Black marlin (Makaira indica) Blue marlin (Makaira nigricans) Blue shark (Prionace glauca) Opah (Lampris gu atus) Shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus) Striped marlin (Kaijkia audax)
Western Central Pacific, North Pacific, South Pacific Pelagic longline
July 12, 2016 Alexia Morgan, Consul ng Researcher
Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scien sts with exper se in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scien fic review, however, does not cons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommenda ons on the part of the reviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Table of Contents
Table of Contents 2 About Seafood Watch 3 Guiding Principles 4 Summary 5 Final Seafood Recommendations 5 Introduction 8 Assessment 10 Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment 10 Criterion 2: Impacts on other species 22 Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness 45 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem 55 Acknowledgements 58 References 59 Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species 69
2 About Seafood Watch Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommenda ons available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conserva on issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans. Each sustainability recommenda on on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this informa on against the program’s conserva on ethic to arrive at a recommenda on of “Best Choices,” “Good Alterna ves” or “Avoid.” The detailed evalua on methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of informa on include government technical publica ons, fishery management plans and suppor ng documents, and other scien fic reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scien sts, and members of industry and conserva on organiza ons when evalua ng fisheries and aquaculture prac ces. Capture fisheries and aquaculture prac ces are highly dynamic; as the scien fic informa on on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommenda ons and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Par es interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture prac ces and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more informa on about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877- 229-9990.
3 Guiding Principles Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evalua ng wildcatch fisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are: How does fishing affect the species under assessment? How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species? How effec ve is the fishery’s management? How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?
Each criterion includes: Factors to evaluate and score Guidelines for integra ng these factors to produce a numerical score and ra ng
Once a ra ng has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommenda on. Criteria ra ngs and the overall recommenda on are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide and online guide: Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause li le harm to habitats or other wildlife. Good Alterna ve/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught. Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates
4 Summary Black marlin (Makaira indica), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), striped marlin (Kaijkia audax), blue shark (Prionace glauca), shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and opah (Lampris gu atus) are caught by a variety of pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), including the North and South Pacific regions.
There are several broadly defined categories of longline fisheries covered in this report. These fisheries may not all directly target the species included in this report but may retain them upon capture. These fisheries include: 1. South Pacific albacore fishery, which comprises domes c vessels from Pacific Island countries that operate in subtropical waters targe ng albacore, and distant water vessels from Chinese-Taipei, China, and Vanuatu that fish south of 20° S. 2. South Pacific distant water swordfish fishery, which mostly comprises vessels from Spain. 3. Tropical offshore and distant water tuna fisheries; the offshore fishery includes vessels from Chinese-Taipei and China that are based in the Pacific Island countries, and the distant water fleet comprises vessels from Japan, Korean, Chinese-Taipei, China, and Vanuatu. 4. North Pacific distant water albacore and swordfish fisheries, made up of vessels from Japan, Chinese-Taipei, and Vanuatu. In addi on to these fisheries, there are a number of domes c longline fisheries opera ng in the sub-tropical and temperate areas of the WCPO {SPC 2014}. We have included in this report the North and South Pacific pelagic longline fisheries along with more tropical (WCPO in this report) pelagic longline fisheries.
Popula ons of striped marlin in the North Pacific Ocean are overfished and undergoing overfishing, but are healthy in the Southwest Pacific region. Blue marlin popula ons are healthy throughout their range in the Pacific Ocean. Blue shark popula ons in the North Pacific are healthy but their status in the South Pacific is unknown. The statuses of striped and black marlin, opah, and shor in mako shark are unknown. These fisheries interact with a number of bycatch species including other sharks, sea turtles, and seabirds. These species are typically highly suscep ble to fishing pressure, and many have been nega vely affected by this fishing pressure and are listed as Endangered or Near Threatened by the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN).
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) manages tuna and tuna-like species, including billfish and sharks, in the WCPO. There are few management measures in place for target species included in this report, and no formally adopted reference points or harvest control rules are currently in place.
Management of bycatch species is also of concern because best-prac ce bycatch mi ga on techniques are not always required.
Pelagic longline gears typically have li le to no contact with bo om habitats but do interact with ecologically important species, which could cause nega ve effects to the ecosystem.
Final Seafood Recommenda ons CRITERION CRITERION 2: 1: IMPACTS IMPACTS ON CRITERION 3: CRITERION 4: ON THE OTHER MANAGEMENT HABITAT AND OVERALL SPECIES/FISHERY SPECIES SPECIES EFFECTIVENESS ECOSYSTEM RECOMMENDATION Blue marlin Green (3.831) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.962) Western Central Pacific, Pelagic longline Black marlin Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.788) Western Central Pacific, Pelagic longline
5 Striped marlin Red (1.414) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.529) Western Central Pacific, Pelagic longline Shor in mako Red (1.414) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.529) shark Western Central Pacific, Pelagic longline Opah Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.788) South Pacific, Pelagic longline Opah Yellow (2.644) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) North Pacific, Pelagic longline Blue marlin Green (3.831) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) North Pacific, Pelagic longline Black marlin Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.788) South Pacific, Pelagic longline Blue marlin Green (3.831) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.962) South Pacific, Pelagic longline Opah Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.788) Western Central Pacific, Pelagic longline Shor in mako Red (1.414) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) shark North Pacific, Pelagic longline Shor in mako Red (1.414) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.529) shark South Pacific, Pelagic longline Striped marlin Red (1.414) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) North Pacific, Pelagic longline Black marlin Yellow (2.644) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000) North Pacific, Pelagic longline Striped marlin Green (3.318) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.893) South Pacific, Pelagic longline Blue Green (3.831) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.962) shark:Northern stock 6 Western Central Pacific, Pelagic longline Blue Red (1.414) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.529) shark:Southern stock Western Central Pacific, Pelagic longline
Summary Large pelagic species caught in the Western and Central Pacific longline fishery (blue marlin, black marlin, striped marlin, shor in mako shark, and opah) have an overall recommenda on of “Avoid.”
Scoring Guide Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing opera ons have no significant impact. Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4). Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Cri cal scores Good Alterna ve/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Cri cal scores Avoid/Red = 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 Cri cal scores.
2 Because effec ve management is an essen al component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommenda on for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
7 Introduc on
Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommenda on Black marlin (Makaira indica), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), striped marlin (Kaijkia audax), blue shark (Prionace glauca), shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and opah (Lampris gu atus) are caught by a variety of pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), including the North and South Pacific regions.
Species Overview Black marlin is found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is found in surface waters and o en close to land. Black marlin is highly migratory and an apex predator, feeding on fish, squid, octopods, and other prey (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Blue marlin is a circumglobal species found in tropical and semitropical waters. It is a highly migratory species and apex predator that feeds on small tuna and squids, among other prey. There is believed to be a single popula on of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean (BWG 2013).
Striped marlin is the most abundant and widely distributed Is ophorid billfish species. It is an epipelagic species found across the 85° la tude in the Pacific Ocean, with the largest abundance found in the Eastern and North Central Pacific Ocean. Striped marlin is an apex predator, feeding on fish, squid, and other prey (Davies et al. 2012) (ISCBWG 2015).
Blue sharks is a highly migratory species of shark found throughout the world’s oceans in epipelagic and mesopelagic waters. It is considered the most widely distributed shark species and most abundant, with abundance increasing with la tude. Blue shark is an apex predator, consuming a variety of fish and squid species (Rice et al. 2013).
Shor in mako shark is a highly migratory species of shark found in coastal and oceanic epipelagic waters worldwide. Shor in mako shark is found from 20° S to 40° N in the Pacific Ocean. This species is an apex predator, feeding on fish and cephalopods, among other prey (Froese and Pauly 2015).
Opah is found worldwide in bathypelagic tropical and temperate waters. It is most commonly found in waters from 100 m to 500 m in depth. Opah is a top predator, feeding on fish and squid among other prey (Froese and Pauly 2015).
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is in charge of management of these species.
Produc on Sta s cs The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission reported that during 2014, 15,756 t of blue marlin, 1,872 t of black marlin, and 3,165 t of striped marlin were caught by longline vessels opera ng in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Blue marlin longline catches have declined since peaks during the early to mid-2000s. Black marlin longline catches have been variable over me, and in recent years have been lower than peak catches a ained during the early to mid-2000s (peaks also occurred during the 1970s).
Striped marlin longline catches have also been variable over me. Peak catches occurred during the 1960s and again during 1993. In recent years, catches have been low compared to catches from the 1990s and 2000s (WCPFC 2015).
The WCPFC collects catch data on some shark species, including blue and mako sharks. There is underrepor ng of shark catches, so the values reported may not be accurate. In the North Pacific, catches of blue sharks peaked between 1976 and 1989 (113,000 t in 1981). Catches have since declined but remained fairly steady for the past 10 years, averaging about 46,000 t annually. The majority of blue sharks are caught by longlines (ISCSWG 2014). Informa on on shor in mako catches is more limited in the region. 8 According to the Food and Agriculture Organiza on (FAO), 191 t of shor in mako shark were caught in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean during 2013, 451 t during 2012, and 1,460 t during 2011 (FAO 2015). Member countries of the WCPFC reported around 3,700 t of shor in mako sharks caught during 2013, but these data are considered very uncertain (WCPFC 2014c).
Importance to the US/North American market. Species-specific informa on on import and exports of sharks is not available through the Na onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). During 2014, imports of fresh shark primarily came from Mexico, with smaller amounts imported from Canada, China, Costa Rica, and Spain. Shark fins were imported from New Zealand and China (NMFS 2015). Informa on on import and exports of other species included in this report is not available through the Na onal Marine Fisheries Service.
Common and market names. Blue, black, and striped marlin are also known as “marlin.” Opah has no other common names associated with it. Blue shark is also known as “shark” and shor in mako shark as “mako.”
Primary product forms Black, blue and striped marlin, blue and shor in mako sharks, and opah are sold in fresh and frozen forms.
9 Assessment This sec on assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) rela ve to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at h p://www.seafoodwatch.org.
Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability to fishing ra ng influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown. The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortality scores. The Criterion 1 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score ≤2.2=Red or High Concern
Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cri cal
Criterion 1 Summary
BLACK MARLIN Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Western Central Pacific Pelagic 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow longline Concern Concern (2.644) South Pacific Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644)
BLACK MARLIN Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score North Pacific Pelagic 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow longline Concern Concern (2.644)
BLUE MARLIN Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Western Central Pacific Pelagic 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green longline Concern Concern (3.831) North Pacific Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green Concern Concern (3.831) South Pacific Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green Concern Concern (3.831)
BLUE SHARK Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Western Central Pacific Pelagic 1.00: High 4.00: Low 3.67: Low Green longline Concern Concern (3.831) Western Central Pacific Pelagic 1.00: High 2.00: High 1.00: High Red (1.414) longline Concern Concern 10 OPAH Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score South Pacific Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) North Pacific Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Western Central Pacific Pelagic 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate 2.33: Moderate Yellow longline Concern Concern (2.644)
SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Western Central Pacific Pelagic 1.00: High 2.00: High 1.00: High Red longline Concern Concern (1.414) North Pacific Pelagic longline 1.00: High 2.00: High 1.00: High Red Concern Concern (1.414) South Pacific Pelagic longline 1.00: High 2.00: High 1.00: High Red Concern Concern (1.414)
STRIPED MARLIN Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score Western Central Pacific Pelagic 2.00: Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High Red longline Concern Concern (1.414) North Pacific Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 2.00: High 1.00: High Red Concern Concern (1.414)
STRIPED MARLIN Inherent Region / Method Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score South Pacific Pelagic 2.00: Medium 3.00: Moderate 3.67: Low Green longline Concern Concern (3.318)
The popula ons of blue marlin and blue sharks are healthy and fishing mortality rates are sustainable in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The statuses of opah and black marlin are unknown. Although no assessment has been conducted on shor in mako shark in the Pacific, there is concern over its status due to its high suscep bility to fishing pressure. Striped marlin in the North Pacific is overfished and undergoing overfishing; however, in the South Pacific, fishing pressure appears to be much less.
Criterion 1 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).
11 Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs that make it neither par cularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain). High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs that make is par cularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduc on rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spa al behaviors (e.g., schooling, aggrega ng for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduc on) and geographic range.
Factor 1.2 - Abundance 5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the popula on is above target abundance level (e.g., biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass. 4 (Low Concern)—Popula on may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing. 2 (High Concern)—Popula on is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing. 1 (Very High Concern)—Popula on is listed as threatened or endangered.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribu on to the mortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality). 3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribu on to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the popula on is healthy and the species has a low suscep bility to the fishery (low chance of being caught). 2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctua ng around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality is unknown and species has a moderate-high suscep bility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place. 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place. 0 (Cri cal)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtail overfishing.
BLACK MARLIN
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 44 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Black marlin reaches a maximum length of 465 cm but its maximum age is unknown. Black marlin reaches sexual maturity at 140 cm for males and 230 cm for females. Informa on on the age at sexual maturity is unknown. It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Colle e et al. 2011a). These life history characteris cs also suggest a moderate vulnerability to fishing. 12 Factor 1.2 - Abundance WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern No assessment for black marlin has been conducted in the Pacific Ocean. The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has classified this species as Data Deficient with an unknown popula on trend (Colle e et al. 2011). We have awarded a “moderate” score because it has an unknown stock status and is not considered to have high inherent vulnerability.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern Although no stock assessment has been conducted for black marlin in the Pacific Ocean, there is informa on on catches and discard rates from observer programs opera ng in some regions. The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) notes that this species could be threatened by capture in longline fisheries, but fishing mortality rates in the Pacific are not available (Colle e et al. 2011a). Reported catches of black marlin in longline fisheries opera ng in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) ranged from 1,296 t to 2,289 t between 2000 and 2011 (OFP 2012). These catches of black marlin represented between 4% and 7% of the total catch in the WCPO longline fisheries during this period (OFP 2012). In the South Pacific albacore fishery, 45% of black marlin were discarded between 1992 and 2009, and of these, 60% were dead. Discard rates of black marlin in the tropical longline fishery, which targets tropical tuna species (bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin) ranged from 0% to 6%, with a mortality rate of 35%–73% (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because fishing mortality rates are unknown and the species suffers high discard mortality rates.
BLACK MARLIN
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 44 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Black marlin reaches a maximum length of 465 cm but its maximum age is unknown. Black marlin reaches sexual maturity at 140 cm for males and 230 cm for females. Informa on on the age at sexual maturity is unknown. It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Colle e et al. 2011a). These life history characteris cs also suggest a moderate vulnerability to fishing.
Factor 1.2 - Abundance
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern No assessment for black marlin has been conducted in the Pacific Ocean. The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has classified this species as Data Deficient with an unknown popula on trend (Colle e et al. 2011). We have awarded a “moderate” score because it has an unknown stock status and is not considered to have high inherent vulnerability.
13 Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE
Moderate Concern Although no stock assessment has been conducted for black marlin in the Pacific Ocean, there is informa on on catches and discard rates from observer programs opera ng in some regions. The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) notes that this species could be threatened by capture in longline fisheries, but fishing mortality rates in the Pacific are not available (Colle e et al. 2011a). Reported catches of black marlin in longline fisheries opera ng in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) ranged from 1,296 t to 2,289 t between 2000 and 2011 (OFP 2012). These catches of black marlin represented between 4% and 7% of the total catch in the WCPO longline fisheries during this period (OFP 2012). In the South Pacific albacore fishery, 45% of black marlin were discarded between 1992 and 2009, and of these, 60% were dead. Discard rates of black marlin in the tropical longline fishery, which targets tropical tuna species (bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin) ranged from 0% to 6%, with a mortality rate of 35%–73% (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because fishing mortality rates are unknown and the species suffers high discard mortality rates.
BLUE MARLIN
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a moderate to high score of 52 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Blue marlin reaches sexual maturity between 179 cm and 234 cm and around 5 years of age. Blue marlin reaches a maximum size of 400 cm and lives up to 15 years. Blue marlin is a broadcast spawner and top predator (BWG 2013). These life history characteris cs suggest a moderate vulnerability to fishing according to the Seafood Watch produc vity and suscep bility table (PSA = 1.83). Ra onale: Life history characteris c Paramater Score Age at maturity <5 years 3 Average size at maturity >200 cm 1 Average maximum size >300 cm 1 Average maximum age 10-25 years 2 Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3 Trophic level >3.25 1
Factor 1.2 - Abundance WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Concern There is one popula on of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean and the most recent popula on assessment was completed in 2013. Despite long-term declines in the total biomass of the popula on, the popula on has been increasing from the maximum sustainable levels (MSY) since the mid-2000s and the spawning stock biomass is es mated to be 29% above maximum sustainable yield levels. The popula on is not considered overfished (BWG 2013). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score to account for the long-term declines and uncertainty associated with the assessment.
14 Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Concern The last assessment for blue marlin in the Pacific, a single popula on, was conducted in 2013. Fishing mortality rates (F = 0.26) es mated in this assessment are currently below the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY = 0.32). Based on these results, blue marlin is currently not subject to overfishing (BWG 2013). There is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these results, so we have awarded a “low” concern instead of very low concern score.
BLUE SHARK
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Blue shark reaches sexual maturity between 4 and 7 years and between 170 cm and 190 cm in size. Blue shark lives up to 16 years and can a ain a maximum size of about 380 cm. Blue shark is a top predator and gives birth to live young (ISCSWG 2014). These life history characteris cs also suggest a high inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure.
Factor 1.2 - Abundance
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Concern There are two popula ons of blue shark in the Pacific: North and South Pacific. An updated assessment of blue sharks in the North Pacific (a single popula on) was completed during 2014. Two different models were used in the assessment. The base case results of the two models indicated that the popula on (biomass (B) and spawning stock biomass (SSB)) is not overfished (B2011 /BMSY = 1.65 and SSB2011 /SSBMSY = 1.621), and that the popula on will remain above the level necessary to maintain the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY ) in the future (ISCSWG 2014). But evidence including declines in median size and catch rates suggest declines in abundance of blue shark in recent years (Clarke 2011), and there is uncertainty in the assessment of blue shark. We have therefore awarded a “low” concern rather than very low concern score.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern No assessment for blue shark has been conducted in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) (WCPFC 2013h). Based on tagging data, differences in abundance, and evidence of pregnant females in high la tudes in both the North and South Pacific Ocean, this is likely a separate popula on from that in the North Pacific (Kleiber et al. 2009). Some trends in catch rates for various fisheries have been analyzed. In the South Pacific, catch rates declined un l 2003 and have since increased to mid- 1990s levels. There has been no trend in the size or sex of blue shark in any part of the WCPO over me (Walsh and Clarke 2011) (Clarke 2011). The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers blue shark to be Near Threatened globally (Stevens 2009). We have awarded a “high” concern score because no assessment has been conducted, combined with the fact they have a high vulnerability score.
15 Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Concern Blue shark is widely distributed throughout the North Pacific (a single popula on) and it dominates shark catches in that region. According to the 2014 updated assessment, the fishing mortality rate es mated in 2011 (F2011 ) was around 34% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY ) (ISCSWG 2014). Therefore overfishing is not occurring. But there is uncertainty surrounding these results, and previous assessments have indicated some issues with the data (e.g., unreported and underreported catch and effort data along with size informa on). We have therefore awarded a “low” concern instead of very low concern score.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern Blue shark is widely distributed throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including in the South Pacific region. No stock assessments have been conducted on this species in the South Pacific region (Kleiber et al. 2009). Some informa on on catch levels is available. The es mated average annual longline catch between 1992 and 2009 was 1,611 t (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011), and from 1992 to 2009, blue shark made up 10% of the total bycatch in the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery (OFP 2010). During this period, 30% of blue sharks were observed discarded in this fishery, and of those, only 7% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “high” concern score because it is highly suscep ble to longline capture and there are no management measures in place.
OPAH Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Medium Recent research suggests that two species of opah may be present in the Pacific: Lineages 3 and 5 (Hyde et al. 2014). Around 90% of the Hawaiian catch is made up of Lineage 3 (Hyde et al. 2014). FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 82 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Opah reaches a maximum length of 200 cm and lives at least 11 years (Froese and Kesner-Reyes 2002). There is no informa on on its age at maturity. It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015). These life history characteris cs suggest a moderate level of vulnerability (PSA score = 2). Based on the PSA score, widespread distribu on of this species, and because it is not targeted in many fisheries, we have adjusted the score to a “moderate” concern.
Ra onale: Life history trait Paramater Score /verage Maximum size 100-300 years 2 Average maximum age 10-25 years 2 Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3 Trophic level >3.25 1
Factor 1.2 - Abundance SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern
16 The status of opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. We have awarded a “moderate” score because of this and its moderate inherent vulnerability score.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern There is no informa on on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between 1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opah caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, primarily around Australia and New Zealand, represen ng 9.3% of the “other fish” catch. “Other fish” represented 7.6% of the total catch (Lawson 2001). From 1992 to 2009, 23% of opah caught in the South Pacific longline fishery were discarded, and of these, 25% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score due to a lack of informa on.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern There is no informa on on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Some informa on on catches and discards is available through observer programs. For example, from 1992 to 2009, 3% of opah caught in longline fisheries opera ng north of 10° N were discarded, and of these, 35% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because the status of the popula on is unknown.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern There is no informa on on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between 1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opah caught by longliners in this region, represen ng 9.3% of the “other fish” catch (Lawson 2001). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because the status of the popula on is unknown.
SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Shor in mako shark reaches sexual maturity between 180 cm and 300 cm in size and reproduces every 2 to 3 years. The maximum size a ained by shor in mako shark is around 325–375 cm in size and 25–40 years of age. Shor in mako shark is a top predator and gives birth to live young (Froese and Pauly 2015).
Factor 1.2 - Abundance
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern There has been some ques on about the stock structure of shor in mako shark in the Pacific Ocean. Currently, the consensus is that there is a single popula on in the North Pacific (PIFSC 2014). A stock-wide assessment was a empted in 2015; previously, an assessment of shor in mako shark was conducted in the Northwest Pacific in 2009. The 2015 assessment used four indicators (propor on of posi ve sets, abundance, 17 sex ra o, and size components) to determine the status of shor in mako shark. Trends for the propor on of posi ve sets varied by fishery, as did the abundance indices. The Japanese abundance indices, which were considered the best, showed a flat trend through 2004, followed by a sharp increase through 2013. The Hawaii shallow-set and deep-set abundance indices showed contras ng trends. No trends in sex ra o were evident, but the size composi on appeared to remain stable across fleets. Stock status could not be determined due to an overall lack of data (ISC 2015). The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). No popula on assessment for shor in mako shark in the South Pacific has been conducted. We have awarded a “high” concern score because the stock status of North Pacific shor in mako shark is unknown and the South Pacific popula on is not assessed. In addi on, shor in mako shark has a high vulnerability score and is listed as vulnerable by the IUCN.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern There has been some ques on about the stock structure of shor in mako shark in the Pacific Ocean. Currently, the consensus is that there is a single popula on in the North Pacific (PIFSC 2014). A stock-wide assessment was a empted in 2015; previously, an assessment of shor in mako shark was conducted in the Northwest Pacific in 2009. The 2015 assessment used four indicators (propor on of posi ve sets, abundance, sex ra o, and size components) to determine the status of shor in mako shark. Trends for the propor on of posi ve sets varied by fishery, as did the abundance indices. The Japanese abundance indices, which were considered the best, showed a flat trend through 2004, followed by a sharp increase through 2013. The Hawaii shallow-set and deep-set abundance indices showed contras ng trends. No trends in sex ra o were evident, but the size composi on appeared to remain stable across fleets. Stock status could not be determined due to an overall lack of data (ISC 2015). The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). We have awarded a “high” concern score because the status is unknown and shor in mako shark has a high inherent vulnerability score.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern No popula on assessment of shor in mako shark in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean has been conducted. The center of abundance for this species appears to be northwest of New Zealand (Lawson 2011). The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). We have awarded a “high” concern score because the popula on status is unknown and because of its high vulnerability score.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern The 2009 assessment of shor in mako shark conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishing mortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Es mated average annual longline catches between 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch es mates have declined by 50% over the past decade. A separate analysis, not a stock assessment, indicated that there is no evidence for the impact of fishing on shor in mako shark in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011). No assessment of shor in mako shark has been conducted in the South Pacific region; however, some informa on on catch and discard rates is available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of mako sharks were observed caught in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean longline fisheries, represen ng 2.2% of the total catch. During this period, 26% of shor in mako sharks were discarded, and of these, 24% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “high” concern score because informa on on fishing mortality rates in the South Pacific is not available, the popula on is depleted and suscep ble to longline gear, and no management is in place to protect the species.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern
18 The 2015 assessment was unable to calculate fishing mortality rates due to a lack of data (ISC 2015). The previous 2009 assessment of shor in mako shark conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishing mortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Es mated average annual longline catches between 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch es mates have declined by 50% over the past decade. A separate analysis, not an assessment, indicated no evidence for the impact of fishing on shor in mako shark in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011). There is some indica on that shor in mako shark has high post-release survivorship rates (French et al. 2015). There are no management measures in place and fishing mortality rates are unknown, so we have awarded a “high” concern score.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern No assessment of shor in mako shark has been conducted in the South Pacific region; however, some informa on on catch and discard rates is available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of mako shark were observed caught in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean longline fisheries, represen ng 2.2% of the total catch. During this period, 26% of shor in mako sharks were discarded, and of these, 24% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “high” concern score because informa on on fishing mortality rates in the South Pacific is not available, the popula on is depleted and suscep ble to longline gear, and no management is in place to protect the species.
STRIPED MARLIN
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Medium FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 56 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Sexual maturity is reached between 140 cm and 180 cm and around 2 years of age. It can a ain a maximum size of 300 cm and live 10–12 years (ISC 2014). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015). Striped marlin’s aggrega on behavior in surface waters makes it suscep ble to capture in some fisheries. But its life history characteris cs are more indica ve of a moderate vulnerability to fishing, according to the Seafood Watch produc vity and suscep bility table (PSA = 2), so we have adjusted the score. Ra onale: Life history trait Paramater Score
Average size at sexual maturity 40-200 2 Average Maximum size 100-300 years 2 Average maximum age 10-25 years 2 Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3 Trophic level >3.25 1
Factor 1.2 - Abundance
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern The most recent popula on assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half of their virgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smaller since. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) a er 1970, although biomass has increased since 2004. There was a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the biomass es mates, primarily during the 1970s and 1980s. Two biomass-based reference points are used to determine the status of the popula on: Bcurrent/BMSY = 0.96 (0.37–1.96) and SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.09 (0.32–2.89). There is a 50% probability that SBcurrent is less than SBMSY, and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ra o less than 1, 19 sugges ng that striped marlin is approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012). Striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean was assessed in 2011. The results of this assessment show a long- term decline in biomass, with the popula on in 2010 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass. There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to maximum sustainable yield (MSY)-based reference points, the spawning biomass in 2010 was 65% below that needed to a ain MSY. Therefore striped marlin is overfished (ISCBWG 2015). We have awarded a “high” concern score due to the popula on status in the North Pacific.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern Striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean was assessed in 2015. The results of this model show a long-term decline in biomass with the popula on in 2013 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass. There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to maximum sustainable yield (MSY)- based reference points, the spawning biomass in 2013 was 61% below that needed to a ain MSY. Therefore striped marlin is overfished (ISCBWG 2015), so we have awarded a “high” concern score.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern There has been a long-term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean. Since the 1990s, longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in this region. Fishing mortality rates are high: F = 0.76 from 2007–2009, about 24% above the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY ). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than FMSY for most of the me series (1975–2010). There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to MSY-based reference points, overfishing is occurring (ISCBWG 2015).
A popula on assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The en re longline fleet has substan ally affected the popula on size of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 MT), but catches appear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The fishing mortality-based reference point Fcurrent /F MSY = 0.58 (0.08–2.53), so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012).
We have awarded a “high” concern score based high fishing mortality rates in the North Pacific.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE High Concern There has been a long-term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean. Since the 1990s, longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in this region. Fishing mortality rates are high: F = 0.94 from 2010–2012, about 49% above the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY ). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than FMSY for most of the me series (1975–2013). There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to MSY-based reference points, overfishing is occurring (ISCBWG 2015). We have awarded a “high” concern score.
STRIPED MARLIN
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Medium
FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 56 out of20 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Sexual maturity is reached between 140 cm and 180 cm and around 2 years of age. It can a ain a maximum size of 300 cm and live 10–12 years (ISC 2014). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015). Striped marlin’s aggrega on behavior in surface waters makes it suscep ble to capture in some fisheries. But its life history characteris cs are more indica ve of a moderate vulnerability to fishing, according to the Seafood Watch produc vity and suscep bility table (PSA = 2), so we have adjusted the score. Ra onale: Life history trait Paramater Score Average size at sexual maturity 40-200 2 Average Maximum size 100-300 years 2 Average maximum age 10-25 years 2 Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3 Trophic level >3.25 1
Factor 1.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderate Concern The most recent popula on assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half of their virgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smaller since. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) a er 1970, although biomass has increased since 2004. There was a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the biomass es mates, primarily during the 1970s and 1980s. Two biomass-based reference points are used to determine the status of the popula on: Bcurrent/BMSY = 0.96 (0.37–1.96) and SBcurrent /SB MSY = 1.09 (0.32–2.89). There is a 50% probability that SBcurrent is less than SBMSY , and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ra o less than 1, sugges ng that striped marlin is approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because of uncertainty in its popula on status.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Low Concern A popula on assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The en re longline fleet has substan ally affected the popula on size of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean. Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 MT), but catches appear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The fishing mortality-based reference point Fcurrent /F MSY = 0.58 (0.08–2.53), so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score to account for uncertain es in the model.
21 Criterion 2: Impacts on other species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is mul plied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use rela ve to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score ≤2.2=Red or High Concern
Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cr cal
Criterion 2 Summary Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 sec on; a full list and assessment of the main species can be found in Appendix B. BLACK MARLIN - NORTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) 22 BLACK MARLIN - SOUTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Concern Green Concern (3.318) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very Low Green Concern (4.472) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) 23 BLACK MARLIN - WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
BLUE MARLIN - NORTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)
24 Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
BLUE MARLIN - SOUTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow 25 Concern Concern (2.644) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Concern Green Concern (3.318) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very Low Green Concern (4.472) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
BLUE MARLIN - WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) 26 BLUE SHARK - WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
BLUE SHARK - WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)
27 Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
OPAH - NORTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) 28 OPAH - SOUTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Concern Green Concern (3.318) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very Low Green Concern (4.472) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) 29 OPAH - WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - NORTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)
30 Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - SOUTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow 31 Concern Concern (2.644) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 3.67:Low Concern Green Concern (3.318) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very Low Green Concern (4.472) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green 32 (3.831) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
STRIPED MARLIN - NORTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Cri cal Cri cal (0.000) Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
STRIPED MARLIN - SOUTH PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)
33 Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916) Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow (2.709) flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern (3.053) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very Low Green Concern (4.472) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
STRIPED MARLIN - WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000 Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 1.00:High Concern Red (1.000) Concern 34 Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Blue shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414) Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526) Concern Concern Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:Moderate Red (2.159) Concern Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:Moderate 2.33:Moderate Yellow Concern Concern (2.644) Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green (3.831) Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low 5.00:Very Low Green Concern Concern (5.000)
In the North Pacific longline fishery that operates in the Western and Central Pacific region, informa on on bycatch is limited due to low observer coverage (0.1%) in most fisheries, although some fisheries have substan ally higher coverage rates. Tunas, billfish, other fish, sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals have been reported {OFP 2010}. According to observer records north of 10° N, the majority of tuna species are kept, although skipjack tuna had a discard rate of 35% between 1994 and 2009. Swordfish is the most commonly discarded billfish species (44%), while blue and black marlin are primarily retained. Discard rates for sharks in the North Pacific are very high for the majority of species {ODP 2010}. Laysan and black- footed albatross are incidentally captured in the North Pacific region, where they have a high breeding and non-breeding overlap {Clarke et al. 2013} {ACP 2008}. The area of most concern for seabird interac ons in this region is between 20° and 40° N. Informa on on bycatch of sea turtles in the North Pacific longline fishery is limited {Work and Balazs 2002}. The majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries outside of the North Pacific region {Molony 2005}. The worst scoring species in this fishery include Pacific bluefin tuna, as well as leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) because of their low popula on sizes and high fishing mortality rates.
In the South Pacific, informa on on bycatch interac ons is available through observer programs, primarily those of Australia and New Zealand, along with MSC assessments for several fisheries (e.g., Fiji and Cook Islands). Seabird interac ons with pelagic longline gear are mostly recorded in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters in the South Pacific around New Zealand and Australia between 20° S and 50° S {Clarke et al. 2013} {Baker and Wise 2005} {Baker and Finley 2008} {Anderson et al. 2011}. It was noted that observers had a difficult me iden fying birds to the species level, so es mates may underreport interac ons {Molony 2005}. In the WCPO, the majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries that occur west of 180°, and interac on rates are considered much less than in other ocean basins {Clarke et al. 2014}. Marine mammal interac ons and associated mortality rates with the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery are reported to be very low {Molony 2005}. The worst scoring species in this fishery are loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles (1.00) due to their low popula on sizes and high mortality rates.
In the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) longline fishery, tunas, billfish, other fish, sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals are caught as bycatch. Discard rates of these species vary from only 5% for tunas to 96% for sea turtles {OFP 2010} {OFP 2012a}. Common shark species include blue, shor in mako, silky, and oceanic white p sharks. Blue sharks represented 19.5%, silky shark 3.5%, mako shark 2.2%, and 35 oceanic white p shark 1.4% of the total observed catch between 1994 and 2009 {OFP 2010}. Sharks in this region are primarily affected by longline fisheries and are considered priority species {Rice and Harley 2012a}. Some shark species, such as blue and shor in mako, may be retained and are therefore covered in this report. An ecological risk assessment of seabirds in the WCPO indicated that popula ons of 10 species (combined) of large and small albatross and petrels were most likely to be affected by bycatch in this region, primarily in the northern and southern regions (separated in this report) {Waugh et al. 2012}. The majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries that occur west of 180°, with the highest catch rates occurring in the tropical shallow longline fishery. The majority of these are released alive, compared to the tropical deep-water longline fishery, where most turtles are returned dead {Molony 2005}. Overall, between 4,000 and 15,000 turtles (all species) are es mated to have been caught annually by these longline fisheries. Mortality rates for sea turtles are low (less than 26% in all years), and total annual mortali es for all turtle species ranged from 500 to 3,000 between 1980 and 2004 {Molony 2005}. Marine mammal catch rates are very low, although in general the tropical shallow longline fishery has the highest catch rates. Observer records from 1980 to 2004 indicated many years where no marine mammal interac ons with longline fisheries occurred. But when observer es mates were extrapolated out to the en re fishery (not just the propor on observed), up to 2,200 marine mammal interac ons were es mated to occur per year. Between 2000 and 2004, both catch and mortality rates of marine mammals declined. In general, less than 200 marine mammal mortali es were es mated to occur between 2000 and 2004 {Molony 2005} {Molony 2007}. The worst scoring species in this fishery are hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) due to their low popula on size and high fishing mortality rates. North Pacific Species Jus fica on Source Oceanic White p Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b shark Bigeye tuna Target species Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a Pacific bluefin tuna Overfished ISCPBWG 2014
Swordfish Target species Albacore Target species
Yellowfin tuna Target species
Leatherback sea IUCN lis ng Cri cally Endangered; ESA lis ng, Mar nez 2000; NMFS turtle CITES Appendix I 2012 Loggerhead sea MTSG 2006; NMFS IUCN lis ng Endangered; ESA lis ng turtle 2012 Longline fisheries may threaten popula on, Black-footed Birdlife Interna onal IUCN status recently updated from Endangered albatross 2012b to Vulnerable Birdlife Interna onal Laysan albatross IUCN lis ng Near Threatened 2012f
South Pacific Species Jus fica on Source Oceanic white p Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b shark Bigeye tuna Target 36 silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a
Swordfish Target
Albacore Target
Yellowfin Target
Swordfish Target
Leatherback sea IUCN lis ng Cri cally Endangered; ESA Mar nez 2000; NMFS 2012 turtle lis ng, CITES Appendix I Loggerhead sea IUCN lis ng Endangered MTSG 2006 turtle Black-browed IUCN Endangered and observed in Birdlife Interna onal 2012a, albatross (only S fishery Molony 2005 pacific ocean) Grey petrel IUCN lis ng Near Threatened Birdlife Interna onal 2012d Flesh-footed High interac on rates and discard rates Mollony 2005; OFP 2010 shearwater Light manteled IUCN lis ng Near Threatened Birdlife Interna onal 2012s albatross Common in New Zealand longline Salvin's albatross Birdlife Interna onal 2012h fisheries IUCN lis ng Vulnerable and decreasing; Wandering albatross Birdlife Interna onal 2012l large foraging range IUCN lis ng Vulnerable and White-chinned petrel Birdlife Interna onal 2012o decreaseing
WCPO Species Jus fica on Source Oceanic white p Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b shark Bigeye tuna Target
Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a
Swordfish Target
Yellowfin tuna Target
Green sea turtle IUCN lis ng Endangered; CITES Appendix I Semioff 2004
IUCN lis ng Cri cally Endangered;37 CITES Hawksbill sea turtle Appendix I Mor mer and Donnelly 2008 Leatherback sea IUCN lis ng Cri cally Endangered; ESA Mar nez 2000; NMFS 2012 turtle lis ng, CITES Appendix I Olive ridley sea Abreu-grobois and Plotkin 2008; IUCN Vulnerabile; ESA lis ng turtle NMFS 2012
Criterion 2 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Factor 2.2 - Abundance (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Pacific bluefin tuna
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
NORTH PACIFIC Medium FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 60 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Pacific bluefin tuna begins reaching sexual maturity around 150 cm in size and reaches sexual maturity between 3 and 5 years of age (PBTWG 2012). A maximum size and age of 300 cm and 15 years, respec vely, have been reported. Pacific bluefin tuna is a broadcast spawner and has a high trophic level according to FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2013). According to these life history characteris cs, Pacific bluefin tuna has a moderate level of vulnerability, so we have adjusted the score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
NORTH PACIFIC High Concern The most recent stock assessment for Pacific bluefin tuna was conducted in 2014. There are no accepted target or limit reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna, but the ra o of spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2012 to virgin levels is low, indica ng that the SSB is currently only 2%–5% of the unfished level. The popula on of Pacific bluefin tuna is therefore considered overfished (ISCPBWG 2014) and we have awarded a “high” concern score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
NORTH PACIFIC Cri cal There are no target or limit reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna but the current F (2009–2011 average) is higher than all target and biological reference points commonly used in other fisheries (Fmax , F med , and F 20% ). It is currently thought that overfishing is occurring (ISCPBWG 2014). Addi onal management measures have recently been agreed upon that will help reduce fishing mortality rates for this species; however, the agreed upon measures will not be enough, according to the scien fic advice, to rebuild the popula on within 10 years 38 (WCPFC 2014) (ISCPBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a “cri cal.”
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
Leatherback turtle
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteris cs that include being long-lived, a aining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproduc ve rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Abundance WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC Very High Concern Leatherback sea turtle has been listed as Endangered by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970 (NMFS 2012). The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtle as Cri cally Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend in 2000 (Mar nez 2000). Wallace et al. (2013) iden fied leatherback in the Western Pacific to be at a high risk. Leatherback turtle has been listed on the Conven on on Interna onal Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with ex nc on and that interna onal trade is prohibited. Over the past 25 years, the popula on of leatherback in the Pacific Ocean has decreased significantly (Spo la et al. 1996). Recent es mates from the Eastern and Western Central Pacific Ocean suggest a popula on size of 294,068 turtles, and out of these, 6,199 are adults (Jones et al. 2012). We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on the ESA, IUCN, and CITES lis ngs.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
39 WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtles, especially for juveniles and adults that can be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migra on routes (Mar nez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996) (Roe et al. 2014). The available data in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are spo y, due to low repor ng by some na ons and low observer coverage. In addi on, due to this low repor ng, there is a high amount of uncertainty surrounding current es mates (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2013). Interac ons with leatherback are typically higher in sub-tropical and temperate areas (Williams et al. 2013). For example, a recent study indicated that nes ng leatherback turtles have a high risk of bycatch in several areas within the North and Central Pacific Ocean (Roe et al. 2014). Other research has es mated that leatherback turtles suffer a 12% annual mortality rate from pelagic longline fisheries in the WCPO, and based on these es mates, bycatch mortality in longline fisheries (along with other factors such as coastal mortality) should be reduced to avoid ex nc on (Kaplan 2005). Other es mates suggest that 20,000 leatherback turtles were caught in longlines throughout the en re Pacific Ocean during 2000, with 1,000 to 3,200 of these being killed as a result. These results also suggest that con nued bycatch in longline fisheries will have major consequences for leatherback turtles in the Pacific Ocean and that the mortality threshold for this species in the Pacific may have been exceeded (Lewison et al. 2004). Other analyses have suggested that leatherback turtle has a high popula on risk but low bycatch threat throughout the Western Pacific Ocean (Wallace et al. 2013). Some fleets within the WCPO have adopted management measures to aid in reducing the incidental capture of sea turtles, but others have not complied with mandated bycatch mi ga on methods (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a “high” concern score because the popula on is depleted, bycatch mortality appears to be a factor in this deple on, and management measures may not be currently effec ve.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central 40 Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Hawksbill turtle
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteris cs that include being long-lived, a aining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproduc ve rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC Very High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has classified hawksbill turtle as Cri cally Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend (Mor mer and Donnelly 2008). In the North Central Pacific Ocean, hawksbill popula ons are considered at a high risk (Wallace et al. 2013). Hawksbill turtle has been listed on CITES since 1977 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with ex nc on and that interna onal trade is prohibited. It has been es mated that popula ons in the Pacific Ocean have declined by over 75% over three genera ons (Mor mer and Donnelly 2008). In the Western Pacific, 7 out of 10 nes ng loca ons have depleted or declining popula ons (Mor mer and Donnelly 2008). We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on the IUCN lis ng.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC High Concern Interac ons between hawksbill turtles and pelagic longline gear in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) do occur but do not appear to be frequent in nature. Recorded interac ons are more frequent in tropical and subtropical waters compared to temperate (Williams et al. 2009). Between 1980 and 2004, only 12 hawksbill turtles were observed incidentally caught in tuna longline fisheries in the WCPO (Molony 2005), 41 although mortality rates associated with this capture are high (OFP 2010). A meta-data analysis indicated that this popula on had a high risk but low bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). There are bycatch mi ga on measures being used by some fleets, but there are issues with compliance (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a “high” concern score because the popula on is depleted, the fishery impact is not fully known, and mi ga on methods may not be effec ve.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
Loggerhead turtle
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteris cs that include being long-lived, a aining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproduc ve rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Abundance NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC Very High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in 1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Wallace et al. (2013) determined that loggerhead is at a high risk in the North and South Pacific Ocean. Loggerhead is listed on Appendix I of the Conven on on Interna onal Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In the North Pacific Ocean, loggerhead has been listed as Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act since 1978 (NMFS 2012). We have therefore awarded a “very high” concern score.
42 Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
NORTH PACIFIC High Concern The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle has historically been considered a primary threat to its popula ons (MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are suscep ble to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially by shallow-set longline fisheries targe ng swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). But data related to incidental captures are typically scarce, due to low repor ng by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some es mates, based on extrapola on from data sets from the en re Pacific Ocean, suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000, and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture. Based on these es mates, it is possible that its mortality threshold was exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004). Other studies from the North Pacific Ocean suggest that there is a low impact from bycatch but a high risk to the popula on (Wallace et al. 2013) (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mi ga on methods are mandated by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their effec veness is unknown and there are issues with compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a “high” concern score.
SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles is considered a primary threat to their popula ons (MTSG 2006). But data related to incidental captures are scarce, due to low repor ng by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some es mates from the en re Pacific Ocean suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000, and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture. Based on these es mates, it is possible that its mortality threshold has been exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004). Loggerhead catch rates tend to increase in sub-tropical regions (Williams et al. 2013).
A meta-data analysis ranked loggerhead turtle caught by longline in the South Pacific Ocean as a high risk and high bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). Other studies have also suggested that loggerhead popula ons in the South Pacific are at the greatest risk to interac ons with longline fisheries (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mi ga on methods have been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but the effec veness and use of these techniques is unknown. We have therefore awarded a “high” concern score.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC High Concern The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle has historically been considered a primary threat to its popula ons (MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are suscep ble to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially by shallow-set longline fisheries targe ng swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). But data related to incidental captures are typically scarce, due to low repor ng by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some es mates, based on extrapola on from data sets from the en re Pacific Ocean, suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000, and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture. Based on these es mates, it is possible that its mortality threshold was exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004). Other studies from the Pacific Ocean suggest that there is a low impact from bycatch but a high risk to the popula on (Wallace et al. 2013) (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mi ga on methods are mandated by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their effec veness is unknown and there are issues with compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a “high” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
NORTH PACIFIC 43 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
44 Criterion 3: Management Effec veness Management is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non- retained species (bycatch strategy). The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern
Ra ng is Cri cal if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ra ngs are Cri cal.
Criterion 3 Summary
Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score North Pacific / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000) South Pacific / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000) Western Central Pacific / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission have been moderately effec ve in implemen ng and enforcing management measures for swordfish, albacore, bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna in the Pacific Ocean.
Criterion 3 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scien fic Research/Monitoring, Following of Scien fic Advice, Enforcement of Regula ons, Management Track Record, and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffec ve,’ ‘moderately effec ve,’ or ‘highly effec ve.’ 5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effec ve’ for all seven subfactors considered 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effec ve’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’ 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effec ve.’ 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effec ve’ for Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffec ve.’ 1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘ineffec ve.’ 0 (Cri cal)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
Factor 3.1 Summary
FACTOR 3.1: MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIES Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion 45 North Pacific / Ineffec ve Ineffec ve Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Pelagic longline Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve South Pacific / Ineffec ve N/A Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Pelagic longline Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Western Central Ineffec ve Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Pacific / Pelagic Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve Effec ve longline
The United Na ons Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement (1995) indicated that the management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional Fisheries Management Organiza ons (RFMOs). RFMOs are the only legally mandated fishery management body on the high seas and within EEZ waters. There are currently 18 RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all of the world’s waters. Member countries must abide by the management measures set forth by individual RFMOs in order to fish in their waters {Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010}. Some RFMOs manage all marine living resources within their authority (e.g., General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)), while others manage a group of species such as tunas (e.g., Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)). This reports focuses on billfish, shark, and fish species caught in pelagic longline fisheries managed under the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), which manages tuna and tuna-like species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). WCPFC members include the following countries: Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiriba , Republic of Korea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, and Vanuatu. IATTC members: Belize, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, France, Guatemala, Japan, Kiriba , Republic of Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, United States, Vanuatu, and Venezuela.
Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementa on Considera ons: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals, and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effec ve ra ng, there must be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Ineffec ve There are no management measures in place for opah, shor in mako shark, blue shark, and blue and black marlins in the North Pacific. A phased-in reduc on of catches of North Pacific striped marlin was ini ated in 2011. Countries were to reduce their catches by 10%, 15%, and 20% in 2011, 2012, and 2013 respec vely from the highest catches recorded between 2000 and 2003 (WCPFC 2010d). There are no reference points in place for any of these species and no harvest control rule.
In terms of other retained species, there are few management measures in place for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean. Measures were adopted in 2005 and have not been updated. Those management measures included maintaining current catch levels (average effort between 2002 and 2004) in order to maintain the long-term sustainability of the stock, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) was to work with members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) to agree on consistent management measures for the North Pacific popula on (IATTC 2005c) (WCPFC 2005). The IATTC implemented a catch limit of 10,000 t between 2012 and 2013 (5,600 in 2012 and 4,400 in 2013) and 5,000 t for 2014 for Pacific bluefin tuna caught in the Conven on Area (IATTC 2012). In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has limited fishing effort for Pacific bluefin tuna. Vessels fishing north of 20° N must stay below 2002–2004 fishing effort levels during 2013 (WCPFC 2012a). In addi on, countries are to develop a Catch Documenta on Scheme to monitor Pacific bluefin tuna (WCPFC 2013a). There is an interim reference point (fishing mortality) for North Pacific albacore but no reference points for Pacific bluefin. Biomass-based limit reference points are used to determine the 46 status of other tuna popula ons (bigeye and yellowfin). Target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species, and there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). But the WCPFC has a working group that is currently working on iden fying poten al target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proac ve in using interim target and limit reference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, the WCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for all species. There are some management measures in place for tropical tuna species in the North Pacific region of Western and Central Pacific Ocean longline fisheries. The measures that are in place include catch limits for bigeye tuna; catches of yellowfin tuna are not to be increased; and longline fishing effort cannot be increased (except for small island na ons and Indonesia) (WCPFC 2013b) (WCPFC 2012a) (WCPFC 2005).
We have scored management of this fishery as “ineffec ve” because there are no management measures in place for most of the retained species covered in this report.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Ineffec ve There are no management measures in place for blue or black marlins, blue or shor in mako sharks, or opah in the South Pacific. Striped marlin is managed through effort restric ons (WCPFC 2006b). There are no biomass-based reference points for these species and no harvest control rules in place.
Few management measures have been enacted for other retained species. In terms of albacore tuna in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has limited the number of fishing vessels ac vely fishing for albacore to not exceed 2005 levels or historical levels (2000–2004). In addi on, member countries shall work to ensure the long- term sustainability of albacore tuna in this region, which includes collabora ve research (WCPFC 2010c). In 2009, the WCPFC limited the number of vessels targe ng swordfish and catches to levels from any year between 2000 and 2005, and required this informa on to be reported to the Commission (WCPFC 2009).
Management measures adopted by the Commission for the Conserva on of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT), which is responsible for the management of southern bluefin tuna throughout its range, include a total allowable catch (TAC) set on a 3-year cycle divided between eight countries and the European Community, and a Management Procedure (MP) that the CCSBT uses to aid in the se ng of the TAC. The MP has been in place since 2012. In addi on, there is a meta-rule process that the CCSBT can use to deal with certain situa ons, such as untested recruitment, abundance es mates, or “substan al” improvements with regard to unknown or missing data (CCSBT 2010) (CCSBT 2014).
Biomass-based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for albacore and tropical tunas and are used to determine the status of tuna popula ons. Target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species. In addi on, there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). But the WCPFC has a working group that is currently working on iden fying poten al target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proac ve in using interim target and limit reference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, the WCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for all species.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Ineffec ve There are no management measures in place for blue or shor in mako sharks, black or blue marlins, or opah. There are effort restric ons for striped marlin in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and catch restric ons (phased in over me) for striped marlin in the North Pacific region (WCPFC 2006b) (WCPFC 2010d). There are no reference points or harvest control rules for any of these species.
47 There are few management measures in place for retained tuna species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) longline fisheries. The measures that are in place include catch limits for bigeye tuna; catches of yellowfin tuna are not to be increased; and longline fishing effort cannot be increased (except for small island na ons and Indonesia) (WCPFC 2013b) (WCPFC 2012a) (WCPFC 2005).
Biomass-based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for bigeye and yellowfin tuna and are used to determine the status of tuna popula ons. Target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species, except in the short term for bigeye tuna, and there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). But the WCPFC has a working group that is currently working on iden fying poten al target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proac ve in using interim target and limit reference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, the WCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for all species.
We have scored management of this fishery as “ineffec ve” because there are no management measures in place for most of the retained species covered in this report.
Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern Considera ons: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a ra ng of Highly Effec ve, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate meframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Ineffec ve Striped marlin is overfished and undergoing overfishing in the North Pacific. There are management measures in place but no recovery plan, and there are no target or limit reference points. In addi on, there is concern over the status of shor in mako shark. Pacific bluefin tuna is overfished. Fishing effort and catch limits were adopted a er the 2012 assessment by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) (IATTC 2012) (ISCPBWG 2014) (WCPFC 2012a). According to the 2014 updated assessment, these management measures were not sufficient to allow the popula on to recover. Measures recently agreed to by the WCPFC Northern Commi ee to reduce catches by 50% of 2002–2004 levels of Pacific bluefin tuna 35 kg in weight and under are not projected to be sufficient to allow the popula on to recover (ISCPBWG 2014) (WCPFC 2014). We have awarded an “ineffec ve” score due to the lack of proper recovery plans for these species in the North Pacific.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE N/A Although no stock assessment has been conducted on shor in mako or blue sharks in the South Pacific, there is concern over their status. Albacore and swordfish popula ons are healthy in the South Pacific region (Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013). We have awarded an N/A score because the statuses of sharks are unknown and other species are healthy.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve Striped marlin in the North Pacific is overfished and undergoing overfishing, and there is no recovery plan in place (Davies et al. 2012). There are concerns with the status of shor in mako shark throughout the Pacific and for blue shark in the South Pacific, but there are no recovery plans in place. Bigeye tuna is considered overfished and undergoing overfishing. There is a recovery plan in place, but so far it has not proved successful (WCPFC 2014). But bigeye tuna has only recently been classified as overfished and it is too early to 48 determine if the fishery will be able to recover the popula on in a mely manner. This results in a “moderately effec ve” score.
Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring Considera ons: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the popula on and the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, popula on assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the popula on status.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve Striped and blue marlin popula ons have been assessed (BWG 2013) (Davies et al. 2012) (ISCBWG 2015). Albacore, swordfish, and Pacific bluefin tuna stocks are monitored and assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014) (Davies et al. 2013) (ISCPBWG 2014), and assessments include informa on on catches, catch per unit effort, length frequency, and tagging data. Assessments have not been conducted for species such as shor in mako shark or opah, and tuna/billfish assessments have a great deal of uncertainty associated with them. This results in a “moderately effec ve” score.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve No stock assessment has been conducted for black marlin, opah, shor in mako shark, and blue shark in the South Pacific. Striped and blue marlin popula ons have been assessed. These assessments contained informa on on catch and effort for a number of species in the South Pacific Ocean (BWG 2013) (Davies et al. 2012) (ISCBWG 2015). Albacore, swordfish, and southern bluefin tuna popula ons are monitored and assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014) (Davies et al. 2013) (IOTC 2013), and assessments include informa on on catches, catch per unit effort, length frequency, and tagging data. Tuna/billfish assessments have a large amount of uncertainty surrounding them. This results in a “moderately effec ve” score.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve Blue and striped marlin have been assessed in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, and blue shark has been assessed in the North Pacific region (BWG 2013) (Davies et al. 2012) (ISCBWG 2015) (Rice et al. 2013). These assessments contain catch and effort informa on from a variety of fisheries that capture these species. Bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna stocks are regularly monitored and assessed (Davies et al. 2011) (Hoyle et al. 2011) (Langley et al. 2011). A variety of informa on, including catch and effort data, size (for some species), and biological informa on is included in these assessments. Several other main species have been assessed including swordfish. There are issues with data repor ng for the tuna assessments, so this results in a “moderately effec ve” score.
Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien fic recommenda ons/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve No management advice was provided for shor in mako shark, black marlin, or opah because no assessments have been conducted. Management advice for blue shark in the North Pacific included developing reference points, the development of management plans for all target shark fisheries that include catch limits (by the 2016 mee ng), and con nued observer coverage is warranted (WCPFC 2014). To date, no reference points have been adopted. The Scien fic Commi ee advised that blue marlin catches should not be increased from 2009–2011 levels in the North Pacific, but no management measures have 49 been adopted for this (WCPFC 2013e).
The SC advised that fishing mortality for striped marlin in the North Pacific needs to be reduced but no addi onal effort cuts have been made since 2010 (WCPFC 2011). Members of the albacore working group suggested a er the last assessment that the current management measures should be maintained (ISCAWG 2011). The latest Pacific bluefin stock assessment acknowledged that the recently implemented catch-and- effort controls put into place by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission, if properly implemented and enforced, could lead to an improved stock status. But keeping fishing levels at the status quo (2007–2009) is unlikely to improve the status of Pacific bluefin tuna (ISCPBWG 2012). The Scien fic Commi ee suggested that fishing mortality of Pacific bluefin tuna should be immediately reduced and that candidate limit and target reference points should be adopted (WCPFC 2013e). In 2013, a new resolu on, which took into account scien fic recommenda ons for the conserva on of Pacific bluefin tuna, was adopted by the IATTC (IATTC 2013). Included in this resolu on is the requirement that future assessments include analysis to determine what the status of Pacific bluefin tuna would be with and without these measures in place. The WCPFC also adopted an interim measure in 2013 that aimed to reduce fishing mortality rates, and the Northern Commi ee has recently agreed upon addi onal management measures to reduce fishing mortality on juvenile fish (WCPFC 2013a) (WCPFC 2014). No new advice was provided by the Scien fic Commi ee in 2014 for swordfish in the North Pacific Ocean (ISCBWG 2014). We have awarded a “moderately effec ve” score because some but not all advice has been addressed.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve No management advice has been provided for shor in mako and blue sharks, opah, and black marlin because no assessments have been conducted. No new advice was provided for striped marlin in the South Pacific and the advice for blue marlin is to maintain catches at the 2009–2011 levels (WCPFC 2011). No new management measures to curb fishing pressure for blue marlin have been enacted. The most recent assessment for albacore tuna in the South Pacific did not provide any sugges ons on the need for any specific management measures. The Scien fic Commi ee did suggest that longline fishing mortality needs to be reduced to maintain the economic viability of the fishery, and this has not been adopted by the Commission (WCPFC 2013e). The last assessment did not suggest any specific management measures for swordfish in the Southwest Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Davies et al. 2013). No measures aimed at reducing longline fishing mortality rates have been adopted. The Commission for the Conserva on of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has adhered to scien fic advice and u lizes a Management Procedure in se ng a total allowable catch level that will ensure that the biomass reaches the current interim rebuilding target for southern bluefin tuna (CCSBT 2011). This results in a “moderately effec ve” score because advice has been followed for some but not all species.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve No management advice was provided for shor in mako shark or opah because no assessments have been conducted. Management advice for blue sharks in the North Pacific included developing reference points, the development of management plans for all target shark fisheries that include catch limits (by the 2016 mee ng), and con nued observer coverage is warranted (WCPFC 2014), but there is no advice for the South Pacific popula on. To date, no reference points have been adopted. The Scien fic Commi ee advised that blue marlin catches should not be increased from 2009–2011 levels but no management measures have been adopted for this (WCPFC 2013e). The Scien fic Commi ee advised that fishing mortality for striped marlin in the North Pacific needs to be reduced but no addi onal effort cuts have been made since 2010, and no new advice for the South Pacific popula on has been given (WCPFC 2011). The last bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna assessments made recommenda ons to improve the current sta s cal model used and iden fied needs for data improvement, but did not iden fy specific management measures (Davies et al. 2014) (Davis et al. 2011) (Rice et al. 2014) (Davies et al. 2014). Based on the assessment results, bigeye tuna fishing mortality levels need to be 36% less than the 2008–2011 level in order to be sustainable. The Scien fic Commi ee noted that spa al management could be u lized for yellowfin tuna and that catches should not be increased from 2012 levels (WCPFC 2014b). In addi on, reducing the fishing mortality on juveniles would increase the overall yield (Harley et al. 2014). The Scien fic Commi ee did recommend in 2009 that the Commission consider fishing limits for skipjack (Rice et al. 2014). The Commission does recognize that fishing mortality 50 needs to be reduced to improve the status of bigeye and yellowfin tuna in this region (WCPFC 2012). The Commission has recently prohibited discarding of these species but there are not catch limits for either species in this fishery. The 2014 Commission mee ng had not occurred at the me of this report, so it is unknown if addi onal management measures are to be adopted based on the updated 2014 stock assessments. We have awarded a “moderately effec ve” score because management advice has been followed for some but not all species.
Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons Considera ons: Do fishermen comply with regula ons, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, there must be regular enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance. NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has a compliance monitoring scheme in place that assesses members’ compliance with obliga ons, iden fies areas of conserva on and management that may need refinement, responds to non-compliance, and monitors and resolves non-compliance issues. The Commission evaluates compliance by members annually with respect to catch and effort limits and repor ng for target species, spa al and temporal closures, observer and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) coverage, and provision of scien fic data (WCPFC 2012c).
Vessel Monitoring Systems are required on all vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean south of 20° N and east of 175° E. The area north of 20° N and west of 175° W had an ac va on date for VMS of December 31, 2013 (WCPFC 2012d). There are measures in place allowing for the boarding and inspec on of vessels in the Conven on Area (WCPFC 2006b) and the WCPFC maintains a list of illegal, unreported, and unregulated vessels (WCPFC 2010b).
A recent study, which developed a standard way of assessing transparency in RFMOs, found that the WCPFC had a lack of transparency with regard to the availability of compliance-related data, a lack of incen ve for countries to comply with management measures, and lacked the processes needed to respond to non- compliance (Gilman and Kingma 2013). Koehler (2013) also found the WCPFC to be ineffec ve with regard to compliance transparency, specifically because the WCPFC's compliance assessment process (there is a compliance monitoring scheme in place) (WCPFC 2013d) is closed to the public and the WCPFC does not have ways of dealing with non-compliance. In 2013, the Commission finally started releasing some informa on on the compliance of individual na ons (WCPFC 2013g).
Assessing the effec veness of these enforcement measures is difficult because there is a general lack in the transparency of informa on with regard to surveillance ac vi es, infrac ons, and enforcement ac ons and outcomes {Gilman et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a “moderately effec ve” score.
Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record Considera ons: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining popula ons at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain popula ons at sustainable levels? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species over me.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objec ves of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). For example, in terms of striped marlin in the North Pacific, management has been unable to maintain healthy popula ons (ISCBWG 2015). In terms of Pacific bluefin tuna, the WCPFC and IATTC have been unable 51 to maintain a healthy popula on (ISCPBWG 2014). But albacore and swordfish popula ons have remained healthy (ISCAWG 2011) (ISCBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a “moderately effec ve” score.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objec ves of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). For example, the Commission for the Conserva on of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has been unable to maintain healthy popula ons of southern bluefin tuna (IOTC 2013), while yellowfin tuna and striped marlin popula ons have remained healthy (Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013). The statuses of many species, including sharks and billfish, are unknown in this region. We have therefore awarded only a “moderately effec ve” score.
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Management Commission (WCPFC) have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objec ves of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). For example, species such as striped marlin in the North Pacific are not healthy but blue marlin popula ons are. The statuses of many species, including sharks, billfish, and opah, are unknown, so we have awarded a “moderately effec ve” score.
Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion Considera ons: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organiza ons that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conserva on groups, etc.). A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.
NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission allows for accredited observers to par cipate in most mee ngs. Historically, the WCPFC has lacked transparency (Gilman et. al. 2013) in some factors but this has been improved in recent years. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission also allows for outside accredited observers, which can be made up of scien sts, NGOs, or other interested par es, to a end mee ngs. We have therefore awarded a “moderately effec ve” score.
SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission allows for accredited observers to par cipate in most mee ngs. Historically, the WCPFC has lacked transparency (Gilman et. al. 2013) in some factors but this has been improved in recent years. We have therefore awarded a “moderately effec ve” score.
Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy
FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY All Region / Method Kept Cri cal Strategy Research Advice Enforce North Pacific / Pelagic longline No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve Moderately Moderately Effec ve Effec ve South Pacific / Pelagic longline No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve Moderately Moderately 52 Effec ve Effec ve Western Central Pacific / Pelagic No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve Moderately Moderately longline Effec ve Effec ve
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has ins tuted management measures for seabirds and sea turtles in longline fisheries opera ng in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The success of these measures is not yet known. Observer programs do exist, but they observe only a frac on of the en re fishery.
Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementa on Considera ons: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mi ga on measures, etc.). NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Ineffec ve The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has adopted several management measures to protect vulnerable bycatch species. For example, WCPFC members are asked to implement the Interna onal Plan of Ac on for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Vessels fishing north of 23° N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) are required to use at least two mi ga on measures including at least one of the following: side se ng, night se ng, tori line, or weighted branch line. Members must submit annual reports detailing the mi ga on measures used and are encouraged to undertake addi onal mi ga on research (WCPFC 2012e). Members of the WCPFC are also to implement the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Opera ons. Proper handling and release guidelines should be used when hard-shell turtles are incidentally captured, and longline vessels must carry line cu ers and de-hookers to allow for the safe handling and release of turtles. Longline fisheries are also urged to research mi ga on techniques such as the use of circle hooks. Vessels conduc ng shallow-set fishing targe ng swordfish must also comply with mi ga on measures (e.g., circle hooks, whole bait, or other reviewed techniques) (WCPFC 2008b). In addi on, fisheries observers record and report interac ons with seabirds and turtles (WCPFC 2012e) (WCPFC 2008b).
Members of the WCPFC are prohibited from retaining, transshipping, storing, or landing oceanic white p and silky sharks, and any incidentally caught sharks should be released and the incident recorded and reported (WCPFC 2012f) (WCPFC 2013f). Members are also to implement the FAO Interna onal Plan of Ac on for the Conserva on and Management of Sharks, and Na onal Plans of Ac on should have policies in place to reduce waste and discarding of sharks. Informa on on catch and effort for key species is to be reported, and shark finning is banned (5% ra o) (WCPFC 2010a).
The WCPFC scored an average of 42% across five broad bycatch governance categories in a recent study conducted by Gilman et al. (2013). We have awarded an “ineffec ve” score because there are no bycatch limits for non-target species, and it is unclear if these management measures are effec ve at maintaining popula on levels of bycatch species or are being put in place. For example, Clarke (2013) iden fied that compliance with implemen ng WCPFC adopted management measures specific to sharks is at best 60%, and lower for some measures. In addi on, the low level of observer coverage in the WCPO has hampered the ability of assessing whether adopted management measures have been effec ve (Gilman 2011).
Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scien fic Research and Monitoring Considera ons: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collec on program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met
53 NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Ineffec ve Vessels fishing for “fresh fish” north of 20° N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean must implement an observer program and achieve 5% coverage by the end of 2014 (WCPFC 2012g). This monitoring level is very low considering the number of poten al bycatch species, it is o en not a ained by all na ons, and the low observer coverage hinders the ability to accurately determine the effec veness of management measures (Gilman 2011) (Clarke 2013). In addi on, data collec on protocols within the observer programs are considered deficient (Gilman et al. 2013). We have awarded an “ineffec ve” score.
Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien fic recommenda ons/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice. NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve The Scien fic Commi ee has recently (2014) recommended that several measures related to bycatch be adopted by the Commission. These include analyzing bycatch mi ga on methods for sharks and evalua ng the fin-to-carcass ra o currently in effect, implemen ng e-monitoring trials for seabirds, and addi onal collec on of seabird bycatch data. No addi onal scien fic advice was provided in 2014 for sea turtles (WCPFC 2014). Historically, all scien fic advice related to bycatch has not been adopted (WCPFC 2013e), so we have awarded a “moderately effec ve” score.
Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regula ons Considera ons: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regula ons and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regula ons? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, there must be consistent enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance. NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Moderately Effec ve See the Harvest Strategy sec on 3.1.5 for determina on.
54 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mi gate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnec ons among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment. The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mi ga on of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows: Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern Score >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern Score ≤2.2=Red or High Concern
Ra ng cannot be Cri cal for Criterion 4.
Criterion 4 Summary Gear Type and Mi ga on of Gear Region / Method Substrate Impacts EBFM Score North Pacific / Pelagic longline 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: Moderate Green Concern (3.873) South Pacific / Pelagic longline 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: Moderate Green Concern (3.873) Western Central Pacific / Pelagic 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: Moderate Green longline Concern (3.873)
Although pelagic longline gears do not typically come in contact with bo om habitats, they do affect a number of ecologically important species and the consequence of this varies by region. Mi ga on measures to reduce the impact of pelagic longlines on bo om habitats are not generally needed and there is no indica on of a need in these three fisheries.
Criterion 4 Assessment SCORING GUIDELINES
Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate 5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bo om 4 (Very Low) - Ver cal line gear 3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bo om, but is not dragged along the bo om (e.g. gillnet, bo om longline, trap) and is not fished on sensi ve habitats. Bo om seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawl that is known to contact bo om occasionally 2 (Moderate)—Bo om dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bo om longline fished on sensi ve boulder or coral reef habitat. Bo om seine except on mud/sand 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensi ve habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder) 0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl) Note: When mul ple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classifica on is uncertain, the score will be based on the most sensi ve, plausible habitat type.
Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts
+1 (Strong Mi ga on)—Examples include large propor on55 of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifica ons shown to be effec ve at reducing damage, or an effec ve combina on of ‘moderate’ mi ga on measures. +0.5 (Moderate Mi ga on)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place to limit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spa al footprint of damage caused from fishing. +0.25 (Low Mi ga on)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not ac vely being reduced 0 (No Mi ga on)—No effec ve measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats
Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substan al efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing prac ces do not have nega ve ecological effects (e.g., large propor on of fishery area is protected with marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators) 4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in place to protect the ecological role of any species that plays an excep onally large role in the ecosystem. Measures are in place to minimize poten ally nega ve ecological effect if hatchery supplementa on or fish aggrega ng devices (FADs) are used. 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an excep onally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR nega ve ecological effects from hatchery supplementa on or FADs are possible and management is not place to mi gate these impacts 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an excep onally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management. 1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementa on or fish aggrega ng devices (FADs) in the fishery is having serious nega ve ecological or gene c consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.
Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE None Although pelagic longlines are surface fisheries, contact with the seabed can occur in shallow-set fisheries, such as the Hawaiian shallow-set fishery (Passfield and Gilman 2010) (Gilman et al. 2012). These effects are s ll considered to be a low risk to bo om habitats (Gilman et al. 2013) (Seafood Watch 2013), so we have awarded a no impact score.
Factor 4.2 - Mi ga on of Gear Impacts NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE Not Applicable
Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management NORTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE SOUTH PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE 56 Moderate Concern The pelagic longline fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean catches a number of ecologically important species including other tunas, billfish, and sharks. In par cular, sharks are considered top predators in many ecosystems and play a cri cal role in how these ecosystems are structured and func on (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predators can cause many changes, such as to prey abundances, that can lead to a cascade of other effects (Myers et al. 2007) (Duffy 2003) (Ferre et al. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al. 2007). In the North Pacific Ocean, the removal of blue shark and tunas by the longline fishery has been shown to lead to an increase in the number of short-lived, fast growing species such as mahi mahi (Polovina et al. 2009).
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has begun iden fying key shark species affected by fisheries in the Conven on Area and has to date completed stock assessments on two species (oceanic white p and silky sharks), and it has adopted several management measures to protect bycatch species (Rice and Harley 2013) (Rice and Harley 2012b). In addi on, the WCPFC has ini ated studies to monitor changes to the food web and to examine predator-prey rela onships (Allain 2010) (Allain et al. 2012).
We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because this fishery catches excep onal species but there are some efforts to incorporate their ecological roles into management.
57 Acknowledgements Scien fic review does not cons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommenda ons, on the part of the reviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch would like to thank two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scien fic accuracy.
58 References Abreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. ACAP. 2008. Albatross and petrel distribu on within the WCPFC area. The Fourth mee ng of the WCPFC Ecosystem and Bycatch Specialist Working Group, Port Moresby, August 14, 2008. ACAP. 2014a. Light-mantled albatross Phoebetria palpebrata. Agreement on the Conserva on of albatross and petrels. ACAP. 2014b. Wandering albatross Diomedea exulans. Agreement on the Conserva on of albatross and petrels. ACAP. 2014d. White-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoc alis. Agreement on the Conserva on of albatross and petrels. ACAP. 2014c. Salvin's albatross Thalassarche salvini. Agreement on the Conserva on of albatross and petrels. Agreement on the Conserva on of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACP). 2010. Species assessments: Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis). Downloaded from h p://www.acap.aq on April 29, 2013. Akroyd, J., Hun ngton, T. and McLoughlin, K. 2012. MSC report for Fiji albacore tuna longline fishery version 4 final report. Intertek Moody Marine. Allain, V. 2010. Trophic structure of the pelagic ecosystems of the western and central pacific ocean. WCPFC- SC6-2010/EB- IP 10. Allain, V., S.P. Griffiths, J. Polovina, and S. Nicol1. 2012. WCPO ecosystem indicator trends and results from ECOPATH simula ons. WCPFC-SC8-2012/EB-IP-11. Amorim, A., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Clò, S., Clarke, S.C., Fergusson, I., Gonzalez, M., Macias, D., Mancini, P., Mancusi, C., Myers, R., Reardon, M., Trejo, T., Vacchi, M. & Valen , S.V. 2009. Alopias superciliosus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O. & Black, A. 2011. Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research 14: 91–106. Baird, K., Dias, M., Small, C., Shaffer, S., Suryan, R., Anderson, D., Kappes, M. and Balgh, G.R. 2013. Overlap between WCPFC longline fishing effort and albatross distribu on in the North Pacific. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB- WP-14. Baker, G.B. and Finley, L.A. 2008. Na onal Assessment Report for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries - 2008 Assessment Report. Report to Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra. Baker, G.B. and Wise, B.S. 2005. The impact of pelagic longline fishing on the flesh-footed shearwater Puffinus carneipes in Eastern Australia. Biological Conserva on 126: 306–316. Barlow, J. 2006. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters es mated from a summer/fall survey in 2002. Marine Mammal Science 22:446-464. Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Bell, E.A., Sim, J.L. and Scofield, P. 2009. Popula on parameters and distribu on of the black petrel (Procellaria parkinsoni), 2005/2006. Department of Conserva on, Wellington, New Zealand. BirdLife Interna onal. 2012. Thalassarche melanophyrs. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 BirdLife Interna onal. 2012d. Procellaria cinerea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 BirdLife Interna onal. 2012f. Phoebetria palpebrata. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 BirdLife Interna onal. 2012h. Thalassarche salvini. In: IUCN 2012 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 BirdLife Interna onal. 2012i. Puffinus griseus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. BirdLife Interna onal. 2012l. Diomedea exulans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. 59 BirdLife Interna onal. 2012o. Procellaria aequinoc alis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 BirdLife Interna onal 2012s. Phoebastria immutabilis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. BirdLife Interna onal 2012e. Diomedea exulans. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. BirdLife Interna onal 2012c. Thalassarche chrysostoma. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. BirdLife Interna onal 2014. Phoebastria nigripes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. BirdLife Interna onal 2014. Thalassarche melanophris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M., Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Brodziak, J. and Ishimura, G. 2010. Stock assessment of North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in 2009. Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administra ve Report H-10-01. 43 p. Brooke, M. 2004. Albatrosses and petrels across the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 499 p. Brouwer, S. and I. Bertram. 2009. Se ng bycatch limits for sea turtles in the Western and Central Pacific oceans shallow-set longline fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-04. BWG. 2013. Stock assessment of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean in 2013. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-09. Scien fic Commi ee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A., Clo, S., Macias, D., Baum, J., Kohin, S., Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J.A., Acuña, E., Amorim, A. & Domingo, A. 2009. Isurus oxyrinchus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 CCSBT. 2011. Report of the eighth mee ng of the Commission. Commission for the Conserva on of the Southern Bluefin Tuna. 10-13 October 2011, Bali, Indonesia. Chang J.H. and Liu, K.M. 2009. Stock assessment of the shor in mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the Northwest Pacific Ocean using per recruit and virtual popula on analyses. Fisheries Research 98:92-101. Clarke, S. 2009. An alterna ve es mate of catches of five species of sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean based on shark fin trade data. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scien fic Commi ee Paper SC5/WB-WP-02. Clarke, S. 2011. A status snapshot of key shark species in the Western and Central Pacific and poten al management op ons. Scien fic Commi ee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-EB-WP-04. 37 p. Clarke, S. 2013. Towards and integrated shark conserva on and management measure for the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Pacific Islands Regional Office and Na onal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra on. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-08. Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H., and Nakano, H. 2011. Analysis of North Pacific shark data from Japanese commercial longline and research/training vessel records. Scien fic Commi ee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02. 89 p. Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H. and Nakano, H. 2011c. Analysis of North Pacific Shark Data from Japanese Commercial Longline and Research/Training Vessel Records. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02. Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y. and Ochi, D. 2014. Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species: a global review of status and mi ga on measures. WCPFC-SC10-2014/EB-IP-04. Clarke, S., Harley, S., Hoyle, S. and Rice, J. 2011b. An Indicator-based Analysis of Key Shark Species based on Data Held by SPC-OFP. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-01. Colle e, B., Acero, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Carpenter, K.E., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011a. Is ompax indica. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Colle e, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C.,et al. 2011b. Makaira nigricans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. 60 Colle e, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., et al. 2011c. Coryphaena hippurus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Colle e, B., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S. 2011e. Thunnus maccoyii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2. Colle e, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., et al. 2011d. Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 Cousins, K. and Cooper, J. 2000. The popula on biology of the black-footed albatross in rela on to mortality caused by longline fishing. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council. Crowder, L. and R. Myers. 2001. A Comprehensive Study of the Ecological Impacts of the Worldwide Pelagic Longline Industry. 2001 First Annual Report to the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew Charitable Trusts: Philadelphia, PA, USA. Cullis-Suzuki, S. and Pauly, D. 2010. Failing the high seas: a global evalua on of regional fisheries management organiza ons. Marine Policy 34:1036-1042 Davies, N., Hoyle, S., Harley, S., Langley, A., Kleiber, P., and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-02. 133 p. Davies, N., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J. 2012. Stock assessment of striped marlin (Kajikia audax) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Eighth Regular Session, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-05. 84 p. Davies, N., Pilling, G., Harley, S. and Hampton, J. 2013. Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-05. Scien fic Commi ee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Federated States of Micronesia. Duffy, J.E. 2003. Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem func oning. Ecology Le ers 6:680-687. Du on, P.H., Hi peuw, C., Zein, M., Benson, S.R., Petro, G., Pita, J. et al. 2007. Status and gene c structure of nes ng popula ons of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the western Pacific. Chelonian Conserva on and Bioloyg 6:47-53. Food and Agriculture Organisa on (FAO). 2012. Fishstat J database. Food and Agriculture Organisa on, Rome, Itsly. Accessed April, 2013. FAO. 2015. Fishery and Aquaculture Sta s cs. Global capture produc on 1950-2013. FishStatJ. In: FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome. Ferre , F., B. Worm, G.L. Bri en, M.R. Heithaus, H.K. and Lotze. 2010. Pa erns and ecosystem consequences of shark declines in the ocean. Ecology Le ers, 13: 1055– 1071. Fonteneau, A. 1991. Seamounts and tuna in the tropical eastern Atlan c. Aqua c and Living Resources 4:13- 25. Fonteneau, A., Ariz, J., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V. and Pallares, P. 2000a. Observed changes in the species composi on of tuna schools in the Gulf of Guinea between 1981 to 1999, in rela on with the fish aggrega ng device fishery. Aqua c and Living Resources 13:253-257. Forney, K.A. 2009. Serious injury determina ons for cetaceans caught in Hawaii longline fisheries during 1994- 2008. Dra document PSRG-2009-09 presented to the Pacific Scien fic Review Group, November 3-5, 2009, Del Mar, Ca. French, R.P., Lyle, J., Tracey, S., Currie, S. and Semmens, J.M. 2015. High survivorship a er catch-release fishing suggests physiological resilience in the endothermic shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus). Conserva on Physiology 3. Fréon, P. and Dagorn, L. 2000. Review of fish associa ve behavior: Toward a generaliza on of the mee ng point hypothesis. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:183-207. Froese, R. and Kesner-Reyes, K. 2002. Impact of fishing on the abundance of marine species. ICES CM 2002/L:12. Available at: h p://info.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2002/L/L1202.pdf Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publica on. www.fishbase.org, version Gascoigne, J., Kolody, D., Sieben, C., and Cartwright, I. 2014. The SZLC, HNSFC & Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. MSC Public Comment Dra report.
61 Gilman, E.L. 2001. Keeping Albatross off the Hook in the North Pacific Ocean. World Bird Watch. 23(2): 14-16. Gilman, E. 2011. Bycatch governance and best prac ce mi ga on technology in global tuna fisheries. Marine Policy 35:590-609. Gilman, E. and Kingma, E. 2013. Standard for assessing transparency in informa on on compliance with obliga ons of regional fisheries management organiza ons: valida on through assessment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Ocean & Coastal Management 84:31-39. Gilman, E., Pasfield, K. and Nakamura, K. 2013. Performance of regional fisheries management organiza ons: ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards. Fish and Fisheries DOI:10.1111/faf.12021 Gilman, E., Suuronen, P., Hall, M., Kennelly, S. In Press (2013). Causes and methods to es mate cryp c sources of fishing mortality. Journal of Fish Biology. Harley, S.J., Davies, N., Tremblay-Boyer, L., Hampton, J. and McKechniw, S. 2015. Stock assessment for south Pacific albacore tuna. WCPFC-SC11-2015/SA-WP-06 Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Dill, L.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. and Bejder, L 2007. State-dependent risk taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of ger shark in mida on in a marine ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:837-844. Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Langley, A. and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-04. 134 p. Hoyle, S., Hampton, J. and Davies, N. 2012. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the South Pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8- 2012/SA-WP-04-REV1. 123 p. Huan, H. 2014. Seabirds and sea turtles bycatch of Taiwanese tuna longline fleets in the Pacific Ocean. WCPFC- SC10-2014/EB-SP-06 Rev 1. Ianelli, J., M. Maunder, and A. E. Punt. 2012. Independent peer review of 2011 WCPFC bigeye tuna stock assessment. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-01. Available online h p://www.wcpfc.int/node/4587. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2004. Resolu on on the establishment of a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Resolu on c-04-06, 72nd Reunion, Lima Peru. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005b. Resolu on on the conserva on of sharks caught in associa on with fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolu on C-05-03. 73rd Mee ng, Lanzarote, Spain, 20- 24 June 2005. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005c. Resolu on on northern albacore tuna; C-02-02. 73rd Mee ng, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005a. Resolu on to establish a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing ac vi es in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolu on C- 05-07. 73rd Mee ng, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2006. Consolidated resolu on on bycatch. Resolu on C-04- 05 (Rev 2). 74th Mee ng, Pusan, Korea. 26-30 June 2006. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011a. Resolu on on the process for improved compliance of resolu ons adopted by the Commission. Resolu on C-11-07. 82nd Mee ng, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 July 2011. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011b. Resolu on to mi gate the impact on seabirds of fishing for species covered by the IATTC. Resolu on C-11-02. 82nd Mee ng, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011c. Resolu on on scien fic observers for longline vessels. Resolu on C-11-08. 82nd Mee ng, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011d. Resolu on on the conserva on of oceanic white p sharks caught in associa on with fisheries in the An gua Conven on Area. Resolu on C-11-10. 82nd Mee ng, La Jolla, Ca, 4-8 June 2011. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2012. Conserva on and Management Measures for bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolu on C-12-09, 83rd Mee ng, La Jolla, CA, 25-29 June 2012. IATTC. 2014. Tunas and billfishes in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. Fishery status report No. 12. Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2007. Resolu on to mi gate the impacts of tuna fishing 62 vessels on sea turtles. Resolu on C-07-03. 75th Mee ng, Cancun, Mexico, 25-29 June 2007. IOTC. 2013e. Report on biology, stock status and management of southern bluefin tuna: 2013. IOTC-2013- SC16-ES05[E]. Available at:h p://www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/2013/sc/IOTC-2013-SC16-ES05[E].pdf ISC. 2015. Indicator-based analysis of the status of shor in mako sharks in the north Pacific Ocean WCPFC- SC11-2015/SA-WP-08. ISC Albacore Working Group. 2011. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean in 2011. Scien fic Commi ee Seventh Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 9-17, August 2011. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-10 ISCBWG. 2014. North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) stock assessment in 2014. Report of the billfish working group. Interna onal Scien fic Commi ee for tuna and tuna-like species in the North Pacific Ocean. ISCBWG 2015. Stock assessment of striped marlin in the western and central North Pacific Ocean through 2013. WCPFC-SC-2015/SA-WP-10 Interna onal Scien fic Commi ee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean Pacific Bluefin Working Group. 2012. Pacific bluefin tuna stock assessment summary. Webinar, 19-21 December, 2012. 13 p. ISCSWG. 2013. Report of the shark working group workshops May 2012, January and April 2013. SCPFC-SC9- 2013/SA-WP-11a. Scien fic Commi ee Ninth Regular Session 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. ISCSWG. 2014. Stock assessment and future projec ons of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean. Report of the Shark Working Group, ISC. Interna onal Seafood Sustainability Founda on (ISSF). 2013a. ISSF stock assessment workshop: control rules and reference points for tuna RFMOs. ISSF Technical Report 2013-03. Interna onal Seafood Sustainability Founda on, Washington, DC. 34 p. ISSF. 2014. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2014: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2014-09. Interna onal Seafood Sustainability Founda on, Washington, D.C., USA. Interna onal Seafood Sustainability Founda on (ISSF). 2013b. ISSF stock status ra ngs 2013 status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2013-4, April 2013 Jones, T.T., Bostrom, B.L., Has ngs, M.D., Van Houtan, K.S., Pauly, D. and Jones, D.R. 2012. Resource requirements of the Pacific leatherback turtle popula on. PLoS ONE 7:e45447/dpi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045447. Josse, E., Bertrand, A. and Dagorn, L. 1999. An acous c approach to study tuna aggregated around fish aggrega ng devices in French Polynesia: methods and valida on. Aqua c and Living Resources 12:303-313. Josse, E., Dagorn, L. and Bertrand, A. 2000. Typology and behavior of tuna aggrega ons around fish aggrega ng devices from acous c surveys in French Polynesia. Aqua c and Living Resources 13:183-192. Kaplan, I.C. 2005. A risk assessment for Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aqua c Sciences 62:1710-1719. Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470. Rome, FAO. 131 p. Kirby, D.S. 2006. Ecological risk assessment for species caught in WCPO tuna fisheries: inherent risk as determined by produc vity-suscep bility analysis. Scien fic Commi ee Second Regular Session, 7-18 August 2006, Manila, Philippines. WCPFC-SC2-2006/EB WP-1. 25 p. Kirby, D.S. and Hobday, A. 2007. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing in the western and central Pacific Ocean: produc vity and suscep bility analysis. Scien fic Commi ee Third Regular Session, 13-24 2007, Honolulu, HI. WCPFC-SC3-SWG/WP-1. 20 p. Kleiber, P., Hampton, J., Hinton, M.G and Uozumi, Y. 2003. Update on blue marlin stock assessment. 15th Mee ng of the Standing Commi ee on Tuna and Billfish BBRG-10. SCTB15 Working Paper. Kleiber, P., Clarke, S., Bigelow, K., Nakano, H., McAllister, M. and Takeuichi, Y. 2009. North Pacific blue shark stock assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-17. 83 p. Koehler, H.R., 2013. Promo ng compliance in tuna RFMO's: a comprehensive baseline survey of the current mechanics of reviewing, assessing and addressing compliance with RFMO obliga ons and measures. ISSF Technical Report 2013-02. Kolody, D., Campbell, R. and Davies, N. 2008. A Mul fan-CL stock assessment of south-west Pacific swordfish 63 1952-2007. Scien fic Commi ee Fourth Regular Session, 11-22 August 2008, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. WCPFC-SC4-2008-SA-WP-6 (REVISION 1*). 90PG. Langley, A., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-03. 135p. Lawson, T. 2001. Observer data held by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme covering tuna fishery bycatches in the western and central Pacific Ocean. 14th Mee ng of the the Standing Commi ee on Tuna and Billfish, 9-16 August 2001, Numea, New Caledonia. SWG-9. 42 p. Lehodey, P., Ber gnac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A. and Picault, J. El Nino Southern Oscilla on and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389:715-718 Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2003. Es ma ng fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabird popula on. Ecological Applica ons 13:743-753. Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2007. Pu ng longline bycatch of sea turtles into perspec ve. Conserva on Biology 21:79-86 Lewison, R., Freeman, S.A. and Crowder, L.B. 2004. Quan fying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerheard and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Le ers 7:221-231/ Maison, K.A., Kinan Kelly, I. and K.P. Frutchey. 2010. Green Turtle Nes ng Sites and Sea Turtle Legisla on throughout Oceania. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-110, 52 pp. Marine Turtle Specialist Group 1996. Care a care a. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Mar nez, A.L. 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Menard, F., Stequert, B., Rubin, A., Herrera, M. and Marchal, E. 2000. Food consump on of tuna in the equatorial Atlan c Ocean: FAD associated versus unassociated schools. Aqua c and Living Resources 13:233- 240. Miyashita, T. 1993. Abundance of dolphin stocks in the western North Pacific taken by the Japanese drive fishery. Reports of the Interna onal Whaling Commission 43: 417-437. Molony, B. 2005. Es mates of the mortality of non-target species with an ini al focus on seabirds, turtles and sharks. First mee ng of the Scien fic Commi ee of the western and central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 9-19 August 2005. WCPFC-SC1. 84 p. Molony, B. 2006. Summary of the biology, ecology and stock status of billfishes in the WCPFC, with a review of major variables influencing longline fishery performance. 1st Mee ng of the Scien fic Commi ee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia, 18-19, August 2006. WCPFC-EB- 2. Molony, B. 2007. Overview of purse-seine and longline bycatch issues in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Inaugural Mee ng of the Asia and Pacific Islands Bycatch Consor um, 15-16 February 2007, Honolulu, HI. 42 p. Mor mer, J.A & Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P. and Peterson, C.H. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss of apex predatory sharks from a coastal. Science 315:1846-1850. Naughton, M. B, M. D. Romano, T. S. Zimmerman. 2007. A Conserva on Ac on Plan for Black-footed Albatross (Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P. immutabilis), Ver. 1.0. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. U.S. Na onal Bycatch Report. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Endangered Species Act - Sec on 7 Consulta on Biological Opinion. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources Division. 162 pg. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. U.S. Na onal Bycatch Report first edi on update 1. (Eds. L.R. Benaka, C. Rilling, E.E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo). US Department of Commercie, 57 p. Na onal Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Us Foreign trade. NOAA Office of Science and Technology. NZG. 2008. Fisheries (seabird sustainability measures-surface longlines) no ce 2008 (No. F429). New Zealand 64 Gaze e 21 February 2008, No. 31. New Zealand Government, Wellington. Oceanic Fisheries Programme. 2010. Non-target species interac ons with the tuna fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Sixth Regular Session, 10-19 August, 2010, Nuku'alofa, Tonga. 59 p. Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP). 2012a. Es mates of annual catches in the WCPFC sta s cal area. Scien fic Commi ee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8- 2012/ST IP-1. Oro, D. and A. Mar nez-Abrain. 2000. Ecology and behavior of seabirds. Marine Ecology - Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems. Available at: h p://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c09/E2-27-05-00.pdf Passfield, K., Gilman, E. (2010) Effects of Pelagic Longline Fishing on Seamount Ecosystems based on Interviews with Pacific Island Fishers. Technical Report produced under the Global Environment Facility Oceanic Fisheries Management Project. Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature, Gland, Switzerland. Paxton, J.R. 2010. Alepisaurus ferox. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. PIFSC. 2014. Interna onal team launches research on pelagic sharks in the North Pacific Ocean. NOAA Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Research Bulle n, June 2011. Piraino, S., Fanelli, G., Boero, F. 2002. Variability of species roles in marine communi es: change of paradigms for conserva on priori es. Marine Biology 140:1067-1074. Polovina, J.J., Abecassis, M., Howell, E.A. and Woodworth, P. 2009. Increases in the rela ve abundance of mid- trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the subtropical North Pacific 1996-2006. Fisheries Bulle n 107:523-531. Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Bu erworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2008. Megaptera novaeangliae. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Rice, J. 2012. Alternate catch es mates for silky and oceanic white p sharks in Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC28-2012/SA-IP-12. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012b. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetop sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06 Rev 1. 53 pg. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013. Updates stock assessment of silky sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scien fic Commi ee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-03. Rice, J., Harley, S., Maunder, M. and Aires Da-Silva, A. 213. Stock assessment of blue sharks in the north Pacific Ocean using stock synthesis. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-02. Scien fic Commi ee Ninth Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013. Roe, J.H., Morreale, S.J., Paladino, F.V., Shillinger, G.L. and Benson, S.R. et al. 2014. Predic ng bycatch hotspots for endangered leatherback turtles on longlines in the Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal Society 281:20132559 Schindler, D.E., Essington, T.E., Kitchell, J.F., Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R. 2002. Sharks and tunas: fisheries impacts on predators with contras ng life histories. Ecological Applica ons 12:735-748. Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch criteria for fisheries. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Version January 18, 2013. 82 p. Seminoff, J.A. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.) 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. SPC. 2014. Tuna fisheries longline. Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Programme. Available at: h p://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/tuna-fisheries/174-longline Spo la, J.R., Dunham, A.E., Leslie, A.J., Steyermark, A.C., Plotkin, P.T. and Paladino, F.V. 1996. Worldwide popula on decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going ex nct? Chelonian Conserva on and Biology 2:209-222 Stevens, J. 2009. Prionace glauca. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2. Available at: h p://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39381/0 Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K. and Walker, P.A. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras (chondrichthuyans), and the implica ons for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476-494. 65 Tapilatu, R.F., Du on, P.H., Tiwari, M., Wibbels, T., Ferdinandus, H.V., Iwanggin, W.G. and Nugroho, B.H. 2013. Long-term decline of the western Pacific leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea: a globally important sea turtle popula on. Ecosphere 4:25.h p://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00348.1 Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008a. Pseudorca crassidens. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008b. Peponocephala electra. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Feresa a enuata. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Physeter macrocephalus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2011. Globicephala macrorhynchus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2 Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2012. Grampus griseus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2. Tuck, G.N., Phillips, R.A., Small, C., Thomson, R.B., Klaer, N.L., Taylor, F., Wanless, R.M. and Arrizabalaga, H. 2011. An assessment of seabird–fishery interac ons in the Atlan c Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68: 1628–1637 Van Houtan, K.S. 2011. Assessing the impact of fishery ac ons to marine turtle popula ons in the North Pacific using classical and climate-based models, Internal Report IR-II-024. NOAA Fisheries, Pacific Islands Science Center. 25 p. Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., MiMa eo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B. and Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine turtle popula ons worldwide: toward conserva on and research priori es. Ecosphere 4:40.h p://dx.doi.org/10.1980/ES12-00388.1 Walsh, W.A., Bigelow, K.A. and Sender, K.L. 2009. Decreases in shark catches and mortality in the Hawaii-based longline fishery as documented by fishery observers. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management and Ecosystem Science 1:270-282. Waugh, S.M., Filippi, D.P., Kirby, D.S., Abraham E. & Walker N. 2012. Ecological Risk Assessment for seabird interac ons in Western and Central Pacific longline fisheries. Marine Policy 36: 933–946. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2005. Conserva on and management measure for North Pacific albacore. Conserva on and Management Measure-2005-03. Second Session 12-16 December 2005. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2006. Western and central Pacific fisheries commission boarding and inspec on procedures. Conserva on and Management Measure 2006-08. Third Regular Session, Apia, Samoa, 11-15 December 2006. WCPFC, 2006b. Conserva on and management measure for striped marlin in the southwest Pacific. Conserva on and Management Measure 2006-04. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 200. Conserva on and management measure for the -regional observer programme. Conserva on and Management Measure 200. Fourth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, USA, 2-7 December 20007. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 2008a. Conserva on and management measure for bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conserva on Management Measure 2008-01. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2008b. Conserva on and management of sea turtles. Conserva on and Management Measure 2008-03. Fi h Regular Session, 8-12 December 2008, Busan, Korea. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2009. Conserva on and management for swordfish. Conserva on and Management Measure 2009-03, Sixth Regular Session, Papeete, Tahi , French Polynesia, 7-11 December 2009. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010c. Conserva on and management measure 66 for South Pacific albacore. Conserva on and Management Measure-2010-051. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, December 6-10, 2010. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010a. Conserva on and management measure for sharks. Conserva on and Management Measure 2010-07. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-12 December 2010. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010b. Conserva on and management measure to establish a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing ac vi es in the WCPO. Conserva on and Management Measure 2010-06. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-10 December 2010. WCPFC. 2010d. Conserva on and management measure for north Pacific striped marlin. Conserva on and Management Measure 2010-01. WCPFC. 2011. Commission for the Conserva on and management of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific ocean summary report. Scien fic Commi ee Seventh Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012A. Conserva on and management measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Conserva on and Management Measure 2012-01. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012b. Conserva on and management measure for Pacific bluefin tuna. Conserva on and Management Measure 2012-06. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines 2-6 December 2012. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012e. Conserva on and management measure to mi gate the impact of fishing for highly migratory fish stocks on seabirds. Conserva on and Management Measure 2012-07. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012f. Conserva on and management measure for oceanic white p shark. Conserva on and Management Measure 2011-04. Eighth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, 26-30 March 2011. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012g. Conserva on and management measure for implemen ng the regional observer programme by vessels fishing for fresh fish north of 20N. Conserva on and Management Measure 2012-03. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012c. Conserva on and management measure for compliance monitoring scheme. Conserva on and Management Measure 2012-02. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012d. Commission vessel monitoring system. Conserva on and Management Measure 2011-02. Commission Eighth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, 26-30 March 2012. WCPFC. 2013a. Conserva on and management measure for Pacific bluefin tuna. Conserva on and Management Measure 2013-09. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia. WCPFC. 2013d. Conserva on and management measure for compliance monitoring scheme. Conserva on and Management Measure 2013-02. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia. WCPFC. 2013c. WCPFC management objec ves workshop 2. 28-29 November, 2013, Cairns, Australia. WCPFC. 2013b. Conserva on and management measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conserva on and Management Measure 2013-01. Tenth regular session, December 2-6, 2013, Cairns Australia. WCPFC. 2013e. Commission for the Conserva on and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean Summary Report. Scien fic Commi ee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August, 2013, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC. 2013f. Conserva on and management measure for silky sharks. Conserva on and Management Measure 2013-08. Commission Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December, 2013, Cairns, Australia. WCPFC. 2013g. Commission for the Conserva on and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Tenth Regular Session, Cairns, Australia, 2-6 December 2013. WCPFC. 2013h. Scien fic Commi ee Ninth Regular Session summary report. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013. 67 WCPFC. 2014. Scien fic Commi ee Tenth Regular Session. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC. 2014b. Es mates of annual catches in the WCPFC sta s cal area. WCPFC-S10-2014/ST IP. WCPFC. 2014c. Tuna fishery yearbook 2013. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC. 2015. Es mates of annual catches in the WCPFC sta s cal area. WCPFC-SC11-2015/ST IP-1 Whitehead, H. 2002. Es mates of the current global popula on size and historical trajectory for sperm whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 295-304. Williams, P. and Terewasi, P. 2014. Overview of tuna fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean, including economic considera ons 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1 Williams, P, S.S. Kirby and S. Beverly. 2009. Encounter rates and life status for marine turtles in the WCPO longline and purse seine fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-07. Work, T.M. and Balazs, G.H. 2002. Necropsy findings in sea turtles taken as bycatch in the North Pacific longline fishery. Fishery Bulle n 100:876-880. Work, T.M. and Balazs, G.H. 2002. Necropsy findings in sea turtles taken as bycatch in the North Pacific longline fishery. Fisheries Bulle n 100:876-880 Zug, G.R. and Parham, J.F. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea (Testudines: Dermochelyidae): A skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conserva on and Biology 2(2): 244-249.
68 Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species
Yellowfin tuna
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC Medium FishBase assigned a moderate to high vulnerability of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin’s life history characteris cs support a moderate vulnerability score. Yellowfin tuna reaches sexual maturity by 100 cm in length, although growth rates vary by loca on, and 2–3 years of age. It can a ain a maximum size of 180 cm and live to at least 4 years of age and perhaps as much as 9 years. It is a broadcast spawner and an important predator in the ecosystem (Langley et al. 2011) (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Abundance WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC Very Low Concern The biomass-based reference point was 1.37 for the reference model used in the 2014 assessment (SBcurrent /SB MSY , the ra o of the current [2008–2011] spawning [mature fish] biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield). The ra o of the latest (2012) spawning biomass to the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent /SB MSY ) was 1.24. Therefore yellowfin tuna is not in an overfished state (Davies et al. 2014b). We have awarded a “very low” concern score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC Very Low Concern The current fishing mortality rate is below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent /F MSY = 0.72) for the most realis c models. Therefore overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2014). We have awarded a “very low” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
69 NORTH PACIFIC
20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Silky shark
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High Fishbase assigned a high score of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Abundance WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers silky shark to be Near Threatened globally (Bonfil et al. 2009). The first assessment of silky shark in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted in 2012 and updated during 2013 (Rice and Harley 2013). According to this model, the spawning biomass (abundance of mature fish) levels consistently declined over the modeled period (1995–2009). The spawning biomass has declined by 67% since 1995. The spawning biomass in 2009 was far below target levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent /SB MSY = 0.70 (95% C.I. 0.51– 1.23) and therefore the stock is overfished. We have awarded a “high” concern score because the SSB is below MSY.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
70 WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Concern According to the 2013 updated silky shark assessment in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), fishing mortality rates in 2009 (the last year of the modeled period) exceeded levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY = 4.48 (1.41–7.96)). This indicates that overfishing is occurring (Rice and Harley 2013). The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has recently banned the catch, landing, and sale of silky shark (WCPFC 2013f). The success of this measure is highly dependent on post- release survival of silky shark. We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the high fishing mortality rates.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
71 Albacore tuna
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC Medium FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the life history characteris cs of albacore suggest only a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacore reaches sexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reaches a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2011). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life history characteris cs, which score a 2 on the Seafood Watch produc vity and suscep bility table, we have awarded a medium score. Ra onale: Life history characteris c Paramater Score Age at maturity <5 years 3 Average maximum age 10-25 years 2 Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3 Trophic level >3.25 1
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
NORTH PACIFIC Low Concern The most recent stock assessment for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2014. According to this assessment, the spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2012 (last year of data included in the model) was 110,101 t, with stock deple on es mated to be 35.8% of the unfished SSB. No biomass-based reference points are in place, but the assessment concluded that there was li le indica on that the SSB was below any candidate biomass-based reference points. We have therefore awarded a “low” concern score because it is likely that albacore tuna in the North Pacific is not overfished, but not a very low concern score because no reference points are currently accepted (ISCAWG 2014).
SOUTH PACIFIC Low Concern Albacore tuna in the South Pacific was last assessed in 2015. According to the assessment, the spawning stock biomass of albacore tuna has been reduced to around 41% (33%–55%) of unfished levels. The current spawning stock biomass is es mated to likely be above the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield. The limit reference point for albacore is 20% of the spawning biomass with no fishing (20% SBF = 0) and the current spawning biomass is es mated to be 40% of values with no fishing (SBF = 0) (Harley et al. 2015). We have awarded a “low” concern score because the model suggests a healthy stock, but there is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding these results and the biomass has been declining over me.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
NORTH PACIFIC Low Concern
The current fishing mortality rate (F2010–2012 ) for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean is around 72% of the interim reference point (FSSB–ATHL50% , the fishing mortality rate that would lead to future minimum SSB falling below the SSB-ATHL threshold level at least once during a 25-year projec on period). In addi on, the current fishing mortality rate (F2010–2012 ) is below other F-based reference points (FMSY , F 0.1 , and F 10%– 40% (fishing mortality that gives 10%–40% reduc on in the spawning poten al ra o)) except FMED and F 50% . 72 Albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean are therefore not currently undergoing overfishing. But increases in fishing mortality rates will significantly reduce the spawning biomass (ISCAWG 2014). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score.
SOUTH PACIFIC Very Low Concern According to the most recent stock assessment (2015), the fishing mortality reference point for albacore tuna in the South Pacific, Fcurrent /F MSY , had a median es mate of 0.39 (0.2–0.59) and there is a low risk that overfishing is occurring (Harley et al. 2015). We have therefore awarded a “very low” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Bigeye tuna
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC Medium FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But bigeye tuna’s life history characteris cs suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reaches sexual maturity around 100–125 cm, reaches a maximum size of 200 cm, and lives around 11 years (Davies et al. 2014) (Froese et al. 2013). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on the Seafood Watch produc vity analysis table, these life history characteris cs suggest a medium level of vulnerability. We acknowledge that other methods may suggest a different vulnerability ra ng. But because the stock status of bigeye tuna is known, this inherent vulnerability score will not affect the 73 overall outcome. We have therefore awarded a medium vulnerability based on the produc vity table analysis.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern Bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was last assessed in 2014. According to the base case model, the ra o of the current average (2008–2011) spawning biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent/SBMSY) was 0.94, and the ra o of the latest (2012) spawning biomass (mature fish) to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBlatest/SBMSY) was 0.77, indica ng that the popula on is overfished (Harley et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a “high” concern score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The ra os of current fishing mortality rates to those that produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY) for all model runs were much higher than 1, with the ra o from all runs es mated at 1.57, indica ng that overfishing is occurring. Based on this es mate, fishing mortality needs to be reduced by more than 30% from 2008–2011 levels to become sustainable (Harley et al. 2014). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the assessment results that overfishing is occurring and has been for some me.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
74 SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Black-footed albatross Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
NORTH PACIFIC High Concern According to the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN), black-footed albatross is classified as Near Threatened with a stable to increasing popula on trend (BirdLife Interna onal 2014). Based on counts conducted during the 2006–2007 breeding season, 64,500 pairs were es mated in colonies that support 90% of the global breeding popula on. Other es mates from 2000 concluded there were 275,000 birds (Cousins and Cooper 2000). Its status in the North Pacific Ocean is unknown, so we have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN status.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
NORTH PACIFIC High Concern Black-footed albatross is one of the more commonly observed bird species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), with interac ons primarily occurring in the North Pacific longline fisheries (Baird et al. 2013). Some studies have suggested that the mortality associated with North Pacific tuna longline fisheries may threaten black-footed albatross. For example, research suggests that a mortality rate of 10,000–12,000 birds 75 per year is needed to sustain this popula on and that mortality from pelagic longline fisheries may exceed this (Lewison and Crowder 2003) (Crowder and Myers 2001) (Arata and Naughton 2009). From 1992 to 2009, 100% of black-footed albatross caught in longline fisheries north of 10° N were discarded dead (OFP 2010). The total es mated mortality of this species in the Central North Pacific between 1994 and 2000 ranged from 5,200 to 13,800 birds (Gilman 2001). Other research has es mated mortality rates as high as 6,000 black-footed albatross per year by the Japanese and Taiwanese fleets (BirdLife Interna onal 2014). Reducing seabird interac ons in this region could improve their status. We have awarded a “high” concern score because seabirds are considered highly vulnerable and their stock statuses are of high concern; current mortality rates are unknown but could be high; and although management measures have been adopted by some fleets to mi gate incidental capture in longline fisheries opera ng in the North Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013), the best management prac ces that minimize seabird mortality are not required or adopted by all fleets.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
Olive ridley turtle
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteris cs that include being long-lived, a aining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproduc ve rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Abundance SOUTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers olive ridley sea turtle to be Vulnerable with a decreasing popula on trend. Olive ridley turtle has been listed as Threatened on the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1978 (NMFS 2012a). Along several beaches in Thailand, current es mates of the number of nests/km/day are around 20, while in Indonesia this number is 230. It is es mated that the annual nes ng subpopula on on these Thai beaches has decreased76 97%–98% over me, while in Indonesia they have increased substan ally. Overall, in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, there has been a decrease in annual nes ng females of 92%, from 1,412 to 108 (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). We have awarded a “high” concern score because of the IUCN lis ng.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality SOUTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC Moderate Concern The incidental capture of olive ridley turtle occurs worldwide, although other fisheries such as trawls and gillnets appear to have a larger nega ve impact compared to longlines (Wallace et al. 2013) (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Data related to incidental captures are scarce due to low repor ng by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Bycatch of olive ridley is reported to be especially high in some albacore fisheries opera ng in the South Pacific region (Huang 2014) but not others (Akroyd et al. 2012). Bycatch is thought to be a low threat to the popula on in the West Pacific region and the popula on is at low risk (Wallace et al. 2013). Bycatch mi ga on methods have been put into place by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but there are issues with compliance and the effec veness of these measures is unknown (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because the popula on is depleted, but this fishery is not a major contributor.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
Green sea turtle
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
77 WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life history characteris cs that include being long-lived, a aining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproduc ve rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Abundance SOUTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC Very High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has classified green sea turtle as Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend. Wallace et al. (2013) iden fied popula ons of green sea turtle in the North Central Pacific Ocean to be at high risk. Green sea turtle has been listed on the Conven on on Interna onal Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with ex nc on and that interna onal trade is prohibited. The mean annual number of nes ng turtles worldwide has decreased 48% to 67% over the past 100 to 150 years (Seminoff 2004). Out of 27 known nes ng sites in Oceania, 3 had an increasing trend, 2 had decreasing trends, and 2 had stable trends, while trends at the remaining sites were unknown (Maison et al. 2010). We have awarded a “very high” concern score because of the IUCN classifica on.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality SOUTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC Moderate Concern The incidental capture of green sea turtle is considered a major threat to its popula ons worldwide (Seminoff 2004). Though green sea turtle is one of the more commonly caught turtle species in the South Pacific region (NMFS 2013) (Williams et al. 2009), the impact from bycatch to the popula on is low in the South Central Pacific and the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, and those popula ons are considered to be at low risk (Wallace et al. 2013). The American Samoa pelagic longline fishery reported the incidental capture of 42 green sea turtles during 2010, four mes higher than any other species (NMFS 2013). The Cook Island South Pacific albacore fishery also reports green sea turtle as one of the most commonly caught bycatch species (Gascoigne et al. 2014). Bycatch mi ga on methods have been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their use and effec veness are unknown and there are issues with compliance (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because bycatch in this fishery does not appear to be threatening the popula on, but impacts are not fully known.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20%
78 The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
Salvin's albatross
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern According to the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN), Salvin’s albatross is considered Vulnerable and it is unknown whether its popula ons are increasing or decreasing. In 1998, it was es mated that 30,750 breeding individuals were present on the Bounty Islands and that this represented 99% of the global popula on. Based on this es mate, there are roughly 61,500 mature birds and 90,000 individuals (BirdLife Interna onal 2012h). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN lis ng.
79 Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC Moderate Concern Salvin’s albatross is more commonly reported as incidentally caught by New Zealand tuna longliners than in other areas of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). For example, between 1996 and 2005, observers reported 150 interac ons with this species aboard New Zealand longliners (BirdLife Interna onal 2012h). We have awarded a “moderate” concern and not high concern score because bycatch mi ga on measures have been adopted by the New Zealand fleet (NZG 2008) and almost all of the breeding and foraging areas for this species occur in New Zealand waters (ACAP 2014c).
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Swordfish
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC Medium FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the life history characteris cs of swordfish indicate a lower vulnerability to fishing. For example, swordfish reaches sexual maturity at around 180 cm in size and around 5 years of age, and it reaches a maximum length of 455 cm and lives more than 10 years. Swordfish is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). This is more indica ve of a moderate vulnerability to fishing. Ra onale: Life history characteris c Paramater Score Age at maturity <5 years 3 Average size at maturity 100-300 cm 2 Average maximum size >300 cm 1 Average maximum age 10-25 years 2 Reproduc ve strategy Broadcast spawner 3 Trophic level >3.25 1
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
NORTH PACIFIC 80 Very Low Concern In 2014, an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted. This assessment considered two popula ons: one in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) and one in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. According to this model, the exploitable biomass for the popula on in the WCPO region fluctuated at or above the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) for most of the me series (1951–2012), and there is a low probability (14%) of the biomass being below BMSY in 2012 (ISCBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a “very low” concern score.
SOUTH PACIFIC Low Concern In 2013, an updated assessment of swordfish in the southern region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted. This updated stock assessment included both the South-West Pacific (SWP) as well as the South-Central Pacific (SCP). Compared to the 2008 assessment, this updated one was able to determine abundance es mates for both regions. Considerable uncertainty s ll surrounded the assump ons made with regard to growth, maturity, and mortality (age-specific). Standardized catch rates for the main fleets declined dras cally between 1997 and 2011, and the mean size also decreased in the main fisheries. The total and spawning biomass have declined since the late 1990s and the current levels are 44%–68% and 27%–55% of virgin levels, respec vely. The ra os of biomass and spawning biomass (mature fish) levels to those needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) range from 1.15 to 1.85 and 1.15 to 3.53, respec vely, indica ng that the popula on is not overfished (Davies et al. 2013). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score due to the high level of uncertainty.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
NORTH PACIFIC Very Low Concern In 2014, an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted. Exploita on rates in this region peaked in the 1960s and have declined since. The current fishing mortality rate (H2010–2012) is 15%, which is lower than the level necessary to produce the maximum sustainable yield (HMSY = 25%). It is very unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality rates (H) are unsustainable; therefore overfishing is not occurring (ISCBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a “very low” concern score.
SOUTH PACIFIC Moderate Concern According to the updated 2013 assessment of swordfish in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, catches are around the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (82%–102%). The fishing mortality rate for juvenile swordfish increased in the mid-1990s, and the ra os of current fishing mortality rates to those needed to produce MSY range from 0.33 to 1.77. This indicates that the popula on, under some assump ons, may be undergoing overfishing (Davies et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a “moderate” concern and not a low concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
81 SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Wandering albatross Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers the wandering albatross popula on to be Vulnerable with a decreasing popula on trend. The global popula on is around 20,100 mature individuals but the status of this species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown (BirdLife Interna onal 2012l). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN classifica on.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC Moderate Concern Wandering albatross is threatened by longline fisheries, which have been iden fied as a leading cause of its global declines. This is primarily a factor of its large range, which makes it suscep ble to capture by a variety of fleets (BirdLife Interna onal 2012l). Between 1980 and 2004, 107 interac ons between wandering albatrosses and pelagic longline gear (primarily south of 31° S) were observed (Molony 2005), and from 1992 to 2009, 53% of incidentally captured seabirds died (OFP 2010). Wandering albatross is affected evenby low bycatch rates due to its small popula on size (ACAP 2014b). The majority of breeding area for this species 82 occurs in South African territories (ACAP 2014b). Management measures have been adopted by many fleets in the Southwestern Pacific Ocean to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds. These measures have not been adopted by all fleets opera ng in its breeding region (ACAP 2014b). Due to the impact from even low bycatch rates, combined with the fact that bycatch mi ga on measures have not been fully adopted by all fleets, we have awarded a “moderate” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Flesh-footed shearwater Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC Low Concern According to the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN), flesh-footed shearwater is classified as Least Concern and the popula on is considered stable (BirdLife Interna onal 2012c). This classifica on was due to this species’ extremely large range, and the large popula on size. In 2004, the global popula on was es mated to be more than 650,000 individuals (Brooke 2004). We have therefore awarded a “low” concern score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
83 SOUTH PACIFIC Moderate Concern Flesh-footed shearwater appears to be incidentally caught in pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the South Pacific. For example, between 1980 and 2004, 124 flesh-footed shearwater interac ons with pelagic longline gear were observed in waters south of 31° S (Molony 2005). From 1992 to 2009, 92% of flesh-footed shearwaters captured in the albacore South Pacific longline fishery were discarded, and of those, 85% were dead (OFP 2010). Flesh-footed shearwater has a large range and subsequently a large overlap with this fishery. Since this species has a high suscep bility to the fishery and fishing mortality rates are unknown, but mi ga on measures have been adopted by many fleets in the Southwest Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013), we have awarded a “moderate” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Black-browed albatross
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on for Nature (IUCN) has classified black-browed albatross as Near Threatened with a decreasing popula on trend (BirdLife Interna onal 2014b). The total popula on size 84 worldwide is es mated to be 700,000 breeding birds or 2.1 million individual birds (Birdlife Interna onal 2014b). The status in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN lis ng.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC Low Concern Interac ons between black-browed albatross and the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, although low in number, have been reported. For example, from 1980 to 2004, 22 black-browed albatross interac ons with pelagic longline gear were observed south of 31° S (Molony 2005), and between 1992 and 2009, 95% of black-browed albatross captured in the albacore South Pacific longline fishery were discarded, and of those, 71% were dead. Management measures have been adopted by most fleets to mi gate the incidental capture of seabirds in longline fisheries opera ng in the South Pacific region of the western and central Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013). We have awarded a “low” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Grey petrel Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
85 SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classifies grey petrel as Near Threatened with a decreasing popula on trend (BirdLife Interna onal 2012d). The global popula on is es mated to be somewhat low, around 400,000, with a low es mate of 160,000 and a high of 1,200,000 (Brooke 2004). We have awarded a “high” concern score to account for the IUCN ra ng.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC Moderate Concern Between 1980 and 2004, 126 grey petrel interac ons with pelagic longline gear were observed, primarily south of 31° S (Molony 2005), and from 1992 to 2009, 100% of incidentally capture grey petrels in the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded and all of them were dead (OFP 2010). In New Zealand waters of the South Pacific, it has historically been one of the most commonly killed bird species in the tuna longline fishery, with es mates of 45,000 birds being caught during the 1980s and 1990s (BirdLIfe Interna onal 2014d). But New Zealand has implemented the use of several bycatch mi ga on measures in tuna fisheries (NZG 2008). Incidental mortality in fisheries off the coast of Australia has also been reported (BirdLife Interna onal 2012d). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because, although bycatch has been reduced in New Zealand waters, informa on gaps in other areas suggest that this species should remain as moderate concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
White-chinned petrel Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High 86 Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has listed white-chinned petrel as Vulnerable and its popula ons are decreasing. The global popula on is es mated to have declined from 1,430,000 pairs in the 1980s to 1,200,000 pairs currently. There are around 3 million mature birds (Brooke 2004) (BirdLife Interna onal 2012o). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN lis ng.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC Moderate Concern White-chinned petrel is one of the most vulnerable bird species to bycatch in fisheries opera ng in the Southern Hemisphere (ACAP 2014d). Es mates from the 1990s in the Australian longline fishery suggest that over 800 white-chinned petrels were incidentally caught per year. In the New Zealand longline fishery, 14.5% of incidentally caught birds in longline (and trawl) fisheries between 2003 and 2005 were white- chinned petrels (BirdLife Interna onal 2012o). White-chinned petrel also has a very high mortality rate as a result of this incidental capture (OFP 2010). White-chinned petrel has a high aerial and ver cal overlap with pelagic longline gear (BirdLife Interna onal 2012). It should be noted that many fisheries outside of this region may also be contribu ng to a cumula ve effect on popula on size (ACAP 2014d). For example, this is one of the most commonly caught species in the South Atlan c (Tuck et al. 2011). But management measures to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds have been adopted by many fleets in the South Pacific (Clarke et al. 2013), so we have awarded a “moderate” concern and not high concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Light-mantled albatross Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
87 NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classifies light-mantled albatross as Near Threatened with a decreasing popula on trend. The total breeding popula on is es mated to be 19,000– 24,000 pairs or about 58,000 individuals (BirdLife Interna onal 2012s). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN lis ng.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC Low Concern Specific longline fleets in the South Pacific that have reported this species as incidentally caught (in small amounts) in tuna fisheries include New Zealand and Australia (BirdLife Interna onal 2012f) (ACAP 2014a). Between 1980 and 2004, 38 interac ons between light-mantled albatross and pelagic longline gear (primarily south of 31° S) were observed (Molony 2005), and from 1992 to 2009, 100% of light-mantled albatross were discarded dead in the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery (OFP 2010). Interac ons are low, breeding areas have all adopted bycatch avoidance methods since 2000, and the majority of its foraging range is within the Conven on for the Conserva on of Antarc c Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) region (ACAP 2014a), so we have awarded a “low” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010). 88 Laysan albatross Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC
High Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Mar nez- Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
NORTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) lists the Laysan albatross as Near Threatened but with a stable popula on trend (BirdLife Interna onal 2012f). Globally, there are an es mated 591,000 breeding pairs or 1.18 million mature birds (Naughton et al. 2007). We have awarded a “high” concern score due to the IUCN lis ng.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
NORTH PACIFIC Moderate Concern Laysan albatross has a very high overlap within the northern region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Baird et al. 2 013). It has been es mated that pelagic longline vessels fishing in the North Pacific Ocean may kill around 8,000 Laysan albatross a year, although in recent years these numbers have been much less due to the use of mi ga on measures (Birdlife Interna onal 2012c). Between 1992 and 2009, 100% of incidentally captured Laysan albatross from the North Pacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded, and of these, 67% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because fishing mortality rates are unknown but there are mi ga on measures in place (Clarke et al. 2013).
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
89 Oceanic white p shark
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability NORTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Oceanic white p shark reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can a ain a maximum length of 400 cm and live up to 22 years. Oceanic white p shark gives birth to live young and is a top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015). These life history characteris cs also suggest a “high” level of vulnerability to fishing.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance NORTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers oceanic white p shark to be Vulnerable globally (Baum et al. 2006). The first stock assessment of oceanic white p shark in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted in 2012. Although results are reported in rela on to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points, reference points to manage this stock have not yet been iden fied by the scien fic commi ee or Commission. According to the assessment, the spawning biomass (mature fish) is es mated to be far below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent /SB MSY = 0.153), indica ng that the stock is overfished (Rice and Harley 2012b). We have awarded a “high” concern score because of the stock status.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality NORTH PACIFIC WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC SOUTH PACIFIC High Concern According to the first and only assessment conducted in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), fishing mortality far exceeds levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY with Fcurrent /F MSY = 6.694) and therefore overfishing is occurring (Rice and Harley 2012b). It should be noted that the majority of oceanic white p sharks are caught in longline fisheries, compared to purse seine (Rice 2012). Recently, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission banned the capture and sale of oceanic white p shark. We have therefore awarded a “high” concern and not cri cal concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
NORTH PACIFIC 20-40% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Informa on from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).
90 WESTERN CENTRAL PACIFIC
< 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore) were es mated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier es mates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish, 54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96% for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
Southern bluefin tuna
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
SOUTH PACIFIC High FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Southern bluefin tuna reaches sexual maturity a er at least 8 years of age and at a size of 155 cm in length, but perhaps not un l 15 years of age. It reaches a total length of 2 m and can live up to 42 years (IOTC 2013e). Southern bluefin tuna is a top predator and is considered a broadcast spawner (Froese and Pauly 2013). We have awarded a “high” vulnerability based on the FishBase score.
Factor 2.2 - Abundance
SOUTH PACIFIC Very High Concern The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has classified southern bluefin tuna as Cri cally Endangered (Colle e et al. 2011e). According to the latest stock assessment, the current spawning biomass of southern bluefin tuna is a small frac on of virgin levels and well below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent /SB MSY = 0.229 (0.146–0.320)). But at current catch levels, the popula on is expected to increase. Catch rates from the Japanese longline fishery have been increasing since 2007 for some age classes, and aerial surveys have indicated a recent increase in abundance in 2013, the second-highest in history (IOTC 2013e). We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on the current low biomass levels and IUCN status.
91 Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
SOUTH PACIFIC Low Concern Fishing mortality rates have decreased for southern bluefin tuna and are now below those needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.76 (0.52–1.07)). In addi on, reported catches are below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels, and current exploita on rates are considered moderate (IOTC 2013e). We have awarded a “low” concern instead of very low concern score because fishing mortality rates have just decreased to sustainable levels and because current exploita on rates are considered moderate.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
SOUTH PACIFIC < 20% The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should be noted that Fiji bans the reten on of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
92