatch and discards. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 339. Rome, FAO. 1994. 233p.

Baird, S.J., E. Bradford. 2000. Factors that may have influenced the capture of NZ fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri) in the west coast South Island hoki fishery, 1991–1998. NIWA Technical Report 92. 35 p.

Baum, J.K. & Myers, R.A. (2004). Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico. Ecol. Lett., 7, 135–145.

Baum, J.K., Myers, R.A., Kehler, D.G., Worm, B., Harley, S.J. & Doherty, P.A. (2003). Collapse and conservation of shark populations in the Northwest Atlantic. Science, 299, 389–392.

Birdlife International. 2011. http://www.birdlife.org/action/science/species/seabirds/index.html

BirdLife International 2010. Marine Important Bird Areas - Priority for the Conservation of Biodiversity. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.. ISBN 978-0-946888-74 0. http://www.birdlife.org/community/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/marineIBAs.pdf.

Camhi, M.D., Valenti, S.V., Fordham, S.V., Fowler, S.L. and Gibson, C. 2009. The Conservation Status of Pelagic Sharks and Rays: Report of the IUCN Shark Specialist Group Pelagic Shark Red List Workshop. IUCN Species SurvivalCommission Shark Specialist Group. Newbury, UK. x + 78p.

Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, et al. (2003). "Shifting gears: Assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters." Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1(10): 517-524.

Chapple, T.K., Jorgensen, S.J., Anderson, S.D., Kanive, P.E., Klimley, A.P., Botsford, L.W. and Block, B.A. (2011). A first estimate of white shark, Carcharadon carcharias, abundance off Central California. Biol. Lett. 00, 1-3.

Dufresne, S.P., Grant, A., Norden, W.S., Pierre, J. 2007. Factors affecting cetacean bycatch in a New Zealand trawl fishery. DOC Research and Development series 282. 18pp.

103

Dulvy, N.K., Baum, J.K., Clarke, S., Compagno, L.J.V., Corte´s, E., Domingo, A., et al. (2008). You can swim but you can_t hide: the global status and conservation of oceanic pelagic sharks and rays. Aquat. Conserv., 18, 459–482.

Ferretti, F., Myers, R.A., Serena, F. & Lotze, H.K. (2008). Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conserv. Biol., 22, 952–964. Fertl, D.; Leatherwood, S. 1997: Cetacean interactions with trawls: a preliminary review. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 22: 219–248.

Fuller, S.D., C Picco, et al. 2008. How we fish matters: Addressing the ecologicalimpacts of Canadian fishing gear. Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society, and Marine Conservation Biology Institute. 25pp.

Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Fishing Gear-Danish Seine. Accessed on January 20, 2011. http://www.fisheries.is/fisheries/fishing-gear/danish-seine/

Morizur, Y.; Berrow, S.D.; Tregenza, N.J.C.; Couperus, A.S.; Pouvreau, S. 1999: Incidental catches of marine mammals in pelagic trawl fisheries of the northeast Atlantic. Fisheries Research 41: 297–307.

Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T., Powers, S.P. & Peterson, C.H. (2007). Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal ocean. Science, 315, 1846–1850.

Myers, R.A. & Worm, B. (2005). Extinction, survival or recovery of large predatory fishes. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B, 360, 13–20. Graham, K.J., Andrew, N.L. & Hodgson, K.E. (2001). Changes in relative abundance of sharks and rays on Australian south east fishery trawl grounds after twenty years of fishing. Mar. Freshwater Res., 52, 549– 61.

Mapping the World’s Sea Turtles. 2011. http://www.gearthblog.com/blog/archives/2011/07/mapping_the_worlds_sea_turtles.html?utm _source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GoogleEarthBlog+%28Google+Eart h+Blog%29

Palsson, O.K. 2003. A length-based analysis of haddock discards in Icelandic Fisheries. Fisheries Research. 59: 437-446.

Pompa, S., Ehrlich,P.P.,Ceballos, G. 2011. Global distribution and conservation of marine mammals. PNAS. www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. 1073/pnas.1101525108/ /DCSupplemental.

Rowe, S.J. 2007. A review of methodologies for mitigating incidental catch of protected marine mammals. DOC Research & Development Series 283. 48pp.

Sullivan, B.J., P. Brickle, T.A. Reid, D.G. Bone and D.A.J. Middleton. 2006. Mitigation of seabird mortality on factory trawlers: trials of three devices to reduce warp cable strikes, Polar Biology 29 (2006), pp. 745–753.

104

Wallace, B.P. and others. 2010. Global patterns of marine turtle bycatch. Conservation Letters. 1-21

Watling, L. 2005. The global destruction of bottom habitats by mobile fishing gear. In: Marine Conservation Biology, The science of maintaining the sea’s biodiversity. Ed by E. Norse and L Crowder. pp198-210. Island Press.

Ward, P. & Myers, R.A. (2005). Shift in open-ocean fish communities coinciding with the commencement of commercial fishing. Ecology, 86, 835–847.

Weimerskirch, H, D. Capdeville and G. Duhamel. 2000. Factors affecting the number and mortality of seabirds attending trawlers and longliners in the Kerguelen area, Polar Biology. 23 pp. 236–249

Wieneke, J. and G. Robertson. 2002. Seabird and seal—fisheries interactions in the Australian Patagonian toothfish, Dissostichus eleginoides trawl fishery, Fisheries Research 54 (2002). pp. 253–265

SWOT (State of the World’s Sea Turtles). 2011. http://seamap.env.duke.edu/swot

Appendix 4 Cope, J. 2011. Personal Communication. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Fisheries Science Center.

Cope, J. and coauthors. 2011. An approach to defining stock complexes for U.S. west coast groundfishes using vulnerabilities and ecological distribution. In press, North Atlantic Journal of Fisheries Management

Cope, J. M. and A. E. Punt. 2009. Length-based reference points for data-limited situations: Applications and restrictions. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science. 1:169 186.

Dick, E.J and A.D. MacCall. 2010. Estimates of sustainable yield for 50 data-poor stocks in the Pacific coast groundfish fishery management plan. NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-460. Available at : http://swfsc.noaa.gov/publications/TM/SWFSC/NOAA-TM-NMFS-SWFSC-460.pdf

Dowling, N.A., and others. 2008. Developing harvest strategies for low-value and data-poor fisheries: Case studies from three Australian fisheries. Fisheries Research 94 (2008) 380–390

Field, J., J. Cope and M. Key. 2010. A descriptive example of applying vulnerability evaluation criteria to California nearshore species. Managing data-poor fisheries: Case studies, models and solutions. 1:235 246

Fujita, R. M., K. T. Honey, A. Morris, H. Russell and J. Wilson. 2010. Cooperative strategies in fisheries management: Transgressing the myth and delusion of appropriate scale. Bulletin of Marine Science. 86:251-271.

Honey, K.T. Moxeley, J.H., and Fujita, R. M. 2010. From rages to fishes. Managing Data-Poor Fisheries: Case Studies, Models & Solutions. California Sea Grant College Program. (1):159–184. ISBN number 978-1-888691-23-8

105

Johannes, R. E. 1998. The case for data-less marine resource management: Examples from tropical nearshore fisheries. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13: 243–246.

MacCall, A. D. 2009. Depletion-corrected average catch: a simple formula for estimating sustainable yields in data-poor situations. – ICES Journal of Marine Science. 66: 2267–2271.

NMFS. 2011. Assessment Methods for Data-Poor Stocks Report of the Review Panel Meeting National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Southwest Fisheries Science Center (SWFSC) Santa Cruz, California April 25-29, 2011. Available at: http://www.pcouncil.org/wp content/uploads/E2a_ATT6_DATAPOOR_RVW_JUN2011BB.pdf

Patrick, W. and coauthors. 2010. Using productivity and susceptibility indices to assess the vulnerability of United States fish stocks to overfishing. Fish. Bull. 108:305–322.

Prince, J. D. 2010. Managing data poor fisheries: Solutions from around the world. Managing data-poor fisheries: Case studies, models and solutions. 1:3-20

Restrepo, V.R. and J. E. Powers. 1998. Precautionary control rules in US fisheries management: specification and performance. ICES Journal of Marine Science 56: 846–852.

Smith, D. et al. 2009. Reconciling approaches to the assessment and management of data-poor species and fisheries with Australia’s Harvest Strategy Policy. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science 1:244-254

Wilson, J. R., J. D. Prince and H. S. Lenihan. 2010. Setting harvest guidelines for sedentary nearshore species using marine protected areas as a reference. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management, and Ecosystem Science. 2:14-27.

Appendix 5 Belcher, C. N. and C. A. Jennings (2010). "Identification and evaluation of shark bycatch in Georgia’s commercial shrimp trawl fishery with implications for management." Fisheries Management and Ecology.

Butler, J. and G. Heinrich (2005). The Effectiveness of Bycatch Reduction Devices on Crab Pots at Reducing Capture and Mortality of Diamondback Terrapins and Enhancing Capture of Blue Crabs. NOAA Project Final Report, University of North Florida: 9.

106

Cox, T., R. L. Lewison, et al. (2007). "Comparing effectiveness of experimental and implemented bycatch reduction measures: the ideal and the real. ." Conservation Biology 21(5): 1155-1164.

Eayers, S. (2007). A Guide to Bycatch Reduction in Tropical Shrimp-Trawl Fisheries, Revised Edition. Rome, FAO: 124.

FAO (2009). Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations. Rome, FAO: 139.

Finkelstein, M., V. Bakker, et al. (2008). "Evaluating the potential effectiveness of compensatory mitigation strategies for marine bycatch. PLoS ONE 3(6): e2480.

Gillet, R. (2008). Global Study of Shrimp Fisheries. Rome, FAO.

Gilman, E. and C. Lundin (2008). Minimizing Bycatch of Sensitive Species Groups in Marine Capture Fisheries: Lessons from Tuna Fisheries, IUCN.

Hall, M. 1998. An ecological view of the tuna-dolphin problem: Impacts and tradeoffs. Reviews of fish biology and fisheries (8):1-34

Løkkeborg, S. (2008). Review and assessment of mitigation measures to reduce incidental catch of seabirds in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries. Rome, FAO: 33.

SBWG (2010). Report of the Third Meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group. Mar del Plata, Argentina, FAO ACAP.

Žydelis, R., B. P. Wallace, et al. (2009). "Conservation of Marine Megafauna through Minimization of Fisheries Bycatch." Conservation Biology 23(3): 608-616.

Appendix 6 Chuenpagdee, R., L. E. Morgan, et al. (2003). "Shifting gears: Assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters." Frontiers in Ecology and Environment 1(10): 517-524.

Fuller, S.D., C Picco, et al. 2008. How we fish matters: Addressing the ecologicalimpacts of Canadian fishing gear. Ecology Action Centre, Living Oceans Society, and Marine Conservation Biology Institute. 25pp.

Gillet, R. (2008). Global Study of Shrimp Fisheries. Rome, FAO.

Hall-Spencer, J.M., and P.G. Moore, 2000. Scallop dredging has profound, long-term impacts on maerl habitats. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57: (5) 1407-1415

Icelandic Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture Fishing Gear-Danish Seine. Accessed on January 20, 2011. http://www.fisheries.is/fisheries/fishing-gear/danish-seine/

Jones, J.B. 1992. Environmental impact of trawling on the seabed: a review. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research. 26: 59-67

107

Neckles, H., F.T. Short, S. Barker , B.S. Kopp 2005. Disturbance of eelgrass Zostera marina by commercial mussel Mytilus edulis harvesting in Maine: dragging impacts and habitat recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 285: 57–73

NEFMC. 2010. Essential fish habitat (EFH) omnibus amendment. The swept area seabed impact (SASI) model: A tool for analyzing the effects of fishing on essential fish habitat. Part 1: literature review and vulnerability assessment. Newburyport, MA. 160 pp. http://www.nefmc.org/habitat/index.html

PFMC. 2005. Pacific coast groundfish fishery management plan for the Califonia, Oregon and Washington groundfish fishery. Appendix C part 2. The effects of fishing on habitat: west coast perspective. PFMC Portland, OR. 48pp.

Rose, C., A. Carr, D. Ferro, R. Fonteyne, P. MacMullen. 2000. Using gear technology to understand and reduce unintended effects of fishing on the seabed and associated communities: background and potential directions. ICES Working Group on Fishing Haarlem, The Netherlands. 19pp.

Sainsbury, K.J., Campbell, R.A., Lindholm, R., Whitlaw, A.W. (1998) Experimental management of an Australian multispecies fishery: examining the possibility of trawl-induced habitat modification. Global Trends: Fisheries Management (eds E. K.Pikitch, D. D.Huppert & M. P. Sissenwine), pp. 107 112. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland

Thrush, S.F., J.E. Hewitt, et al. 1998. Disturbance of the marine benthic habitat by commercial fishing: impacts at the scale of the fishery. Ecological Applications. 8(3): 866–879

Valdemarson, J.W., and P Suuronen. 2001. Modifying fishing gear to achieve ecosystem objectives. Reykjavik Conference on Responsible Fisheries in the Marine Ecosystem. 20pp.

Appendix 7 Auster, P. 2001. Defining Thresholds for Precautionary Habitat Management Actions in a Fisheries Context North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:1–9

He, P. (2007). Technical measures to Reduce Seabed Impact of Mobile Fishing Gears. Bycatch Reduction in the World’s Fisheries. S. Kennelly: 141-179.

Fujioka, J.T. 2006. A model for evaluating fishing impacts on habitat and comparing fishing closure strategies. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 63:2330-2342.

Valdemarsen, J., T. Jorgensen, et al. (2007). Options to mitigate bottom habitat impact of dragged gears. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. 506.

108

Fishing’s phantom menace How ghost fishing gear is endangering our sea life #seachange Contents

Executive summary 4 4. Country-specific case studies 31 (Australia, UK, US and Canada)

1. Ghost fishing gear: the background 7 4.1 Australia 32 4.1.1 Introduction 32 1.1 Ghost fishing gear: the background 8 4.1.2 Species commonly found in 33 1.1.1 The problem of plastics 9 ghost gear in Australian waters 1.1.2 What are the causes of ghost fishing 10 4.1.3 Types of ghost gear frequently 35 gear and where does it end up? causing entanglement and the 1.1.3 What problems can ghost fishing 11 worst affected areas gear cause? 4.1.4 Economic implications of 36 ghost gear 4.1.5 Regional contribution to ghost 38 2. How much ghost fishing gear 13 net occurrence – Indonesia is out there? A global snapshot 4.2 United Kingdom 39 2.1 North-east Atlantic 14 4.2.1 Introduction 39 4.2.2 Species at risk from ghost gear 39 2.2 North-east Pacific 14 in UK waters 4.2.3 Volumes of ghost gear in 41 2.3 North-west Atlantic 15 UK waters 4.2.4 What are the key drivers for the 42 2.4 Arabian Sea 15 ghost gear problem within the UK? 4.2.5 What are the economic implications 42 2.5 South-east Asia and north-west Pacific 15 of ghost gear for the government/ industry? 2.6 Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico 15 4.3 United States and Canada 44 4.3.1 Introduction 44 3. Which animals are affected by 17 4.3.2 Species at risk from ghost gear 44 ghost fishing gear? in US and Canadian waters 4.3.3 What types of ghost gear cause 47 3.1 What are the impacts of ghost 19 the most entanglements? fishing gear on the health and 4.3.4 Entanglement ‘hotspots’ 48 welfare of animals? 4.3.5 Economic implications of ghost 49 3.1.1 Acute or chronic suffering? 20 gear for the government and 3.1.2 Seals, fur seals and sea lions 20 industry (pinnipeds) 3.1.3 Whales, dolphins and porpoises 24 (cetaceans) 5. Conclusions: the need 51 3.1.4 Turtles 26 for global action – towards 3.1.5 Birds 26 ghost-gear-free seas

3.2 How many animals are likely to be 28 affected by ghost fishing gear? References 54

Cover image: Female grey seal entangled in a ghost net, Devon, United Kingdom Alex Mustard/naturepl.com Executive summary

Ocean death trap What lies beneath Our oceans are an unsafe place to live. Every year millions Ghost fishing gear often travels long distances from its point of animals, including whales, seals, turtles and birds, are of origin and accumulates in hotspots around oceanic An estimated... mutilated and killed by ‘ghost’ fishing gear – nets, lines and currents. Even remote Antarctic habitats are not free from traps that are abandoned, lost or discarded in our oceans. this pollution – every ocean and sea on earth is affected. A recent scientific expedition to southern Alaska’s beaches 640,000 25,000 This report shows the scale of this problem, and the found up to a tonne of garbage per mile, much of it plastic particular threat ghost gear poses to our most iconic fishing nets and lines washed in by the tides. tonnes of fishing gear nets in the north-east marine animals. Among the animals most frequently reported wounded and killed are fur seals, sea lions, The materials used to make fishing gear cause long-lasting are left in our oceans Atlantic were recorded lost and humpback and right whales. dangers. The plastics used are very durable, some persisting in the oceans for up to 600 years. Some are almost invisible each year. or discarded annually. Critically, we conclude that it is possible to solve in the water, and they are extremely strong and resistant to the problem through cross-sectoral cooperation and biting and chewing by entangled animals so they action between the seafood industry, governments, cannot escape. intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations worldwide. The net effect (USD) As well as causing needless animal suffering and death, 1 $20,000 The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and ghost fishing gear causes large-scale damage to marine the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United ecosystems and compromises yields and income in ghost net can kill... worth of Dungeness crab Nations (FAO) conservatively estimate that some 640,000 fisheries. US researchers have estimated, for example, that tonnes of fishing gear are left in our oceans each year. In a single ghost net can kill almost $20,000 (USD) worth of over 10 years. just one deep water fishery in the north-east Atlantic some Dungeness crab over 10 years. 25,000 nets, totalling around 1,250km in length, were recorded lost or discarded annually. Each net is a floating Governments and marine industries spend many millions of death trap. For example, when 870 ghost nets were dollars annually to clean up and repair damage caused recovered off Washington State in the US, they contained by ghost gear. It also threatens human life and health, more than 32,000 marine animals, including more than 500 particularly divers and those trying to navigate the oceans 870 32,000 birds and mammals. in both small and large vessels. nets recovered in the marine animals. Animals entangled may either drown within minutes, or US contained more than... endure long, slow deaths lasting months or even years, suffering from debilitating wounds, infection and starvation.

Analysing the current scientific evidence available, World Animal Protection estimates that entanglement in ghost gear kills at least 136,000 seals, sea lions and large whales every year. An inestimable number of birds, turtles, fish and other species are also injured and killed.

4 5 Sea change in the oceans: campaign to save The initiative will share data, intelligence and resources to a million lives understand global ghost gear abundance, causes, impacts Launching in 2014, World Animal Protection’s Sea Change and trends. Critically, it will enable the expansion and campaign aims to save1 million marine animals by 2018. replication of the most effective solutions to reduce ghost We will do this by measurably reducing the volume of ghost gear at source and remove existing gear, as well as the gear added to our seas, removing gear that is already development of new solutions. The initiative will direct and there, and rescuing animals already entangled. drive solution delivery in ghost gear hotspots, and create opportunities for provision of seed funding of solution At the heart of our campaign approach is our plan to projects using best practice models. It will also enable form a cross-sectoral Global Ghost Gear Initiative, uniting global monitoring and showcasing of the impact of solution people and organisations with the knowledge, power and projects to catalyse further change. influence to deliver solutions for ghost-gear-free seas. With the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, we aim to forge an alliance of governments, industry, intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, with a shared commitment to understanding and tackling the problem of ghost fishing gear.

Our aim: to save 1 million marine animals by 2018

1. Ghost fishing gear: the background

Image: Workers repair nets aboard their fishing vessel, American Samoa Wolcott Henry / Marine Photobank

6 1.1 Ghost fishing gear: The scale and impact of ghost gear has increased significantly in recent decades the background and is likely to grow further as oceans accumulate greater volumes of it.

When Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl crossed the debris – nets, line, rope, traps, pots, floats and packing 1.1.1 The problem of plastics “Long Life – the line has a very long life, it does not rot, and Atlantic Ocean in 1970, he encountered a huge amount bands – causes particular animal welfare concerns Over the last 50 years, as technology has advanced is not readily damaged by ultraviolet rays in sunlight, as is of debris, litter and waste. What he saw left him gravely due to its proven capacity to entangle and trap and human demand has risen, there has been a dramatic monofilament, it does not swell in water, nor does it lose concerned, prompting his report to the 1972 United marine animals. increase in fishing effort in the world’s oceans. During this strength when wet.” Nations Conference on the Human Environment in time non-biodegradable fishing gear – primarily made Stockholm. Since that time, a huge swell of reports, There are no robust statistics regarding quantities of fishing from plastics – has also been introduced (Macfadyen et And the US-based Nylon Net Company claims their government actions and specific studies have shown gear abandoned, lost or discarded annually. However, it is al. 2009). The mass production of plastics soared after monofilament nets offer a number of advantages including the marine environment is accumulating an increasing conservatively estimated that 640,000 tonnes of fishing gear the Second World War and items from that period are still being “almost invisible in any water”. Prospective buyers are volume of human-originated debris. – around 10 per cent of total marine debris – is added to being retrieved from the oceans today. also cautioned that “monofilament is so effective it has been the oceans annually (Macfadyen et al., 2009). outlawed in some states!”. Estimates vary, but some indicate that up to 300,000 Many of the plastics used to make fishing gear are very items of debris can be found per square kilometre of ocean Two studies reporting on material collected from US and UK durable; some are expected to last in our seas for up to Plastic fishing gear and other debris in the oceans slowly surface (National Research Council, 2008). beaches found that at least 10 and 14 per cent respectively 600 years. Many plastics are also buoyant, or very close to break down to become the size of grains of sand – known An estimated 8 million items of debris are dumped was rope, fishing nets and line (Sheavly, 2007; Marine the density of seawater. They either float at the surface, sink as ‘microplastics’. These minute plastic granules are in the ocean every day, and around 6.4 million tonnes Conservation Society, 2012). only very slowly in the sea, or are easily carried found in water and sediments and may have a toxic are disposed of in oceans and seas each year (United by currents. effect on the food chain that scientists are only Nations Environment Programme, 2005). The volume and type of ghost gear varies geographically beginning to understand. and depends on a number of factors. These include the Some plastic fishing gear, for example monofilament line Marine debris originates from either sea- or land-based nature of shore-based waste/gear handling, the type and and monofilament gill nets, is almost invisible in water. It sources and fishing activity is just one of many possible extent of fishing activity, and the nature of topography and is also extremely strong and very resistant to biting and sources (Macfadyen et al., 2009). However, fishing-related currents in marine environments. chewing by trapped animals. Monofilament line is so tough that many human divers are caught in it each year. Trainee divers are often taught how to release themselves from line entanglements with a diving knife.

Not only are fishing lines very strong in relation to their thickness, but their thin diameter can readily cut through skin, flesh and even bone if an animal becomes entangled. The sales presentation in the popular Fisherman’s Outfitter online catalogue for Spectra – a brand of fishing line states:

“High Tensile Strength – the fiber [sic] is so strong that it is used in bulletproof vests; replacing Kevlar in that application. It is about 10 times as strong as steel, pound for pound. The finished line has a tensile strength of about 600,000 pounds per square inch versus monofilament which has a tensile strength of about 100,000 pounds per square inch. Many of the plastics used to make fishing gear are very durable; some are expected

Image: Fishing net wraps around coral, Jordan to last in our seas for up to Malik Naumann / Marine Photobank 600 years.

8 9 1.1.2 What are the causes of ghost fishing gear and This 2009 UNEP/FAO report asserts that most fishing gear 1.1.3 What problems can ghost fishing gear cause? Expanding on the social and economic cost of marine where does it end up? is not deliberately discarded. It highlights the predominant Ghost fishing gear, like all types of marine debris, has a debris, UNEP (2001) further defines that it can: The accidental loss of a certain amount of fishing causes of ghost gear are gear conflicts (e.g. when active wide range of adverse impacts. The UNEP Regional gear is inevitable. This can be due to both the trawlers pass through an area where static nets are Seas Programme summarises the areas of concern in interfere with fishing and damage fishing boats and gear natural environment where fishing takes place positioned) and/or extreme weather or strong currents. relation to marine debris as: (e.g. extreme weather conditions can cause gear loss) spoil the beauty of the sea and the coastal zone and the technology used. However, it is also clear Fishing gear may be abandoned, lost or otherwise the environment that some fishing gear is intentionally discarded, discarded in one part of the world and end up in another. contaminate beaches, commercial harbours and marinas and that some is abandoned when recovery might Oceanic currents and winds can carry ghost fishing gear conservation of species have been possible. The causes of ghost gear vary thousands of kilometres. There are accumulations of large be a hazard to human health significantly within and between fisheries (Macfadyen densities of debris in ocean gyres. human health et al., 2009). block cooling water intakes in power stations The Great Pacific Oceanic Gyre (also known as the Great tourism A 2009 report by the United Nations Environment Pacific Garbage Patch) contains plastic, chemical sludge interfere with ships, causing accidents at sea Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agricultural and debris, including ghost fishing gear, with an estimated local economies. Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (Macfadyen mass of 100 million tonnes (Environmental Graffiti, 2012). damage local economies by contaminating fish catches and et al., 2009) summarises the main causes of ghost It covers an area as large as France and Spain combined driving away tourists gear as follows. (Derraik, 2002; Sheavly, 2005). cost a significant amount to clean up. Direct causes: Ghost fishing gear also accumulates, with other types of marine debris, in specific hotspots along coastlines, Image: Rescuers untangle a gray enforcement pressure on fishermen to abandon gear particularly in bays, where local currents have deposited whale from ghost drift net off the (e.g. illegal fishing or illegal gear) it. Australia’s Gulf of Carpentaria coast is one such hotspot coast of California, United States (Gunn et al., 2010). Bob Talbot / Marine Photobank operational pressure (e.g. too much gear for time) and environmental conditions (e.g. extreme weather) increasing the probability that gear will be abandoned or discarded

economic pressure resulting in discarding unwanted fishing gear at sea rather than disposal onshore

spatial pressures resulting in gear conflicts and consequent gear loss or damage.

Indirect causes: lack of onshore gear/waste disposal facilities inaccessible onshore gear/waste disposal facilities expensive onshore gear/waste disposal facilities.

10 UNEP (2001) also describes the diverse impacts that marine debris – including ghost gear – can have on Economic implications of ghost gear marine flora and fauna, including: Macfadyen et al. (2009) summarise the significant financial and economic costs of ghost fishing gear, harm to wildlife directly through entanglement and which include: ingestion – the two main types of direct harm to animals Direct costs: smothering of the seabed and habitat disturbance • time spent disentangling vessels whose gear/engine persistent toxic chemical pollution in the ocean – become entangled in ghost gear resulting in less particularly from plastics fishing time transportation of invasive species between countries, • lost gear/vessels because of entanglement as well and between seas. as cost of replacement

At present, there is little international focus on the • emergency rescue operations because of specific threat that ghost gear poses to animal welfare. entanglement of gear/vessels Our campaign seeks to remedy this. • time/fuel searching for and recovering vessels because of gear loss, which results in less fishing time

• retrieval programmes/activities to fishers, governments and industry to remove lost/discarded gear, or other management measures, e.g. time required for better communication, better marked gear, monitoring regulations intended to reduce ghost gear.

Indirect costs:

• compromised yields in fisheries

• reduced multiplier effects from reduced fishing income

• research into reducing ghost fishing gear

• potential impact on buying because of consumer fears/concerns about ghost fishing and ghost gear.

It is noted that the above costs are not evenly distributed between those involved or affected. In some situations, for example, where onshore waste disposal facilities are 2. How much ghost fishing too expensive or inaccessible, fishers may have to resort to discarding unwanted gear. Certain technical ghost fishing mitigation measures may also result in associated gear is out there? costs to fishers (Macfadyen et al., 2009). A global snapshot Image: Ghost nets collected from the Wadden Sea, Netherlands Eleanor Partridge / Marine Photobank

12 2. How much ghost fishing gear

is out there? A global snapshot It is likely that these figures significantly underestimate the A survey in the Republic of Korea (Chang-Gu Kang, true impact on animals. They only represent a snapshot of 2003) identified an estimated 18.9kg of marine debris animal loss at the specific time of recovery, rather than the per hectare, 83 per cent of which was composed of true long-term losses and animal suffering caused over fishing nets and ropes. Another survey, of Korea’s Incheon the years. coastal area, identified 194,000 3m of marine debris over a six-month period, weighing 97,000 tonnes (Cho, 2004). There are four key types of ghost fishing gear 2.3 North-west Atlantic In the north-west Atlantic, in the Gulf of St Lawrence snow A follow-up programme resulted in the annual recovery reported to affect the welfare of marine animals: crab trap fishery alone, some 800 traps are estimated to of 91 tonnes of debris per km2, of which 24 per cent be lost each year. It is suggested that each fisher may lose was of marine (as opposed to coastal) origin. During up to 30 per cent of their traps over the course of one year the six-year period from 2000–2006, 10,285 tonnes (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 2007). This would equal of fishing-related debris was recovered from coastal losses of around 150,000 traps annually just in this one areas through a coordinated coastal clean-up campaign large bay. Among lobster fisheries in this region, the loss (Hwang & Ko, 2007). Abandoned, Fishing lines Rope Packing bands rate for lobster pots is estimated to be 10 per cent annually (Erin Pelletier, Gulf of Maine Lobster Association, personal 2.6 Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico lost or discarded and hooks (commonly used communication, 2014; Sarah Cotnoir, Maine Department of Of the 40,000 Caribbean traps around Guadeloupe, fishing pots, traps around bait and Marine Resources, personal communication, 2014)*. approximately 20,000 are lost each year during hurricane and nets packing boxes season, and continue to catch fish for many months (Burke & The number of licensed pots set annually in Maine waters Maidens, 2004). alone reaches close to 3 million, leaving an estimated annual ghost pot accrual of 300,000 per year (Sarah Of the 1 million traps fished commercially in the Gulf of Cotnoir, Maine Department of Marine Resources, Mexico, 25 per cent – 250,000 – are estimated to be lost personal communication, 2014). (Guillory et al. 2001). These traps contribute to the loss of 4–10 million blue crabs to ghost fishing in Louisiana alone 2.4 Arabian Sea (Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission, GSMFC, 2003). It was estimated in 2002 that the United Arab Emirates Meanwhile, in the Florida Keys, an estimated 10–28 per (UAE) were losing approximately 260,000 traps per year cent of lobster traps are lost each year (Matthews & Uhrin, Various studies have assessed and quantified the problem In a study on the Cantabrian region of northern Spain (Gary Morgan, personal communication, cited in Mac 2009). Fishers reported losing even more of their traps than of ghost nets and other fishing gear, and some have also (around 645 vessels), an average annual loss of 13.3 nets fadyen et al., 2009). The UAE authorities have since made usual as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, attempted to quantify the damage they cause to marine life. per vessel was recorded (FANTARED 2, 2003). degradable panels in traps mandatory. suggesting trap losses of 50,000–140,000 annually. In countries where projects are already underway to recover ghost fishing gear, large amounts of nets are recovered 2.2 North-east Pacific 2.5 South-east Asia and north-west Pacific Meanwhile, in the Florida Keys, an estimated 10–28 per regularly. Some examples follow. A study in North-west Straits, Washington state (USA) Ghost nets and ghost fishing are reported to be a significant cent of lobster traps are lost each year (Matthews & Uhrin, recorded the recovery of 481 lost gill nets during a issue in the Republic of Korea, Japan and Australia 2009). Fishers reported losing even more of their traps than 2.1 North-east Atlantic clean-up operation (Good et al., 2007). Most of the (Raaymakers, 2007). Limpus (personal communication, cited in usual as a result of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, Around 25,000 nets may be lost or discarded in a deep nets were still in good condition and were open, rather than Kiessling, 2003) estimated 10,000 lost nets – around 250kg suggesting trap losses of 50,000–140,000 annually. water fishery in the north-east Atlantic each year, totalling folded or rolled up, and so capable of fishing. More than of fishing net per kilometre – were littering the Queensland around 1,250km in length (Brown et al., 2005). 7,000 animals were found trapped in these coastline in the Gulf of Carpentaria. These were found nets at the time of recovery. between the Torres Strait and the Northern Territory border. Macfadyen et al. (2009) describes the recovery of 6,759 gill nets from Norwegian waters (Humborstad et al., 2003). In 2010, Good et al. reported the recovery of more than During a 29-month recovery programme (the Carpentaria The loss of 263 hake tangle nets per year from 18 vessels 32,000 marine animals from 870 gill nets recovered from Ghost Net Programme), 73,444m of net was collected in the United Kingdom is also reported, where, on average, Washington State’s inland waters. Many of the nets had by November 2007 and analysed for its origin. Although one-third of the lost nets were recovered. been at sea for many years. The marine animals found 41 per cent was from unknown sources, 17 per cent was entangled included 31,278 invertebrates (76 species), identifiable as Taiwanese, 7 per cent of Indonesian and In the hake wreck net fleets, whole fishing gear was rarely 1,036 fish (22 species), 514 birds (16 species), and Taiwanese or Indonesian origin, and 6 per cent from the lost. It was more common for portions of net sheets and 23 mammals (four species). Fifty six per cent of the Republic of Korea. segments to be lost after snagging (884 incidences from a invertebrates, 93 per cent of the fish, and all the birds and *The 10 per cent loss rate is an estimate based on the amount of replacement tags that licensed fishers apply for each year, although it represents a maximum allowable fleet of 26 vessels). mammals were dead when recovered. replacement figure, excluding a catastrophic loss. It is further verified by anecdotal testimonials from interviews with fishers in this region.

14 15 Table 1: Examples of fishing gear loss rates

Gear loss/abandonment/discard indicators from around the world Region Fishery/gear type Indicator of gear loss and data source North Sea and north-east Atlantic Bottom-set gill nets 0.02–0.09% nets lost per boat per year (EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338 (2003)) Trammel nets (several species) 774 nets per year (EC contract FAIR PL98–4338 (2003)) English Channel and North Sea (France) Gill nets 0.2% (sole & plaice) to 2.11% (sea bass) nets lost per boat per year (EC contract FAIR PL98-4338 (2003)) Mediterranean Gill nets 0.05% (inshore hake) to 3.2% (sea bream) nets lost per boat per year (EC contract FAIR PL98-4338 (2003)) Gulf of Aden Traps c.20% lost per boat per year (Al-Masroori, 2002) ROPME Sea Area (UAE) Traps 260,000 lost per year in 2002 (Gary Morgan, personal communication, cited in Macfadyen et al., 2009) Indian Ocean Maldives tuna longline 3% loss of hooks/set (Anderson & Waheed, 1988) Australia (Queensland) Blue swimmer crab trap fishery 35 traps lost per boat per year (McKauge, undated) Gulf of Carpentaria Trawl nets (59.2%), gill nets (14.1%), unknown 845 nets removed by rangers from (26.2%) approximately 1190km of north Australian coastline (GhostNets Australia, 2012) North Pacific Drift nets 0.06% set resulting in 12 miles of net lost each night of the season and 639 miles of net lost in the north Pacific Ocean alone each year (Davis, 1991, in Paul, 1994 ) North-east Pacific Bristol Bay king crab trap fishery 7,000 to 31,000 traps lost in the fishery per year (Stevens, 1996; Paul et al., 1994; Kruse & Kimker, 1993) North-west Atlantic Newfoundland cod gill net fishery 5,000 nets per year (Breen, 1990) Canadian Atlantic gill net fisheries 2% nets lost per boat per year (Chopin et al., 1995) Gulf of St Lawrence snow crab trap fishery 792 traps per year New England lobster fishery 10% traps lost per boat per year (Erin Pelletier, Gulf of Maine Lobster Association, personal communication, 2014; Sarah Cotnoir, Maine Department of Marine Resources, personal communication, 2014) Chesapeake Bay Up to 30% traps lost per boat per year 3. Which animals are (NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office, 2007) Caribbean Guadeloupe trap fishery 20,000 traps lost per year, mainly in the hurricane season (Burke & Maidens, 2004) Source: adapted from Macfadyen et al. (2009) affected by ghost fishing gear? Image: Young hawksbill turtle (deceased) entangled in ghost net, Andaman Sea, Thailand Georgette Douwma / naturepl.com

16 3. Which animals are affected by ghost fishing gear?

Plastic-based ghost fishing gear may carry on species, about half of marine mammal species and one- 3.1 What are the impacts of ghost fishing gear on the What is animal welfare? indiscriminately fishing for decades, catching any fifth of seabird species (CBD, 2012). One of the most health and welfare of animals? Animal welfare is an area of significant scientific and animal unfortunate enough to cross its path. Ghost nets will comprehensive reviews of the impacts of marine debris on Animals are affected differently by entanglement in ghost societal interest. The term refers to the physical and inevitably continue to trap and kill fish and a huge range of marine animals (Laist, 1997) found that entanglement in fishing gear. The ways they are affected depend on psychological wellbeing of an animal. The welfare of other species. Abandoned, lost or discarded lobster and marine debris affected 135 marine species. The type of various factors including the animal’s physiology, feeding an animal can be described as good or high if the crab pots and traps can both entangle wildlife with their marine debris most commonly associated with entanglement and other behaviours, and the types of ghost gear found individual is fit, healthy, free from suffering and in a lines and continue to trap their target and non-target species. was ghost fishing gear from commercial fishing operations. in the animal’s habitat. positive state of wellbeing. ‘Fishing’s phantom menace’ focusses on the effects of ghost A snapshot of published scientific articles covering seals, For example, young seals may – perhaps in play The Five Freedoms, first codified by the UK government’s fishing gear on marine mammals, birds and turtles. These are sea lions and whales entangled in ghost fishing gear shows or out of curiosity – put their heads through rope or Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC, 1979), provide the species for which the welfare impacts are most clear it is a sizeable threat to many species. Approximately 7.9 monofilament loops. These then become firmly fixed valuable general guidance on the welfare of an and well documented scientifically. per cent of some sea lion populations, and 10.4 per cent around their necks or bodies, slowly cutting into their individual animal. of some humpback whale populations, are injured or killed flesh or bone as the animals grow. One recent literature review found entanglement in by entanglement in ghost fishing gear and debris (Table 1, The Freedoms promote freedom from: hunger, thirst and (or ingestion of) marine debris affected all sea turtle Annex 1). Whales and turtles may swim through a section of ghost malnutrition; fear and distress; physical and thermal fishing line or net. This may initially become snagged discomfort and pain, injury and disease. They also around the mouth, flippers or (in the case of whales) promote the freedom to express normal patterns of fluke, and may be acute – causing an immediate and behaviour (FAWC, 2009). severe welfare problem such as asphyxiation through Image: Hawaiian monk seal entangled in entangled drowning – or chronic – where the welfare impacts may These measures of animal welfare have since ghost fishing gear of Kure Atoll, Pacific Ocean increase over time. been endorsed and expanded on by the World Michael Pitts / naturepl.com Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). An animal is in a Many animals become chronically entangled in ghost good state of welfare if it is: “healthy, comfortable, well fishing gear for months or even years, and suffer a range nourished, safe, able to express innate behaviour, and of problems causing pain and suffering (Moore et al., if it is not suffering from unpleasant states such as pain, 2005). Tight ligatures or oral entanglement in nets or fear and distress” (OIE, 2010). ropes can prevent animals from feeding to the point of starvation. By this definition, animals entangled in, injured or otherwise constrained by ghost fishing gear will be left in a poor state of both physical and psychological welfare.

18 19 By 2003,195 tonnes of ghost Starvation over days or weeks occurs when a bird’s mouth, Figure 1: Major types of fishing-related debris causing animal welfare problems, key species affected and range of wings or legs become entangled in (for example) fishing line likely duration of suffering. Text in boxes are examples of the known welfare impacts at either end of the spectrum fishing gear had been removed or rope, preventing it from feeding. of duration of suffering, for each given debris type. At their shortest, acute effects may be experienced over minutes, from the reefs of the north-west whilst chronic effects may be experienced over years. Hawaiian Islands. 3.1.2 Seals, fur seals and sea lions (pinnipeds) A large number of seal and sea lion species have been recorded as entangled, and the available literature reflects Line entanglement the global nature of this problem. Entanglement has been Flipper/leg entangled in line, unable to Neck/leg/fin entangled in monofilament line – Those animals towing large amounts of fishing gear recorded in 58 per cent of all species of seals and sea lions hunt/feed – Starvation Injury/infection/amputation can become exhausted due to the additional drag (Boland & Donohue, 2003). or constriction, and many ultimately drown or die of exhaustion. A distressed and exhausted gray whale Species snapshot: monk seals freed from a net fragment off California in 2012 was The Hawaiian monk seal is a critically endangered species. Net entanglement Towing ghost net causing injury and drag found to be towing 50 feet of net. This net held other sea Its breeding colonies are limited to six small islands and Entangled in submerged net – Drowning – Infection/starvation/ life including a sea lion, three sharks and numerous fish, atolls in the north-west Hawaiian Islands. From 1982 to exhaustion rays and crabs (mailonline, 2012). 1998, the entanglement incidence among Hawaiian monk seals rose from 0.18 per cent to 0.85 per cent of the Fishing-related debris Rope and line ligatures can cause amputations and population (Donohue et al., 2001). infected wounds that result in more suffering and further Ingestion of line/hooks/lures Ingestion of fishing line and/ reduce the animal’s chances of survival. Similarly, the To help solve the problem of entanglement, a multi-agency Hook ingestion causing or ‘flasher’ leading to reduced constriction caused by pieces of plastic net and line can effort was funded between 1996 and 2000 to remove oesophageal tear – hunting/feeding capacity – Internal bleeding Starvation become severe enough to sever arteries and limbs and ghost fishing gear from the reefs of the north-west Hawaiian to cause strangulation. Islands. Areas close to breeding sites were also cleaned (Boland & Donohue, 2003). By 2003, 195 tonnes of ghost Plastic is so durable in the marine environment that fishing gear had been removed from this area. Acute Chronic when one entangled animal dies, the debris still has Duration of suffering the potential to trap another. Entanglement rates can also be influenced by weather changes and storms. One study (Donohue & Foley, 2007) highlighted that incidences of entanglement of monk seals 3.1.1 Acute or chronic suffering? increased during periods characterised by the changes in weather and ocean flows associated with El Niño.

Animals entangled in ghost fishing gear suffer for short or Pinnipeds Marine birds Marine turtles Cetaceans very protracted periods as the following examples show. A critically endangered population of Mediterranean monk seals in the Desertas Islands of Madeira is also threatened A fur seal entangled in a submerged and anchored ghost by both static and ghost fishing gear, in particular gill nets net, preventing it from surfacing to breathe, suffers intense (Karamanlidis, 2000). distress and panic before drowning after a period of minutes. The duration of this type of suffering is short when compared to that experienced by the same species if entangled in a monofilament noose. Such entanglement may cause an increasingly severe wound, resulting in pain, A distressed and exhausted distress and possible infection over months or years. gray whale freed from a net A whale entangled in a long rope may suffer chronic and increasingly intense pain and distress (over months, or even fragment off California in 2012 years). This can be caused by the line cutting into its body was found to be towing 50 feet compromising feeding and locomotion. of net which contained a dead sea lion and numerous sharks, rays, crabs and fish.

20 21 Image: This Californian sea lion with gill net Even on St George Island hundreds of kilometres from cutting into its neck was helped by rescuers, mainland Alaska, northern fur seals have been observed Kanna Jones / Marine Photobank entangled in fishing net, lines and plastic packing bands (Zavadil et al., 2007). In 2005/06 the juvenile male entanglement rate was particularly high – 0.15 and 0.35 per cent – meaning that 10 or 20 animals are likely to suffer from entanglements every year.

Over 22 years (1976–1998) on south-east Farallon A total of 1,033 Antarctic fur seals were observed Island, northern California, 914 pinnipeds were recorded entangled in marine debris at Bird Island, South entangled. These included California sea lions, northern Georgia, between November 1989 and March 2013. elephant seals, Steller sea lions, Pacific harbour seals Eighty five per cent of these entanglements involved and northern fur seals (Hanni & Pyle, 2000). Common packing bands, synthetic line and fishing net (Waluda entangling materials were monofilament line and net, trawl and Staniland, 2013). and other nets, salmon fishing lure and lines, fish hooks and lines, packing straps, and other miscellaneous marine debris. Shaughnessy (1980) describes the number of Cape fur seals recorded as entangled in several colonies in Namibia Species snapshot: grey seals and common seals between 1972 and 1979. Most of the entangling objects Allen et al. (2012a) describe the entanglement rates of were found around the seals’ necks. The highest incidence grey seals in Cornwall, UK, with a range from 5 per cent in among seals was recorded at the Cape Cross colony. 2004 to 3.1 per cent of the population affected in 2011. Of the 58 seals identified, 37 (64 per cent) had injuries that Around 0.6 per cent of the population was observed were causing a constriction, had formed an open wound, entangled in fishing-related debris including monofilament or both. During the period 1999 to 2013, between 3 and line, fishing net, rope and plastic straps. 9 per cent of gray seals in rookeries around Cape Cod, Massachusetts, had evidence of entanglements In the Kaikoura region of New Zealand, fur seals breed (Brian Sharp, International Fund for Animal Welfare, near a town with expanding tourist and fishing industries. personal communication, 2014). They commonly become entangled in nets and plastic Species snapshot: sea lions Species snapshot: fur seals debris. The entanglement rates of seals in the Kaikoura In a study of entanglement on the Dutch coast between Californian sea lions are badly affected by entanglement In a 10-year study at Marion Island in the Southern Ocean, region are reported to be in the range of 0.6–2.8 per cent 1985 and 2010, entanglement was more prevalent in grey along the US coast and in the Gulf of California. One study Hofmeyr et al. (2002) recorded 101 fur seals and five of the population. The most common causes are green trawl seals than common seals – 39 versus 15 respectively (van estimated that up to 7.9 per cent of sea lions in the Baja southern elephant seals entangled in marine debris. The study net (42 per cent) and plastic strapping tape (31 per cent) Liere et al., 2012). Seals were entangled in pieces of ghost California region become entangled (Harcourt et al., 1994). described how 67 per cent of materials causing entanglement (Boren et al., 2006). trawl nets and gill nets. The study’s authors suggest that the A further study, describing bird and seal/sea lion entanglement originated from the fishing industry. Polypropylene packaging numbers found were likely to be just a fraction of the true cases in California over six years, found 1,090 (11.3 per cent) straps were the most common cause, followed by trawl netting. A successful disentanglement programme with extent of mortality. They attribute this to the probable low of entanglements were related to fishing gear. The highest Incidences of longline hooks embedding in animals and fishing post-release monitoring showed that with appropriate rate of recovery of stranded animals when compared to prevalence of fishing-gear-related injury in seals and sea lions line entanglements began when longline fishing started in the intervention there was a strong likelihood that an those lost at sea. was seen in the San Diego region (Dau et al., 2009). waters around Marion Island in 1996. animal released from the net or debris would survive. This included those with a significant entanglement Species snapshot: elephant seals A survey of 386 Steller sea lions entangled in south-east Alaska In New Zealand, fur seals are most commonly entangled wound (Boren et al., 2006). In a study of entanglement of southern elephant seals, and north British Columbia (Raum-Suryan et al., 2009) looked in loops of packing tape and trawl net fragments suspected to monofilament line proved to be the main cause (Campagna at causes of entanglement. The most common neck-entangling derive from rock lobster and trawl fisheries (Page et et al., 2007). The elephant seals were caught, when material was plastic packing bands (54 per cent), followed by al., 2004). possible, to remove the material. In every case, the material large rubber bands (30 per cent). Both are most commonly removed was a monofilament line, 1.3–1.5 mm thick, associated with materials relating to fisheries (e.g. bait boxes). The entanglement of Antarctic fur seals halved from typically tied in a circle with a knot. In some animals, the line 1990–1994 after the International Convention for the had jigs attached (coloured lures armed with a crown of Animals were also found to be entangled with net (7 per Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) introduced hooks) – gear typically used by squid fisheries. cent), rope (7 per cent) and monofilament line (2 per cent). Annex V (Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution by Local campaigns to ‘Lose the loop!’ promoted simple actions Garbage from Ships). However, polypropylene packing by fishers and coastal communities. These included cutting straps, fishing net fragments and synthetic string were still entangling loops of synthetic material and eliminating packing found to be common debris items entangling seals in all bands to help prevent entanglements. years (Arnould & Croxall, 1995).

22 23 The scientists observed three to five new entangled animals whale scar evidence suggests that only 3–10 per cent of per breeding season. They indicated, however, this was entanglements are witnessed and reported (Robbins & By-catch or debris? likely to be an underestimate since observations took place Mattila, 2000, 2004). This indicates that, like other species, during a period when juveniles – the most affected group – whales may succumb to entanglement and sink after death, It is not always clear whether an animal has been disentangling seals and sea lions caught in segments of were not present. before the event can be detected. caught in active fishing gear (‘by-catch’) or ghost gear net (commonly trawl nets) where the rope shows signs of or debris. Because of their size and mass, the larger having been cut. A likely scenario to explain this is animals The study highlighted that entanglements can turn into Reports also exist of small whales, dolphins and porpoises whales may be able to break away from an anchoring being cut out of active gear by fishers seeking to salvage chronic wounds that often bleed and become infected, becoming entangled in ghost fishing gear. For example, entanglement in fixed fishing lines and gear. However, they their net but – for safety reasons – unable to get close with debilitating consequences. Judging from the depth in April 2002, 35 harbour porpoises were entangled in may then remain entangled in thin but strong ropes, net and enough to the animal’s head to cut the entangling loop of the wounds, the scientists noted that entangled seals 30.2km of abandoned gill and trammel nets off the coast lines. Marine animal rescue teams also report away from the neck. can live for years with line cutting the skin and muscles of of Romania. the neck. The wounds limit the movement of the neck and rest of the body, and can impair diving ability (Campagna Species snapshot: right whales et al., 2007). The north Atlantic right whale population is estimated to be only 400 in the western north Atlantic. The apparent failure One review noted that the inherent pain and suffering for the humpback whales may die as a result of entanglement of the population to recover has in part been attributed to individual animals in the time between initial entanglement annually (Robbins, 2009). 3.1.3 Whales, dolphins and porpoises (cetaceans) mortality from collisions with ships and entanglements in fixed and final death is severely shocking (Moore and van der In northern south-east Alaska, caudal peduncle scars Whales, dolphins and porpoises of all sizes can become fishing gear (Kraus, 2008). Hoop, 2012). Such chronic welfare impacts “would raise reveal that the majority of humpback whales have been entangled in and killed by ghost fishing gear, though the substantial concern with consumers of seafood were they to entangled. The lowest scarring percentage (17 per cent) problem is more widely reported for large whales. As with One study, summarising post mortem reports for lethally be aware of what they were enabling” (Moore, 2014). is in calves (Neilson et al., 2009). Neilson suggests that the findings for seals and sea lions, the literature reviewed for entangled western north Atlantic right whales over 30 years, calves and juveniles have a higher mortality rate from ‘Fishing’s phantom menace’ (see Table 1, Annex 1) shows found that all whales examined had sustained entanglement Species snapshot: humpback whales entanglement than adult whales for two reasons. Firstly, that entanglement affects cetaceans all over the world. and fishing gear wounds (Moore et al., 2005). In one case, In 2006, Neilson assessed the prevalence of non-lethal this is because as the whale grows, gear is more likely Cetaceans appear particularly vulnerable in coastal waters fishing line had entangled the flippers, cut through all of the entanglements of humpback whales in fishing gear in the to become embedded and lead to lethal infections or where they more frequently come into contact with ghost soft tissues and embedded itself several centimetres into the northern part of south-east Alaska. The study, using restricted circulation. Secondly, because of their smaller size, fishing gear and other human-originated debris. flipper bones. a scar-based method, found that 52–78 per cent of calves and juveniles may not have the strength necessary to whales had become entangled. break free from entangling gear. The large whales most commonly recorded as being In another case, a north Atlantic right whale first sighted entangled are the north Atlantic right whale and the entangled in fishing gear in May 1999 was found dead In Glacier Bay or Icy Strait, 8 per cent of the whales In Peru, of 15 confirmed entanglements recorded between humpback whale. However, observer effort and monitoring five months later. Reviewing the case, Moore noted, “The acquired new entanglement scars each year, and males 1995 and 2012, 10 involved humpback whales. Gill nets of affected species has mainly focussed on populations entangling rope and gill net had dissected off the blubber seemed to be at higher risk than females. Calves were less were responsible for 80 per cent of these entanglements threatened with extinction due to entanglement, such as the on its back while it was still alive.” At its widest point, the likely to have entanglement scars than older whales. This is (Garcia-Godos et al., 2013). north Atlantic right whale. missing section of skin and blubber measured 1.4m (Moore, perhaps because young animals are more likely to die from 2014). The average time estimated for an entanglement to entanglement than to survive and show scars. According to Species snapshot: bottlenose dolphins Scientists studying the scars on large whales suggest that kill a right whale is 5.6 months (Moore et al., 2006). Some Johnson et al. (2005), common points for gear attachment One study describes observations of a bottlenose dolphin non-lethal entanglements are extremely common in some whales with potentially fatal entanglement injuries have in humpback whales are the tail (53 per cent) and the calf becoming entangled in monofilament line during a species. It is estimated that half (48–65 per cent) of Gulf of survived considerably longer – up to 1.5 years (Knowlton mouth (43 per cent). play session with another juvenile (Mann et al., 1995). Maine humpback whales have been entangled at least & Kraus, 2001). More recent studies on entangled bottlenose dolphins once in their lifetime. Eight to 25 per cent sustain new Humpback whales also become entangled in Canadian have shown that some newly developed (and very injuries each year (Robbins, 2009). However, humpback and US Atlantic waters (Robbins & Mattila, 2001). Forty abrasive) fishing lines cut deep wounds into their tissues eight to 65 per cent of the whales photographed every year (Barco et al., 2010). bear some evidence of previous entanglement. Species snapshot: minke whales About 12 per cent of the humpback whales in the Gulf A study of the entanglement of minke whales in the East of Maine appear to become non-lethally entangled. On Sea of Korea found a total of 214 incidences between “The entangling rope and gillnet average 19–29 (2–5 per cent of the local population) 2004 and 2007 (Song et al., 2010). Two hundred and had dissected off the blubber on its back while it was still alive.” (Moore, 2014)

24 25 seven of these (96.7 per cent) were caused by fishing and infrequent reports of rates of entanglement. Species gear such as set nets, pots and gill nets. The others were commonly reported as entangled include: the northern associated with bottom trawls, purse seines and trawls. fulmar; horned puffin; greater shearwater; sooty The most common body part to become entangled, in shearwater; common guillemot and laysan albatross 63 cases, was the mouth. (CBD, 2012).

According to Northridge et al. (2010), entanglement in Gill nets present a clear danger to birds, with 514 dead fishing gear, primarily creel lines, is the most frequently marine birds found in 870 ghost gill nets recovered in documented cause of mortality in minke whales in Scottish the north-west United States. Overall, dead marine and UK waters. The same study asserts that roughly half birds occurred in 14 per cent of recovered gill nets of all examined dead baleen whales from Scotland are (Good et al. 2009). thought to have died due to fishing gear entanglement. The situation is compounded by the fact that some birds, 3.1.4 Turtles for example northern gannets and other seabirds, use In Cape Arnhem, northern Australia, 29 dead turtles were fragments of ghost fishing gear and other debris to build found in ghost fishing nets over a four-month period. The their nests. This can result in the entanglement of both threat to marine turtles posed by ghost fishing gear is thought nestlings and adults. to be equivalent to that posed by active fishing gear prior to the introduction of turtle exclusion devices in the region A study by Votier et al. (2011) found that the proportion of (Kiessling, 2003). nests incorporating fishing gear was related exponentially to the number of gill nets set around breeding colonies. Between January 1998 and December 2001 in the Canary The proportion of nests that incorporated marine debris Islands, 88 loggerhead, three green, and two leatherback decreased following a fishery closure. sea turtles were studied post mortem. Of these 69.89 per cent appeared to have died from human-induced causes.

These included entanglement in ghost fishing nets (25 On average, the gannet nests contained 469.91g A paper from the Common Wadden Sea Secretariat per cent), ingestion of hooks and monofilament lines (19 (range 0–1293g) of plastic. This equates to an estimated (cited in OSPAR, 2009) showed that nylon fishing lines, per cent), boat-strike injuries (24 per cent) and crude oil colony total of 18.46 tonnes (range 4.47–42.34 tonnes) ropes and pieces of fishing nets were the most common ingestion (2 per cent) (Orós et al., 2005). of plastic material. Most nesting material was synthetic debris items. It reported that 48 per cent of beached rope, which the cormorants seemed to prefer. Around birds were entangled in line or rope, 39 per cent in nets Skin lesions with ulceration were the most common 60 birds were entangled each year, with a total of and 7 per cent with fishing hooks. injuries caused by entanglement. In 10.75 per cent of the 525 individuals – mostly nestlings – seen entangled studied animals, necrotising myositis (death of local areas over eight years. Of the literature reviewed for ‘Fishing’s phantom of muscle) had been caused by entanglement in fishing menace’, most relating to the entanglement of birds nets. In 25.81 per cent of animals either one or two flippers Anecdotal evidence and grey literature suggests that cited fishing debris as the major cause. UNEP (2001) had been amputated through entanglement in netting other bird species are also using large quantities of states that many birds, such as gulls and cormorants, (Orós et al., 2005). plastic in their nests. This is a very recent development, are also entangled in six-pack rings and other encircling and one that is costing a significant number of birds their pieces of litter. lives through entanglement. 3.1.5 Birds Birds that become compromised by entanglement in ghost fishing gear may not be able to dive, nest or fly and may suffer painful incisions into their limbs by rope Image above: A cormorant died as a result of or line. These wounds can then lead to infection or entanglement in a ghost net, Cornwall, eventual amputation. United Kingdom Dave Peake / Marine Photobank More than 1 million birds are estimated to die each year from entanglement in (or ingestion of) plastics (Laist, Image left: A ghost net, entangling 17 deceased 1997). However, the impacts of entanglement in ghost sea turtles, was discovered days after a storm fishing gear on different species are not very clear. For off the coast of Bahia, Brazil most seabird species there is only patchy information, Projeto Tamar Brazil / Marine Photobank

26 27 Table 2: Data used to estimate sum total of pinniped (seal and sea lion) and baleen (large) whale species affected by ghost fishing gear 3.2 How many animals are likely to be affected by ghost fishing gear? Species/ Entanglement rate Population estimates (where Extrapolation: Sum: number of Source of entanglement rate Sub-species (incidence in population, multiple estimates mean is estimated animals animals affected by estimation This section presents rough estimates of entanglements % [if range then mean adopted) affected by entanglement annually, affecting the two marine animal groups for which data appears in brackets]) entanglement from specific studies and per annum from specific restricted is most readily available: pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) (entanglement rate x localities (if range given and large whales. population estimate, mean adopted) rounded to nearest whole number) The calculations have produced two totals: Kaikoura fur seal 0.6–2.8 (1.7) 19 Boren et al. (2006) Australian fur seal 1.9 Pemberton et al. (1992) a sum total of marine animals reported to have been Antarctic & Sub- 0.24 10 Hofmeyr et al. (2002) affected on an annual basis (pinnipeds and large whales), Antarctic fur seal derived from annual entanglement figures provided in Antarctic fur seal 0.024–0.059 15,000 Boren et al. (2006) reviewed published studies (57,000 animals) (0.041) Cape fur seal 0.1–0.6 (0.35) 84 Shaughnessy (1980) an extrapolated total, derived by multiplying the recorded Northern fur seal 0.08–0.32 (0.2) 40,000 Watson (Bering sea total); percentage entanglement rates (of pinnipeds and large Zavadil et al. (2007) whales) by population estimates (136,000 animals). (entanglement rate) California sea lion 3.9–7.9 (5.9) Harcourt et al. (1994) We propose that these figures represent a range; the lower Steller sea lion 0.26 Raum-Sayuran et al. figure (57,000) represents a conservative estimate and (2009) 136,000 an upper-level estimate. California sea lion 0.08–0.22 (0.15) 28 Stewart & Yochem (1987) TOTAL Mean entanglement Combined fur seal/ 52,774 55,141 We have not been able to calculate the number of birds or (otariid seals) rate for otariid seals sea lion population = 1.34% estimate = 238,8000 other marine animals that are entangled. It is very difficult (Trites to give meaningful estimates of the numbers affected by et al., 1997) entanglement. This is due to the patchy nature of the data Hawaiian monk seal 0.7 215 Henderson (2001) and the wide geographical spread of the most commonly Northern elephant seal 0.15 14 Stewart & Yochem (1987) affected species. It is very clear, however that the numbers Southern elephant seal 0.001–0.002 Campagna et al. (2007) are significant. (0.0015) Harbour seal 0.09 2 Stewart & Yochem (1987) TOTAL Entanglement rate Phocid seal 52,969 231 (phocid seals) for phocid seals = population estimate = 0.24% 22,070,500 (Trites et al., 1997) Humpback whale 9.2 63,600 (IWC, 2010) 5,851 54 Robbins & Mattila (2004) Western grey whale 26,400 (IWC, 2010), 19 Bradford et al. (2009) 21,100 (Trites et al., 1997) Minke whale 2.6 970,000 (IWC, 2010), 23,790 7 Cole et al. (2006) 860,000 (Trites et al., 1997) North Atlantic right whale 1.6 300 (IWC, 2010) 5 6 Cole et al. (2006) Fin whale 0.8 33,200 (IWC, 2010), 181 2 Cole et al. (2006) 12,000 (Lowry et al., 1997) Bryde’s whale 0.2 20,500 (IWC, 2010), 32 1 Cole et al. (2006) 11,200 (Trites et al., 1997) TOTAL (baleen whales) 29,859 89 Totals (pinniped and 135,602 56,976 baleen whale species combined)

28 29 Limitations of the data and estimates • Estimates of animal entanglement generally rely on reports There are clear variations in the geographical of animals seen alive (or recently deceased), and so are spread of research into the impact of ghost fishing likely to seriously underestimate the scale of the problem. gear and marine debris in general on animals. The If animals are affected and die unseen (as is likely to be Convention on Biological Diversity’s 2012 status common), then they are not reported. As Cole et al. (2006) report (CBD, 2012) highlights and describes this state: “Our greatest concern remains the number of animals geographical imbalance. It notes the number of reports we never saw… Evidence suggests that only 3 to 10 per it has reviewed from different regions: Americas (117), cent of entanglements are witnessed and reported.” Australasia (56), Europe (52), Africa (12), Antarctic (7), Asia (6), and the Arctic (5). •Estimates for the number of animals affected at any point in time rely on an understanding of how long the Regional and species-based variability in recorded animals in the survey period were likely to be affected. entanglement events means that it is important to be However, this is often not clear, since the time over which cautious when scaling up or extrapolating figures an animal is affected is highly variable. Some animals on the animal impacts of ghost fishing gear. When will be affected acutely and very severely, and die considering the figures presented overleaf, it is after a relatively short period. Others – for example, the important to be aware of the following points. large baleen whales – may be adversely affected by entanglement for many months or even years. • Estimates based on published reports can reflect only the areas where the reports were carried out. In combination, these ‘estimates of estimates’ lead to a high The level of research and interest is not uniformly degree of uncertainty in overall numbers of animals affected. spread across the globe. It is highly probable that the animal welfare impacts of ghost fishing gear are far greater than existing reports indicate.

4. Country-specific case studies (Australia, UK, US and Canada) Image: Juvenile gray whale entangled in ghost gear, North Pacific Ocean Brandon Cole / naturepl.com

30 4.1 Australia

4.1.1 Introduction 4.1.2 Species commonly found in ghost gear in Evidence from northern Australia shows that ghost gear has In its various forms marine debris is widely recognised A 1997/1998 study documented more than 61 tonnes of Australian waters been observed to entangle invertebrates, fish, sharks, turtles, as a serious threat to the Australian marine environment debris on a 137km stretch of beach around north Australia’s As detailed in the box on page 30, quantifying the full crocodiles, and dugongs (Gunn et al., 2010). In just over (Gregory, 2009). Groote Eylandt – 90 per cent of this featured ghost fishing extent of the problem that ghost gear causes animals is three years more than 500 turtles were reported entangled nets (Sloane et al., 1998). Other studies report that not easy. Estimates are highly likely to be underestimates. along the Queensland coast, Gulf of Carpentaria (Kiessling, Most of Australia’s population (86 per cent in 1996) lives between 70–80 per cent of retrieved marine debris are However, an increasing amount of scientific literature is 2003) with studies suggesting ghost fishing gear as a in the coastal zones surrounded by the Pacific, the Indian, ghost nets (Kiessling, 2003). developing around this important issue. primary cause (Leitch and Roeger, 2001). the Southern Oceans as well as the Timor and Arafura seas. Consequently, a large fraction of studies and initiatives focus On a larger scale, around 2,400 tonnes of fishing gear, One study aiming to assess the impact of plastic debris on In 2012, 100 marine animals were recovered from ghost on the visible debris that is washed ashore along Australia’s including ghost nets, is estimated to be lost or discarded Australian marine wildlife concluded that at least 66 species nets – 63 were turtles and most of them dead (GhostNets 36,700 km of coastline. The studies distinguish between each year in Australian waters (Kiessling, 2004). were found to be affected by entanglement in plastic debris (C Australia, 2012). Turtle species reported in various studies debris originating from land-based activities and that derived More than 10,000 ghost nets have been collected & R Consulting, 2009). This study included ingestion incidents, include mainly hawksbill turtles, followed by green turtles, from maritime activities (ANZECC, 1996). since 2004 from the Gulf of Carpentaria in north but suggested that most were caused by entanglement rather then olive ridley and flatback turtles (Kiessling, 2003; Leitch Australia alone (Butler et al., 2013). than ingestion. Furthermore, it specified the type of plastic debris and Roeger, 2001). In more densely populated eastern Australia, more than entangling animals; in more than 60 per cent of cases the 133,000 items of debris were found on average on animals were caught in ghost fishing gear. Australia’s marine habitat is home to six of the seven each square kilometre of beach (Criddle et al., 2009; threatened marine turtle species, including large portions Cunningham and Wilson, 2003). In the last decade, In southern parts of Australia and New Zealand, sea lions of the remaining global populations for several species ghost fishing gear – a less visible aspect of marine and fur seals have been reported to frequently become (Biddle and Limpus, 2011; Limpus and Fien, 2009). debris – has received increasing scientific and political entangled in ghost fishing gear (Jones, 1995). According attention in Australia. to a 1992 study, on average 1.9 per cent of Australian fur seals become entangled. Almost three in four fur seals Ghost fishing gear is recognised as responsible for are likely to be killed by this entanglement (Pemberton significant degradation of the Pacific’s economic and et al., 1992). ecological marine resources (APEC, 2004). While the Image: The Great Barrier Reef, Australia magnitude of the problem is hard to measure, various Image: A pied cormorant, Australia ARC Centre of Excellent for Coral Reef Studies / attempts have been made to do so. Mike Guy / Marine Photobank Marine Photobank Figure 2: The Arafura Sea and Gulf of Carpentaria, showing the littoral nations, and locations of Indonesian The threat to marine turtles from ghost gear and marine But, a 2008 CSIRO study of drift simulations for ghost fishing prawn and fish trawl fisheries, annual average ghost net retrievals in 2004-2011, and the 23 Indigenous ranger debris in northern Australia is thought to equal that posed nets suggests that nets do not travel extreme distances. The groups’ communities and bases (Butler et al., 2013) by active fishing gear before turtle exclusion devices were study found no evidence that nets stranding on the northern introduced (Kiessling, 2003). Australian shore were likely to have been lost or discarded farther away than the Arafura Sea (Griffin, 2008). Other frequently reported entangled species include more than 30 dugongs in a two-year period and several The Gulf of Carpentaria is considered a hotspot for ghost incidences of whales, sharks and several larger fish net accumulation due to climatic conditions that drag ghost species. Most were reported to be entangled in ghost nets fishing nets into this gulf. In general, remote areas seem to Ambon (Kiessling, 2003). suffer more from debris resulting from commercial fishing activities. Areas closer to urban centres may have a higher A total of 96 incidents of cetaceans, mostly humpback frequency of consumer items such as packaging waste Papua New Guinea whales, entangled in unspecified debris were reported (Hardesty and Wilcox, 2011). between 1998 and 2008 in Australia. A further 110 cetaceans were killed by unknown causes. The types of commercial fishing activities that are commonly reported to result in ghost fishing are varied, although gill As this study also points out, the frequency and geographic nets and green trawl nets are mentioned most frequently extent of records of affected species reflects the frequency (Boren et al., 2006; Pemberton et al., 1992). In 2012, Indonesia of surveys conducted in each region. More remote areas northern Australian rangers removed 845 nets – 59 per cent Timor Leste – including the northern region of western Australia, the were trawl nets, 14 per cent were gill nets and 30 per cent Great Australian Bight coastline, Tasmania’s western coast were undetermined.

Timor Sea Arafura Sea and much of Cape York Peninsula – are not frequently monitored. This means that the numbers of animals affected Taiwanese nets account for by far the largest portion of nets in these areas are not yet known (C & R Consulting, 2009). (24.9 per cent), followed by Indonesian nets (15.1 per cent), Australian (11 per cent) and Korean (7.4 per cent) (GhostNets Australia, 2012). This data confirms an earlier 4.1.3 Types of ghost gear frequently causing entangle literature review on entanglement cases in northern Australia. ment and the worst affected areas The review identified drift, trawl and gill nets from Taiwanese, Weipa Northern Australia is especially vulnerable to accumulations Indonesian and Australian vessels as responsible for most of of ghost fishing gear and other marine debris. This is due to these incidents (Kiessling, 2003). Plastic bags and crab pots high intensity commercial fishing operations and also ocean are reported only marginally in those statistics. currents. Difficulties in surveillance and enforcement add Gulf of Carpentaria further vulnerability to this region. Recreational fishing in Australia, especially the disposal of monofilament fishing lines or amateur bait nets, are also Ninety per cent of marine debris entering the coastal reported as an entanglement hazard to animals (Kiessling,

Australia regions of northern Australia is related to fishing. Some 2003; Whiting, 1998). This is, however, at a lesser scale parts of the debris collected could be traced back to than ghost gear from commercial fisheries. Australian fishing vessels, especially prawn trawlers (Kiessling, 2004; WWF Australia, 2006). However, The figure overleaf shows the location of Indonesian observations suggest that most ghost nets on northern fisheries, annual ghost net retrievals in 2004–2011 by Australian beaches and coastal seas originate from non- location in northern Australia and the location of indigenous Australian fisheries. One study estimates that only 10 per ghost net ranger bases (Butler et al., 2013). Legend Average number of ghost nets per year cent of nets retrieved by rangers could be identified as Indigenous ranger group bases 1-30 Australian (GhostNets Australia, 2013). Australian EEZ limit 31-110 Papua New Guinea-Indonsia marine boundary 111-225 Prawn trawl fishery Fish trawl fishery 226-350

226-350 0 125 250 500km

34 35 4.1.4 Economic implications of ghost gear The Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) recognised that ghost fishing gear is a hazard to vessel navigation and can pose a threat to life and property. Anecdotal reports suggest that most people who regularly work in northern Australia’s coastal waters will have been involved in at least one incident involving floating debris.

According to a US study at least five vessels were damaged in one year by floating debris in Australian waters (Kiessling, 2003). Furthermore, ghost fishing gear continues to function as designed; it catches species without economic benefit but with economic costs.

APEC concludes in their 2004 report that the dimensions of ghost fishing of commercial stock are undocumented and not integrated into stock management models. They assert that it potentially threatens the long-term sustainability of otherwise well-managed fisheries (APEC, 2004).

A study, published in 2009, estimated that during 2008 marine debris directly cost the APEC member economies approximately $1.265 billion (USD). Fishing, shipping and marine tourism industries were named as the industries most impacted. In the fishing industry damage includes accidents, collisions with debris, and entanglement of propellers with floating objects. The study estimated that the Australian fishing industry suffers an annual loss of $5.6 million (USD) (Campbell et al., 2009).

The aesthetic impact of marine debris on the Australian coastal environment and its tourism must also be considered. Clean-up costs are incurred by both government and the tourism industry, and marine debris is likely to adversely affect tourism by spoiling the beauty of coastlines (Gregory, 2009).

The 2009 APEC study on economic costs of marine debris estimates that in 2008 the marine tourism industry of the APEC member economies suffered damages of $622 million (USD) (Campbell et al., 2009). Communities in areas suffering from tonnes of fishing gear washing regularly on to their shores also show growing antagonism towards the fishing industry as a whole (Sloane et al., 1998).

Image: A sea lion enters the water, Australia Gerick Bergsma / Marine Photobank

36 37 4.2 United Kingdom

4.2.1 Introduction 4.2.2 Species at risk from ghost gear in UK waters 4.1.5 Regional contribution to ghost net that Indonesia is overexploiting its fisheries. The More than 8,000 marine species, including whales, Whales, dolphins, porpoises, turtles and seabirds in UK occurrence – Indonesia recommendations state that for Indonesia’s fish stocks to dolphins, porpoises, seals, seabirds and turtles live and waters may all become entangled in either active or The international nature of fishing fleets, their varying survive, a shift away from Maximum Sustainable Yield breed around the coasts of the British Isles (Defra, 2013). ghost fishing gear. There is, at present, a lack of dedicated operating standards and drifting caused by ocean models towards eco-system based management is They share these waters with the UK fishing fleet – the sixth research to assess the magnitude of the ghost gear problem. currents, mean the ghost gear affecting northern Australia needed (Mous et al., 2005). largest fleet in the European Union. In 2012 it had more As discussed in the box on page 30, it is likely that the has wider regional causes. A study on the origin of ghost than 6,400 vessels and landed 600,000 tonnes of fish number of animals seen entangled is a fraction nets in the Gulf of Carpentaria revealed only 4 per cent These projects do not include ghost gear reduction in (Marine Management Organisation, 2014) for supply of those actually affected. of nets originated from Australia. Although 45 per cent of their remit but there may be potential to complement the to UK consumers and overseas markets. nets’ origins could not be identified, Taiwan and Indonesia development of Indonesian sustainable fisheries with ghost Where data does exist, it shows that entanglement in ghost each accounted for 6–16 per cent of ghost nets – fishing gear reduction efforts. These commercial fisheries inevitably accidentally lose fishing gear is a persistent problem, causing suffering to possibly more (Gunn et al., 2010). or may deliberately discard fishing nets and lines which either numerous animals. In Cornwall, UK “net entanglement is a Apex International, an environmental NGO with accumulate in the sea or wash up on beaches. The Marine major issue for live seals, as they curiously play with storm Although few efforts are underway to address expertise in oceanic whale and dolphin surveys, Conservation Society’s 2012 Beachwatch clean up and damaged and discarded fishing net floating in the water this ghost net issue, Indonesia is developing various has also carried out various educational and conservation survey revealed that almost 14 per cent of the litter collected column” (Cornwall Seals Group, 2013). community-based projects introducing sustainable programmes in Indonesia. It recognises discarded from nearly 240 beaches was fishing-related. Of over 90km fishing methods to local fishermen. One of the largest plastics and fishing gear as a threat to Indonesia’s of beaches cleaned, some 17,700 pieces of fishing net, line A recent five-year study (Allen et al., 2012b) of seals at a is a $7 million (USD), two-year project by Rare cetaceans in riverine, coastal and oceanic habitats and rope were collected. Almost 1 in 4 items collected from single haul out site in Cornwall, UK, found that on average aimed at introducing No Take Zones and educating (Apex International, n.d.). Welsh beaches were fishing- related, in Scotland this figure between 3.6 per cent to 5 per cent of the animals at the fishermen about conservation-friendly fishing methods was less than 1 in 10 (Marine Conservation Society, 2012). site were entangled. A total of 58 animals were recorded (Rare, 2012). Very little data is available on the impact of ghost Although the scale of the ghost gear problem in UK waters entangled over the period 2004 to 2008. gear in Indonesia. This is most likely attributable to remains poorly quantified, it is clear that entanglement in WWF Indonesia is aiming to reduce turtle by-catch the lack of monitoring of beach debris and animal ghost fishing gear is a significant threat to the welfare The study concluded that the vast majority of these animals in commercial and traditional fisheries in Papua New entanglements or strandings. of many animals. were entangled in fishing gear – monofilament line or net, Guinea and Indonesia by supporting the implementation or multifilament net. More than two thirds of the animals had of better fisheries management and improving policy This is demonstrated by 45 per cent of all stranded injuries that were deemed life threatening, including open making (WWF Indonesia, n.d.). cetaceans between 1987 and 2007 not having wounds and constricting neck ligatures. Furthermore, neck been identified (Mustika et al., 2009). Twenty five per wounds on some seals from the netting entangling them had The Indonesian government is working with cent of those stranding reports come from Bali, and in increased in severity for several years running, illustrating the CSIRO’s Sustainable Ecosystems division on a new 2007 a 6.1m humpback whale became entangled in chronic suffering that ghost nets can cause. approach to better understand the consequences of fishing nets off Tanah Lot Beach. The whale was hauled their national policies on household decisions, e.g. the to a nearby beach where the nets were removed and the Seals are naturally inquisitive, and on a number of exploitation of natural resources (CSIRO Sustainable whale swam away. However, one week later the whale occasions juvenile grey seals were filmed playing with Ecosystems, 2011). This approach follows published washed ashore after apparently having died offshore fragments of multifilament and monofilament net at the study recommendations (Mous et al., 2005) suggesting (Mustika et al., 2009). site (Allen et al., 2012b). It is also thought that some seals entangled in active fishing gear are cut out of the net by the fishers, who sometimes leave a section attached (R. Allen, pers. Comm). “Net entanglement is a major issue A recent case of a grey seal pup entangled in fishing for live seals, as they curiously line and hooks, in Norfolk, was described as particularly play with storm damaged and horrific by the RSPCA East Winch Wildlife Centre, where the pup was taken for treatment. The line had acted like discarded fishing net floating in a cheese wire around his muzzle and cut off his blood supply and nerves at the end of his nose” (RSPCA, 2008). the water.” (Cornwall Seals Unfortunately, the pup could not be saved as his injuries Group, 2013) were too severe.

38 39 Minke whales in Scottish waters have also been reported 4.2.3 Volumes of ghost gear in UK waters entangled in fishing gear (Northridge et al. 2010; HM Studies on ghost gear in some UK fisheries have concluded Government, 2012) – predominantly creel lines. Fishing-related that gear loss is a very frequent occurrence, with tens mortality (including active gear) is thought to be the cause of of kilometres of nets lost annually even by small fleets. death in approximately half of all examined baleen whales. In the hake fishery in the English Channel and Western Furthermore, the UK Government has reported that the Approaches, 12 vessels on average lost around five nets per main pressures on marine turtles in UK waters comes from year each measuring a total length of 12km. Around 50 entanglement in fishing gear and ingestion of plastic debris per cent were recovered. (HM Government, 2012). In the tangle net fishery off the southern tip of Cornwall The true extent of the ghost fishing problem in the UK is likely it was found that 18 vessels lost 263 nets per year. This to be far more serious than the available data suggests. For amounted to a total length of 24km; only around one every animal reported entangled on land, third of nets were recovered. The 26 vessels operating on an unknown number die at sea (Laist, 1997). the wreck fishery lost sections of nets on every trip, due to snagging, in 884 incidents (FANTARED 2).

Investigations into deep water and slope gill net fisheries in the north-east Atlantic, north and west of the British Isles found that very large quantities of nets are lost (Hareide et al., 2005). As well as accidental losses there was also widespread evidence Image: East Sussex Coastline, United Kingdom of illegal dumping of sheet netting. Melanie Siggs / Marine Photobank This occurs usually when vessels are not capable of carrying their nets and the catch back to port (Hareide et al., 2005). Gear conflicts with bottom trawlers and long liners also contributed to gear loss.

The precise amount of lost and discarded nets by these vessels was unknown, however a crude estimate suggested it was in the region of 1,254km of sheet netting per year. Anecdotal evidence suggested up to 30km of damaged gear was routinely discarded per vessel per trip.

And although net loss may be attributed to fishing in deep water, high levels of loss by these fisheries was also linked with unsustainable fishing practices (Brown et al., 2005). Some management measures have since been put in place in these north-east Atlantic fisheries, to reduce the risk of net loss. “The line had acted like a cheese Although the above studies provide a snapshot of the wire around his muzzle and cut off ghost fishing problem in some key UK fisheries, the full his blood supply and nerves at the picture is not clear. This is due to a lack of long-term, widespread studies that quantify both net loss and end of his nose.” (RSPCA, 2008) entanglement incidence.

Image: Fishermen in East Sussex, United Kingdom Image: Ghost gear in Dorset, United Kingdom Marnie Bammert for MSC / Marine Photobank Jon Chamberlain / Marine Photobank

40 41 4.2.4 What are the key drivers for the ghost gear 4.2.5 What are the economic implications of ghost gear problem within the UK? for the government/industry? There are key factors that predispose a gill net fishery to gear In addition to entangling marine animals such as seals and loss. These are listed below in decreasing order of relative birds, ghost nets also catch and kill significant volumes of importance (FANTARED 2): fish, including commercially targeted species. Most work on ghost gear has focused on biological and technical aspects gear conflicts, predominantly with towed gear operators as opposed to the economic consequences (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007). There are however some economic increasing water depth data available.

working in poor weather conditions and/or on very In 2008, there were 286 rescues in UK water of vessels with hard ground fouled propellers, incurring a cost of between €830,000 and €2,189,000 (Mouat et al., 2010). These costs relate, working very long fleets however, to vessels fouled by all types of marine debris as opposed to just ghost fishing gear. working more gear than can be hauled regularly. A cost-benefit analysis for a hypothetical EU gill net fishery In deep water gill net fisheries (e.g. in the north-east Atlantic) (using data from a UK gill net fishery; Watson and Aoife, deliberate dumping of sheet netting is believed to be the most 2001, cited in Brown and Macfadyen, 2007) calculated the significant factor (Hareide et al., 2005). costs of ghost fishing per vessel at over €10,456/year. Ghost fishing costs for the fishing fleet as a whole were calculated at Gear conflicts are a cause of gear loss in the hake net fishery in just under €420,000 (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007). the English Channel and Western Approaches and the tangle net fishery around the Lizard peninsula in Cornwall (Brown et The analysis concluded that the costs of the retrieval al., 2005; FANTARED 2). The high amount of netting used in programme (€46,500) outweighed the benefits (€22,664) the tangle net fishery was also found to contribute heavily to this of reducing ghost fishing for the fishery. It proposed that problem (FANTARED 2). economic benefits could be more significant in fisheries with many vessels losing large quantities of gear and/or in deep A number of studies have found that gill nets lost on rough water fisheries (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007). This indicates ground, or over a wreck, will form many snags. This extends the preventative management measures may be economically ghost fishing capacity beyond that of a gil lnet lost on open, preferable to curative ones; they will prevent the potentially smooth ground (FANTARED 2; Revill and Dunlin, 2003). It is high levels of ghost catch occurring immediately after gear particularly relevant in the case of ghost nets within the UK. loss (Brown and Macfadyen, 2007). The coastal waters of the north-east UK are rocky, exposed and contain many hundreds of submerged wrecks; and ‘wreck The literature on the economic costs of ghost gear is very netting’ is traditional in the area (Collings, 1986; Revill and limited, and tends to quantify one type of economic cost Dunlin, 2003). at a time (Macfadyen et al., 2009). For example, 2002 lost gear and lost fishing time costs for the Scottish Clyde Nets lost in deep water ghost fish for much longer inshore fishery were $21,000 (USD) and $38,000 (USD) than those lost in shallow water because of their slower rate of respectively (Watson and Bryson, 2003). Similarly, there is deterioration. Storm and tidal action in shallow waters roll up or a lack of data on monitoring, control and surveillance costs, break up nets, reducing their catching efficiency (Brown et al., and rescue and research costs associated with ghost gear 2005; Brown and Macfadyen, 2007; Large et al., 2006). (Macfadyen et al., 2009).

Image: A fisherman works with his nets in East Sussex, United Kingdom Valerie Craig / Marine Photobank

42 4.3 United States and Canada

4.3.1 Introduction After the moratorium, whale entanglements (mostly involved humpback whales and 15 per cent affected Ghost gear in the north-west Hawaiian Islands is believed Ghost fishing is a major concern in the US and Canada humpback and minke whales) in gill nets and fish traps minke whales (Benjamins et al, 2012). to be the largest human-originated threat to the critically due to their expansive coastal regions and vibrant fishing drastically declined, but entanglements in fish pots increased endangered Hawaiian monk seal. Annual rates of industries. In recent years, research into the causes and substantially. The fish pot entanglement increase was caused In the north-east US, lobster pots and gill nets dominate the entanglement in fishing gear ranged from 4 per cent to impacts of marine debris, as well as clean-up, rescue and by the snow crab fishery which substituted the previous cod coastal zone. Approximately 150 humpback and northern 78 per cent of the total estimated population of 1,300 abatement activities, has increased. This growth is an fishery. Similarly, the presence of fishing gear in the nests of right whales and around 50 leatherback turtles have been (SeaDoc Society, 2010). attempt to reduce or eliminate the harm caused by plastic northern gannets around the Gulf of St Lawrence was much disentangled since 1995. In 2012 alone, 11 humpback pollution and ghost fishing. lower after the fishery closure than prior to 1992 (Bond et and right whales and one basking shark were successfully In Cape Cod, Massachusetts, over a 14 year period al., 2012). disentangled (Delaney, 2013). More than 70 per cent of (1999-2013) the International Fund for Animal Welfare 4.3.2 Species at risk from ghost gear in US and north Atlantic right whales have been entangled in fishing reported 95 confirmed entanglements over three seal Canadian waters Atlantic Canada is home to a huge fishing industry. In this gear, predominantly in lobster pots (Provincetown Center for species (gray, harbour, harp). One female seal was Whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions, turtles and birds are just area humpback and right whales are the species particularly Coastal Studies, 2013). found to have a netting neck constriction which had cut some of the animals entangled in ghost fishing gear in US vulnerable to entanglement, especially from hook-and-line into her trachea, meaning she was unable to dive (and and Canadian waters. Different animals fall victim to ghost gear, drift nets, traps, pots and gill nets (Benjamins et al, In the mid-Atlantic region of the US, in Virginia’s portion feed) without drowning. This animal was euthanised (Brian fishing depending on a number of factors – these include the 2012; Vanderlaan et al, 2011). Entanglement is second of the Chesapeake Bay, it is estimated that 1.25 million Sharp, International Fund for Animal Welfare, Personal region in question and the type of fishing gear deployed. only to vessel strikes as being the cause of documented right blue crabs are caught by abandoned or lost crab pots. Communication, 2014). whale deaths (Vanderlaan et al., 2011). These ghost crab pots catch an additional 30 species of Comparisons of whale entanglements on Canada’s Atlantic marine animals, including large numbers of oyster toadfish, In addition to seals, entanglements have been coast before and after the 1992 cod fishery moratorium Data collected between 1979 and 2008 on whale black sea bass, Atlantic croaker, spot and flounder and rare documented for 31 humpback whales (NOAA, 2008) highlight the links between fishing activity and numbers of entanglements around Newfoundland and Labrador diamondback terrapins (Bilkovic et al., 2012). and all four species of sea turtles (olive ridleys, hawksbills, animals affected (Benjamins et al, 2012). show 80 per cent of the 1,183 recorded entanglements greens, and leatherbacks) found in Hawaiian waters In the Pacific United States, more than 300,000 animals, (Timmers et al., 2005). In California, nearly 10 per cent representing more than 240 unique species, were found of brown pelicans and gull species treated at marine entangled in ghost gear in Puget Sound. These species wildlife rehabilitation centres are admitted due to fishing included porpoise, sea lions, scoters, grebes, cormorants, gear entanglement or ingestion injuries (SeaDoc Image: Waikiki Beach in Hawaii, United States canary rockfish, Chinook salmon, and Dungeness crab Society, 2010). Wolcott Henry / Marine Photobank (Northwest Straits Initiative, 2011). Based on these data, a mortality rate model for entangled animals in Puget Sound In Canada, data from the Marine Mammal Response led to the following extrapolation developed by Program (MMRP) indicate that there were 112 incidents of the SeaDoc Society at University of California at Davis. marine animal entanglements in the period 2011–2012. Animals involved include: whale species; white-sided and Table 2: Mortality rate model for animals white-beaked dolphins; harbour and Dall’s porpoises; entangled annually in Puget Sound Steller sea lions; leatherback turtles, and basking sharks, (Northwest Straits Initiative, 2011)” among others (DFO, 2013).

Entangled animal Daily Annually Forty of these incidents occurred among species-at-risk Marine mammals 3.53 1,289 (DFO, 2013). This data is by no means complete as it relies on reported incidents; the true number of Birds 63.87 23,311 gear-related injuries and mortalities is likely to be Fish 232.81 84,974 significantly higher. Invertebrates 8,576.68 3,130,486

45 4.3.3 What types of ghost gear cause the dead sea lions, a dozen cormorants, and several crabs most entanglements? (Lieber, 2013).

Gill nets Similarly, British Columbia fishers report that gill nets are the Of the different types of fishing gear used by US fisheries, most common type of lost or abandoned of fishing gear gill nets are considered the most harmful in terms of ghost (CETUS, 2013). fishing. Gill nets (and drift nets) have been described as ‘the most deadly’ due to the low visibility of the monofilament Crab pots line which makes up these nets underwater (Lieber, 2013). In the US, Dungeness crab fisheries have the highest Thirty six per cent of whale entanglements in the Gulf reported rates of lost fishing gear, and the greatest economic of Maine are caused by gill nets (McCaroon and incentive to minimise its loss. A 2010 SeaDoc Society study Tetreault, 2012). shows a cost-benefit analysis, limited to Dungeness crabs caught by ghost fishing gear in Puget Sound, results in a Although the state of California has banned gill nets, cost-benefit ratio of 1:14. loopholes exist for certain fisheries, particularly herring. As a result, entanglement of whales, dolphins and turtles is Dungeness crabs are the main species harvested by a common occurrence in these fisheries (Lieber, 2013). In fishers in British Columbia. Here regulations mandate 2008, an abandoned 4,000-foot gill net was located four that untreated cotton twine must be used to allow for miles off the coast of Southern California. The first 100 feet deterioration, as a way to help prevent ghost fishing of that gill net contained the carcasses and skeletons of 21 (CETUS, 2013).

Image left: Ghost fishing gear washed up Image above: Mother dolpin and her calf on a beach in Hawaii, United States Alana Yurkanin / Marine Photobank Chris Pincetich / Marine Photobank

47 More than a million blue crabs, as well as up to 40 other from the north-west Hawaiian Islands (Dameron et. al. 2007). a year until the pots deteriorate. Location research indicates years. However, the cost to remove that same net is only marine species are caught by crab pots abandoned or lost Additionally, NOAA removed 14 metric tonnes of debris from that fewer than 900 ghost nets remain in the Sound $1,358 (USD) (SeaDoc Society, 2010). in Virginia’s portion of the Chesapeake Bay. The Virginia the waters surrounding Hawaii’s remote Midway Atoll in 2013 (Northwest Straits Initiative, 2011). Institute of Marine Science (VIMS) partnered with the alone (NOAA, 2013). The 1.25 million blue crabs caught in ghost crab pots in National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) In addition to these findings in local state waters, Virginia Bay have a 2013 value of more than $400,000 to locate and remove 32,000 ghost crab pots over four Southern California NOAA and NWSI commissioned Natural Resources (USD) (Blankenship, The Bay Journal). years (Bilkovic et. al. 2012). More than 60 tonnes of ghost gear was retrieved from Consultants to complete deep water exploration for ghost California’s coastal ocean by the California Lost Fishing gear in Puget Sound. They have located 207 ghost nets, The NWSI commissioned Natural Resources Lobster pots Gear Recovery Project between May 2006 and November with strong indication “that further deepwater surveys would Consultants to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of ghost Fifty three per cent of all whale entanglements in the Gulf of 2012. The retrieval focussed, primarily on southern reveal significantly more ghost fishing nets than the 207 fishing gear removal in Puget Sound using data collected Maine, where the gear type could be identified, were caused California and included the area around the California presently inventoried” (NOAA and NWSI, 2013). from 2004 to 2007. The study compared losses to the by fixed-gear pots. Lobster gear made up most of the cases Channel Islands. The project has also cleaned more than commercial and recreational fishery and operational attributed to pots (McCaroon and Tetreault, 2012). 1,400 pounds of recreational fishing gear off public fishing 4.3.5 Economic implications of ghost gear for the removal/clean-up costs to the benefits of preventing piers, including more than 1 million feet of fishing line government and industry further losses by recovering ghost gear (NWSI, 2007). (SeaDoc Society, 2014). There is no doubt that ghost fishing gear has an economic The clean-up initiative resulted in a positive benefit 4.3.4 Entanglement ‘hotspots’ cost in terms of both its impact on the commercial fishing – $6,285 (USD) per acre and $248 (USD) per pot/ Puget Sound, Washington industry and on the marine environment. Losses to the fishing trap compared to a cost of $4,960 (USD) per acre of net Hawaiian Islands As of December 2013, the Northwest Straits Initiative industry and harm to non-commercial species are sustained removal and $193 per fishing pot/trap removal. These An estimated 52 tonnes of fishing gear is lost around the (NWSI) has removed 4,605 ghost fishing nets, 3,173 when catches inadvertently occur via ghost gear. costs may be conservative – the durability of the equipment north-west Hawaiian Islands annually. In 2008, approximately crab pots, and 47 shrimp pots from Puget Sound. means ghost fishing could continue past the 10-year six metric tonnes of ghost fishing nets were removed off the This has restored 661.5 acres of critical marine habitat. It has been estimated that an abandoned gill net can kill projection period of this study (NWSI, 2007; Macfadyen island of Oahu alone. In the last 15 years, federal and state NWSI estimates 12,193 crab pots are lost annually in almost $20,000 (USD) worth of Dungeness crab over 10 et al., 2009). agencies have removed 579 metric tonnes of ghost fishing nets Puget Sound, each catching approximately 30 crabs

Image: Entangled Hawaiian monk seal Image: A seal pup entangled in ghost and her pup in Hawaii, United States gear, Isle of Shoals, United States NOAA, NMFS permit 932-1905 Steve Whitford / Marine Photobank Although not included in the NWSI study analysis, further gains resulting from gear recovery include the indirect benefits to the ecosystem (animal welfare, habitat preservation and conservation). This is however difficult to measure monetarily.

Cost effectiveness of ghost fishing gear removal is evident when compared to typical expenditures on habitat restoration projects and rescuing animals caught in oil spills (NWSI, 2007).

The detrimental impact of ghost fishing on the marine environment in terms of harming marine animals can be considered an ‘external cost’. This is because animal suffering and ecosystem effects are not usually included in the profit and loss assessments of typical economic models and are not easily quantified. Furthermore, the animal welfare impacts are rarely included when the negative impacts of ghost fishing are considered.

5. Conclusions: the need for global action towards

Image: A sea lion swimming iStock. by Getty Images ghost-gear-free seas

50 Conclusions: the need for World Animal Protection believes that uniting global efforts to tackle ghost fishing gear, and underlining our shared responsibility global action – towards to redouble these efforts, is the best way to ensure ghost fishing gear does not pose an ghost-gear-free seas ever-growing threat to our oceans’ animals, environment, and productivity.

‘Fishing’s phantom menace’ demonstrates the global What could a Global Ghost Gear Initiative do? scale of the ghost gear problem and the serious threat Which functional elements could the Global posed to marine mammals, reptiles, seabirds and other Enable effective cross-sectoral and global coordination to Ghost Gear Initiative incorporate? species. Ghost fishing gear represents a major challenge share data, intelligence and resources to understand global to our attempts to manage the oceans sustainably and ghost gear abundance, causes, impacts and trends. humanely. It shows no sign of diminishing. Signify and promote a shared cross-sectoral commitment to International recognition of this transboundary issue is support the expansion and replication of existing effective Data hub: to record and analyse ghost gear volumes, evidenced by the significant number of governments solutions to reduce ghost gear at source, remove existing geography and trends to more accurately describe and and intergovernmental bodies who have marine gear, and develop new solutions. quantify the problem. Data could be used to underpin debris, including ghost gear, on their agendas, and and direct mitigation responses, and allow monitoring reduction targets in view. Around the world, a number Share and promote learnings and resources from effective of solution project impacts against baselines. of governments, non-governmental organisations solution case studies, in both policy and practice, to enable and companies have set up inspiring and effective replication and expansion. solution projects, tackling the problem at the local or national level. Yet there remains no global coordination Direct and drive solution delivery in ghost gear hotspots, framework to enable the problem of ghost fishing gear to and create opportunities for the provision of seed funding of Virtual communication platform: to facilitate the be monitored and solved at scale. solution projects using best practice models. sharing of intelligence and challenges and to showcase existing effective solutions in policy and practice. The World Animal Protection aims to help meet this need Enable global monitoring and showcasing of the impacts of platform could represent and empower a global virtual and opportunity. We aim to found a cross-sectoral solution projects to catalyse further change. community of people and organisations committed to initiative to unite people and organisations around tackling ghost fishing gear. It could also act as a global the world who have the knowledge, power and WSPA believes that uniting global efforts to tackle ghost repository of information to inspire and enable the influence to deliver solutions for ghost-gear-free seas, fishing gear, and underlining our shared responsibility to growth of solutions. globally. By forming the Global Ghost Gear Initiative, redouble these efforts, is the best way to ensure ghost we aim to forge an alliance of governments, industry, fishing gear does not pose an ever-growing threat to our intergovernmental and non-governmental organisations, oceans’ animals, environment, and productivity. with a shared commitment to understand and tackle the problem of ghost fishing gear. Action catalyst: to identify hotspot areas in need of priority action and to then facilitate the formation of strategic partnerships to deliver effective solutions with Images from top: measurable impacts. Ghost fishing gear makes a bridge in Costa Rica Sea Turtle Restoration Project / Marine Photobank

Green sea turtle rescued from entanglement in Hawaii Steering group: to drive and oversee the development Amanda Cotton / Marine Photobank and operation of the initiative. The initiative could benefit from biennial meetings to evaluate progress Volunteers clear up ghost fishing gear in Hawaii towards shared goals, and to agree recommended NOAA / NMFS priorities for future action by partners.

Covanta SEMASS facility in Massachusetts, US, where ghost fishing gear is recycled

52 References

Allen, J. A., Sayer, S. Jarvis, D., & Mills, C. (2012a). Entanglement Bond, A. L., Montevecchi, W. A., Guse, N., Regular, P. M., Garthe, S. Cole, T., Hartley, D., & Garron, M. (2006). ‘Mortality and serious injury Derraik, J. G. B. (2002). The pollution of the marine environment of grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) at a haul out site in Cornwall, UK. & Rail, J. F. (2012). Prevalence and composition of fishing gear debris determinations for baleen whale stocks along the Eastern Seaboard of by plastic debris: a review. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 44(9), 842–852. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’ 64(12), 2815-2819. in the nests of northern gannets (Morus bassanus) are related to fishing the United States, 2000-2004’. US Department of Commerce, Northeast effort. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 64, 907–911. Fisheries Science Center Reference Document: 06–04. Donohue, M. J., Boland, R. C., Sramek, C. M., & Antonelis, Allen, J. A., Sayer, S. Jarvis, D., & Mills, C. (2012b). ‘A welfare G. A. (2001). Derelict fishing gear in the Northwestern Hawaiian issue: entanglement of Cornish grey seals’. Presentation. Cornwall Boren, L. J., Morrissey, M., Muller, C. G., & Gemmell, N. J. (2006). Collings, P. (1986). ‘The divers guide to the north east coast’. Collings Islands: diving surveys and debris removal in 1999 confirm threat College, Newquay, Cornwall Seal Group, BDMLR, University of Entanglement of New Zealand fur seals in man-made debris at and Brodie. ISBN 095116810X. to coral reef ecosystems. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 42(12), 1301– Exeter. Abstract retrieved 10 October 2012 from http://www. Kaikoura, New Zealand. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 52, 442–446. 1312. cornwallsealgroup.co.uk Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). (2012). Secretariat Breen, P. A. (1990). A review of ghost fishing by traps and gillnets. of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Scientific Donohue, M. J., & Foley, D. G. (2007). Remote sensing reveals links Al-Masroori, H.S. (2002). ‘Trap ghost fishing problem in the area ‘Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on marine debris, and Technical Advisory Panel—GEF (2012). ‘Impacts of marine among the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, marine debris, and El between Muscat and Barka (Sultanate of Oman): an evaluation study’ 2–7 April 1989’, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA. NOAA Technical debris on biodiversity: current status and potential solutions’, Montreal, Nino. ‘Marine Mammal Science’, 23(2), 468–473. (M.Sc. thesis). Sultan Qaboos University, Sultanate of Oman. Memorandum 154: 561–599. Technical Series No. 67. Retrieved 5 August 2013 from http://www. cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-67-en.pdf Environmental Graffiti. (2009). ‘North Pacific Gyre: The ocean’s hidden Anderson, R. C. & Waheed, A. (1988). ‘Exploratory fishing for Brown, J., and Macfadyen, G. (2007). Ghost fishing in European waters: garbage dump’. Retrieved 15 November 2012 from large pelagic species in the Maldives’. Main report. Bay of Bengal impacts and management responses. ‘Marine Policy’, 31, 488–504. C & R Consulting. (2009). ‘Impacts of plastic debris on Australian http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/waste Programme BOBP/REP/46 – FAO/TCP/ MDV/6651. marine wildlife’. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and andrecycling/news-plastic-graveyard-soup-unwanted-junk Brown, J., Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Magnus, J., and the Arts, Australia. ourocean#4qbxIeI7QMgFLS2U.99 ANZECC. (1996). ‘The Australian marine debris status review: Tumilty, J. (2005). Ghost fishing by lost fishing gear. Final report a summary report’. to DG Fisheries and Maritime Affairs of the European Commission, Criddle, K.R., Amos, A.F., Carroll, P., Coe, J.M., Donohue, M.J., Harris, FANTARED 2. (2003). ‘A study to identify, quantify and ameliorate the Fish/2004/20. Institute for European Environmental Policy/Poseiden J.H., Kim, K., MacDonald, A., Metcalf, K., Rieser, A. (2009). ‘Tackling impacts of static gear lost at sea’. EC contract FAIR-PL98-4338. ISBN APEC. (2004). ‘Derelict fishing gear and related marine debris: an Aquatic Resource Management Ltd Joint Report. Retrieved 1 July marine debris in the 21st century’. The National Academies Press, 0-903941-97-X. Retrieved 1 July 2013 from http://www.seafish.org/ educational outreach seminar among APEC partners’. Honolulu. 2013 from http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/studies/ Washington, DC, USA. ISBN. media/Publications/FANTARED_2_COMPLETE.pdf ghostfishing_en.pdf Apex International, n.d. Threats to Indonesia’s cetaceans. Retrieved CSIRO Sustainable Ecosystems, 2011. ‘Analysing pathways to Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). (1979). Press Statement. 4 March 2014 from http://www.apex-environmental.com/ Burke, L., & Maidens, J. (2004). ‘Reefs at risk in the Caribbean’. sustainability in Indonesia resources’. Retrieved 7 February 2014 from Retrieved 5 August 2013 from http://www.fawc.org.uk/pdf/ IOCPImpacts.html Report by the World Resources Institute, Washington D.C. http://www.csiro.au/en/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Ecosystem fivefreedoms1979.pdf Retrieved 10 October 2012 from http://www.wri.org/publication/ Sciences/Indonesian-Pathways-Resources.aspx Arnould, J. P. Y., & Croxall, J. P. (1995). Trends in entanglement of reefs-riskcaribbean Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC). (2009). Five Freedoms. Antarctic fur seals (Arctocephalus gazella) in man-made debris at Cunningham, D.J., Wilson, S.P. (2003). Marine debris on beaches of the Retrieved 7 February 2014 from http://www.fawc.org.uk/ South Georgia. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 30(11), 707-712. Butler, J.R.A., Gunn, R., Berry, H.L., Wagey, G.A., Hardesty, B.D., Greater Sydney Region. ‘Journal of Coastal Research’ 421–430. freedoms.htm Wilcox, C. (2013). A value chain analysis of ghost nets in the Arafura Barco, S. G., D’Eri, L. R., Woodward, B. L., Winn, J. P., & Rotstein, D. S. Sea: identifying trans-boundary stakeholders, intervention points and Dau, B. K., Gilardi, K. V., Gulland, F. M., Higgins, A., Holcomb, J. Fishermans Outfitter. Retrieved 7 February 2014 from (2010). Spectra® fishing twine entanglement of a bottlenose dolphin: livelihood trade-offs. ‘Journal of Environmental Management’ 123, B., Leger, J. S., & Ziccardi, M. H. (2009). Fishing gear-related injury http://www.fishermansoutfitter.com/c-39-Spectra A case study and experimental modeling. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 14–25. in California marine wildlife. ‘Journal of Wildlife Diseases’, 45(2), 60(9), 1477–1481. 355–362. Garcia-Godos, I., Van Waerebeek, K., Alfaro-Shigueto, J., & Mangel, Campagna, C., Falabella, V., & Lewis, M. (2007). Entanglement J. C. (2013). Entanglements of large cetaceans in Peru: few records Benjamins, S., Ledwell, W., Huntington, J. & Davidson, A. R. (2012). of southern elephant seals in squid fishing gear. ‘Marine Mammal Davis, L.A. (1991). North Pacific pelagic drift netting: untangling but high risk. ‘Pacific Science’, 67(4), 523–532. Assessing changes in numbers and distribution of large whale Science’, 23(2), 414–418. the high seas controversy. ‘Southern California Law Review’, 64,1057. entanglements in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. ‘Marine Ghostnets Australia. (2012). ‘2012 Annual Report’. Retrieved Mammal Science’, 28, 579–601. Campbell, H.F., McIlgorm, A., Rule, M.J. (2009). ‘Understanding Delaney, Richard; Provincetown Center for Coastal Studies, personal 7 August 2013 from http://www.ghostnets.com.au/pdf/2012%20 the economic benefits and costs of controlling marine debris in the communication, 19 July 2013 ANNUAL%20REPORT_final_090413.pdf Biddle, T.M., Limpus, C.J. (2011). Marine wildlife stranding and APEC region’. mortality database annual reports 2005-2010. ‘Marine Turtles’. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). (2013). GhostNets Australia. (2013). ‘What is GhostNets Australia?’ Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. CETUS Research and Conservation Society. (2013). ‘Derelict fishing ‘Policy: protecting and sustainably using the marine environment’. Retrieved 28 April 2013 from www.ghostnets.com.au gear in the waters of Southern Vancouver Island: feasibility study’. Retrieved 1 July 2013 from https://www.gov.uk/government/ Bilkovic, D.M., Havens, K.J., Stanhope, D.M., & Angstadt, K.T. (2012). April 2013. policies/protecting-and-sustainably-using-the-marine-environment Gilardi, K. V., Carlson-Bremer, D., June, J.A., Antonelis, K., Broadhurst, Use of fully biodegradable panels to reduce derelict pot threats to G., Cowan, T. (2010). Marine species mortality in derelict fishing marine fauna. Center for Coastal Studies, Virginia Institute of Marine Chang-Gu Kang. (2003). ‘Marine litter in the Republic of Korea’. Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). (2010). Potential impacts nets in Puget Sound, WA and the cost/benefits of derelict net removal. Science, College of William & Mary. ‘Conservation Biology’, Volume Retrieved 5 August 2013 from http://marine-litter.gpa.unep.org/ of fishing gears (excluding mobile bottom-contacting gears) on marine ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 60, 376–382. 27, No. 6, 957–966. documents/marine-litter-Korea-Kang.pdf habitats and communities. ‘Canadian Science Advisory Report’. Blankenship, K. (8 June 2013) Ghost pots estimated to kill 1.25 Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M., & Broadhurst, G. (2007). Quantifying million blue crabs in VA’s bay waters. ‘The Bay Journal’. Retrieved 26 Chopin, F., Inoue, Y., Matsuhita, Y., & Arimoto, T. (1995). Sources of Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO). (2013). ‘Marine the impact of derelict fishing gear on the marine fauna of Puget Sound March 2013 from http://www.bayjournal.com/article/ghost_pots_ accounted and unaccounted fishing mortality. In B. Baxter & S. Keller mammal response program, annual report 2011-2012’. Retrieved 5 and the Northwest Straits. ‘Proceedings of the International Council for estimated_to_kill_1.25_million_blue_crabs_in_vas_bay_waters (Eds.), ‘Proceedings of the solving bycatch workshop on considerations December 2013 from http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fm-gp/mammals the Exploration of the Sea Annual Science Conference’. September for today and tomorrow’ (pp.41–47). University of Alaska Sea Grant mammiferes/publications/6-eng.htm 17–21, Helsinki. Retrieved 10 October 2012 from http://www.ices. Boland, R. C. & Donohue, M. J. (2003). Marine debris accumulation College Program Report No. 96–03. dk/products/cmdocsindex.asp in the nearshore marine habitat of the endangered Hawaiian monk seal, (‘Monachus schauinslandi’) 1999-2001. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 46, 1385–1394.

54 55 Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M., & Broadhurst, G. (2009). Ghosts Hofmeyr, G. J. G., De Maine, M., Bester, M. N., Kirkman, S. P., Leitch, K., Roeger, S. (2001). ‘Entanglement of marine turtles in netting: Moore, M., Knowlton, A., Kraus, S., McLellan, W. and Bonde, of the Salish Sea: threats to marine birds in Puget Sound and the Pistorius, P. A., & Makhado, A. B. (2002). Entanglement of pinnipeds northeast Arnhem Land’. Northern Territory, Australia. Dhimurru Land R. (2005). Morphometry, gross morphology and available Northwest Straits from derelict fishing gear. ‘Marine Ornithology, 37, at Marion Island, Southern Ocean: 1991–2001. ‘Australian Management Aboriginal Corporation, Nhulunbuy. histopathology in north-west Atlantic right whale (‘Eubalaena 67–76. Mammalogy’, 24, 141–146. glacialis’) mortalities (1970 to 2002). ‘Journal of Cetacean Lieber, K. (2013). The Deadliest Ghosts. Report prepared for Mission Research and Management’, 6, 199–214. Good, T. P., June, J. A., Etnier, M., & Broadhurst, G. (2010). Derelict Humborstad, O-B., Løkkeborg, S., Hareide, N-R. & Furevi, D.M. (2003). Blue (Sylvia Earle Alliance). fishing nets in Puget Sound and the Northwest Straits: patterns and threats Catches of Greenland halibut (‘Reinhardtius hippoglossoides’) in Moore, M. J., Bogomolni, A., Bowman, R., Hamilton, P. K., to marine fauna. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 60, 39–50. deep water ghost-fishing gillnets on the Norwegian continental slope. Limpus, C.J., Fien, L. (2009). ‘A biological review of Australian marine Harry, C. T., Knowlton, A. R., Landry, S., Rotstein, D. S., ‘Fisheries Research’, 64(2–3), 163–170. turtles – green turtle’. Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. & Touhey, K. (2006). ‘Fatally entangled right whales can die extremely Gregory, M.R. (2009). Environmental implications of plastic debris in slowly’. OCEANS Conference, 18-21 September, marine settings—entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch Hwang, S. T., & Ko, J. P. (2007). ‘Achievement and progress of marine Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., & Cappell, R. (2009). ‘Abandoned, Boston, MA. hiking and alien invasions. ‘Philosophical Transactions of the Royal litter retrieval project in near coast of Korea, based on activities of Korea lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear’. UNEP Regional Seas Reports Society’. B 364(1526), 2013–2025. Fisheries Infrastructure Promotion Association’. Presentation to regional and Studies, No. 185; FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Moore, M. J., & van der Hoop, J. M. (2012). The painful side of trap workshop on marine litter, June 2007, Rizhao, The People’s Republic of Paper, No. 523. Rome: UNEP/FAO. and fixed net fisheries: chronic entanglement of large whales. Journal Griffin, D. (2008). ‘Pilot investigation of the origins and pathways of China. North West Pacific Action Plan. of Marine Biology 2012, doi: 10.1155/2012/230653. Retrieved marine debris found in the northern Australian marine environment’. Mailonline. (28 March 2012) Free Willy! Dramatic rescue of 18 February 2014 from Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Jones, M.M. (1995). Fishing debris in the Australian marine gray whale tangled in 50ft fishing net filled with dead sea animals http://www.hindawi.com/journals/jmb/2012/230653/ Australia. environment. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’ 30, 25–33. for a week. Retrieved ((insert date)) from http://www.dailymail. co.uk/news/article-2121390/Free-Willy-Dramatic-rescue-Gray Mouat, J., Lopez Lozano, R. and Bateson, H. (2010). ‘Economic Guillory, V., McMillen-Jackson, A., Hartman, L., & Perr, H. (2001). Karamanlidis, A. A. (2000). Monitoring human and Mediterranean whale-tangled-50ft-fishing-net-filled-dead-sea-animals-week. impacts of marine litter’. Project report, KIMO International. Retrieved ‘Blue crab derelict traps and trap removal programs’. Publication 88, monk seal activity in the National Marine Park of Alonnissos html#ixzz2rzMcvVGf 23 January 2014 at http://www.kimointernational.org/WebData/ Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission. Retrieved 5 August 2013 and Northern Sporades, Greece. ‘The Monachus Guardian’, 3(1). Files/Marine%20Litter/Economic%20Impacts%20of%20Marine%20 from http://www.gsmfc.org/pubs/ijf/derelicttraps.pdf Mann, J., Smolker, R .A., & Smuts, B. B. (1995). Responses to calf Litter%20Low%20Res.pdf Kiessling, I. (2003). ‘Finding solutions: derelict fishing gear and other entanglement in free-ranging bottlenose dolphins. ‘Marine Mammal Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission (GSMFC). (2003). ‘Derelict crab marine debris in Northern Australia. Report prepared for the National Science’, 11(1), 100–106. Mous, P.J., Pet, J.S., Arifin, Z., Djohani, R., Erdmann, M.V., Halim, trap removal program: programs in other gulf states’. Retrieved 10 October Oceans Office for the Key Centre for Tropical Wildlife Management. A., Knight, M., Pet-Soede, L., Wiadnya, G., 2005. Policy needs to 2012 from http://www.derelictcrabtrap.net/background5.html Darwin, Australia: Charles Darwin University. Marine Conservation Society (MCS). (2012). ‘Beachwatch improve marine capture fisheries management and to define a role Big Weekend 2012: results of the UK’s biggest beach clean for marine protected areas in Indonesia. ‘Fisheries Management and Gunn, R., Hardesty, B. D. & Butler, J. (2010). Tackling ‘ghost nets’: Kiessling, I. (2004). ‘Marine debris in Australia – the international and survey’. Retrieved 1 July 2012 from http://www.mcsuk. Ecology’ 12, 259–268. local solutions to a global issue in northern Australia. ‘Ecological dimension: case study abstract’. National Oceans Office, Australia. org/downloads/pollution/beachwatch/2012/Beachwatch_ Management a Restoration’, 11, 88–98. summary_2012.pdf Mustika, P.L.K., Hutasoit, P., Madusari, C.C., Purnomo, F.S., Setiawan, Knowlton, A. R., & Kraus, S. D. (2001). Mortality and serious injury A., Tjandra, K., Prabowo, W.E., 2009. Whale strandings in Indonesia, Hanni, K. D., & Pyle, P. (2000). Entanglement of Pinnipeds in synthetic of northern right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in the western North Marine Management Organisation (MMO). (2014). ‘UK including the first record of a humpback whale (‘Megaptera materials at South-east Farallon Island, California, 1976-1998. Atlantic Ocean. ‘Journal of Cetacean Research and Management’, sea fisheries statistics 2012’. Retrieved 23 January 2014 from http:// novaeangliae’) in the Archipelago. ‘Raffles Bulletin of Zoology’ 57, ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 40(12), 1076–1081. Special Issue 2, 193–208. www.marinemanagement.org.uk/fisheries/statistics/ 199–206. annual.htm Harcourt, R., Aurioles, D., & Sanchez, J. (1994). Entanglement of Kraus, S. D. (2008). ‘The urban life of the north Atlantic right whale: National Research Council (NRC). (2008). ‘Tackling marine debris California sea lions at Los Islotes, Baja California Sur, Mexico. The cumulative effects of traffic, fishing, noise, pollution, and disease in Matthews, T. R., & Uhrin, A. V. (2009). Lobster trap loss, ghost fishing, in the 21st Century’. Committee on the effectiveness of international ‘Marine Mammal Science’, 10, 122–125. the coastal zone of North America’. The Third Florida Marine Mammal and impact on natural resources in Florida Keys National Marine and national measures to prevent and reduce marine debris and its Health Conference. April 22–25, Florida. Abstract retrieved 6 August Sanctuary. In Morison, S. and Murphy, P. (Eds.), ‘Proceedings of the impacts. Retrieved 5 August 2013 from http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/ Hardesty, B.D., Wilcox, C. (2011). ‘Understanding the types, sources 2013 from http://www.conference.ifas.ufl.edu/marinemammal/pdfs/ NOAA submerged derelict trap methodology’ detection workshop. noaa_documents/NOAA_related_docs/marine_debris_2008.pdf and at-sea distribution of marine debris in Australian waters’. CSIRO. abstract_book.pdf June 2–4. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOSOR&R-32. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Chesapeake Bay Office. (2007). ‘NOAA Chesapeake Bay Office Hareide, Garnes G., Rihan D., Mulligan M., Tyndall P, Clark M., Kruse, G. H. & Kimker, A. (1993). ‘Degradable escape mechanisms McCaroon, Patrice and Tetreault, Heather, (2012). ‘Lobster pot partners with Maryland Department of Natural Resources in study Connolly P., Misund R., McMullen P., Furevik D. M., Humborstad O-B, for pot gear: a summary report to the Alaska Board of Fisheries’. gear configurations in the Gulf of Maine’. Report prepared for the of derelict fishing gear’. Retrieved 5 August 2012 from http://dnr. Høydal K. and Blasdale T. (2005). ‘A preliminary investigation on Regional Information Report 5J93–01. Alaska Department of Fish and Consortium for Wildlife Bycatch Reduction, Maine Lobstermen’s maryland.gov/fisheries/crab/derelictfactsheet.pdf shelf edge and deep water fixed net fisheries to the west and north of Game (ADFG). Association, and the New England Aquarium. Great Britain, Ireland, around Rockall and Hatton Bank’. Bord Iascaigh National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Mhara, Fiskeridirecktoratet, NEAFC, Sea Fish Industry Authority, Joint Laist, D. W. (1997). Impacts of marine debris: entanglement of marine McKauge, K. (Undated). ‘Assessing the blue swimmer crab National Marine Sanctuaries, Hawaiian Islands Humpback Nature Conservation Committee, Marine Institute Foras na Mara. life in marine debris including a comprehensive list of species with fishery in Queensland’. Retrieved 15 November 2012 at www Whale National Marine Sanctuary (2008). ‘A Tangled Web: 47 pp. Retrieved 1 July 2013 from http://brage.bibsys.no/imr/ entanglement and ingestion records. In J. M. Coe & D. B. Rogers 2.dpi.qld.gov.au/extra/pdf/fishweb/blueswimmercrab/GhostFishing. Marine Debris and Hawaii’s Marine Mammals’. Retrieved bitstream/URN:NBN:no-bibsys_brage_27415/1/N0705.pdf (Eds.), ‘Marine Debris, Sources, Impacts, and Solutions’ (pp. 99-139). pdf February 14, 2013 from http://hawaiihumpbackwhale.noaa.gov/ New York, NY: Springer–Verlag. res/marine_debris.html HM Government. (2012). Marine Strategy Part One: UK Initial Moore, M. J. (2014). How we all kill whales. ICES Journal of Marine Assessment and Good Environmental Status. Retrieved 24 March Large, P. A., Randall, P., Doran, S., and Houghton, C. (2006). Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fsu008. Retrieved 18 February 2014 2014 from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ ‘Programme 12: western edge ghost nets (gillnet from http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/12/ uploads/attachment_data/file/69632/pb13860-marine-strategy retrieval)’. Fisheries Science Partnership Report. Retrieved icesjms.fsu008.full#ref-32 part1-20121220.pdf 1 July 2012 from http://www.cefas.defra.gov.uk/media/ 40274/fsp200607prog12gillnetrerievalsurveyfinalreport.pdf

56 57 Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. (2007). ‘A Cost-Benefit Analysis of Raaymakers, S. (2007). ‘The problem of lost and abandoned fishing SeaDoc Society. (2014). California Lost Fishing Gear Recovery Vanderlaan, A. S. M., Smedbol, R. K. & Taggart, C. T. (2011). Derelict Fishing Gear Removal In Puget Sound, Washington’. Report gear - global review and proposals for action’. Draft report to the Project. Retrieved 9 April 2014 from http://www.seadocsociety.org/ Fishing-gear threat to right whales (Eubalaena glacialis) in Canadian prepared for Northwest Straits Foundation. Retrieved 7 February 2014 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations and california-lost-fishing-gear-removal-project/ waters and the risk of lethal entanglement. ‘Canadian Journal of Fish from http://www.nwstraits.org/uploads/pdf/Derelict%20Gear%20 the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). EcoStrategic Shaughnessy, P. D. (1980). Entanglement of Cape fur seals with man- and Aquatic Science’, 68, 2174–2193. Cost-Benefit%20Analysis%202007.pdf Consultants, Cairns. made objects. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 11, 332–336. Votier, S. C., Archibald, K., Morgan, G., & Morgan, L. (2011). Natural Resources Consultants, Inc. (2013). ‘Deepwater derelict Rare, 2012. ‘The rising tide of community-led conservation’. Sheavly, S. B. (2005). ‘Marine debris – an overview of a critical The use of plastic debris as nesting material by a colonial seabird fishing gear removal protocols’. Report prepared for National Oceanic Strengthening local fisheries management in the coral triangle. issue for our oceans’. Paper presented at the sixth meeting of the UN and associated entanglement mortality. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 62, and Atmospheric Administration and Northwest Straits Marine Retrieved 6 February 2014 from www.rare.org Open-ended Informal Consultative Process on Oceans and the Law 168–172. Conservation Foundation. of the Sea. June 6-10, 2005. New York, NY. Retrieved 5 August Raum-Suryan, K. L., Jemison, L. A., & Pitcher, K. W. (2009). 2013 from http://www.un.org/Depts/los/consultative_process/ Waluda, C. M., & Staniland, I. J. (2013). Entanglement of Antarctic Neilson, J. L., Straley, J. M., Gabriele, C. M., & Hills, S. (2009). Non Entanglement of Steller sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in marine consultative_process.htm fur seals at Bird Island, South Georgia. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 74, lethal entanglement of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) debris: Identifying causes and finding solutions. ‘Marine Pollution 244–252. in fishing gear in northern Southeast Alaska. Journal of Biogeography, Bulletin’, 58, 1487–1495. Sheavly, S. B. (2007). ‘National marine debris monitoring program: 36, 452–464. final program report, data analysis and summary’. Prepared for U.S. Watson, J., & Aoife, M. (2001). ‘Economic survey of the UK fishing Revill, A., and Dunlin, G. (2003). The fishing capacity of gillnets Environmental Protection Agency by Ocean Conservancy, Grant fleet’. Seafish Report. ISBN 0-903941-75-9. Northridge, S., Cargill, A., Coram, A., Mandleberg, L., Calderan, lost on wrecks and on open ground in UK coastal waters. ‘Fisheries Number X83053401-02. 76 pp. Retrieved 5 August 2013 from S., & Reid, B. (2010). ‘Entanglement of minke whales in Scottish Research’, 64, 107–113. http://act.oceanconservancy.org/site/DocServer/NMDMP_ Watson, J.M. & Bryson, J.T. 2003. ‘The Clyde Inshore Fishery Study’. waters: An investigation into occurrence, causes and mitigation’. REPORT_Ocean_Conservancy__2_.pdf?ocID=3181 Seafish Report. ISBN 0-903941-51-1. Sea Mammal Research Unit. Final report to the Scottish Government Robbins, J., and D. K. Mattila. (2000). ‘Monitoring entanglement scars CR/2007/49. on the caudal peduncle of Gulf of Maine humpback whales’: 1997 Sloane, S., Wallner, B., Mounsey, R. (1998). ‘Fishing debris around Weisskopf, M. 1988. Plastic reaps a grim harvest in the oceans of the 1999. Center for Coastal Studies. Order number 40ENNF900253. Groote Eylandt in the Western Gulf of Carpentaria: A report on the world (plastic trash kills and maims marine life). Smithsonian 18, 58. Northwest Straits Initiative. (2011). Program accomplishments 2002– 24 p. Groote Eylandt fishing gear debris project’, 1998. AFMA. Present. Retrieved 8 April 2014 from http://www.derelictgear.org/ Whiting, S.D. (1998). Types and sources of marine debris Progress.aspx Robbins, J., & Mattila, D. (2001). ‘Monitoring entanglements of Smolowitz, R. J. (1978). Trap design and ghost fishing: an overview. in Fog Bay, Northern Australia. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’ 36, humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in the Gulf of Maine ‘Marine Fisheries Review’, 40(5–6), 2–8. 904–910. Nylon Net Company. Mono Gill Net (Complete Ready to Fish) – on the basis of caudal peduncle scarring’. Unpublished report to #69 – 1-1/2”Str. Mesh – 6Ft Deep - Item No. MG104. Retrieved 7 the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling Commission: Song, K., Kim, Z. G., Zhang, C. I., & Kim, Y. H. (2010). Fishing World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE). (2010). ‘Introduction February 2014 from http://www.nylonnet.com/merchandise/?item_ SC/53/NAH25. gears involved in entanglements of minke whales (Balaenoptera to the recommendations for animal welfare’. Retrieved 6 August 2013 id=1687&cat=236&top_cat=&cat_nav=&sub_cat=&sub2_cat acutorostrata) in the East Sea of Korea. ‘Marine Mammal Science’, from http://web.oie.int/eng/normes/mcode/en_chapitre_1.7.1.pdf Robbins, J., & Mattila, D. (2004). ‘Estimating humpback whale 26(2), 282–295. Oros, J.,Torrent, A., Calabuig, P., & Deniz, S. (2005). Diseases and causes (Megaptera novaeangliae) entanglement rates on the basis of WWF Australia. (2006). ‘Marine debris in Northern Territory of mortality among sea turtles stranded in the Canary Islands, Spain scar evidence’. Report to the Northeast Fisheries Science Centre Stevens, B.G. (1996). Crab bycatch in pot fisheries. ‘Solving bycatch: waters’ 2004. (1998–2001). ‘Diseases of Aquatic Organisms’, 63, 13–24. National Marine Fisheries Service, Woods Hole, MA 02543 considerations for today and tomorrow’, 151–158. Alaska Sea Grant 43EANF030121. Program Report 96-03. University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Juneau, Alaska. WWF Indonesia, n.d. ‘Sustainable fisheries - by catch’. ‘Oslo and Paris Conventions for the protection of the marine environment Retrieved 12 February from http://www.wwf.or.id/en/about_ of the north-east Atlantic’ (OSPAR). (2009). Marine litter in the North-east Robbins, J. (2009). ‘Scar-based inference into Gulf of Maine humpback Timmers, M.A., Kistner, C.A., Donohue, M.J. (2005). ‘Marine debris wwf/whatwedo/marine_species/how_we_work/sustainable_ Atlantic region. London: OSPAR Commission. Publication number 386/2009. whale entanglement: 2003 2006’. Report to the of the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands: Ghost net identification’. Sea fisheries/by_catch/ Retrieved 6 August 2013 from http://www.ospar.org/documents/dbase/ National Marine Fisheries Service. Provincetown (MA): Provincetown Grant Publication: UNIHI-SEAGRANT-AR-05-01 publications/p00386_marine%20litter%20in%20the%20north-east%20 Center for Coastal Studies. Zavadil, P. A., Robson, B. W., Lestenkof, A. D., Holser, R., atlantic%20with%20addendum.pdf UNEP. (2001). ‘Marine litter: trash that kills’. Retrieved 5 August 2013 & Malavansky, A. (2007). ‘Northern fur seal entanglement RSPCA. (2013, 16 August). Seal suffers horrendous injuries from from http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/ studies on the Pribilof Islands in 2006’. For National Oceanic Page, B., McKenzie, J., McIntosh, R., Baylis, A., Morrissey, A., fishing line. Retrieved 6 February 2013 from http://news.rspca.org. docs/trash_that_kills.pdf and Atmospheric Administration Prescott Stranding Grant Program and Calvert, N., Haas, T., Berris, M., Dowie, D., Shaughnessy, P. D., & uk/2013/08/16/seal-suffers-horrendous-injuries-from-fishing-line/ Alaska Regional Stranding Network Coordinator. Goldsworthy, S. D. (2004). Entanglement of Australian sea lions and UNEP. (2005). ‘Marine litter: an analytical overview’. Retrieved 4 New Zealand fur seals in lost fishing gear and other marine debris Safina, C. (1 July 2013). Alaskan beaches blighted by up to tonne March 2014 from http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/ before and after Government and industry attempts to reduce the of garbage per mile. ‘Theguardian.com’. Retrieved 12 February from publications/docs/anl_oview.pdf problem. ‘Marine Pollution Bulletin’, 49, 33–42. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/01/alaskan beaches-tonne-garbage van Liere, D. W., Hekman, R., & Osinga, N. (2012). Entangled Paul, J. M., Paul, A. J., & Kimker, A. (1994). Compensatory feeding and fish-hooked seals, stranded in the Netherlands during the period capacity of two Brachyuran crabs, Tanner and Dungeness, after SeaDoc Society (2010). ‘Net gains: The economics of removing 1985-2010. ‘Proceedings of the Untangled Symposium: Exploring the starvation periods like those encountered in pots. ‘Alaska Fishery derelict fishing gear’. Report to the Wildlife Health Center, UC Davis impact of marine debris on animal welfare and seeking animal-focused Research Bulletin’, 1, 184–187. School of Veterinary Medicine. solutions, 4–6 December 2012, Miami, Florida, USA’. Retrieved 6 August 2013 from http://www.wspa-international.org/Images/ Pemberton, D., Brothers, N.P., Kirkwood, R. (1992). Entanglement of Untangled%20Symposium_Proceedings_tcm25-33906.pdf Australian fur seals in man-made debris in Tasmanian waters. ‘Wildlife Research’ 19, 151–159.

58 59 Annex 1

Table 1 Overview of literature containing data on entanglement of pinnipeds and cetaceans

Types of debris (%) Types of debris (%) Species/ Sub- Region (FAO Entanglement Entanglement Plastic Net Fishing line Mortality Source Species/ Sub- Region (FAO Entanglement Entanglement Plastic Net Fishing line Mortality Source species statistical areas [FAO rate (incidence in rate (by animal (pinnipeds) estimate (%)* species statistical areas [FAO rate (incidence in rate (by animal (pinnipeds) estimate (%)* 2012]) population, %) or by % of pot gear 2012]) population, %) or by % of pot gear population (cetaceans) population (cetaceans) observed with observed with entanglement entanglement scars) scars) Pinnipeds Cetaceans Australian fur Eastern Indian Ocean 1.9 30 40 73 Pemberton et Humpback Western Central 50 41 10 Johnson et al. seal al. (1992) whale Atlantic (2005) Antarctic & Western Indian Ocean 0.24 41 17 c. 10 Hofmeyr et al. Humpback North-west Atlantic 2.4 26 Cole et al. Sub-Antarctic (2002) whale (2006) fur seal Humpback North-west Atlantic 8–10.4 48–57 Robbins & Californian sea Eastern Central Pacific 3.9–7.9 50 33 Harcourt et al. whale Mattila (2004) lion (1994) Humpback North-east Pacific 8 52–78 Neilson et al. Hawaiian Eastern Central Pacific 0.7 8 32 28 16 Henderson whale (2007) monk seal (2001) Western grey North-west Pacific 18.7 Bradford et al. California sea Eastern Central Pacific 0.08–0.22 25 19 14 Stewart & whale (2009) lion Yochem (1987) Minke whale North-east Atlantic 5–22 Northridge et Northern Eastern Central Pacific 0.15 36 19 33 Stewart & al. (2010) elephant seal Yochem (1987) Minke whale North-west Pacific 69 31 0.9 Song et al. Harbour seal Eastern Central Pacific 0.09 33 Stewart & (2010) Yochem (1987) Minke whale North-west Atlantic 2.6 37 Cole et al. Northern fur Eastern Central Pacific 0.24 50 Stewart & (2006) seal Yochem (1987) North Atlantic North-west Atlantic 57 67 25 12 Kraus (1990) Steller sea lion Eastern Central Pacific 0 4 4 23 Hanni & Pyle right whale (2000) North Atlantic North & central west 1.6 (2 from IWC 27 Cole et al. Northern fur North-east Pacific 0.40 19 65 61 Fowler (1987) right whale Atlantic 2010 population (2006) seal estimate of 300) Northern fur North-east Pacific 0.08–0.35 37 39 9 Zavadil et al. North Atlantic North & central west 1.15 (IWC 14 71 29 Johnson et al. seal (2007) right whale Atlantic 2010 population (2005) estimate: 300) Steller sea lion North-east Pacific 0.26 54 7 2 Raum-Sayuran et al. (2009) Fin whale North-east Atlantic 5 Sadove & Morreale Kaikoura fur South-west Pacific 0.6–2.8 31 42 Boren et al. (1990) seal (2006) Fin whale North-west Atlantic 0.8 44 Cole et al. Grey seal North-west Atlantic 3.1–5 64 Allen et al. (2006) (2012) Blue whale North-west Atlantic Cole et al. Antarctic fur South-east Atlantic 0.024–0.059 18 48 50 Hofmeyr et al. (2006) seal (2006) Bryde’s whale North-west Atlantic 0.2 Cole et al. Cape fur seal South-east Atlantic 0.1–0.6 50 Shaughnessy (2006) (1980)

Southern South-west Atlantic 0.001–0.002 c. 36 c. 64 28 Campagna et *Percentage of entangled animals estimated to be killed by their entanglement elephant seal al. (2007) Antarctic fur South-west Atlantic 0.4 46–52 80 Arnould & seal Croxall (1995)

World Animal Protection International 5th Floor 222 Grays Inn Road London WC1X 8HB UK T: +44 (0)20 7239 0500 F: +44 (0)20 7239 0653 E: [email protected] W: worldanimalprotection.org

World Animal Protection is the operating name of World Society for the Protection of Animals. Company Limited by Guarantee in England and Wales, Registration No. 4029540.

Registered Charity 1081849 INT0008/0514