Talley's New Zealand Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine

Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

Final Report

February 2017

Prepared For: Talley’s Group Limited Prepared By: Acoura Marine Ltd Authors: Jo Akroyd & Kevin McLoughlin

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Contents Glossary...... 4 1 Executive Summary ...... 6 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 8 2.1 Assessment Team ...... 8 2.1.1 Peer Reviewers ...... 9 2.1.2 RBF Training ...... 9 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought ...... 10 3.1.1 The proposed Unit of Assessment for this fishery is as below: ...... 10 3.1.2 The proposed unit of Certification for this fishery is as below: ...... 10 3.1.3 Final UoC(s) ...... 10 3.1.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 10 3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 12 3.1.6 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 12 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 12 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 15 3.3.1 Biology and distribution ...... 15 3.3.2 Stock assessment ...... 17 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 25 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 41 3.5.1 Area of operation of the UoA and under which jurisdiction it falls ...... 41 3.5.2 Management agencies and stakeholders with interests in this fishery ...... 41 3.5.3 Consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan ...... 45 3.5.4 Decision making ...... 47 3.5.5 Objectives for the fishery ...... 48 3.5.6 Fleet types participating in the fishery ...... 51 3.5.7 Management regulations and measures ...... 51 3.5.8 Monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement ...... 52 3.5.9 Monitoring and management performance evaluation ...... 54 3.5.10 Details of any planned education and training for interest groups...... 54 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 56 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 56 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 57 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 57 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 57 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 57 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 58 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 58 5. Traceability ...... 60 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 60 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 60 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 61 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 61 6 Evaluation Results ...... 62 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 62 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 63 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 64 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 64 6.5 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment ...... 64 7 References ...... 65 Appendices ...... 71 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 71 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 71 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 139 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 140 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports...... 144 Peer Review 1 ...... 144 Peer Review 2 ...... 153 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 159 Appendix 3.1 Submissions Received During PCDR Consultation ...... 164 MSC Technical Oversight ...... 164 ISSF ...... 167 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 169 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 170 Appendix 6 WCPFC work plan for Skipjack as agreed at Commission meeting 2015...... 171 Appendix 7 MPI letter of support...... 172

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 3 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Glossary

CCM WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories are termed CCMs CELR Catch Effort Landing Return CMM Conservation and Management Measure CNM Co-operating Non-Member CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch Per Unit Effort DoC Department of Conservation EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected F Fishing mortality FAD Fish Aggregating Device FFA Forum Fisheries Agency FMA Fishery Management Area FMSY Fishing mortality at MSY GRT Gross Registered Tonnage HCR Harvest Control Rule HMS Highly Migratory Species IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated LFRR Licensed Fish Receiver Return LRP Limit Reference Point MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution MFCL MULTIFAN-CL Stock Assessment Software MHR Monthly Harvest Return MOW Management Objectives Workshop MPI Ministry for Primary Industries MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NPOA National Plan of Action NGO Non-Government Organisation NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research NZ New Zealand PAE Party Allowable Effort PNA Party to the Nauru Agreement PNAO Party to the Nauru Agreement Office PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSA Productivity Sensitivity Analysis PTTP Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme QMS Quota Management System RBF Risk-Based Framework RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisations RTTP Regional Tuna Tagging Project SB Spawning Biomass SBcurrent Average spawning biomass over recent years SBMSY Spawning biomass at MSY SC Science Committee (of the WCPFC) SKJ Skipjack SPC Secretariat of the Pacific Community SPC-OFP SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme SPO South Pacific Ocean SST Sea Surface Temperature

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 4 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

STCZ Sub-Tropical Convergence Zone TAC Total Allowable Catch TACC Total Allowable Commercial Catch TAE Total Allowable Effort TCC Technical and Compliance Committee (of the WCPFC) TCLER Tuna Longline Catch Effort Return TRP Target Reference Point UNCLOS United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stock Agreement UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VDS Vessel Day Scheme VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPFC-SC WCPFC Scientific Committee WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 5 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

1 Executive Summary

» This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the Talley’s New Zealand skipjack purse seine fishery. The assessment process began on 18th February 2016 and was concluded (to be determined at a later date). » A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations was carried out as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. » A rigorous assessment of the wide ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team and a detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 1.1 of this report. » The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is the 1st December 2016.

The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of: Jo Akroyd, who acted as team leader and primary Principle 3 specialist; and Kevin McLoughlin who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1 and Principle 2.

Client strengths » There are strong fisheries management and research systems operating in New Zealand. » There are only 2 client vessels which operate only in the New Zealand Fisheries waters under this certification. » The catch of species reported other than skipjack is negligible. None of the primary species is ‘main’. » The client has the opportunity to provide input into New Zealand’s negotiating positions as outlined in stakeholder consultation meetings/communications; and participate in international meetings as part of the New Zealand delegation. » In recent years observer coverage has been about 20% when operating within the EEZ and 100% when operating outside the NZ EEZ.

Client weaknesses » Skipjack tuna are not managed under New Zealand’s Quota management system.

Determination » On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the Acoura Marine assessment team has provisionally recommended that the fishery should be certified. This recommendation is subject to client, peer and stakeholder review.

Rationale » No performance indicator (PI) scored <60 and all the Principles have an average weighted score of 80 or above.

Conditions & Recommendations » Several criteria which contribute to the overall assessment score scored less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore trigger a binding condition to be placed on the

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 6 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

fishery, which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5-year lifespan of the certificate). The fishery had three PIs (1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 2.3.2) score between 60 and 80, therefore three conditions of certification are proposed. Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 1.3 » No recommendations were made. » For interested readers, the report also provides background to the target species and fishery covered by the assessment, the wider impacts of the fishery and the management regime, supported by full details of the assessment team, a full list of references used and details of the stakeholder consultation process.

Acoura Marine Ltd. confirm that this fishery is within scope.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 7 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers 2.1 Assessment Team All team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery.

Assessment team leader: Jo Akroyd

Primarily responsible for assessment under Principles 3

Jo is a fisheries management and marine ecosystem consultant with extensive international and Pacific experience. She has worked at senior levels in both the public and private sector as a fisheries manager and marine policy expert. Jo was with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in New Zealand for 20 years. Starting as a fisheries scientist, she was promoted to senior chief fisheries scientist, then Fisheries Management Officer, and the Assistant Director, Marine Research. She was awarded a Commemoration Medal in 1990 in recognition of her pioneering work in establishing New Zealand’s fisheries quota management system. Among her current contracted activities, she is involved internationally in fishery certification of offshore, inshore and shellfish fisheries as Fisheries Management Specialist and Lead Assessor. She has carried out the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) certification assessment for sustainable fisheries. Examples include New Zealand (hoki, hake, ling, southern blue whiting, albacore, scallops), Fiji (longline albacore) Japan (pole and line tuna, flatfish, snow crab, scallops), China (scallops), and Antarctica (Ross Sea tooth fishery).

Expert team member: Kevin McLoughlin

Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1 and 2

Kevin is a specialist fisheries consultant based in Australia with more than 30 years’ experience across a wide range of international and domestic fisheries science issues, with close links to government policy. He has represented the Australian Government on many committees and groups such as fishery assessment groups, providing advice on a diverse range of fisheries and species (including tuna, shark, various finfish, scallop and prawn). Work in assessment groups involved assessment of target species, development of bycatch action plans and ecological risk assessments. Kevin was responsible for the production of annual status reports for the Australian government-managed fisheries for a number of years. He was Australia’s delegate on scientific issues at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and was Chair of the IOTC Working Party on Bycatch for several years. Kevin was also a delegate at meetings of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.

Kevin has worked predominantly on Principle 1 aspects of MSC assessments but has also undertaken Principle 2 and 3 work, as well as peer review and surveillance audits for several fisheries. Kevin was a team member for the full assessment of the Fiji albacore longline fishery, the Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna Fishery, Australia’s blue grenadier fishery, as well as the Western Australia Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay prawn trawl fisheries. He was a peer reviewer for the New Zealand albacore troll fishery and for the North and South Pacific American Albacore Fishing Association fisheries and has undertaken surveillance audits for a number of fisheries.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 8 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

2.1.1 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewers used for this report were Joe DeAlteris and Tim Huntington. A summary CV for each is available in the Assessment downloads section of the fishery’s entry on the MSC website.

Peer Reviewer 1 – Joe DeAlteris Dr. DeAlteris retired from the University of Rhode Island (URI) in May of 2012, and was awarded Professor Emeritus status. In 30 of service to URI he is taught course work, conducted research, and developed outreach programs in fisheries conservation engineering, fish population dynamics and quantitative ecology, and shellfish aquaculture. He mentored more than 40 graduate students completing MS and PhD degrees. He served on numerous government committees including the National Research Council. He authored more than 35 publications in peer-reviewed journals, and also authored and co-authored numerous books, manuals, non-referred articles, and technical reports in the fields of fisheries biology, stock assessment and fishing gear technology.

Dr. DeAlteris has an international reputation as an expert in the field of stock assessment and fishing gear technology. He brings intimate knowledge of finfish and invertebrate fisheries and has considerable experience in MSC fishery evaluations. He has worked for several certifying bodies (CBs). Dr. DeAlteris has worked the full assessment of the Louisiana blue crab and Atlantic red crab fisheries, the Echebastar Indian Ocean tuna fishery, the re-assessment of British Columbia halibut fishery, and annual audits of Dungeness crab, red crab blue crab, Canadian haddock, Full Bay sea scallop and the shrimp fisheries. He has also conducted pre-assessments, and assessment peer reviews. He recently worked as an expert evaluator on the Global Seafood Sustainability Initiative (GSSI).

Peer Reviewer 2 – Tim Huntington Tim Huntington is a fisheries biologist with over 30 years’ industry and consulting experience. His qualifications include a BSc (Hons) in Biological Sciences and MSc in Applied Fish Biology. He has worked in capture fisheries and aquaculture in over 60 countries worldwide, with a particular focus on Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Asia (including the Indian and Pacific Ocean countries). Following a number of industry and consulting posts, Tim has specialised in promoting sustainability in fisheries and aquaculture. This initially included working on a number of fisheries development projects for the Global Environment Facility, FAO and other agencies before focusing on the roles that eco-labelling can play in driving improved fishing practises and management. He has worked extensively with the MSC responsible fisheries programme, including leading pre- assessments, full assessments as well as chain of custody audits for a number of certification bodies including Acura, Intertek, MacAlister Elliott and SCS. He has participated as lead auditor or a team member on a number of UK, NE and NW Atlantic, Indian Ocean and Pacific Ocean fisheries and specialises in contributing to the Principle 2 elements. He also works with fisheries on fisheries improvement planning, using the MSC standard as a benchmark for baseline and incremental assessments. In addition to his work for the Certification Bodies, Tim has also worked direct for MSC, where his contributions have included a number of studies on chain of custody methodologies, looking at including aquaculture in the MSC fisheries standard and the 2011 review of environmental benefits of MSC certification. Tim is also the co-author of a number of reports published by the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) on the costs and benefits of fisheries certification for small-scale fisheries.

2.1.2 RBF Training RBF was not used for this fishery assessment.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 9 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3 Description of the Fishery 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought Acoura Marine Ltd confirm that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought following the assessment as defined below.

3.1.1 The proposed Unit of Assessment for this fishery is as below:

Species: Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Stock: Western & Central Pacific Ocean Geographical area: NZ EEZ (referred to as area SKJ1). Harvest method: Purse seine Client Group: Talley’s Group Limited Other Eligible Fishers: The client for this assessment (Talley’s) may make access to the certificate open to additional operators who have vessels permitted by the Ministry for Primary Industries to fish for skipjack in the NZ waters using purse seine gear.

3.1.2 The proposed unit of Certification for this fishery is as below:

3.1.3 Final UoC(s) (PCR ONLY)

The final Unit Of Certification for this fishery is as defined below. This has not changed throughout the process. Alternatively provide rationale for why this has changed.

Species: Stock: Geographical area: Harvest method: Client Group: Other Eligible Fishers:

3.1.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data Table 1. TAC and catch data by fishing year

TAC Year 2014-15 Amount No TAC. UoA share of TAC Year 2014-15 Amount TACs do not apply – the UoA covers the total NZ EEZ purse seine catch of skipjack

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 10 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

UoC share of total TAC Year 2014-15 Amount TACs do not apply – the UoC covers the total NZ EEZ purse seine catch of skipjack Total green weight catch by Year (most 2014-15 Amount 3888 t UoC1 recent) (provisional) Year (second 2013-14 Amount 2979 t most recent) 1 Catch data accessed from New Zealand Fisheries Info site July 2016 (http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=7&tk=100&sc=SKJ). UoA catch of approximately 11,206 t for 2013-14 and 12,411 t for 2014-15. UoC catch in 2013-14 and 2014-15 was 34.7% and 24.0% of total, respectively (client email 1 August 2016).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 11 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries This is not an enhanced fishery

3.1.6 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) The fishery does not take introduced species.

3.2 Overview of the fishery The fishery under assessment targets skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the New Zealand EEZ. The client is Talley’s Group, operating two purse seine vessels, the Eagle and the Capt MJ Souza, which comprise the UoC. These vessels also fish beyond the EEZ at some times of the year. Four smaller purse seine vessels which are not part of the client group operate exclusively within the EEZ and are considered as part of the UoA. The fishing year is defined to take place from 1 October to 30 September the following year.

Most fishing activity within the NZ EEZ occurs off the north-western and east coasts of the North Island in the summer months, January to May. The NZ domestic purse seine fishery is based on locating and setting on free swimming schools. Spotter planes are used to locate surface schools of skipjack and direct the vessels to their location. Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) are not used and there is minimal bycatch.

Figure 1. New Zealand’s Fisheries Management Areas.

Skipjack was the first commercially exploited tuna in New Zealand waters, with landings beginning in the 1960s in the Taranaki Bight (FMA 8, refer Figure 1) and quickly extending to the Bay of Plenty (FMA 1, refer Figure 1). The skipjack fishery in NZ waters has been almost exclusively a purse seine fishery, although minor catches (less than 1%) are taken by other gear types (especially troll). From 2006 to 2010 the fishery was based on a few (5–7 medium sized vessels under 500 GRT) operating on short fishing trips assisted by fixed wing aircraft acting as spotter planes. The fishery operated in FMA 1, FMA 2 and occasionally FMA 9 (refer Figure 1) during summer months. In the late 1970s and early 1980s a fleet of US

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 12 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine purse seiners seasonally operated in NZ waters. During this period, total annual catches were about 9000t. This activity no longer occurs and is unlikely to recommence. The vessels now participating in the fishery are all flagged to New Zealand.

The NZ skipjack are part of the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) stock. Catches of skipjack in NZ waters comprise approximately 0.5% of Western Central Pacific total catch (Table 2). Domestic landings within the EEZ have averaged ~11,000 t annually between 2006–07 and 2013–14. There is some variability in catch between years, depending on the proportion of this highly migratory stock moving through NZ waters.

The skipjack fishery in New Zealand waters is included in the convention area of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) (Figure 2). WCPFC was established by the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPF Convention) which entered into force in 2004. The Convention draws on many of the provisions of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA) but also reflects the special political, socio-economic, geographical and environmental characteristics of the WCPO region. A framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission, recognition of special requirements of developing States, and cooperation with other Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) whose respective areas of competence overlap with the WCPFC, reflects the unique geo-political environment in which the Commission operates.

Figure 2. The Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Eastern Pacific Ocean; the WCPFC Convention Area boundary (dashed lines); and the EEZs of Pacific Ocean countries (unshaded).

The Commission supports three subsidiary bodies; the Scientific Committee (SC), the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC), and the Northern Committee (NC), that each meet annually.

In addition to supporting WCPFC management arrangements as a member of the Commission, NZ domestic frameworks apply. The NZ Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 13 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine the government agency with the broadest responsibilities for management of the fishery. Management measures include a cap on the number of vessels participating in the fishery and several measures that aim to reduce impacts on endangered, threatened, and protected species. The Department of Conservation (DoC) has responsibilities pertaining to marine protected species and their interactions with fishing operations.

Skipjack is not included in the New Zealand Quota Management System. Therefore, a total allowable catch is not specified annually. Participants in the fishery hold fishing permits.

Figure 3. Distribution of purse-seine effort (number of sets per 1 degree square) and purse-seine catch of skipjack (tonnes per 1-degree square), average for 2011-14 calendar years (left) and actual for 2015 (right). Source: WCPFC-SC 2016.

Most skipjack tuna caught in NZ waters is exported frozen whole to canneries, with only a small amount of this tuna being landed and sold domestically. Prices for skipjack are set on the global commodity market, and can fluctuate markedly from year to year. Skipjack is sought after by recreational fishers as a light tackle sport fish and for bait. It is available throughout the summer and autumn, ranging south as far as the lower North Island on both coasts. Estimated recreational catch of skipjack for 2011-12 was 41,182 fish, with a mean weight of 2.24kg (approximately 92 t) (MPI email, 2 June 2016).

Table 2. Catch (t) of skipjack both within and outside the NZ EEZ, and total catches from the WCPO by calendar year from 2010 to 2014 (NZ catches from MPI 2015a; WCPO catches from SPC-OFP 2015)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 14 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Year NZ EEZ NZ catch NZ PS WCPFC PS WCPFC catch1 beyond catch catch total catch EEZ 2010 8629 16,530 22,702 1,307,476 1,695,584 2011 10,840 9999 19,819 1,178,489 1,540,313 2012 9881 8016 17,101 1,413,974 1,774,705 2013 13,312 10,207 22,907 1,481,754 1,842,472 2014 10,195 9141 18,566 1,599,770 1,982,578 1 Catches other than purse seine are less than 1% of these amounts. Skipjack tuna are referred to as aku in Maori. Maori have past, present, and future interests in the skipjack fishery, including an interest in future QMS management. There is no information on the customary take, but it is considered to be low. Nonetheless, it is known that Maori did travel considerable distances offshore and did target tuna species.

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

3.3.1 Biology and distribution Skipjack are the smallest of the major commercial tuna species, generally not exceeding 20 kg. They are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. In the western Pacific, warm, pole ward-flowing currents near northern Japan and southern Australia seasonally extend skipjack tuna distribution to 40°N and 40°S (Rice et al. 2014). Their greatest abundance is seen in equatorial waters, roughly corresponding to a 20°C surface isotherm.

Skipjack in the WCPO are considered to comprise a single stock for assessment and management purposes. A substantial amount of information on skipjack movement is available from tagging programs, which have documented some large-scale movement within the Pacific (Figure 4). Skipjack movement is highly variable (Sibert et al. 1999) but is thought to be influenced by large-scale oceanographic variability (Lehodey et al. 1997). Analyses of the tagging data have, however, indicated that the median lifetime displacement of skipjack ranges from 420 to 470 nautical miles (Sibert and Hampton 2003). The tagging data indicate that the spatial extent of the WCPO stock is believed to approximate the WCPFC Convention Area (see Figure 2) (Wild and Hampton 1994).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 15 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Figure 4. Released and recaptured skipjack from the Regional Tuna Tagging Program (purple arrows) and Pacific Tuna Tagging Program (green arrows) tagging programs. Only recaptures >1,000 nautical miles shown (from Rice et al. 2014).

Skipjack are highly fecund and spawn opportunistically throughout their range and throughout the year when conditions are favourable, with the spawning season becoming shorter with increasing distance from the equator. They reach maturity at about 40 cm fork length (FL) and within their first year. Fecundity increases with size but is highly variable. The estimated number of eggs produced per season in females of 41 to 87 cm fork length ranges between 80,000 and 2 million.

Skipjack growth is rapid compared to yellowfin and bigeye tuna. In the Pacific, approximate age estimates from counting daily rings on otoliths suggest that growth may vary between areas. At 150, 200, 300 and 400 days, FLs of 30, 33, 40, and 46 cm were estimated for fish sampled mostly in the north Pacific (Tanabe et al., 2003), but growth estimates were faster (42, 47, 55, and 60 cm) for fish sampled close to the equator (Leroy 2000). Growth has been found to vary spatially in the eastern Pacific (Maunder 2001) and in the Atlantic (Gaertner et al. 2008), based on analyses of tagging data.

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

Skipjack tuna form both free schools and schools associated with FADs or other floating objects. Monthly observer sampling of the catch indicates that, when fished as surface schooling adults, they are typically caught at 30–70 cm and 2–5 kg in size (Williams and Terawasi 2015). Depth distribution ranges from the surface to about 260 m during the day, but is limited to near surface waters at night.

Skipjack tuna feed on fishes, crustaceans, cephalopods and molluscs; cannibalism is common. They are preyed upon by large pelagic fishes and sharks. Skipjack tuna are not a Low Trophic Level species. Their trophic level (as reported in Fishbase.org) has been estimated at 4.4 ( 0.5 se).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 16 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.3.2 Stock assessment Skipjack tuna stock assessments have been conducted regularly since 2000. Assessments are conducted using the well-established MULTIFAN-CL software (see: http://www.multifan- cl.org/) which was developed as an analytical tool for fisheries in which large-scale age sampling of catches is unfeasible or not cost effective, but where length-frequency (size composition) sampling data are available. It provides a statistically based, robust method of length-frequency analysis. Assessments are undertaken by the Oceanic Fisheries Program (OFP) of the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) as the scientific advisory body for the WCPFC. The latest assessment (Rice et al. 2014) was presented at the 10th regular session of the WCPFC SC meeting, held in 2014 (WCPFC-SC 2014a). This assessment makes a number of structural and technical changes to the 2011 assessment (Hoyle et al. 2011), and takes account of issues raised in an independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment which were also applicable to the skipjack assessment (Ianelli et al. 2012).

The main conclusions of the 2014 stock assessment (Rice et al. 2014) were as follows: 1. A fluctuating but consistently high level of recruitment since the early 1970s has supported a robust fishery in all regions. The analysis suggests that the regional declines in spawning potential, in all regions except region 1, are being driven primarily by the fishing impacts. 2. Although the ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential is estimated to have declined, with some fluctuations, throughout the model period, the average total biomass of the last five years is estimated to be above the average total biomass of the first five years of the model. 3. Latest catches slightly exceed MSY. 4. Fishing mortality for adult and juvenile skipjack tuna is estimated to have increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing, but fishing mortality still remains below the level that would result in the MSY. 5. Recent levels of spawning potential are well above the level that will support the MSY. 6. The estimated 2011 level of spawning potential represents approximately 52% of the

unfished level, and is well above the limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 agreed by WCPFC. 7. Recent levels of spawning potential are in the middle of the range of candidate biomass related target reference points currently under consideration for skipjack tuna, i.e., 40-

60% SBF=0. 8. Stock status conclusions were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding steepness and growth. However, the main conclusions of the assessment are robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored.

The skipjack assessment reports present descriptions of structural assumptions, model parameterization and priors and the model used has been developed progressively over many years. The latest assessment predominantly gives details of changes to assumptions which may be more fully described in earlier versions. MULTIFAN‐CL requires the definition of “fisheries” that consist of relatively homogeneous fishing units and the model is age and spatially-structured. The 2014 assessment defines 16 quarterly age-classes and 5 regions (see Figure 5), a change from the 3 regions used in the 2011 assessment (Rice et al. 2014). The model uses a maximum likelihood approach to fit a range of parameters and evaluate stock status probabilistically with respect to reference points. Catch, effort, size composition, and tagging data are assembled for 23 fisheries, a change from the 17 used in the 2011 assessment. Fisheries are modelled with respect to their selectivity by size, areas fished,

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 17 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine and standardised CPUE. The model is complex, fitting data of varying quality from a diverse range of fishing activities. It also accommodates quarterly movements of fish between the regions. Uncertainty is investigated extensively, especially in the key parameters (biomass and recruitment). Sensitivity tests were informative (varying S-R steepness, alternate growth assumptions, alternate mixing assumptions and changes in weighting factors). A crosswise grid of (36) model runs was undertaken to explore the main sources of structural and data uncertainty due to all sensitivity factors in combination. Confidence intervals on key outputs were calculated using standard statistical approaches.

Figure 5. Catch distribution (2003-2012) of skipjack tuna by 5 degree squares of latitude and longitude and fishing method: longline (green), purse-seine (blue), pole-and-line (red), and other (yellow). Overlaid are the subregions for the assessment model. Note there is in fact no break at 170 degrees E in Region 1 (from Rice et al. 2014).

The extensive data sets used in the assessment are described in Rice et al. (2014). The primary data types are tagging, length frequency, and catch and effort. Several analyses describe the methods used in producing the purse seine size data (Abascal et al. 2014), and tagging data (Berger et al. 2014); and revisions to the fisheries and spatial definitions (McKechnie et al. 2014).

Catch and effort data are compiled by year and quarter for each of the 23 defined fisheries. Discarded catches of skipjack are estimated to be minor and are ignored (Rice et al. 2014). The majority of skipjack catch is taken by purse-seine vessels in the equatorial regions fishing under the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Vessel Days Scheme (VDS). PNA Members are the Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. Reporting is by standardised WCPFC logbook and there is an increasing use of electronic data reporting in some areas. Observers are carried on all purse-seine vessels fishing under the PNA VDS.

There have been concerns about bias in purse-seine catch weight estimates due to the catch sampling approach (grab sampling as opposed to more recent spill sampling methods). The issue was subject to an independent review by Cordue (2013). The issue of bias has been recognised and whereas previous assessments have tried to accommodate both approaches, the 2014 assessment uses only a single set of purse-seine catch

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 18 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine estimates, using estimates based on the spill method. For some fleets (e.g., Spanish and Japanese), reported catch is used rather than an estimate.

Purse-seine catch data are aggregated by 1° latitude, 1° longitude, month flag, and set type (i.e. whether a set is associated with a FAD, or not). Some VDS effort data is known to have been potentially misrepresented due to different approaches to reporting fishing versus non- fishing, with some fleets reporting searching days as non-fishing transit days. The issue has been recognised by Rice et al (2014) who note the practice essentially represents effort creep which has not yet been specifically corrected to ensure consistency of reporting. The impact of this is not known, however Rice et al. consider the effect will be minimised by estimation of frequent time-based changes in catchability. The issue is well-recognised from by management. The 3rd Annual Surveillance of the PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna Unassociated and Log Set Purse Seine Fishery certification considers the issue in some detail and concludes that “Given these measures, and the evidence that effort remains within the TAE, the audit team concluded that this weakness in the VDS is not currently considered sufficient to compromise the effectiveness of the VDS as a tool for limiting fishing effort to the desired levels.”

Size composition data (length‐frequency) for each of the defined fisheries were compiled into 54 x 2 cm size classes (2–4 cm to 108–110 cm) with data from purse-seine, longline and pole-and-line, as well as a limited amount of data from domestic fisheries in the Philippines and Indonesia. Previous assessments used purse-seine length frequencies from grab samples taken by observers, with a correction for known grab sample bias. Incomplete coverage led to gaps in the data series and a time series of size data that did not show evidence of modal progression (and hence poor estimation of age). Changes made in the latest assessment include the use of port sampling from Pago Pago in American Samoa (available to 2008) and weighting of the samples by catch. Longline fisheries catch few and large skipjack which are usually discarded, however, the length-frequency data collected from Japanese training and research longline vessels are used in the model because they allow improved selectivity of the surface fisheries to be measured against these larger skipjack.

Size composition data are also available for pole-and-line fisheries, primarily from observers, with the exception of more northern fishing grounds (regions 1 and 2) where length data are available from the Japanese off shore and distant-water fleet from the beginning of the model period, 1972, until 2009. For equatorial fishing grounds (excluding region 2) data are available from both the Japanese distant‐water fleet and from domestic fleets. Data from the pole and line fisheries in region 3 were dominated by observer collected samples from the Japanese fleets (1974–2004), with additional data from Fiji in the 1990’s. Length data from the pole and line fishery in Region 4 consist of mostly Japanese data (1972–2009), with significant data from Indonesia in the years 2009–2012. The data from the pole-and-line fishery in region 5 are from multiple countries, dominated by the USA in the years 1988– 1997 and Papua New Guinea (PNG) in the years 1998–2012.

Tagging data are a key input — data used in the assessment include SPC OFP’s Skipjack Survey and Assessment Project carried out during 1977–80, the Regional Tuna Tagging Project (RTTP) undertaken during 1989–92 and in‐country projects in the Solomon Islands (1989–90), Kiribati (1991), Fiji (1992) and the Philippines (1992). In addition, tagging data

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 19 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine from regular Japanese research cruises were available for the period 1988-2012 and tagging data from the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (PTTP) were available from 2006 until the 2nd quarter of 2012. All tags were released using standard tuna tagging equipment and techniques by trained scientists and technicians. Tags have been returned mostly from purse seine vessels via processing and unloading facilities throughout the Asia‐Pacific region. For incorporation into the assessment, tag releases were stratified by release region, time period of release (quarter) and the same size classes used to stratify the length‐ frequency data. A total of 314,555 effective releases were classified into 251 tag release groups. Returns from each size‐class of each tag release group (50,087 effective tag returns in total) were then classified by recapture fishery and recapture time period (quarter). Because tag returns by purse seiners were often not accompanied by information concerning the set type, tag return data were aggregated across set types for the purse seine fisheries in each region. The population dynamics model was in turn configured to predict equivalent estimated tag recaptures by these grouped fisheries.

Stock Status Management advice based on the 2014 assessment is that skipjack is not overfished (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.48, where ‘latest’ refers to 2011) and overfishing is not occurring (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.61, where ‘current’ refers to the 2008-11 average) (WCPFC-SC 2014a) (see Table 3). However, the continuing increase in fishing mortality and decline in stock size are recognized. Additional purse-seine effort will yield only modest gains in long-term skipjack tuna catches and may result in a corresponding increase in fishing mortality for bigeye and yellowfin tunas (WCPFC-SC 2014a). The results of the 2014 assessment are summarised in Figure 6, Figure 7 and Figure 8. Figure 6 shows a Kobe plot of the outcomes across the grid of model runs. The ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential for the WCPO for the reference case is shown in Figure 7. Figure 8 shows estimated annual average spawning potential for the WCPO for the reference case with approximate 95% confidence intervals.

The total skipjack catch in 2014 was provisionally estimated to be 1,957,693 t, which is the highest catch recorded, a 6% increase over 2013 and a 14% increase over the average for 2010–2013 (WCPFC-SC 2015a). The 2014 provisional was 20% above the estimated MSY (1,618,800 mt, noting that those two numbers are not directly comparable because MSY is calculated based on the historical average recruitment (WCPFC-SC 2015a).

Table 3. Estimates of management quantities for selected stock assessment models. For the purpose of this assessment, “current” is the average over the period 2008–2011 and “latest” is 2011 (WCPFC- SC 2014a).

Base case h=0.65 h=0.95 Mix_2qtr MSY 1,618,800 1,426,800 1,806,800 1,784,000 Clatest/MSY 1.02 1.16 0.92 0.93 Fcurrent/FMSY 0.61 0.82 0.45 0.52 B0 6,587,000 6,913,000 6,404,000 7,419,000 Bcurrent 3,615,213 3,613,290 3,612,585 4,374,786 SB0 6,229,000 6,538,000 6,056,000 6,989,000 SBMSY 1,753,000 2,111,000 1,453,000 1,999,000 SBF=0 6,303,358 6,690,474 6,082,301 7,085,699 SBcurrent 3,260,579 3,258,721 3,258,170 3,971,998 SBlatest 3,052,995 3,050,692 3,049,508 3,548,468 SBcurrent/SBF=0 0.52 0.49 0.54 0.56 SBlatest/SBF=0 0.48 0.46 0.50 0.50 SBcurrent/SBMSY 1.86 1.54 2.24 1.99 SBlatest/SBMSY 1.74 1.45 2.10 1.78

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 20 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Figure 6. Summary of latest stock status (2011) for the entire grid of model runs. The white circle represents the reference case (from Rice et al. 2014).

Figure 7. Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential, SBlatest/SBF=0, for the WCPO for the WCPO for the reference case. The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line and the red circle represents the level of spawning potential depletion based on the agreed method of calculating SBF=0 over the last ten years of the model (excluding the last year) (from Rice et al. 2014).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 21 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Figure 8. Estimated annual average spawning potential for the WCPO for the reference case. The shaded areas indicate the approximate 95% confidence intervals (from Rice et al. 2014).

2016 Stock Assessment Following the initial draft of this report, an updated assessment of skipjack tuna was presented at the 2016 WCPFC SC (McKechnie et al. 2016). The outcomes of this assessment are yet to be considered at the December 2016 Commission meeting. A further 3 years of data were available since the 2014 assessment, extending the model time period until the end of 2015.

The main conclusions of the 2016 assessment are largely consistent with previous assessments based on the results of the reference case model and consideration of the results of sensitivity runs (including the structural uncertainty grid). The stock continues to be assessed as not overfished and not subject to overfishing. The general conclusions from McKechnie et al. (2016) are that:

• The 2016 assessment estimates stock status to be very similar to the 2014 assessment, with a period of moderately higher spawning biomass over the subsequent years. • Current catches are lower than, but approaching estimated MSY. • Fishing mortality of all age-classes is estimated to have increased significantly since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing, but fishing mortality still remains below the level that would result in the MSY, and is estimated to have decreased moderately in the last several years. • Recent levels of spawning biomass are well above the level that will support the MSY, and are well above the limit reference point, 20%SBF=0. • Depletion-based reference points (including SBlatest=SBF=0, SBrecent=SBF=0 and SB2015=SBF=0[2015]) for the reference case model, sensitivity analyses and uncertainty grid suggest that the skipjack stock is most probably at or close to the target reference point of 50%SBF=0. • Modelling assumptions explored in sensitivity and structural uncertainty analyses had a moderate impact on model output but did not change the broad conclusions about recent stock status.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 22 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Harvest strategy and control rules Prior to recent progress in adopting reference points, the UNFSA Annex II provisions, incorporated in the Convention, were taken as constituting implicit target and limit reference points. As noted above, the WCPFC practice is that the Scientific Committee issues an agreed statement on the current status of the stock, management advice and implications, which is forwarded to the WCPFC annual session for consideration of any Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) recommended. Management advice (and the implications of that advice) has been regularly provided with respect to indicators of fishing mortality and biomass relative to MSY levels i.e. Fcurrent/FMSY, Bcurrent/BMSY and SBcurrent/SBMSY.

CMM 2015-01 is the current, major determinant of how fisheries can operate (for skipjack, bigeye and yellowfin tuna). CMM 2014-06 describes how the WCPFC views harvest strategies and its plans for implementing them for all tropical tuna stocks, including skipjack. CMM 2014-06 is consistent with MSC definitions and requirements and outlines an intention to move towards a harvest strategy with well-defined harvest control rules (‘decision rules’ in WCPFC terminology). The current harvest strategy relies on annual decision-making processes founded on the core principles of the WCPFC as laid out in its Convention and in a growing body of CMMs (see https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management- measures).

At the 9th regular session of the Commission in 2012, WCPFC established a limit reference point for skipjack (20%SBrecent, F=0, i.e.20% of the estimated spawning biomass in the absence of fishing averaged over a recent time window). At its 10th regular session, the Commission further agreed that the time window for estimation of the spawning biomass in the absence of fishing should be 10 years, and be based on the years (from the last year used in the assessment to 10 years prior to that). Work on determining acceptable levels of risk of not breaching the limit reference point is still in progress.

Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules has been progressed over several years through a series of Management Objectives Workshops (MOWs). CMM 2014-06 was adopted at the 11th regular session of WCPFC to develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for key fisheries and stocks in the WCPO. The CMM identifies the elements that harvest strategies are to contain (including defined operational objectives, target and limit reference points for each stock, acceptable levels of risk of not breaching limit reference points, a monitoring strategy, decision rules that aim to achieve the target reference point and avoid the limit reference point, and management strategy evaluation.

CMM 2014-06 includes a paragraph that the Commission shall agree a workplan and indicative timeframes to adopt or refine harvest strategies for skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, South Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin and northern albacore tuna by no later than the twelfth meeting of the Commission in 2015. A work plan to further the development and adoption of harvest strategies for these species was adopted at the 12th regular session of the Commission (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC, with support from the Scientific Service Provider, to undertake the activities specified in the agreed work plan (included in this report at Appendix 6)

At the 12th Regular Session of the Commission in 2015 (WCPFC, 2015), CMM 2015-01 was passed (replacing a CMM 2014-01 and its predecessors). Included in this resolution is the statement: “the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than FMSY, i.e. F/FMSY ≤ 1.” This reiterates the same statement made previously in CMM 2013-01 and CMM 2014-01. The agreed fishing mortality limit of F/FMSY ≤ 1 is consistent with maintaining the skipjack stock at or above BMSY. This is an indication of an intent to maintain the stock at a high productivity level, not just well above the point at which recruitment might be impaired. The time window used in estimating the recent average spawning biomass is the same as that described above for the LRP.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 23 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Also at the 12th Regular Session of the Commission (WCPFC, 2015), CMM 2015-06 saw the adoption of a target reference point for skipjack tuna, “The target reference point for the WCPO skipjack tuna stock shall initially be 50 per cent of the estimated recent average spawning biomass in the absence of fishing, (SBF=0, t1-t2)”. This is to be an interim TRP, subject to review by 2019

There are no formally agreed decision rules or harvest control rules (HCRs) yet in place. However, the harvest strategy is based on high quality science and compliance information. The current state of the stock provides evidence of successful management to date. Skipjack spawning biomass is estimated to be at 48%SBF=0, approaching twice the SBMSY level of 28%SBF=0, and fishing mortality is estimated to be 0.61FMSY. Skipjack is also not projected to fall to the SBMSY level. WCPFC (2014) reports that “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) was robust to assumptions on future recruitment. Under either assumption, spawning biomass remained relatively constant and it is exceptionally unlikely (0%) for the stock to become overfished (SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or for the spawning biomass to fall below SBMSY, and it is exceptionally unlikely (0%) for the stock to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY).” Nevertheless, the WCPFC has put in place CMM 2014-06 aimed at ensuring harvest control rules and agreed TRPs are developed and implemented for tuna stocks, including skipjack. This was strengthened in 2015 through the agreed work plan for the adoption of harvest strategies required under CMM 2014-06.

In addition to the processes through the WCPFC, the PNA plays an important role in developing and implementing management initiatives. PNA developed the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS), under which approximately 80% of the Pacific skipjack catch is taken. The VDS is a major component of the overall skipjack harvest strategy, placing a cap on the levels of fishing effort in the EEZs of PNA members. Fishing under the VDS is subject to strict PNA-wide rules, as well as to any national or WCPFC rules in force. The PNA, like the WCPFC, uses scientific, technical, and compliance advice to adjust rules annually to meet objectives, taking into account advice on skipjack stock status, and on other species also caught in skipjack fisheries. Under the VDS the PNA agrees a Total Annual Effort (TAE), expressed in vessel days, which is allocated to individual PNA parties as Party Allocation of Effort (PAE). The procedures for reaching agreement on TAE and PAE, and their correspondence with scientific advice is not transparent but the TAE must take account of WCPDC-agreed measures such as effort and capacity limits set in CMM 2015-01. Fishing days (PAE) are allocated to each PNA country and can be traded amongst the eight countries in a single licensing year provided TAE is not exceeded. At the 20th Annual PNA Meeting in the Federated States of Micronesia in March 2015, the PNA countries agreed to confirm the provisional 2015 Total Allowable Effort (TAE) of 44,625 days. In addition, a TAE of 44,890 days was adopted for 2016 and set as the provisional PNA TAE for 2017. In addition, non-PNA Member Tokelau joined the VDS in 2015 and was allocated a TAE of 985 days for 2015, and 991 days for 2016; meaning a total VDS TAE of 45,881 days for 2016 (http://www.pnatuna.com/VDS).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 24 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

This section of the report outlines the fishery’s potential impacts on the wider ecosystem. Five components are considered to cover the range of potential ecosystem elements that may be impacted by the fishery. Major changes have been made in the assessment tree in assessing P2 components under MSC CR v2.0 compared with MSC CR v1.3. Under CR v1.3, the first two components of the P2 assessment tree address species retained by the fishery and discarded species. The first two elements now deal with ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species. There are complex rules to deal with these that are detailed in CR v2.0. In summary, ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species, and the other 3 elements of P2 are:

(i) Primary species — species in the catch that are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA. In addition, primary species have management tools and measures are place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points.

(ii) Secondary species — secondary species are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA and are not considered ‘primary’ as defined above (i.e. they do not have management tools and measures in place; these species are also not classified as ETP species.

(iii) Endangered Threatened or Protected (ETP) species — species recognised by national and/or binding international agreements (as defined in CR v2.0).

(iv) Habitats: the habitats within which the fishery operates.

(v) Ecosystem: broader ecosystem elements such as trophic structure and function, community composition, and biodiversity.

New Zealand catch, fishing effort, fishing operation data, and vessel information are collected on logsheets completed for each day of fishing. The forms are submitted monthly by the 15th of following month. Tuna landings data are also recorded fish receiver returns. Interactions with ETP species are required to be reported on MPI’s Non-fish and Protected Species Catch Return form. Reported catches other than skipjack occur at very low levels (1.3% of total retained catch) (Table 4).

Observer coverage for the NZ domestic skipjack purse seine fishery was 18.2% of sets in 2014 and 19.6% in 2015 (Table 5). Observer coverage is 100% for NZ purse seine vessels operating outside the NZ EEZ. MPI annual reports to WCPFC SC provide information on the species composition data of observed purse seine catches for vessels operating in the EEZ (Table 6) (WCPFC-SC 2013b, WCPFC-SC 2015b). On purse seine vessels, it is not possible to sample the entire catch so the observers focus on detailed sampling of the bycatch species and sub-sampling of the target species. Skipjack typically comprise more than 98% of the total catch and there is a low level of discarding of the target species. Observer data from 2005 indicates for the 29 sets observed a total of over 400 t of skipjack was caught and only 84 kg was discarded (Baird, cited in Jones and Francis 2012). However, two sets were ‘skunked’ (i.e. no catch secured) and two suffered significant losses resulting in less than 1 t on board. Wastage of skipjack can occur through a ‘skunk shot’ that although unsuccessful in netting fish can result in fishing-related mortality. Langley (2011) states that observer data examined revealed that 37% of all purse-seine sets caught no skipjack tuna and a considerable loss of fish (greater than 5 t) was recorded during the fishing operation for about 25% of the remainder of the sets. The loss of fish typically occurs through the escapement of fish before pursing of the net is completed (Langley 2011). An objective of the 2010-2015 skipjack operational plan is to “Devise incentives to add value to/and or

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 25 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine reduce wastage in the skipjack fishery”. WCPFC requires retention of all purse seine catches in the tropical fishery (i.e. no discarding of unwanted fish such as juveniles), coupled with 100% observer coverage. Fish can be released prior to nets being brought alongside the vessel so that there can be live release of unwanted fish (MPI 2009a).

Table 4. Reported New Zealand purse seine catch (kg) 2010-2015

(MPI email 28 May 2016) Purse seine catch (kg) 2010-2015

Species Estimated catch %

Skipjack tuna 56,630,179 98.7% Jack mackerel 523,608 0.9% Blue mackerel 167,825 0.3% Sunfish 29,365 0.1% Total 57,350,977 100.0%

Table 5. Domestic purse seine sets observed as a percentage of sets made for 2005 to 2015 (WCPFC-SC 2016)

Number of sets Year % Sets observed % Skipjack catch observed 2005 37 4.7 4.5 2006 104 17.6 35.5 2007 77 14.8 25.2 2008 118 27.6 57.3 2009 83 10.4 33.1 2010 109 8.8 15.3 2011 125 11.9 23.8 2012 113 9.5 19.7 2013 112 9.2 19.8 2014 95 18.2 15.2 2015 102 19.6 17.5

Table 6. % Catch composition from 11 observed purse seine trips operating within New Zealand fisheries waters over 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 (WCPFC-SC 2013b, WCPFC-SC 2015b). Top 20 species by weight are shown.

Common name Scientific name Observed catch % of total Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis 99.11 Jack mackerel Trachurus spp. 0.46 Blue mackerel Scomber australasicus 0.21 Sunfish Mola mola 0.07 Spine‐tailed devil ray Mobula japanica 0.05 Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax 0.03 Frigate tuna Auxis thazard 0.01 Albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga 0.01 Thresher shark Alopias vulpinus 0.01 Mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus 0.01 Jellyfish Scyphozoa 0.01 Porcupine fish Allomycterus pilatus <0.01

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 26 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Bronze whaler shark Carcharhinus <0.01 brachyurus Flying fish Exocoetidae <0.01 Hammerhead shark Sphyrna zygaena <0.01 Stingray Dasyatidae <0.01 Frostfish Lepidopus caudatus <0.01 Swordfish Xiphias gladius <0.01 Salp Doliolum spp. <0.01 Ray's bream Brama brama <0.01

Table 7. New Zealand fisheries stock status (November 2015) (as at the stated 'last assessment date') (http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=16&tk=478)

Species Plenary Last At or Below Below Over- Corrective name stock assessment above the the hard fishing? management date target soft limit? action levels? limit? Jack 2011 - mackerel1 Blue 2006 ●● ●● - mackerel1 Striped 2012 ● ●● ●● ●● - marlin Albacore 2015 ● ●● ●●● ●●● - tuna2 1 there are several management areas for this species; these outcomes are for the management areas JMA 1 and EMA 1 2 albacore is not managed under the QMS; management for albacore in the Pacific is primarily through WCPFC arrangements

Grey shading indicates status is unknown ● indicates favourable status ■ indicates unfavourable status The number of circles or squares indicate the level of certainty: At or above target ●●●● ●●● ●● ● ■■ ■■■ ■■■■ levels? Probability > 99% > 90% > 60% 40-60 % < 40% < 10% < 1% Below the soft limit? ■■■■ ■■■ ■■ ■ ●● ●●● ●●●● Below the hard limit? Overfishing?

Only species for which greater than 0.01% of the catch over the period 2010-2015 as per Table 6 are considered in the following.

Primary species New Zealand manages many of its commercial fish species under a Quota Management Scheme (QMS). There are currently 628 fish stocks in the Quota Management System (QMS) (MPI 2016a). Of these, 292 stocks are considered to be “nominal” stocks (fish stocks for which a significant commercial or non-commercial potential has not been demonstrated), leaving 346 QMS stocks or sub-stocks. Under the QMS a yearly total allowable commercial catch (TACC) is set for every fish stock. Each year an Annual Catch Entitlement (ACE) is generated on the basis of the TACC and issued to holders of quota. All commercial fishers must obtain ACE to cover the QMS fish they catch in a fishing year.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 27 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

New Zealand introduced a Harvest Strategy Standard (HSS) for its commercial fisheries in 2008. The HSS specifies four performance measures that are used to evaluate the status of New Zealand’s fish stocks and fisheries, with the highest priority being given to the first three of these:  the soft limit – a biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be “overfished” or depleted and needs to be actively rebuilt;  the hard limit – a biomass level below which a stock is deemed to be “collapsed”, where fishery closures should be considered in order to rebuild a stock at the fastest possible rate;  the overfishing threshold – a rate of extraction (percentage of a stock removed each year) that should not be exceeded as it will ultimately lead to the stock biomass declining below management targets and/or biomass limits, if this hasn’t already happened; and  the management target – usually a biomass level, but sometimes a fishing mortality rate, that stocks are expected to fluctuate around, with at least a 50% probability of achieving the target.

As Table 6 indicates, the catch of the majority of species reported other than skipjack is negligible. None of the primary species is ‘main’. Other than skipjack, catches exceeded 0.01% of the catch over the period examined for jack mackerel, blue mackerel and striped marlin; albacore catch was 0.01% of the total. Of these, jack mackerel and blue mackerel are managed under the QMS. Like skipjack, striped marlin and albacore are managed in accord with international obligations via WCPFC processes. The status of these stocks is shown in Table 7.

Not all of the species retained by the purse seine fishery are the subject of detailed assessment and management plans, however, those managed under the QMS are subject to TACCs against which catches are monitored on an on-going basis.

Jack mackerel Three species of jack mackerel are taken in New Zealand waters. They are managed under the QMS. The majority of the catch is taken by purse seine vessels targeting the species (rather than skipjack purse seine vessels). The three species have different geographical distributions, but their ranges partially overlap. T. novaezelandiae predominates in waters shallower than 150 m and warmer than 13oC; it is uncommon south of latitude 42oS. T. declivis generally occurs in deeper (but less than 300 m) waters less than 16o C, north of latitude 45o S. T. murphyi occurs to depths of least 500 m and has a wide latitudinal range. The three species are not well identified in catch records and combined TACCs for jack mackerels are set across several areas of the NZ EEZ. Assessment of the status of jack mackerel is complicated by the reporting and management of three species under a single code. Hard and soft limits have not been established; the default HSS levels of 10%SB0 and 20%SBo, respectively, are assumed. Several management areas are established for jack mackerel, each with their own quotas. The total allowable catch for the 2014-15 fishing season across all regions was 60,457 t. The majority of purse seine caught jack mackerel is taken in area JMA1 to the north of the North Island. The TACC for JMA1 has been set at 10,000 t for more than 20 years (Figure 9). The skipjack purse seine fishery takes only a very minor portion of this catch. A preliminary stock assessment for T. declivis in one of the management regions was undertaken in 2007, based on data from a Bayesian analysis used to split the recorded commercial catch into the 3 species. For the base model in this preliminary assessment it was estimated that current biomass of T. declivis was at 53% of virgin biomass. The status of jack mackerel in relation to the hard and soft limits is not known across the management areas. Figure 9 indicates that catches have approached the TACC over the last 10 years, exceeding it in 2007-08. The status of jack mackerel is poorly known;

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 28 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine the low catches of jack mackerel by the skipjack purse seine fishery would have minimal impact on stock status.

Figure 9. Historical landings and TACC for the area JMA1 (Auckland East, Central East) (MPI 2014a).

Blue mackerel Blue mackerel are taken by a variety of methods and are managed under the QMS. The largest and most consistent catches are from the target purse seine fishery in waters around northern NZ. Purse seine fishing effort on blue mackerel has been strongly influenced by the availability and market value of other pelagic species, particularly skipjack tuna and kahawai. Skipjack tuna is the preferred species for purse seining and blue mackerel will not be targeted once the skipjack season has begun in late-spring, early summer. Early arrival of skipjack can result in reduced volumes of blue mackerel being landed. Skipjack purse seiners are responsible for only a small percentage of the total catch of blue mackerel, for which there is a TACC of 11,550 t. Little is known about the status of blue mackerel stocks and no estimates of current and reference biomass, or yield, are available for any blue mackerel fishing area. For the management area with the largest TACC and landings (EMA 1), the stability of the age composition data and the large number of age classes that comprise the catches suggests that blue mackerel may be capable of sustaining current commercial fishing mortality, at least in the short-term. Available information suggests it is unlikely that the stock is below the point of recruitment impairment. Regardless, the low catches by the skipjack purse seine fishery would have minimal impact on stock status.

Striped marlin Striped marlin is not managed under the QMS. Management throughout the WCPO is the responsibility of the WCPFC. The stock structure of striped marlin in the Pacific Ocean is not well understood. Striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific is subject to a WCPFC CMM (CMM 2006-04) which restricts the number of vessels a state can have targeting striped marlin on the high seas. This does not apply to those coastal states (including New Zealand) south of 15oS which have taken and continue to take significant steps to address concerns over the status of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific region, through the establishment of a commercial moratorium on the landing of striped marlin caught within waters under their national jurisdiction. Striped marlin are an important recreational species in NZ waters. Marlins may not be retained by commercial fishers when taken within NZ fisheries waters.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 29 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The latest stock assessment for striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific was undertaken in 2012 (Davies et al. 2012). Management advice from this assessment is that the stock is fully exploited, is not experiencing overfishing, but may be overfished. WCPFC-SC (2012) noted that recent catches are close to MSY; that recent fishing mortality is slightly below FMSY; and that recent spawning biomass is slightly below SBMSY. It is highly unlikely that the stock is below the PRI.

Albacore tuna Albacore tuna is also not managed under the QMS and management throughout the WCPO is the responsibility of the WCPFC. Albacore is not a ‘main’ species but is covered here as the NZ albacore troll fishery is currently MSC certified. The latest assessment, undertaken in 2015 (Harley et al. 2015), indicates that the stock is not overfished and not subject to overfishing. There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI.

Secondary species Species caught which do not have the management arrangements of the primary species in place are taken only at low levels (Table 6). Ocean sunfish (Mola mola) are the only species considered as a secondary species. They are a ‘minor’ species based on catch data and are not retained.

Sunfish Stock assessments have not been conducted for sunfish and little is known about its status in the Pacific. Some information is available about characteristics such as diet, swimming behaviour and global distribution, but not much information exists on the life history, reproductive strategy or age at maturity (Fishbase, 2016). An ecological risk assessment for Australia’s Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery found the species to be at ‘precautionary extremely high risk’, mostly due to a high level of uncertainty in the data used and their uncertain life history parameters (AFMA 2012).

Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species The MSC standard defines ETP species as those that are recognized by “national legislation and/or binding international agreements” or those listed on CITES Appendix I (CR v1.4 req. CB 3.11.1). The World Conservation Union also produces risk-based threat categories for species in all parts of the world, however, these listing (unlike national listings and CITES listings) are not legally binding unless invoked as such under national legislation: IUCN listings are not used to categorize species as ETP in the MSC process.

The NZ Wildlife Act 1953 gives absolute protection to wildlife throughout NZ and its surrounding marine EEZ. All marine mammals (including all seal, dolphin and whale species) are fully protected throughout New Zealand and its EEZ under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. The result of this is that almost all native birds, all marine mammals and marine reptiles (including turtles and sea snakes) are fully protected in New Zealand (under one of the two Acts). The exceptions are a small number of native birds managed as game birds, and a few other native birds that are partially protected. Just one native bird, the black- backed gull, is currently unprotected. In addition, Schedule 7A of the Wildlife Act lists certain marine species that are legally protected, i.e., all species in the orders Antipatharia (black corals), Gorgonacea (gorgonian corals), and Scleractinia (stony corals) and the family Stylasteridae (hydrocorals). Fish protected under the Wildlife Act include the oceanic whitetip, basking, deepwater nurse, white pointer, and whale sharks, manta and spinetail devilrays, and two groupers. CITES listed species include: the New Zealand fur seal; elephant seal; a number of cetaceans; basking, Great white, scalloped, hammerhead and porbeagle sharks; as well as black coral (Antipatharia spp) (http://www.doc.govt.nz/about- doc/role/international/endangered-species/cites-species/nz-cites-listedspecies/).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 30 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The national requirements for ETP protection in New Zealand law notes that while interactions are not forbidden (i.e. not zero), the law requires interactions to be reported on MPI’s Non-fish and Protected Species Catch Return form. The long-term aim is to minimise mortalities where possible, with the zero interactions being described as the aspirational objective. The approach requiring reporting of interactions, combined with observer coverage. provides good information on the potential effects of the fishery on ETP species. No specific limits on interactions have been set.

In New Zealand, a Conservation Service Programme (“CSP”) has operated under the administration of the Department of Conservation (DoC) since 1996. The CSP has the ultimate aim of avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of commercial fisheries on protected species (Doc 2015). Each year, the CSP Annual Plan outlines the conservation services to be delivered. These services are subject to cost recovery from the commercial fishing industry and the Plan forms the basis for levying the commercial fishing industry under the Fisheries Act 1996. The CSP Research Advisory Group was established in December 2013 to provide guidance for the development of the Annual Plan. Provision of observer services is an important component of CSP work.

Observer data from the skipjack purse seine fishery indicates a low level of interaction with ETP species within New Zealand waters. Recent observer data from the fishery does not indicate interaction with turtles in NZ waters. Nevertheless, in 2009 industry adopted a Code of Best Practice for mitigation of the effects of fishing on sea turtles in NZ purse seine fisheries. This code sets out standards of behaviour for responsible practices and acts as an agreed guide to existing and improved fishing practices by purse seine operators in NZ waters and on the High Seas.

A broader code of practice is in development for purse seine fishing in NZ waters. It is intended to guide vessel managers and skippers through an agreed course of action that covers the pre-departure management, avoidance, mitigation and handling options between protected marine species and NZ purse seine vessels and is being developed collaboratively between industry, MPI and DoC. The assessors viewed a draft dated November 2015. Currently it is in sign off stage and implementing the Purse Seine Code of Practice is a new objective this year specific to the Skipjack fishery and included in the national fish Plan.

New Zealand has developed an updated National Plan of Action for Seabirds (NPOA- Seabirds) (MPI, 2013). Observations of 67 purse seine sets in 2012-13 found no interactions with seabirds (Abraham et al. 2016). DoC (2016) reports interactions with one Buller’s shearwater (Puffinus bulleri) and one white-faced storm petrel (Pelagodroma marina maoriana) from 102 sets observed in 2013-14 (Table 8).

Table 8. Protected species interactions in the purse seine fishery during the 2014/15 observer year (observations of 102 sets on two fishing trips) (DoC 2016). Alive Dead Unknown Total Birds Buller's 1 1 shearwater White-faced 1 1 storm petrel

Protected fish Spinetail devil 19 3 2 24 ray

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 31 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

An examination of environmental interactions reports that whilst there are some interactions with common dolphins in New Zealand fisheries, there were none observed with the skipjack purse seine fishery between 2002-03 and 2012-13 (AEBR 2015). However, MPI have reported 2 interactions with dolphins in 2013 (Table 9). The code of practice in development contains measures to avoid and mitigate potential dolphin interactions. For example, avoidance measures include:  The presence of protected species must be assessed prior to deployment of the purse seine net and every reasonable attempt must be made to avoid interactions.  Early detection is crucial. The fishing operation must be delayed or relocated if dolphins are observed within 500 meters of the fish school or vessel.  At all times at least one crew member must made responsible for determining the presence/absence of dolphins or other protected species before and during all parts of the fishing operation. They must report any sightings immediately to the vessel Master.  The presence of dolphins or other protected species is always assessed during net retrieval by as many available personnel on deck or in the wheelhouse as possible. Immediately a dolphin or other protected species is detected this must be reported immediately to the vessel Master.

Suggested mitigation measures include:  Setting if a dolphin or other protected species is observed swimming with the target school of fish — the skiff must not be released.  Pursing if a dolphin is observed once the net is committed, the Master (mindful of vessel and crew safety) will release the bow or stern of the net attached to the tow line cable to recreate the aperture. This should allow the dolphin (and fish) to escape. If the animal does not swim free every effort should be made to encourage the animal to leave such as by using the work boats.  Fully pursed / rolling the net / stacking if a dolphin is observed once the net is fully closed and stacking of the net has commenced, it is no longer possible to release the ends of the net and recreate the aperture. It may be possible however to coax the animal out over the cork line, or use the brailer to lift it up and over the net.

Table 9. Purse seine ETP species interactions 2010-2015 (MPI email 28 May 2016)

Common dolphin Spinetail devil ray Manta ray

Alive Alive Catch Alive Alive Catch Alive Alive Catch Year injured uninjured dead injured uninjured dead injured uninjured dead

2010 2 2011 8 1 7 2012 1 5 2 2013 1 1 11 7 1 2014 1 2015 13 1 9 Total 0 1 2 0 38 1 1 27 1 NB: These data are logbook reported catches.

Spinetail devil ray The highest level of interaction of the purse seine fishery with ETP species is with mobulid rays, the spinetail devil ray (Mobula japanica) and manta rays (Manta birostris) (Table 8 and Table 9). In July 2011, the spinetail devil ray and manta ray became fully protected under

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 32 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Schedule 7A of the NZ Wildlife Act (1953). There are no WCPFC CMMs in place specifically for devil rays or manta rays. At the 89th meeting of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (22 June – 3 July 2015) a resolution (C-15-04) was adopted requiring that vessels release all mobulid rays alive wherever possible (in a manner that results in the least harm possible). The resolution also prohibits retention onboard, transhipping, landing, storing, selling, or offering for sale any part or whole carcass of mobulid rays. Resolution C- 15-04 enters into force on 1 August 2016.

Spinetail devilrays and manta rays occur mainly in north-eastern North Island waters during summer (AEBR 2015). It is apparent that there has been misreporting of mobulid ray catches, with most if not all mobulid rays reported caught in commercial fisheries likely to have been spinetail devilrays (Paulin et al 1982 cited in AEBR 2015); no manta rays have been confirmed caught in New Zealand waters (Jones & Francis 2012, cited in AEBR 2015). AEBR (2015) suggests it is possible that manta rays are occasionally caught in purse seines along the north-east coast of North Island, although observer coverage of the purse seine fishery between 2005 and 2014 in management area FMA 1 did not confirm any captures. DoC (2016) reports that observer coverage in 2014-15 indicates interactions with 24 spinetail devilrays but no manta rays (Table 8). Until recently, these two species were easily confused because of the lack of a readily available field identification guide (Francis and Lyon 2012). NIWA has produced three fish identification guides for the MPI, one of which contains information on the spinetail devil ray and manta ray (McMillan et al. 2011). In a review of commercial fishery interactions with protected species, Francis & Lyon (2012) re- coded records of “manta ray” as devil ray.

The spinetail devilray has a worldwide distribution in tropical waters, and also penetrates into some subtropical and warm temperate areas. They are an oceanic pelagic species, but they also occur in inshore waters. No information is available on spinetail devilray population biomass in NZ waters. Biomass may vary inter-annually as a result of oceanographic factors that affect the number of animals that migrate here from tropical areas. Elsewhere in the world, mobulid species are caught by target and bycatch fisheries in many countries, but little information is available on population biomass (Francis & Lyon 2012). A market for mobulid prebranchial gill plates for Asian medicines has emerged and targeted fishing in some regions has increased the threat to these species, however most tuna fleets do not retain mobulids for commercial value. In the Western and Central equatorial Pacific, “manta rays” make up 1.8% of the non-target catch in Papua New Guinea purse seine fishery (Lack & Sant 2009, cited in Jones and Francis 2012). Molony (2005, cited in Jones and Francis 2012) reported over 1000 mobulid rays from nearly 650 sets listed in the SPC observer databases between 1980 – 2004. Hall and Roman (2013) report capture figures for the WPO (Table 10).

Table 10. Capture production in tonnes of mantas and devil rays1 in the Western Pacific Ocean, 2000–07 (Source: Hall and Roman 2013).

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 931 106 110 100 802 635 2791 3310 1 Mantas, devil rays, NEI where NEI = not elsewhere included

The biology of the spinetail devil ray is not well known. Growth rates have not been estimated. Longevity is not known but is probably greater than 14 years (Francis and Lyon 2012). Mobulids are aplacental viviparous and normally give birth to a single pup, but may occasionally produce twins. The gestation period of most species is unknown, but the reproductive cycle is likely to last for about one year, possibly longer if females have resting periods between pregnancies. A new born juvenile spinetail devilray and a number of adults containing term embryos have been collected in NZ waters indicating that the species gives birth there (Francis and Lyon 2012). Spinetail devil ray mostly move from the

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 33 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine tropics/subtropics to NZ waters in January to March when they are caught by purse-seiners out to a depth of 500 m; but beyond 500 m depth their distribution is not known (Ford et al. 2015).

A qualitative risk assessment workshop was held in November 2014 to examine threats to shark populations by commercial fisheries in the New Zealand EEZ (Ford et al. 2015). The workshop adopted the SICA methodology (Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis described in MSC Certification requirements v2.0) based on the input of expert workshop participation. Assessment of spintetail devilray resulted in an overall risk score of 13.5 (Intensity = 3 based on the level of overlap of the species’ range with the NZ fishery and the frequency of capture; Consequence = 4.5 based on relative population size and productivity) (Ford et al. 2015).

Given their protected status, spinetail devil rays are released when captured. Table 8 & Table 9 indicated a high rate of released spinetail rays being reported as ‘alive and uninjured’. The DoC Conservation Services Programme has been investigating the mitigation approaches for spinetail devil rays and factors affecting their post release survival in the purse seine fishery through the use of pop-off survival tags (DoC 2016). Releasing animals of this size is a complex process.

Jones and Francis (2012) investigate the development of mitigation methods for protected rays in the purse seine fishery and provide detail on the operation of the fishery and likelihood of interaction with devil rays. After a successful shot around a skipjack school, the net is brought onboard (“rolling” and “sacking”) using a hydraulic power block, pulling the bottom of the net upwards to reduce the volume inside and concentrate the fish in the “sack” or “bunt” of the net alongside the vessel (Jones and Francis 2012). Fish are scooped from the pursed net using a brail net (brailer) and emptied into a deck hold and transferred below deck. Brailers on the UoC vessels are around 2.5 m diameter and scoop between 4 – 6 tonnes at a time. Smaller vessels use somewhat smaller brailers. Bycatch is generally separated once the brail has been emptied into the deckhold and is usually immediately discarded. The timing of these processes depends on the size of the vessel and the school of fish targeted as well as weather conditions. Generally, sets are 2-3 hours’ duration, with the net set in 4-6 min, pursed in 12-15 min, with the process of rolling, sacking and brailing taking upwards of 2 hours (Baird 2009, cited in Jones and Francis 2012). As part of this work, Informal interviews were carried out with 3 MPI observers, 2 spotter plane pilots, 2 current skippers (one from a super seiner and the other from a smaller domestic vessel), one navigator and one retired skipper. Points raised from these interviews included:  January was usually the peak period for sightings and encounters, with some interviewees commenting that they followed the warm water, around 20°, around the 100-fathom mark, arriving January / February, sometimes ahead of the tuna arriving, along with sunfish.  Most commented that ray abundance was variable from year to year. It was suggested that manta and devil rays are often associated with tuna schools.  Two interviewees thought that around 40-50% of schools could have manta and devil rays swimming with them. It was commented that the association was more frequent in New Zealand than elsewhere.  It was suggested that manta and devil rays were usually seen from the air with spotter pilots warning the vessels if they saw them. Given a choice, a vessel will usually target a school without manta or devil rays as they are generally seen as a nuisance.  It was suggested by one participant that if a set is made on a tuna school with manta or devil rays associated there was “a high chance that the mantas would be caught”.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 34 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

 Several interviewees (not including the skipper of the super seiner), suggested that manta/devil rays ‘spooked the tuna’ resulting in a ‘skunked’ set where the tuna evaded capture. In many of these cases the rays ended up being caught.  Sometimes the rays become entangled in the meshes of the net, particularly in the bunt where the meshes are smaller. In these cases, the crew try to free the animal and roll it out under the chain line, or cut meshes to drop the ray out of the net either while it is still in the water or with the net suspended over the side of the vessel. In most (“nine out of ten”) cases this can be done without the animal coming onboard. However, it is not desirable to cut too many meshes as this creates work to mend the hole. This may mean it is harder for the animal to fall free of the net and in some cases the crew may make an incision in the wing to allow a hook or rope to be used to pull the animal free.  Once the brailing process begins, most comments suggested that, if caught in the brailer, a manta or devil ray is easily visible and invariably ends up on top of the tuna.  Comments on when manta rays are released during the brailing process varied. Some stated that they were left until after the catch was brailed and the net volume reduced and if caught before then, may be tipped back into the net to allow brailing of the catch to continue. Others stated that the manta and devil rays are targeted first, scooping with the brailer and releasing straight over the side, even if this meant losing some of the catch.  One interviewee commented that many (“maybe 70 %”) of the rays are too large to easily fit in the brailers of the smaller vessels. This suggests that these animals cannot always be released using the brailer to lift out of the purse seine net and therefore presumably are left until after the catch is removed and then released from the main net directly.  In contrast to the skippers and observers working on the smaller vessels, those working onboard the superseiner commented that manta and devil rays were not caught in ‘skunked’ sets, perhaps due to the larger, deeper nets resulting in fewer occasions where the tuna escape in this fashion. Manta and devil rays were generally not released whilst in the water but instead brought onboard with the much larger brail net. Instead of handling on the deck, the crew of this particular vessel have made up a cargo net with 2 ft. (61 cm) meshes. This is stretched tightly over the hopper so that tuna pass through and into the hold whilst the manta ray or other large bycatch does not. It is then lifted and released using a sacrificial rope that is cut to free the manta over the side.  This cargo net was very similar to the concept suggested to the other skippers interviewed as an alternative method of release. One believed this would be a feasible option to avoid man-handling of animals on deck, the other felt that this would increase the amount of time and handling of the animal and that the brail net was sufficient.

Jones and Francis (2012) present data from the observer program database for 2004-05 through to 2010-11 with nearly 10.4 t of manta/devil ray catch reported over this period and examine an extract of 59 of these records (Table 11). Jones and Francis (2012) also present data on interactions by region. The records analysed indicated that compared to the overall extent of the purse seine fishery, observed manta/devil ray encounters appear to be localized both spatially and temporally. Most records were confined to the area off Great Barrier Island to Cape Brett (between 35 and 36.5° S) off the North Island, in water depths of 150-350 m, largely during January and February. The manta and devil rays are caught in the deeper sets compared to the depth range of all observed sets.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 35 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Table 11. Summary of Observer Programme data from the domestic purse-seine fishery by fishing year (Source: Jones and Francis 2012).

Fishing No. trips No. trips with No. sets No. sets with % of observed sets year manta/devil manta/devil rays with manta/devil rays rays 2004/05 3 2 30 3 10 2005/06 3 1 111 2 1.8 2006/07 5 2 79 22 27.8 2007/08 6 3 115 4 3.5 2008/09 4 2 83 15 18.1 2009/10 4 2 83 4 4.8 2010/11 4 2 142 10 7.0 2011/12 3 2 113 5 4.4 Total 32 16 756 65 8.6

Jones and Francis (2012) also examined observer diaries from ten historical trips undertaken between 2005 and 2011. Recommendations from this work include:  That wherever feasible, manta and devil rays be released prior to hauling and sacking by sinking the corkline and guiding the fish out of the net in some way.  If this is not possible, removal from the sacked net by targeting and scooping using the brail net should be encouraged and documented. The earlier in the brailing process that this is achieved, the higher the chance of survival.  If these methods are not feasible, a large mesh cargo net made from soft webbing, should be placed over the hopper before the brail containing the manta/devil ray is emptied. This cargo net can then be used to “sieve” the ray from the tuna catch and lift immediately over the side of the vessel  Leaving manta and devil rays on deck for any length of time should be avoided.

Poisson et al. (2012) and Hall and Roman (2013) provide information on good handling practices to reduce the mortality of sharks and rays which have been captured by purse seiners. In examining global impacts, Hall and Roman (2013) conclude that “the impacts of the purse seine captures and bycatch on the population dynamics of the pelagic stingrays are probably negligible. With regard to manta and devil rays, the numbers cannot be placed in perspective because of the lack of population abundances and stock structure information. Although the overall numbers are not large, care must be exercised when the effort concentrates in patches where it may cause localized impacts on subpopulations whose genetic structure is not well known. The development of better techniques to release these species is an important step for eliminating this bycatch”.

In New Zealand, a DoC-funded and industry-supported programme to develop methods for mobulid live release with tracking of post-release mortality has been initiated in the NZ skipjack tuna purse seine fishery (Francis, 2014). This study aimed to assess the fate of live released spinetail devilrays to and to describe their spatial and vertical behaviour. The intention was to examine survival under normal fishing practices, so the observer doing the tagging was instructed not to make any special effort to treat the rays better than the crew would normally do. Only rays that were lifted in a brail net and brought on to the deck were tagged, because rays that were released from the purse seine net while still in the water were expected to be in excellent condition and survive (Francis 2014). Rays were classified into four predicted survival categories based on a range of behavioural and physical criteria. Six rays were tagged with popup archival transmitting (PAT) tags by an observer off northeastern North Island in January−February 2013. These six specimens were assessed as being in the moderate to high survival category and the observer who tagged them reported that all swam away vigorously when released. Only four of the six tags reported data, and three of the four rays that provided data died within 2−4 days of release. The

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 36 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine fourth ray provided 82 days of track data before the tag pulled free, washed ashore, and was recovered, enabling the archived data to be downloaded (Francis 2014). The movements of this specimen are described in Francis (2014).

A further three PAT tags were attached to released devil rays in 2014 and 2015. Overall, seven of the nine tags reported data, and four of those rays died within 2–4 days of release. All four rays that died had been brought aboard entangled in the bunt. The three surviving rays were all brailed aboard with the tuna catch. Francis and Jones (2016) acknowledges that it is premature to draw conclusions about survival rates of devil rays based on seven tags returning data. Nevertheless, the four deaths observed out of seven rays indicate that mortality may be significant. Those four had all become entangled in the bunt netting, while those that were brailed aboard survived (Francis and Jones 2016). Francis and Jones (2016) reports that MPI observers are now collecting data to determine the duration of each event in the hauling sequence and the ray handling techniques employed by vessel crew so that mortality of other tagged rays can be related to these factors, and important factors affecting survival rates identified.

As indicated in Table 11, between 2005 and 2014, spinetail devil rays were caught in 8.2% of all observed skipjack purse seine sets in New Zealand waters. The same catch rate was reported from the same fishery between 1976 and 1982 (Bailey et al. 1996 cited in Francis and Jones 2016), suggesting little change in the ray encounter rate over three decades although it is not known if the distribution of the historical sets was similar to those from 2005-2014. A summer ‘hotspot’ near the shelf edge off the North Island (i.e. ~35.0–36.5° S off the north-eastern coast of North Island in the 150–450 m depth range) provided catches of devil rays in 24.3% of sets in the 2005-2014 data hence more shots in this area would probably bias the comparison among studies (Francis and Jones 2016).

Further to the handling techniques discussed above, Francis and Jones (2016) comment on the implications of ‘skunked’ sets. Three of the four rays that died were caught in ‘skunked’ sets, and all four rays became entangled in the netting and were hauled aboard in the bunt. The three rays which survived were all brought aboard in the brail net, tagged and released either directly from the brailer, or lifted using a rope and winch. Two of the three rays were caught in successful sets, while the third was captured in a ‘skunked’ set, with only a small proportion of the tuna school retained. When devil rays were caught in ‘skunked’ sets they were more likely to become entangled in the bunt and be hauled on deck with the net and cut free, than to be set free from the net in the water. Both brailing and becoming entangled in the bunt result in the rays being brought out of the water and subjected to significant handling. Francis and Jones (2016) conclude that purse seine crews should be encouraged to maximize the chances of ray survival by developing techniques to release them from the net while it is still in the water, particularly for ‘skunked’ sets.

Habitats Purse seine fishing in the WCPO is typically undertaken in deep oceanic waters and does not physically interact with benthic habitat during its operation so long as the net depth is appropriate for the water depth. In the main, impacts of the fishery will therefore be confined to direct or indirect effects on the surface waters in which the fishery operates. These habitats are essentially open ocean waters in which the ability to support the target fish populations is related to temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determine the productivity of the lower trophic levels. These are primarily driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their effect on the frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. Purse seine fishing is not considered capable of affecting these key habitat drivers at a broad scale or even local levels of productivity.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 37 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Floating objects, however, are an additional component of pelagic habitats. Natural floating objects and Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) are colonised or sought out by a range of marine creatures, including tuna, leading them to be an important component of some purse seine fishing operations. Purse seine fishing on floating objects (whether natural or FADs), therefore, has the potential to have an impact on these habitats and hence to affect the productivity of target species and communities that are associated with them. However, this is not a consideration for the UoA as the skipjack fishery in NZ waters does not target fish associated with floating objects, instead targeting free schools.

Benthic species have been known to have been taken in purse seine nets, indicating that purse seine vessels may sometimes fish in shallower waters (relative to their net depth). Purse seine fishing for skipjack usually occurs some distance off the coast. Shallow water extends offshore for considerable distances on the west coast of the North Island, and in this area there is some risk of benthic impacts, although operators report using shallower nets than those used in tropical fisheries (MPI 2009a). The foot print for these interactions is likely to be small and indications are that nets would be deployed predominantly in areas of sandy/muddy bottom. Catch composition data from six observed purse seine trips in NZ waters in 2011 and 2012 supports a possible low level of interaction with benthos-related species (AEBR 2015). Skipjack catches of approximately 4360 t were observed during these trips. Minor catches of snapper (Pagrus auratus; 15 kg), electric ray (Torpedo fairchildi; 14 kg), starfish (Asteroidea and Ophiuroidea; 3 kg), smooth skate (Dipturus innominatus; 2 kg) and gurnard (Chelidonycthys kumu; 1kg) were reported.

MPI provided information that for 473 observed sets between October 2010 and September 2015, there were 122 where the recorded purse seine net curtain height was larger than the recorded seabed depth at the start of event (MPI email 28 May 2016). However, this does not necessarily mean the net will contact the ocean floor for these sets as the net balloons when set and when the captain applies tension the net drop will be considerably less than the curtain height. When asked how often their nets touched the seabed over the past fishing season Talley’s purse seine skippers reported that the Souza touched twice and the Eagle also touched the bottom twice this year (client email 1 August 2016). The two UoC purse seiners are large vessels (Capt MJ Souza, 68 m; Eagle, 61 m). The skipper of the Eagle commented that these vessels would make every effort to avoid contact of the net on the sea floor and if they did want to set the net where this was a possibility they would only set only on sandy bottom otherwise they would rip the net and have to return to port for repairs with a consequent loss of fishing income.

MARPOL, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (1973) covers pollution by oil, chemicals, and harmful substances in packaged form, sewage and garbage. New Zealand is a signatory of this Convention, and thus the UoA falls within the agreements on prevention of disposal of harmful waste and fishing gear while at sea.

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

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 38 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Figure 10. Describes biomass trends of exploited populations of top level predators in the WCPO and the EPO and compares them to estimated biomass projections had the fishery never been exploited. The blue line represents the former case, the red line the latter. The single black line indicates the equilibrium biomass corresponding to maximum sustainable yield conditions, assuming current levels of recruitment and distribution of fishing mortality among fisheries (from Sibert et al. 2006).

The ongoing productivity of the purse seine fishery in the WCPO provides some evidence that the structure and function of the ecosystem has not been compromised by the fishery (Figure 10). An examination of the biomass, size and trophic status of the top predators in the Pacific Ocean (Sibert et al. 2006) concluded that, despite fisheries having removed in excess of 50 million tonnes of tuna and other top level predators from the Pacific Ocean from 1940 to 2004, the trophic level of the catch has decreased slightly (but that of the population has not changed) and there have been substantial, though not catastrophic, impacts on these top-level predators and minor impacts on the ecosystem in the Pacific Ocean.

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

At an approximate average annual catch of 10,500 t for the last 5 years, removals of skipjack by the UoA fishery are a small proportion of total WCPO skipjack removals (<1%, see Table 2), and as skipjack stocks in the region are estimated to be above BMSY, their ecosystem role is expected to be maintained. Given the relatively clean nature of the fishery, related food web impacts are also expected to be minimal.

New Zealand undertakes a range of ecosystem-related research in support of its fisheries. The 2015 annual review of aquatic biodiversity (AEBR 2015) points to supporting third party certification of fisheries as being an important function. To provide relevant information to fulfil these roles, MPI contracts the following types of research (AEBR 2015): (i) aquatic environment research to assess the effects of fishing on marine habitats, protected species,

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 39 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine non-target species of fish, and to understand habitats of special significance for fisheries; (ii) marine biodiversity and productivity research to increase understanding of the systems that support resilient ecosystems and productive fisheries, including their trophic linkages.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 40 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Area of operation of the UoA and under which jurisdiction it falls

Skipjack tuna in this UoA are caught in the New Zealand EEZ. They are part of a single Western and Central Pacific Ocean stock.

Skipjack tuna are a highly migratory species. As such the key components of the governance and fisheries management are the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the New Zealand Government. Both have governance that is consistent with the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA)

WCPFC sets conservation and management measures and policies for the WCPFC Convention area (refer Figure 2).

The New Zealand Government is responsible for management of fisheries within its EEZ. Legislation relating to New Zealand fisheries management is aligned with the WCPFC objectives, in that it broadly addresses sustainability and utilisation, and includes specific consideration of the aquatic environment and a precautionary approach. NZ is a signatory to the WCPFC Convention (Article 8, WCPFC, 2000) that specifies: - conservation and management measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction shall be compatible in order to ensure conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in their entirety; and -the coastal State shall ensure that the measures adopted and applied by it to highly migratory fish stocks within areas under its national jurisdiction do not undermine the effectiveness of measures adopted by the Commission under this Convention in respect of the same stocks.

Regional organisations, Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) also play significant roles in the management framework for this fishery. The FFA provides technical assistance to its members and SPC is the WCPFC science provider.

3.5.2 Management agencies and stakeholders with interests in this fishery

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission

The Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean established the WCPFC in 2004 to conserve and manage migratory fishery resources in the WCPO. The WCPFC is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment.

The Convention provides a framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission

The WCPFC Secretariat is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and includes a ‘Scientific Committee’ (SC) and a ‘Technical and Compliance Committee’ (TCC). In addition to these three bodies specified in the Convention, the Commission may establish other

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 41 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine subsidiary bodies (e.g., the Finance and Administration Committee) and also employs ad hoc working groups as required. Ad hoc working groups have been established for data- related issues, the Commission’s vessel monitoring system, the regional observer program, and other issues.

The Commission has 27 Members, of which most are small island developing states (SIDSs). All major coastal and fishing states in the WCPO are Members, except for Vietnam, which has co-operating non-member (CNM) status. Current members are: Australia, Canada, People‘s Republic of China, Cook Islands, European Union (EU), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America (USA) and Vanuatu.

Several other states are granted CNM status on an annual basis, agreeing to comply with WCPFC measures, participating as observers, and entitled to authorize their vessels to fish in the WCPO within set limits. At WCPFC6, the CNM status of Belize, El Salvador, Mexico and Senegal was renewed, and CNM status was extended to Ecuador and Vietnam (WCPFC6, 2010, paragraphs 22-49). There are also participating territories in the WCPFC, including American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau, and Wallis and Fortuna.

The WCPFC Convention (WCPFC, 2000) incorporates provisions of the UNFSA (United Nations fish stocks agreement), including in particular:  The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2)  The general principles in Article 5 of the UNFSA including the application of the precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines For The Application Of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5)  The application of these principles by Parties in their cooperation under the Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national jurisdiction (Article 7)  Compatibility of measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction (Article 8)  Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31)  Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources. (Article 30).

The roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are clearly described in the Convention, especially Articles 23 and 24, the Commission Rules of Procedure, Conservation and Management measures, and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission.

New Zealand Government

As a member of the WCPFC, New Zealand is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within New Zealand fisheries waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC, and fishing by New Zealand flagged vessels both within and beyond the New Zealand EEZ is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by WCPFC. The Ministry for Primary Industries’ (MPI) role is to: 1. Be the Government’s principal adviser on fisheries management. In this role, MPI

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 42 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

 provides advice on policy and statutory decisions about New Zealand fisheries management and aquaculture, and  advice in relation to New Zealand’s position on international fisheries management.

2. Provide or purchase services to maintain the effective management of New Zealand’s fisheries. In this role, MPI  provides compliance services, including education, enforcement and prosecution  provides observer services  purchases research and registry services  provides oversight and quality assurance of scientific research  collects catch effort, area, method and other fisheries information  monitors delivery of contracted and devolved fisheries registry services.  Discharge the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, the Mä ori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Mä ori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

MPI is the Government agency responsible for the conservation and management of fisheries. It is charged with consistently monitoring the fisheries resource and making timely and appropriate policy advice on all aspects of fisheries management to the Government. The Ministry is also responsible for carrying out the Government’s policies to manage and conserve fisheries.

The NZ Fisheries Act 1996 provides the legislative framework for fisheries management, within NZ fisheries waters and for NZ flagged vessels and nationals on the high seas. The purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 is to provide for utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. In giving effect to the purpose of the Act, decision makers are required to take into account environmental and information principles, and to act consistently with the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries claims) Settlement Act 1992 and international obligations. The Department of Conservation is the New Zealand Government department responsible for the management protected species and marine mammals within NZ’s EEZ

Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)

FFA was established under the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention and the governing body is the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC). The FFA Secretariat is based in Honiara, Solomon Islands. The FFA presently has seventeen members - Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, each of which is represented on the FFC.

The FFA Secretariat focuses its work on: a. Fisheries management – providing policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable management of tuna; b. Fisheries development – developing the capacity of members to sustainably harvest, process and market tuna to create livelihoods; and c. Fisheries operations – supporting monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries as well as treaty administration, information technology and vessel registration and monitoring.

Within the overall FFA programme, the fisheries management programme is designed to assist FFA Members, to refine and maintain effective policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable management of the shared tuna fisheries resources of the region (Banks et al. 2011). This programme provides advice on:  Appropriate legal frameworks for national tuna management, including members’

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 43 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

obligations under various treaties and arrangements;  Appropriate fisheries management frameworks including the incorporation of the principles of ecosystem based fisheries management;  Effective fisheries administration, including access arrangements, licensing of foreign and domestic fishing vessels, economic implications of different management systems, and the use of new systems and technologies;  Development and implementation of monitoring, control and surveillance systems and effective compliance regimes; and provides these services assisting members to keep abreast of best practice fisheries management models, and develop stronger and deeper regional co-operation in fisheries management;  Providing effective oversight, and where appropriate management of a regional vessel register, vessel monitoring system, and observer program (including for US vessels;  Servicing regional fisheries treaties and arrangements; and improving capacity in fisheries management.

Two key instruments in the implementation of these programmes are the Regional Tuna Management and Development Strategy and the Regional Monitoring Control and Surveillance Strategy.

In addition to providing services to FFA Members, the FFA Secretariat supports the WCPFC regional Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), providing establishment, maintenance, diagnostic and support infrastructure and services, automatic location communicator (ALC) management services and communication gateways for the Commission VMS, along with training for Commission staff.

The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)

The SPC, based in Noumea, New Caledonia, provides scientific (and policy) support services to all Pacific Island countries and Territories, including members of the Forum Fisheries Agency. SPC was founded in 1947 and has 26 member countries, including American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji Islands, France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, Vanuatu and Wallis and Futuna. Such services include SPC-OFP provision of data and scientific stock assessment support services to WCPFC for all major tuna species.

The National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA)

NIWA is a Crown Research Institute established in 1992. It operates as a stand-alone company with its own Board of Directors and Executive. NIWA's seafood sector work comprises fish, fisheries and aquaculture research and consultancy

Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) (Environmental interests).

A number of NGOs participate in consultations on the science and management of highly migratory fisheries. WWF-NZ, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Greenpeace, and Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand (ECO) are participants.

Recreational Fishers

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 44 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Recreational fishing for skipjack tuna in New Zealand as a light tackle sport fish and for bait occurs in summer and autumn around the coast of the North Island. There is no catch or size limit for recreational fishers. Abundance of skipjack is variable between years and although most fish are between 1 and 3kg, individuals are frequently caught up to 10kg or more in weight. Skipjack has a high oil content, but if bled and chilled on capture, the loins are good for sashimi. However, they are less important as fresh fish than the other tunas caught in New Zealand. Most are utilized as whole bait in billfish fishing, or as cut bait for bottom species. Many recreational fishers rely on catching their own skipjack to freeze as bait for the rest of the season, rather than buy commercially caught fish.

There is limited information on the size of the recreational catch. Catches are likely to be highly variable between years, recreational diary surveys estimate the number of skipjack taken to range between 2,500 during 1996 and 159,000 during 2000-01. The most recent National Marine Fishing Survey (NMFS) in 2008 suggests skipjack was the 13th most popular recreational species by numbers caught.

Customary Fishing

Skipjack tuna are referred to as aku in Maori. Maori have past, present, and future interests in the skipjack fishery, including an interest in future QMS management. There is no information on the customary take, but it is considered to be low. Nonetheless, it is known that Maori did travel considerable distances offshore, and did target tuna species.

If skipjack was to be included in the Quota Management System in future, 20% of the quota would be allocated to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission (Te Ohu Kaimoana).

There are some localised area closures in place to provide for the separation of recreational and commercial skipjack fishers. In addition to its role in managing commercial fisheries, the Ministry for Primary Industries is also responsible for managing recreational and customary skipjack fishing, which should promote cohesion amongst relevant management arrangements.

Other commercial interests. Two other companies operate four small purse seiners in NZ’s EEZ. The client for this assessment (Talley’s) may make access to the certificate open to additional operators who have vessels permitted by the Ministry for Primary Industries to fish for skipjack in the NZ waters using purse seine gear.

3.5.3 Consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan

WCPFC

The WCPFC Convention describes the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states and the committees established by the Commission related to consultative processes. The Rules of Procedure in the Convention have clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of members and non-members. Stakeholders including NGOs and other interested parties meaningfully engage with WCPFC activities through attendance as an observer at Commission and related meetings (including SC and TCC).

The Commission actively assists and facilitates the regular and timely provision of fisheries information on its website in advance of and following meetings and workshops.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 45 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The Commission actively uses information from the fishery and its member states to inform fisheries management discussions and the formulation of management measures, as demonstrated by reports and outcomes of WCPFC meetings. PNA, FFA, SPC and other hold formal and informal consultations that incorporate stakeholders.

The WCPFC Convention requires the Scientific Committee to “recommend to the Commission a research plan, including specific issues and items to be addressed by the scientific experts or by other organizations or individuals, as appropriate, and identify data needs and coordinate activities that meet those needs”. The current WCPFC Strategic Research Plan 2012-2016 addresses four overall research and data collection priorities: monitoring of fishing activities through the collection, compilation and validation of data from the fishery; monitoring and assessment of target stocks; monitoring and assessment of non- target species and of the pelagic ecosystems of the WCPO; and evaluation of existing CMMs and of potential management options. WCPFC employ two scientific staff, but most of the research is carried out by third party organizations, such the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Nevertheless, WCPFC co-ordinates such research through the Scientific Committee.

The Plan is substantially directed towards providing information to enable the Commission to avoid overfishing or depletion of targeted stocks and the application of an ecosystem approach. However, the Implementation process in the Plan is also designed to contribute to improving governance and policy, through the development of management information tools such as Management Strategy Evaluation, and the development of relevant scientific and technical capacities in developing country Commission members.

New Zealand

The development of the NZ Management Plan for the skipjack purse seine fishery is led by the Ministry for Primary Industries. The Management Plan for this fishery is part of the National Fisheries Plan for Highly Migratory Species. This Plan was signed off by the Minister of Fisheries in 2010. The plan is implemented by an Operational Management Plan and a series of Annual Operational Plans that specify key areas of focus year to year. All these plans are developed with stakeholder input, in accordance with consultation processes run by the Ministry. Performance against the Plans is reviewed in a series of Annual Review Reports. An update to the National Fisheries Plan for Highly Migratory Species is scheduled for early 2017.

In addition to specific consultations about planning relevant to the fishery, the Ministry for Primary Industries has responsibility for consulting with stakeholders located in New Zealand in advance of WCPFC meetings. Ministry staff also meet with stakeholders, including industry, after meetings to relay key content and results of discussions of relevance to the New Zealand fishery.

Finally, the Ministry involves stakeholders in its annual research prioritisation and planning processes.

The Department of Conservation’s (DoC) involvement in the fishery is focused on interactions with marine protected species. Consultations run by the Department that may have bearing on the content of management planning documents for the fishery include annual research prioritization and planning processes, and less frequent consultations on legislative changes and strategic intent. (Strategic consultations were most recently focused on the Conservation Services Programme Strategic Statement - 2015, for example, which outlines the scope of Conservation Services).

For both the Ministry and the Department, a substantial component of consultation relates to

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 46 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine research outputs. Both agencies run working group processes that are open to all stakeholders and involve the expert review of research contracted by these agencies to external providers. Research outputs are not accepted before they have been considered by stakeholders at these working groups. Between the two agencies, working groups cover all technical components of fisheries management, including stock assessment, bycatch, ETP species interactions, effects of fishing on the benthos and benthic habitats, and broader ecosystem impacts of fishing. All the consultations are on-going.

3.5.4 Decision making

WCPFC

The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two- chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. In addition, there are provisions for a decision to be reviewed by a review panel at the request of a Member (WCPFC, 2000 Article 20, paras 6- 9). The subsidiary bodies of the Commission provide extensive, detailed reports to the Commission (see for example WCPFC-SC (2009)), including advice and recommendations.

Decision-making is open, with the process, outcomes and basis for decisions recorded in detail in records of Commission sessions and publicly available papers. In the context of regional fisheries management, the WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted in an extensive set of CMMs and strategies to respond to sustainability issues. However, the degree to which the decision-making processes at the Commission result in measures that achieve fishery specific objectives could be questioned e.g. in respect of the control of fishing effort on bigeye tuna. Stock assessment and studies presented at the SC identify serious issues at regional level. These are addressed through regionally agreed CMMs.

The WCPFC Convention (Art. 6) requires the application of the precautionary approach and the use of a Scientific Committee to ensure that the Commission obtains the best scientific information available for its consideration and decision-making. In 2012, WCPFC adopted a resolution (Resolution 2012-01) to promote the use of the best available science in management decision making.

Information on fishery performance is publicly available through SPC data, and Part 1 reports provide detailed reporting on catch, fleet size and other issues relating to the fishery. The WPPFC SC and TCC papers and reports on the web provide a high level of public access and transparency, showing how scientific information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission.

The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention.

New Zealand

The 1996 Fisheries Act requires consultation with stakeholders. To affect this, the Minister has established consultation guidelines. These guidelines recognize that consultation leading to decisions must occur in accordance with law; in a reasonable manner; and fairly, in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The Minister is the decision maker in fisheries management matters and his decisions are bound by the law, and are therefore open to legal review. The law requires identification of stakeholders “with an interest” in each fishery, and the identification of those who represent stakeholders with an interest. The

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 47 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Minister must notify stakeholders in advance of the consultation, and to subsequently inform them of his decisions.

MPI provides an initial consultation plan and the manner of consultation, including the timeframe for the consultation and the decision. MPI distributes the decision and subsequently reviews the process to assure that their consultation meets all requirements.

When management changes are proposed to meet sustainability requirements, MPI prepares a discussion document that provides the Ministry’s initial proposals for issues needing decision and a range of management options. The proposals outlined in MPI’s discussion document are preliminary and are provided as the basis for consultation with stakeholders. Subsequently, MPI prepares a decision document, which summarises stakeholders’ views on their proposals and makes recommendations to the Minister. The decision document and the Minister’s letter setting out his final decisions are posted on MPI’s website as soon as they become available.

The Fisheries Act 1996 requires a precautionary approach. Section 10 of the Fisheries Act 1996 specifies four information principles, which encompass the precautionary principle, that must be taken into account in relation to the utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring sustainability: All persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under this Act, in relation to the utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring sustainability, shall take into account the following information principles:  decisions should be based on the best available information,  decision makers should consider any uncertainty in the information available in any case,  decision makers should be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate,  the absence of, or any uncertainty in, any information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of this Act.

A decision to consult or not to consult, and any decision made after consultation, must be made in accordance with the principles of administrative law, and in accordance with Fisheries Act 1996 obligations.

3.5.5 Objectives for the fishery Two sets of overarching objectives apply to the governance of the fisheries: Regional objectives through WCPFC, and national objectives for New Zealand

WCPFC Long-term objectives for fisheries within the waters of the Convention area are found within the WCPF Convention text. Under Article 2 the Commission has the objective to ‘ensure, through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks within the Convention area, consistent with UNCLOS and UNSFA. Article 5 provides principles and measures for achieving this conservation and management objective. Article 10(c) provides the explicit long-term objective of ‘maintaining or restoring populations’ to “above levels at which their reproduction may become seriously threatened”. Article 5 (c) explicitly requires CCMs to apply the precautionary approach and Article 6 outlines the means by which this will be given effect, including through the application of the guidelines set out in Annex II of UNSFA. These guidelines provide additional objectives to guide decision-making, including the use of target reference points to meet management objectives and the adoption of fisheries management strategies to ensure that target reference points are not exceeded on average. Evidence that these objectives are guiding, or are beginning to guide decision-making is provided in various reports of the Commission

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 48 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

New Zealand Objectives for the NZ skipjack fishery are included in the NZ Plan for Highly Migratory Species (HMS) and Operational Plans for skipjack tuna. The structure of the National Fisheries Plan for HMS and operational management plans for large pelagic species, skipjack, and albacore is shown in Figure 11 below.

Management objectives for HMS fisheries are grouped into:

Use Outcome  Promote a viable and profitable tuna fishery in New Zealand  Maintain / enhance world class game fisheries in New Zealand fisheries waters  Deliver fair opportunities for access to HMS fisheries  Minimise wastage and promote humane treatment  Maori interests (including customary, commercial, recreational and environmental) are enhanced Environment Outcome  Maintain a sustainable fishery for HMS within environmental standards  Implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, taking into account associated and dependent species  Protect, maintain, and enhance fisheries habitat  Allow for HMS aquaculture development while ensuring the ecosystem and wild fisheries are protected Governance conditions  Recognise and provide for Deed of Settlement obligations  Influence international for a and ensure New Zealand interests are taken into account  Maintain an effective fisheries management regime

Fishery specific objectives include  Regularly monitor the need for more active management of skipjack, based on utilization criteria • Maintain catch-based attribution of cost recovery levies • Devise incentives to add value to and/or reduce wastage in the skipjack fishery • Manage the impacts of any fishing in New Zealand waters under provisions of the US Tuna Treaty. However there has been no fishing under this Treaty in recent years.

New objectives proposed to be implemented this year include Implementing the Purse seine (PS) Code of Practice (CoP) for avoidance, mitigation and handling of protected species interaction.

The CoP details fishing practice considered acceptable by the Director General of DoC in relation to Section 17 of the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and therefore underscores legal practice in conducting this fishery. Furthermore, the code spells out in detail appropriate minimum standards for the avoidance, mitigation and safe handling of spine-tailed devil ray interactions, which fishers will have to adhere to. Key points of the PS COP are a commitment from the fishing industry to:  Modification of the fishing practices in order to reduce the capture of protected species.  Assigning of a crew member dedicated to observation for protected species in order to inform the vessel’s mitigation approach.  Commitment to forgo fishing in the presence of marine mammals.  Collection of further data around the nature of interactions and condition of animals in order to further inform development of mitigation techniques

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 49 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Systematic review of the PS COP both at defined intervals and following major events to ensure the currency of the techniques contained in it.

Fisheries Act 1996, 1992 International agreements Deed of Settlement

International Fisheries Strategy Fisheries 2030 Goal

Fisheries 2030 Fisheries 2030 Fisheries 2030 Use Outcome Environment Outcome Governance Conditions

Supporting outcomes

Fisheries Plan approved by the Minister under s 11A of the Fisheries Act 1996

Management Management Management

objectives & objectives & objectives & strategies strategies strategies

criteria Performance Performance

Operational management plans to support implementation of the Fisheries Plan

Operational objectives & Annual

Operational Plans

specific management Aspirations for all NZ’s HMS fisheries Strategic Strategic fisheries HMS NZ’s all for Aspirations management specific

–

and research and

Performance Criteria Performance

Fishery Fishery

Information, monitoring monitoring Information,

Legislation/policy

Figure 11. Structure of the National Fisheries Plan for Highly Migratory Species and operational management plans for large pelagic species, skipjack, and albacore.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 50 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.5.6 Fleet types participating in the fishery The Client owns and operates two purse-seiners 61m and a 68 m, which form the Unit of Certificate. Four smaller purse-seiners belonging to other operators are also active in NZ waters.

Only vessels operated by New Zealand companies can fish in New Zealand fisheries waters. There has been no foreign licensed access for tuna longline fishing in New Zealand fisheries waters since 1951. These were US Treaty vessels.

3.5.7 Management regulations and measures Management of skipjack throughout the WCPO is the responsibility of the WCPFC. A list of CMMs relevant to the purse seine fishery can be sources on the WCPFC website (www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures) As a member, New Zealand is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within New Zealand fisheries waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC, and fishing by New Zealand flagged vessels both within and beyond the New Zealand EEZ is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by WCPFC. The NZ Fisheries Act 1996 provides the legislative framework for fisheries management, within NZ fisheries waters and for NZ flagged vessels and nationals on the high seas. Skipjack is not managed as a QMS species in New Zealand. Therefore, no total allowable catch (TAC) applies in New Zealand fisheries waters or on the high seas. However, CMMs set by WCPFC do place binding effort controls on the skipjack fishery in New Zealand fisheries waters. The Fisheries Act 1996 sets out NZ’s fisheries management regime; provisions relating to access to fisheries, including foreign licensed access; a high seas fishing regime; record keeping, reporting and disposal of fish provisions; and a system of offences and penalties. The Act has been drafted to be consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations. Section 5(a) of the Act implements these obligations by specifying that all functions, duties or powers under the Act must be exercised in a manner consistent with New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing. The New Zealand Government has obligations under the Fisheries Act 1996 to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment. Sections 8, 9, and 11 of the Fisheries Act 1996 apply to most aquatic environment issues, along with some additional legislation or specific clauses relevant to particular topics. For instance, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and the Wildlife Act 1953 apply to protected species. New Zealand is also signatory to a number of international agreements that create additional requirements for monitoring of the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment and on associated or dependent species. The main regulations that apply to the NZ skipjack fishery are:  Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 and regional commercial fishing regulations;  Fisheries (Western and Central Pacific Ocean Highly Migratory Fish Stocks) Regulations 2003. Through the Fisheries Act 1996 and associated regulations stringent controls are imposed on fishing activities within NZ fisheries waters and on NZ flagged vessels and nationals operating on the high seas. All NZ vessels are required to be registered. All fishers operating within NZ waters, must be authorised by a fishing permit.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 51 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.5.8 Monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement

WCPFC

The WCPFC has designed, largely established, and is in the early stages of implementing a comprehensive compliance program, including the following elements:  Requirements for vessels, including support vessels operating outside their own waters to be on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish (CMM 2009-11)  Specifications, Markings and Identification of Vessels (CMM 2004-03)  High seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures (CMM 2006-08)  Blacklist of IUU Vessels (CMM2007-03)  Rules for Provision of Scientific Data and Data Dissemination

Some of the major elements of this program, including the observer and VMS programs, are founded on and supported by FFA programs. Additional elements being developed include conservation and management measures for Port State Controls and a Catch Documentation Scheme.

Addressing IUU fishing over the huge area of the WCPO is a major challenge. With most of the fishing taking place in national waters, the broad strategy of the WCPFC compliance program is to focus on controlling high seas fishing, strengthening the exercise of control by coastal state CCMs, and monitoring compliance with CCM obligations throughout the range of application of Commission measures. Compliance failures by vessels are addressed by the application of the WCPFC IUU listing procedure. Compliance failures by CCMs, rather than vessels, are currently addressed through Commission processes of monitoring, reporting and accountability under the WCPFC’s Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2014-07).

New Zealand

The skipjack management system has documented a comprehensive and effective monitoring, control and surveillance system through:

 compulsory use of satellite-based Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) with an onboard automatic location communicator (ALC);  government observers who may be placed on board to observe fishing to collect any information on skipjack resources. This includes information to monitor the effects of skipjack fishing on the aquatic environment; and,  accurate recordkeeping and recording requirements to establish auditable and traceable records to ensure all catches are counted.

New Zealand introduced the VMS in 1994 which requires by law all vessels over 28 metres to carry and operate a registered ALC at all times. In combination with at-sea and air surveillance supported by the New Zealand joint forces, vessel activities are monitored and verified to ensure compliance with regulations and with industry-agreed operational procedures.

Independent observer coverage of the NZ purse seine is ~19%.

All vessels fishing in New Zealand are required to report all fish caught. There are minimal retained or bycatch species caught in purse seine skipjack fisheries. Reporting requirements are set out in the Fisheries (Reporting) Regulations 2001, most notably in section 5 and

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 52 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine section 6. Note also that it is illegal under the Fisheries Act 1996 to discard any species in the QMS unless the species is listed on Schedule 6 of the Fisheries Act 1996, all returns to the sea are recorded, and the specified conditions are met, or an MPI observer on the vessel authorises the discard.

A comprehensive reporting regime requires catch reports to be submitted by commercial fishers, including the estimated catch per set, the location and depth of every set and the total landed catch for each trip undertaken; landings only to Licensed Fish Receivers (LFRs), who must also report all catch received. MPI verification through auditing and reconciliation analysis across multiple sources ensures all catches are reported and documented correctly.

MPI’s compliance strategy is underpinned by the VADE compliance operating model. VADE is focused on all elements in the compliance spectrum. Enforcement is but one of the tools utilised to ensure compliance, however it is the intervention that sets the conditions and incentives for voluntary compliance. There are four components to the VADE compliance operating model:

Voluntary Compliance: The voluntary component commences well before the involvement of compliance interventions as part of the regulatory setting process. MPI ensures that the consequence for non–compliance is proportionate to the effect to be achieved. Accordingly, sensible rules and sanctions ensure high voluntary compliance once those who need to comply are aware of their obligations. Within the compliance directorate, outcomes are achieved through education, engagement and communication of expectations and obligations.

Assisted Compliance: Assisted compliance is that range of activities that re-enforce obligations and give the organisation confidence that the desired purpose of the Fisheries Act 1996 is being achieved. This is heavily reliant on monitoring, inspection, responding and business intelligence activities. It requires feedback loops and compliments the voluntary component to determine if stakeholders are attempting to comply, are aware of their obligations or indeed choosing not to comply. Determined upon what observations are deduced an appropriate intervention is then considered. Assisted compliance remains heavily focused on reminding individuals their compliance is being monitored and if no discernible behaviour change formal direction or sanction will occur.

Directed Compliance: Directed Compliance is that range of tools that Compliance Officers apply to direct a desired behavioural change. It ranges from those powers that allow directed activity such as infringement notices, official sanctions such as warnings and in some cases regulatory or lower threshold prosecutions.

Enforced Compliance: Enforced compliance is where the full extent of the law is applied. While it can be the decision as a consequence of no noticeable behavioural change despite Voluntary, Assisted and Directed interventions, it is also for those entities or individuals who deliberately choose to break the law and where a lesser intervention is inappropriate. This is for either serious offending or where legislation requires an enforcement action. These cases are formally investigated with a view to prosecution.

The VADE model gives a framework for stakeholders to understand the discretionary powers and approach regardless of sectors. It gives some confidence to compliance officers to apply discretion at the frontline and allows for calibration across sectors for national consistency. MPI’s Compliance Directorate has published a series of compliance information sheets to bring to the industry’s attention matters that are of direct interest and concern to the Ministry.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 53 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.5.9 Monitoring and management performance evaluation

WCPFC

WCPFC has mechanisms in place to evaluate the management system as demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. The WCPFC Secretariat submits a report on compliance of members with the reporting provisions of the Commission (CMM 2013-02). Progress with implementation of CMMs is monitored through the reporting provisions within the CMMs themselves, or the members Annual Reports to the Commission. Stock assessments conducted by the SPC are subject to peer review by other members of the Scientific Committee and occasional external review.

WCPFC has undertaken an independent review of its performance, consistent with the Kobe Course of Actions for the period 2011 to 2013 (Anon. 2012). As a result, the Commission established several working groups to address the different recommendations of the report, which can be found on the WCPFC website. An independent review (MRAG, 2009) has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the SC and adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the data and science functions.

New Zealand

All aspects of MPIs performance in relation to their role in managing fisheries are reviewed regularly and reported on. These include:  compliance services, including education, enforcement and prosecution  observer services  purchasing research and registry services  providing oversight and quality assurance of scientific research  collecting catch effort, area, method and other fisheries information  monitoring delivery of contracted and devolved fisheries registry services and  Discharging the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, the Mä ori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Mä ori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

The annual review for Highly Migratory species 2014-2015 provides a record of the annual reviews of fisheries. This contains progress against key focus areas and business as usual tasks, and summary of key indicators for the fishing year.

This review encompasses all parts of the management system. Progress against the objectives in the National Fisheries Plan and the Annual Operational Plan is reviewed annually and reported in the Annual Review Report. MPI conducts an extensive review of performance of the fisheries that incorporates consultations with industry and other stake holders. Parts of the management system, specifically science and enforcement, undergo external review. Although the internal review is very comprehensive and parties external to MPI participate, there is no explicit separate external review of the management system.

3.5.10 Details of any planned education and training for interest groups.

MPI have ongoing outreach and education for vessel captains, fishermen and other interested parties. MPI has the activities of the informed and assisted compliance that

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 54 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine assures understanding by industry with regulations and other requirements. The industry has implemented a range of non-regulatory measures and supplementary measures for avoiding or mitigating interactions with ETP species. MPI invites representatives of NGOs to discuss issues important to them and to work on collaborative solutions.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 55 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

4 Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment Fishery Certification Requirements (FCR) version 2.0, section 7.4.16 states: if the assessment is based on overlapping fisheries, the CAB shall follow Annex PB. In addition, the definition of an overlapping fishery for the MSC is: two or more fisheries which require assessment of some, or all, of the same aspects of MSC Principles 1, 2 and/or 3 within their respective units of certification.

In this regard, several other fisheries that overlap with this assessment have already been MSC assessed and certified. This fishery is the fifth MSC assessment to include the WCPO skipjack stock. Previously certified fisheries are the:  PNA purse seine fishery;  TriMarine purse seine fishery;  Solomon Islands purse seine and pole and line fisheries;  Japan pole and line fishery.

The assessment team took the following measures to harmonise with the certified fisheries:  They used the same default assessment tree but the fishery under assessment used the assessment tree from FCR version 2.0.  The team scored the fishery based on the previous scores, and only made changes in the event of evidence meriting altering the score or in response to the differences in the Scoring Guideposts of Version 2.0.  Acoura participation in the harmonisation meeting held in Washington D.C. in August 2016 (see below for more details).

The MSC certified fisheries for WCPO tuna were considered at MSC’s pilot harmonisation initiative (more information here: https://improvements.msc.org/database/hms- harmonisation). The meeting, held from 21st-22nd April in Hong Kong, was aimed at bringing together all of the assessors and stakeholders so that the scores for the performance indicators (PIs) within Principle 1 could be discussed and harmonised, including proposals for scoring or changes in scoring, and creating or updating the status of conditions (including closing conditions or setting new ones, bearing in mind that fisheries may be on different timelines).

Harmonisation meeting background Given the number of Pacific tuna fisheries which have attained or are undergoing MSC certification, a pilot workshop was recently held in Hong Kong (21-22 April 2016). The original intent of this workshop was to consolidate harmonisation of Principle 1 scoring and scoring justification for these fisheries. While the process successfully dealt with harmonisation and aided Conformity Assessment Body and team discussions, the meeting did not result in definitive justification text for the range of scoring issues due to time constraints. The outcome of the workshop is a working document to inform and guide CAB teams as they assess tuna fisheries in the WCPFC area. MSC-assessed fisheries considered in relation to skipjack tuna were: the PNA purse seine fishery; Tri Marine purse seine fishery; Solomon Islands purse seine and pole and line fisheries; and the Japanese pole and line fishery.

The findings of the workshop are an important consideration for the NZ skipjack purse seine fishery.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 56 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Table 12. P1 scores for fisheries discussed at MSC harmonisation meeting.

Overall Fishery Date CR 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Principle name certified version 1 PNA CR v1.3 purse Dec 2011 100 90 80 60 85 95 84 (PI1.2.2 seine use v2) TriMarine CR June v1.3 purse 100 90 70 60 90 95 86.9 2016 (PI1.2.2 seine use v2) Solomon Islands CR purse v1.3 July 2016 100 90 70 60 90 95 86.9 seine (PI1.2.2 and pole use v2) and line Japan CR PCDR v1.3 pole and 100 90 70 60 90 95 86.9 July 2016 (PI1.2.2 line use v2) Note that there are some differences in the wording of PIs between CRv1.3 and CRv2.0. Also, under CRv1.3 PI 1.1.2 requires that “Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock” whereas under CRv2.0 this PI does not exist and the availability of reference points is considered under other PIs. PI 1.1.2 under CRv2.0 relates to the need for stock rebuilding, covered by PI 1.1.3 under CRv1.3.

4.2 Previous assessments There have been no previous assessments of this fishery.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies This assessment has used the methodology found in MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements V2.0 October 2014 and the Default Assessment Tree it contains.

MSC Full Assessment Reporting template v2.0 December 2015 was used. 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits

Table 13. The itinerary for the site visit. Date Name Affiliation Discussion 30/05/2016 Malcolm Francis NIWA Skipjack All P2 issues 31/05/2016 Ian Angus DoC Skipjack All P2 issues Kris Ramm Igor Debski Katie Clemens-Seely 1/06/2016 Andy Smith Talley’s Opening Meeting. 2/06/2016 Greg Marciel All matters relating to client fishery operations and management Closing Meeting

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 57 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

1/06/2016 Rob Tilney Client Rep Opening Meeting 2/06/2016 All matters relating to client fishery operations and management Closing Meeting 1/06/2016 Dominic Valliers MPI Skipjack management Jo Lambie including NZ involvement in WCPFC, P1, P2, P3 02/06/2016 Gary Orr MPI Compliance P3 compliance issues 30/05/2106 to Adrian Gutteridge MSC Observer All 02/06/2016 30/05/2106 to Jo Akroyd Acoura Assessor All 02/06/2016 30/05/2106 to Kevin McLoughlin Acoura Assessor All 02/06/2016

4.4.2 Consultations In addition to people interviewed during the site visit, a total of 40 stakeholder individuals and organisations having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and consulted during this assessment.

Two stakeholder notifications were initially posted on the MSC website - Fishery Enters Full Assessment and - Participation in pilot harmonisation process

The processes used on the MSC website for tracking and announcing the various stages of the assessment as it progresses - from Full Announcement through to Certification - form an ideal tool through which to channel stakeholder interest and keep them abreast of the important stages of the assessment as a whole.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques In addition to information provided by the client and information gained during the site visit, the assessment team gathered information using a range of methods. The website of the WCPFC (www.wcpfc.int) was a key source of documentation about the target species, other retained species, CMMs and other management arrangements. The pre-assessment report (a draft copy of which was provided to the assessment team) was used as background. Individuals contacted during the assessment are listed above in Table 13. Stakeholders were informed primarily via announcements posted on the MSC website, and via direct email outreach. See Appendix 3 for a list of stakeholders contacted. Enquiries were also made during the site visit as to the existence of any local stakeholder groups that should be approached and made aware of the assessment. None were identified.

The scoring process followed the MSC FCR v2.0, Section 7.10. Scoring was completed by consensus through team meetings, skype calls and exchanging rationales by email and draft score and report sharing. The decision rule for MSC certification is as follows: - No PIs score below 60 (cannot receive certification) - The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number is 80 or above - The aggregate score for each Principle is calculated by taking the average score for each section followed by the average of all section scores (see Principle Level Scores)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 58 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Table 14. Principle 1 & 2 scoring elements

Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or not PI 1 Skipjack tuna Target Not data deficient PI 2.1 Jack mackerel Not main Not data deficient Blue mackerel Not main Not data deficient Striped marlin Not main Not data deficient Albacore Not main Not data deficient PI 2.2 Sunfish Not main Not data deficient PI 2.3 Spinetail devil ray Not main Not data deficient PI 2.4 None Not data deficient PI 2.5 None Not data deficient

RBF was not used in this assessment.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 59 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

5. Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date is the 1st December 2016 (approved by variation request, available in the assessment downloads for this fishery). 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery Change of ownership occurs once the fish is landed. It is taken to cold store where fish has usually been pre-purchased. It enters the buyers CoC once the fish is landed. All fish traders operating in NZ buying/selling MSC certified fish must have a CoC certificate

Factors that may lead to risks of non-certified fish being mixed with certified fish prior to entering Chain of Custody is listed in Table 15 below.

Table 15. Traceability Factors within the Fishery:

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be Very small quantities of skipjack are landed by NZ used within the fishery surface longliners as bycatch. The albacore troll fishery lands a very small quantity of skipjack as bycatch (less than 0.04%). Bycatch from other vessels and methods is landed at different times and places from the SKJ purse seine fishery. By law all fish is clearly identified by species fishing method area fished vessel name date etc. There is minimal risk that SKJ caught by other gears could be used The recreational line sector catches a very small quantity of skipjack but is not permitted to sell it. Potential for vessels from the UoC to Talley’s purse seiners fish for skipjack both within fish outside the UoC or in different and beyond the NZ EEZ. However, vessels geographical areas (on the same trips ALWAYS discharge their catches before leaving the or different trips) NZ EEZ UoC into specified ports. The NZ legal requirements would ensure that vessels that fish in UoC would not fish outside the UoC in one trip. Potential for vessels outside of the UoC Vessels belonging to companies other than Talley’s or client group fishing the same stock also purse seine for skipjack within the NZ EEZ. However, Talley’s catch all their own SKJ and do not buy in from other companies or vessels. Other company’s SKJ could not get mixed with Talley’s. Documentation is excellent as described in the CoC report. Risks of mixing between certified and All catches must have documentation with non-certified catch during storage, information on catch area, species, amount of catch transport, or handling activities and vessel name. This documentation is passed (including transport at sea and on land, along with the fish to the point of sale. The fish are points of landing, and sales at auction) sold frozen whole and documentation is always with the fish.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 60 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Risks of mixing between certified and There is no at sea processing. The entire skipjack non-certified catch during processing purse seine catch is sold in whole frozen form for activities (at-sea and/or before processing into canned products. subsequent Chain of Custody)

Risks of mixing between certified and There is no transhipment on Talley’s vessels. non-certified catch during transhipment

Any other risks of substitution between Talley’s has NEVER landed NZ caught SKJ into the fish from the UoC (certified catch) and Pacific nor any foreign port. Talley’s have clearly fish from outside this unit (non-certified stated that nor do they intend to do so in the future. catch) before subsequent Chain of The report has been amended. Custody is required The only eligible ports of landing are Nelson and Tauranga

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Skipjack from the Talley’s purse seine vessels fishing in NZ EEZ on unassociated schools (note FADs are not employed in the UoC fishery) are eligible to enter further certified chains of custody. The fishery certificate will cover catch up to the point of landing at a NZ port. Following landing the fish will enter the appropriate Chain of Custody held by the company. 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Skipjack tuna are not an IPI stock.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 61 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

6 Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 16. Final Principle Scores

Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 85.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 92.0 Principle 3 – Management System 86.9

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 62 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores

Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score

1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 100 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 75

1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 70 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 60 Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 90

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 95

2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 100

Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 95

2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100

2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 90

Secondary species 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 90

2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100

2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 80

Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 75

2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 80

2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 100

Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 95

2.4.3 Information 0.333 100

2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 100

Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 85

2.5.3 Information 0.333 90

3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 90

Governance and policy 0.5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.333 90

3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 90

Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 90

3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 85 Fishery specific management system 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 80

3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 0.25 80

Overall weighted Principle-level scores Score

Principle 1 - Target species 85.8

Principle 2 - Ecosystem 92.0

Principle 3 - Management 86.9

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 63 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

6.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 17. Summary of Conditions

Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/NA) SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for skipjack NA, but will require tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and 1 1.2.1 harmonisation with the elements of the harvest strategy work other fisheries together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY.

NA, but will require SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide 2 1.2.2 harmonisation with evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to other fisheries the main uncertainties.

SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. SI c) By the second surveillance audit, provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy in place 3 for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species 2.3.2 NA (in particular, the spinetail devil ray) will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.

6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by stakeholders and peer- reviewers, the determination will be presented to Acoura’s decision making entity that this fishery has passed the assessment and should be certified. 6.5 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment

In the main, there have not been substantive changes to the fishery since the pre- assessment. There has been progress through WCPFC processes in adopting a formal harvest strategy for the fishery. These issues are discussed under the relevant PIs.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 64 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

7 References Abascal, F., Lawson, T., and Williams, P. (2014). Analysis of purse seine size data for skipjack, bigeye and yellowfin tunas. WCPFC SC10‐ SA‐IP‐05, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6–14 August 2014. AEBR (2015). Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Annual Review 2015. Compiled by the Fisheries Management Science Team, Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. 682p. Anon. (2012). Review of the Performance of the WCPFC. WCPFC8-2011/12. 28 February 2012. In Report to Commission Eighth Regular Session. Tumon, Guam, USA. 26-30 March 2012. Abraham, E.R., Richard, Y., Berkenbush, K. and Thompson, F. (2016). Summary of the capture of seabirds, marine mammals, and turtles in New Zealand commercial fisheries, 2002–03 to 2012–13. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 169. AFMA (2012). Ecological Risk Management Report for the Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery, February 2012, Australian Fisheries Management Authority. Allain V., Griffiths S., Bell J. and Nicol S. (2015). Monitoring the pelagic ecosystem effects of different levels of fishing effort on the western Pacific Ocean warm pool. Issue-specific national report. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia. Allain V., Nicol S., Essington T., Okey T. Olson R.J. & Kirby D. (2007). An Ecopath with Ecosim model of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean warm pool pelagic ecosystem. Third regular session of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 13-24 Aug. 2007. Honolulu, USA. WCPFC-SC3 – EB SWG/IP-8: 1-42. Banks R., Clark L., Huntington T., Lewis T. and Hough A. (2011). MSC Assessment Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. (Available at www.msc.org). Berger, A., McKechnie, S., Abascal, F., Kumasi, B., Usu, T., and Nicol, S. (2014). Analysis of tagging data for the 2014 tropical tuna assessments: data quality rules, tagger effects, and reporting rates. WCPFC SC10‐ SA‐IP‐06, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6–14 August 2014. Cordue, P. L. (2013). Review of species and size composition estimation for the western and central Pacific purse seine fishery. WCPFC SC9‐2013‐ST‐IP‐02, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6– 14 August 2013. Cox, S. P., S. J. D. Martell, C. J. Walters, T. E. Essington, J. F. Kitchell, C. H. Boggs, and I. Kaplan. (2002a). Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific Ocean, 1952-1998: I. Estimating population biomass and recruitment of tunas and billfishes Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:1724-1735. Cox, S. P., T. E. Essington, J. F. Kitchell, S. J. D. Martell, C. J. Walters, C. H. Boggs and I. Kaplan. 2002b. Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific Ocean, 1952-1998: II. A preliminary assessment of the trophic impacts of fishing and effects on tuna dynamics. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:1736-1747. Davies, N; Hoyle, S; Hampton, J. (2012). Stock assessment of striped marlin (Kajikia audax) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Scientific Committee. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-05. DoC (2015). Conservation Services Programme Annual Plan 2015/16. Department of Conservation, June 2015. DoC (2016). Conservation Services Programme Annual Research Summary 2014/15. Department of Conservation, April 2016. Fishbase. (2016). Ocean Sunfish (Mola mola). Available at: http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Mola- mola.html (last accessed July 2016). Ford R.B., Galland, A., Clark, M.R., Crozier, P., Duffy, C.A.J., Dunn, M., Francis, M.P. and Wells, R. (2015). Qualitative (Level 1) Risk Assessment of the impact of commercial fishing in New Zealand Chondrichthyans. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 157. 111 p. (http://www.mpi.govt.nz/document-vault/9803).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 65 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Francis M.P. (2014). Survival and depth distribution of spinetail devilrays (Mobula japanica) released from purse-seine catches. NIWA client report WLG2014-2 for Department of Conservation, January 2014. Francis, M.P. and Jones, E.G. (2016). Movement, depth distribution and survival of spinetail devilrays (Mobula japanica) tagged and released from purse-seine catches in New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 2016. Francis M.P. and Lyon W.S. (2012). Review of commercial fishery interactions and population information for eight New Zealand protected fish species. NIWA client report WLG2012–64. Available from http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/marine-conservation- services/pop2011-03-protected-fish-review.pdf (accessed 15 July 2016). Gaertner, D., Gado de Molina, A., Ariz, J., Pianet, R., and Hallier, J.P. (2008). Variability of the growth parameters of the skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) among areas in the eastern Atlantic: analysis from tagging data within a meta‐analysis approach. Aquat. Living Resour. 21: 349‐356. (Cited in Rice et al. 2014). Gordon. D.P., Beaumont, J., MacDiarmid, A., Robertson, D. and Ahyong, S. (2010). Marine Biodiversity of Aotearoa New Zealand. PLoS ONE, 5(8):e10905. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, (2012). A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef. Offshore and foraging pelagic seabirds. GBRMPA 32 pp. Available at: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/21730/gbrmpa-VA-OffshorePelagicSeabirds- 11-7-12.pdf. Hall M, Roman M. (2013). Bycatch and non-tuna catch in the tropical tuna purse seine fisheries of the world. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 568. Hampton, J. (2000) Natural mortality rates in tropical tunas: size really does matter. Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 57: 1002-1010. Harley, S., Davies, N., Tremblay-Boyer, L., Hampton, J. & McKechnie, S. (2015). Stock assessment for south Pacific albacore tuna. WCPFC-SC11-2015/SA-WP-06, Rev 1 (4 August 2015). Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Harley, S., and Hampton, J. (2011) Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. No. WCPFCSC7‐ 2011/SA‐WP‐04 Rev1. Ianelli, J., Maunder, M., and Punt, A. E. (2012). Independent review of the 2011 WCPO bigeye tuna assessment. WCPFC SC8‐SA‐WP‐01, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7‐15 August 2012. Jones, E.; Francis, M.P. (2012). Protected rays – occurrence and development of mitigation methods in the New Zealand tuna purse seine fishery. NIWA client report prepared for the Department of Conservation WLG2012-49. 35 p. Kazmierow, B., K. Booth, and E Mossman. (2010). Experiences and factors influencing regulatory compliance. Report prepared for the Ministry of Fisheries by Lindis Consulting. http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/E028429E-8F77-4692-B58B- 5A2BBD66848C/0/Compliance_research_report_2010.pdf Kitchell JF, Boggs C, He X, Walters CJ. (1999). Keystone predators in the Central North Pacific. Proceedings of the Wakefield Symposium on Ecosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management. University of Alaska Sea Grant. P 665–83 850 pp. Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A., and Picaut, J. (1997). El Niño Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389: 715-718. Lehodey P., Nicol S., Hampton J., Caillot S., Williams P.G. (2013). Project 62: SEAPODYM applications in WCPO [EB WP 03]. [Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia]: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Scientific Committee Regular Ninth Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. 6‐14 August 2013. Leroy, B. (2000). Preliminary results on skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) growth, SCTB13 Working Paper, SKJ‐1. 13th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish. 13. 2000. 5‐7‐2000. (Cited in Rice et al. 2014).

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 66 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

McKechnie, S., Harley, S., Davies, N., Rice, J., and Hampton, J. (2014). Basis for regional structures used in the 2014 tropical tuna assessments, including regional weights. WCPFC SC10‐SAIP‐02, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6–14 August 2014. McMillan, P.J.; Griggs, L.H.; Francis, M.P.; Marriott, P.J.; Paul, L.J.; Mackay, E.; Wood, B.A.; Sui, H.; Wei, F. (2011). New Zealand fishes. Volume 3: A field guide to common species caught by surface fishing. New Zealand aquatic environment and biodiversity report 69. 145 p. Maunder, M.N. (2001). Growth of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the eastern Pacific Ocean, as estimated from tagging data. Bulletin. Inter‐American Tropical Tuna Commission La Jolla CA.Vol.22 (cited in Rice et al. 2014). Medley P.A.H. and Powers J.E. (2015). An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 3). ISSF Technical Report 2015‐04. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Morison, A.M. and McLoughlin, K. (2015). Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE) MSC Full Assessment: Final Report. (Available at www.msc.org). MPI (2009a). Operational Management Plan for Skipjack Tuna, 2010-2015. MPI (2009b). National Fisheries Plan for Highly Migratory Species (HMS), 2010-2015. MPI (2009c). Operational Management Plan for Large Pelagic Species, 2010-2015. MPI (2009d). Appendix A: Supporting information (Highly Migratory Species). April 2009, Ver. 1.3. MPI (2009e). Appendix B: Supporting information (large pelagic species). April 2009, Ver. 1.3. MPI (2012). Annual Review Report (ARR) 2012 Highly Migratory Species. MPI Technical Paper 2012/51. MPI (2013). Fisheries 2030. New Zealanders maximising benefits from the use of fisheries within environmental limits. MPI (2014a). New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Plenary, May 2014. Ministry for Primary Industries Fisheries Science Group. MPI (2014b). Annual Operational Plan proposals for HMS fisheries 2014-15. April 2014. MPI (2014c). Annual Review Report for Highly Migratory Species fisheries 2013-14. MPI Technical Paper 2014/32. MPI (2015a). Skipjack tuna. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Plenary, November 2015, (http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=113&dk=24023). MPI (2015b). Annual Operational Plan for Highly Migratory Species Fisheries 2015/16. New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries Technical Paper No: 2015/21, June 2015. MPI (2016a). November 2015 Stock Status. Ministry for Primary Industries. http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Doc/24003/Stock%20Status%20Table%20Nov%202015%20symbols.pdf.ashx. MPI (2016b). Eliminating shark finning in New Zealand. MPI website accessed June 2016: http://www.fish.govt.nz/en-nz/Environmental/Sharks/Eliminating+shark+finning+in+New+Zealand.htm. MPI (2016c). Annual Operational Plan for HMS fisheries 2015-16. May 2016. MRAG (2009). Final Report on Independent Review of the Commission’s Transitional Science Structure and Function of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Available from http://www.mrag.co.uk/experience/independent-review-science-structure-and-function-western-and- central-pacific-fisheries. Pilling, G., Harley, S., Davies, N., Rice, J. and Hampton, J. (2014). Status quo stochastic projections for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas. WCPFC‐SC10‐2014/SA‐WP‐06. Poisson F, Séret B, Vernet A-L, Goujon M, Dagorn L. (2014). Collaborative research: development of a manual on elasmobranch handling and release best practices in tropical tuna purse-seine fisheries. Marine Policy 44: 312–320.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 67 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Rice, J., Harley, S., Davies, N. and Hampton, J. (2014). Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC- SC10-2014/SA-WP-05 Rev 1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. SPC-OFP (2015). Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Tuna Fishery Yearbook 2014. Sibert, J.R., Hampton, J., Fournier, D.A., and Bills, P.J. (1999). An advection‐diffusion‐reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 925‐938. Sibert, J. and J. Hampton. (2003). Mobility of tropical tunas and the implications for fisheries management. Marine Policy 27: 87 – 95. Sibert, J.; Hampton, J.; Kleiber, P. and Maunder, M. (2006). Biomass, Size, and Trophic Status of Top Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science. 314: 1773-1776. Tanabe, T., Kayama, S., and Ogura, M. (2003). Precise age determination of young to adult skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) with validation of otolith daily increment. 16th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 916 July 2003, Mooloolaba, Australia. Working Paper SKJ8. (Cited in Rice et al. 2014). WCPFC (2000). Convention on the Conservation and Management of High Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. https://www.wcpfc.int/convention-text. WCPFC (2013). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Tenth Regular Session, Cairns, Australia, 2-6 December 2013. WCPFC (2014). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Eleventh Regular Session, Apia, Samoa, 1-5 December 2014. WCPFC (2015). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Twelfth Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, 3-8 December 2015. WCPFC-MOW (2013). Second Management Objectives Workshop, Report of the expert working group. Management objectives, performance indicators and reference points. WCPFC10 2013-15b. WCPFC-MOW (2014). WCPFC Report on the Third Management Objectives Workshop (MOW3), Faleata Sports Complex, Apia, Samoa 28th November 2014. Report on the Third Management Objectives Workshop, 3 December 2014. WCPFC-MOW (2015). WCPFC Report on the Harvest Strategy Workshop (MOW4), Bali, Indonesia 3- 8 December 2015. WCPFC-SC (2009). Final Report on Independent Review of the Commission’s Transitional Science Structure and Functions. WCPFC-SC5-2009/GN-WP-7. WCPFC-SC (2012). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee. Eighth Regular Session, Busan, Korea, 7–15 August 2012. WCPFC-SC (2013a). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee. Ninth Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6–14 August 2013. WCPFC-SC. (2013b). New Zealand Annual report to the Commission. Part 1: Information of Fisheries, Research and Statistics. Scientific Committee Twelfth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013 Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC9-AR/CCM-15. WCPFC-SC (2014a). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC (2014b). Summary report on 2013-2014 WPEA project activities. WCPFCSC10-2014- RP/WPEA-01.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 68 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

WCPFC-SC (2015a). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Eleventh Regular Session, Majuro, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5-13 August 2015. WCPFC-SC. (2015b). New Zealand Annual report to the Commission. Part 1: Information of Fisheries, Research and Statistics. Scientific Committee Eleventh Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5-13 August 2015. WCPFC-SC11-AR/CCM-16. WCPFC-SC. (2016). New Zealand Annual report to the Commission. Part 1: Information of Fisheries, Research and Statistics. Scientific Committee Twelfth Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia 3-11 August 2016. WCPFC-SC12-AR/CCM-16. Wild, A. and J. Hampton. (1994). A review of the biology and fisheries for skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, in the Pacific Ocean. p. 1-51. In R.S. Shomura, J. Majkowski and S. Langi (eds.), Interactions of Pacific tuna fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 336(2):439 p. Williams, P. and P. Terawasi. (2015). Overview of tuna fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions–2014. WCPFC-SC11-2015/GN-EP-01. Accessed online at http://www.wcpfc.int/node/21762. Wold, C., Kondo, E. and Hamilton, E. (2014). A review of the provision of scientific advice in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. WCPFC-SC10-2014/MI-IP-03.

WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures referred to in report. CMM 2004-03 Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels CMM 2006-04 Striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific CMM 2006-08 WCP Fisheries Commission Boarding and Inspection Procedures CMM 2007-03 Establish a List of Vessels presumed to Have Carried out Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing Activities in the WCPO (replaced by CMM 2010-06 CMM 2008-01 Bigeye and Yellowfin tuna in the WCPO (replaced by later CMMs) CMM 2008-03 Conservation and Management of Sea Turtles CMM 2009-11 Cooperating Non-Members CMM 2010-06 Establish a List of Vessels Presumed to have carried out Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing activities in the WCPO (Replaced CMM 2007-03) CMM 2010-07 Conservation and Management Measure for Sharks CMM 2011-03 CMM to address impact of purse seine fishing activity on cetaceans CMM 2011-04 Sharks – oceanic whitetip shark CMM 2012-04 Conservation and Management Measure on the protection of whale sharks from purse seine operations CMM 2013-01 CMM for bigeye yellowfin & skipjack tuna. CMM 2013-02 Compliance Monitoring Scheme. CMM 2013-05 CMM on daily catch and effort reporting. CMM 2013-08 CMM for Silky Sharks CMM 2014-01 CMM for bigeye yellowfin & skipjack tuna. CMM 2014-05 CMM for Sharks CMM 2014-06 Establishing a Harvest Strategy for Key Fisheries and Stocks in the WCPO CMM 2015-01 Bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the WCPO CMM 2015-06 Target Reference Point for WCPO Skipjack Tuna CMM 2015-07 Compliance and monitoring

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 69 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

NZ Legislation

NZ Fisheries Act 1996 Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Deed of Settlement 1992 Maori Fisheries Act 2004 NZ (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001 NZ (Reporting Regulations) 2001 NZ Customary Fisheries Regulations1998 New Zealand Fisheries (Satellite Vessel Monitoring) Regulations 1993.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 70 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendices

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI).

Met? Y Y Y Justifi The reference case model of the 2014 stock assessment estimated the 2011 level cation of spawning potential to be at approximately 48% of the unfished level, well above the LRP of 20%SBF=0 agreed by WCPFC (WCPFC-SC 2014a). Rice et al (2014) does not present explicit confidence intervals on spawning biomass but does include a graph showing the approximate 95% confidence intervals for the reference case:

Also, Pilling et al. (2014) used stochastic projections under status quo conditions to estimate that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the skipjack stock would fall below either the LRP or SBMSY level by 2032, or that fishing mortality will increase above FMSY levels, under future recruitment assumptions. Overall, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the PRI, meeting the requirements of the scoring issue at the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels. This is also supported by the updated 2016 assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016), presented at the 2016 WCPFC SC, which became available following the initial draft of this report.

B Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 71 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Met? Y Y Justifi The 2014 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest and cation uncertainty has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (WCPFC-SC 2014a). The assessment estimates of 2011 spawning biomass are above the level that will support the MSY (SB2011/SBMSY = 1.74 for the base case and range 1.45–2.10 across the sensitivity models explored) (WCPFC-SC 2014a). Fishing mortality has generally been increasing over time, however, current fishing mortality is below the MSY level (F2008-11/FMSY=0.61 for the base case and range 0.45–0.82 across the sensitivities). In 2015, CMM 2015-06 was adopted at the Commission, setting the TRP for skipjack tuna at an (initial) value of 50%SBF=0, subject to review no later than 2019.The stock assessment estimates spawning biomass to be close to this level. This indicates that SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

Rice et al. 2014; Pilling at al. 2014; WCPFC-SC 2014a; McKechnie et al. 2016 References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status Type of reference point Value of reference point relative to reference point

Reference a) Level of spawning a) 20%SBF=0 a) SBcurrent = 52%SBF=0;

point used in biomass in the absence SBlatest = 48%SBF=0; scoring stock of fishing where ‘current’ is over the relative to period 2008-11 and PRI (SIa) ‘latest’ is 2011.

b) FMSY b) Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.61 b) F(28%SBF=0)

Reference Level of spawning 50%SBF=0 SBcurrent = 52%SBF=0;

point used in biomass in the absence SBlatest = 48%SBF=0 scoring stock of fishing

relative to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 72 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A - key LTL [NOTE: only use this table for stocks identified as key LTL]

The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1 A impacts Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the point certainty that the stock is serious ecosystem where serious ecosystem above the point where impacts could occur. impacts could occur. serious ecosystem impacts could occur. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this cation scoring issue]

B Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with ecosystem has been fluctuating needs. around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this cation scoring issue]

References Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Reference [e.g. B35%] [Include value [Include current stock status in point used in specifying units. the same units as the reference scoring stock e.g. 50,000t total stock point e.g. 90,000/B35%=1.8] relative to biomass] ecosystem impairment (SIa)

Reference [e.g. B75%] [Include value [Include current stock status in point used in specifying units. the same units as the reference scoring stock e.g. 100,000t total point e.g. 90,000/B75%=0.9] relative to stock biomass] ecosystem needs (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 73 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding

Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this cation scoring issue]

B Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on timeframe. exploitation rates or simulation modelling, previous performance that exploitation rates or they will be able to rebuild previous performance that the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi [Note: Insert as much text as required to justify the SG level achieved for this cation scoring issue]

References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 74 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is designed objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest to achieve stock 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y N Not scored Justifi MSC guidance defines a harvest strategy as the combination of monitoring, stock cation assessment, harvest control rules and management actions. It is intended that these elements work together towards achieving management objectives. The current harvest strategy is not formalised but consists of the elements considered at PIs 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4. The operational harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack has several contributing components, with WCPFC, PNA and national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. CMM 2015-01 is fundamental in the current harvest strategy for skipjack. Its primary objective is that “Compatible measures for the high seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are implemented so that bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna stocks are, at a minimum, maintained at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors including the special requirements of developing States in the Convention Area as expressed by Article 5 of the Convention.” CMM 2015-01 lays out catch controls, measures for FAD set managements, and capacity limitation measures. Tools adopted by WCPFC include effort limits in major purse seine fisheries, FAD closures, high seas closures, and a discard ban in purse seine fisheries. Additional FAD measures are also in place for 2016 and 2017. Purse seine effort controls are in place in coastal states EEZs. Explicit LRPs have been adopted for biomass and the fishing mortality rate. In December 2015, the Commission adopted an explicit MSY-related biomass TRP. At this point harvest control rules have not been adopted but management of skipjack has operated informally to meet the objectives. There is an extensive information base from a wide range of biological studies and from a diverse range of fisheries. The information is sufficient to support a state-of-the-art stock assessment that provides probabilistic estimates of key parameters and their relationship to reference points. Advice from the stock assessment is provided by the Scientific Committee and additional work is carried out by the scientific provider, SPC, to the Commission. Annual decision-making is articulated through CMMs and is supported by good scientific decision-support systems. CMM 2014-06 spells out the future direction for strengthening the harvest strategy, including the development of harvest control rules, and a work plan has been agreed to implement this. As indicated above, there are measures in place that are intended to control fishing mortality for purse seine fishing, including effort and capacity limits. A major measure is the PNA Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) which determines Total Allowable Effort (TAE) and Party Allocations of Effort (PAE). As discussed earlier in the report, a meeting was held in Hong Kong in April 2016 to consider harmonisation of the P! components of tuna fisheries in the Pacific. An outcome of this was a review of the requirements for meeting SG80 requirements for PI 1.2.1a. The original PNA skipjack assessment (Banks et al. 2011) scored that fishery as meeting the SG80 level on the basis that “The elements of the harvest strategy work together in that

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 75 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place the implementation of the purse seine effort limit systems is based on the FFA and WCPFC VMSs, the WCPFC management actions in respect of the purse seine fisheries are largely based on the PNA actions” and that “the Commission responded to the change in the results of the skipjack assessment and the more cautionary tone of the scientific advice in 2010 by deciding to address the management of skipjack explicitly in the preparation of a CMM to replace CMM 2008-01 beyond 2011.” Overall, the score for PI 1.2.1 for the PNA fishery was 80. Other skipjack fisheries considered at the Hong Kong meeting (see Table 12) have considered that SG80 is not met for 1.2.1a and have awarded an overall score of 70 for PI 1.2.1. The basis for this is that participants consider that there is no clear linkage between potential catch and allocated effort, that the processes for determining VDS TAE and PAE are not transparent and that it is unclear how the TAE is determined, based on stock status advice. Overall, it was agreed that for the WCPFC tuna fisheries, including those under the PNA’s VDS, there is insufficient evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives, hence a score of 70 is warranted for PI 1.2.1 and a condition is required. The rationales for this conclusion are contained in relevant fishery reports which can be found on the MSC website. Without additional information, the assessors conclude that SG80 is not met (noting that there is a change in the wording for PI 1.2.1a in CR v2.0 which does not have a bearing on this conclusion (CR v1.3 scoring issue 1.2.1a SG80 requirements are that “The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points”).

B Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the post likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y Not scored Justifi The harvest strategy management objectives for skipjack are to ensure that the cation spawning stock does not fall to the LRP (20%SBF=0); to ensure fishing mortality does not exceed FMSY (F/FMSY<1); and to maintain the stock at least as high recently adopted TRP (50%SBF=0). The latest assessment (Rice et al. 2014) indicates that the stock is well above the biomass LRP and that fishing mortality is well below FMSY. Current biomass is estimated to be 52%SBF=0, just above the TRP. Also, stock projections suggest that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the skipjack stock would fall below the LRP or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032 (Pilling et al. 2014). The requirements for SG80 are met. The performance of the harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated, thus SG100 is not met.

C Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 76 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Justifi WCPFC has monitoring systems in place to record catch and effort for all vessels cation catching skipjack tuna in the WCPO. Monitoring of the purse seine fishery includes mandatory logbooks with records of catch and effort for each fishing operation, a VMS, 100% observer coverage of most fishing operations including detailed recording of catch composition, tagging data, biological studies and port inspections. Observer coverage of the NZ purse seine fishery within the NZ EEZ is approximately 10% of sets and 20% of the skipjack catch. These monitoring systems support a sophisticated stock assessment process that provides robust estimates of stock status that is sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. SG 60 requirements are met. D Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Not scored Justifi Not scored as not all SG80 requirements are met. cation E Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Sharks are not a target species. cation F Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial post of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Observer data indicated that there is a very low level of discarding of skipjack in the cation UoA (Baird 2009). There can be loss of some skipjack through ‘skunked’ shots (Langley 2011), however the level of morality of these fish is not known and their loss does not meet the definition of unwanted catch (CR 2.0 SA 3.1.6). Note that the 2010-2015 skipjack operational plan (MPI 2009a) does include an objective to “Devise incentives to add value to/and or reduce wastage in the skipjack fishery”. References Banks et al. 2011; Rice et al. 2014; Pilling et al. 2014; WCPFC CMMs; WCPFC 2014; Langley 2011; Baird 2009; MPI 2009a. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER: By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy 1 work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 77 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected post HCRs are in place or in place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above a expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a taking into account the approached. target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY, or stock, most of the time. for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N Justifi WCPFC CMM 2014-06 established a process for the adoption of harvest control cation rules, however, well-defined harvest control rules are not currently in place and SG80 is not met. Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” of 24th November 2014, PI 1.2.2 si(a) has been scored using CR v2.0 provisions for SG60 (as above) scoring for a number of fisheries, including several tuna fisheries. MSC have also provided further comment on HCRs with their notice of 16 December, 2015 “Interpretation on Harvest Control Rules (HCR)”. MSC CR v2.0 lays out two conditions for acceptance of HCR being available sufficient to justify scoring at the SG60 level. First, CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a provides for HCR being recognised as available, “…if stock biomass has not previously been reduced below BMSY or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time”. The MULTIFAN-CL software used for skipjack assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and uncertainty has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests. Previous skipjack assessment indicates that SB has not been reduced below SBMSY (Hoyle et al. 2011). The latest estimates of spawning biomass (2011) are also above the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.74 for the base case and from 1.45 to 2.10 across the grid of model runs used in the assessment) (WCPFC-SC 2014a). WCPFC-SC (2014a) also indicated that “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) was robust to assumptions on future recruitment. Under either assumption, spawning biomass remained relatively constant and it is exceptionally unlikely (0%) for the stock to become overfished (SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or for the spawning biomass to fall below SBMSY, and it is exceptionally unlikely (0%) for the stock to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY)”. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are considered to be ‘available’. Second, CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b provides for HCR being recognised as available if, “…there is an agreement or framework in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY”. WCPFC CMM 2014-06 sets out the principles and elements for harvest strategies to be developed and implemented, including requirements for target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The CMM also included a requirement to adopt a workplan with an indicative timeframe no later than 2015 Commission meeting, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 78 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules is already well underway through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process (and a TRP and LRP have been adopted for skipjack). Following discussions at WCPFC12 a workplan was agreed (WCPFC 2015a, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support from the Scientific Service Provider to undertake the activities specified in the agreed workplan (included in this report at Appendix 6). As indicated above, the current stock assessment and projections of future stock size indicate that the stock will remain above SSBMSY over the period agreed in the CMM 2014-06 workplan. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b requirement is therefore met. In summary, as conditions at both CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a and CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b are met, a score of SG60 is awarded.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account post robust to the main of a wide range of uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? N Not scored Justifi HCRs are still under development and SG80 is not met. SG100 is not scored due to cation SG80 requirements not being met. c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y N Not scored Justifi The rationale for this SI needs to address two MSC CR v2.0 requirements. cation First, CR v2.0 SA2.5.6 requires that as part of the evaluation of the effectiveness of HCRs, “…teams shall include consideration of the current levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available”. MSC CR v2.0 SA2.5.6 guidance (GSA2.5.2-7) states that “Evidence that current F is equal to or less than FMSY should usually be taken as evidence that the HCR is effective”. Evidence to support this is provided by the 2014 assessment which estimates that Fcurrent /FMSY = 0.61 (2008-11 average) and across the grid of model runs ranged from 0.45‐0.82 indicating that overfishing is not occurring (WCPFC-SC 2014a). Second, in relation to SIa, above, MSC CR v2.0 SA2.5.5b, requires that where HCRs are recognised as ‘available “A description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs” shall be provided. As noted at SIa, CMM 2014-06 sets out elements of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The WCPFC agreed to adopt a work plan at the 2015 Commission meeting, with potential revision in 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. Work to establish reference points and harvest control rules has been in progress over

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 79 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place recent years through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. WCPFC has adopted an explicit LRP and TRP for skipjack. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a workplan was agreed (WCPFC 2015a, Attachment Y). No additional trigger is required for the development of HCRs is required. The requirements detailed above are met and a score of 60 is awarded. SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery. Given SIa finds HCRs are ‘available’, the tools are not considered to be in use and SG80 is not met.

Hoyle et al. 2011; Rice et al. 2014; WCPFC-SC 2104a; WCPFC 2015a References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER: SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. 2 SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 80 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range post information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Monitoring systems in place provides a comprehensive range of information to cation support the current harvest strategy and inform the stock assessment. Available information includes mandatory logbooks, with records for each fishing operation, detailed VMS coverage, 100% observer coverage for the majority of the skipjack catch and port inspections. Information is available on key aspects of skipjack tuna biology and extensive tagging provides information on stock structure. The tagging data and size composition sampling are key inputs to the MULTIFAN-CL model which provides for estimation of reference points against which stock status can be evaluated and management advice provided. Data on environmental conditions is collected and is known to be important for understanding shifts in the distribution of the stock and the fishery. New Zealand catch, fishing effort, fishing operation data, and vessel information are collected on logsheets provided by each permit holder to the Ministry for Primary Industries on Catch Effort Landing Returns (CELR). CELR forms are completed for each day of fishing for all gear types (e.g. handline, troll, purse seine and some longline) and Tuna Longline Catch Effort Returns (TLCER) forms are filled out for surface longlining for tunas, these data are recorded for each longline set. The forms are submitted monthly by the 15th of following month. Tuna landings data are compiled from either the Licensed Fish Receiver Returns (LFRR) filed monthly by each Licensed Fish Receiver and Monthly Harvest Returns (MHR) filed by the fishing permit holder. Observer coverage of UoA vessels is approximately 10%. The available information is considered to meet the requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels.

b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required post UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control rule monitored and at least regularly monitored at a is monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to with the harvest control there is a good support the harvest rule, and one or more understanding of inherent control rule. indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 81 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy support the harvest and management to this control rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi As indicated at 1.2.3a, stock abundance and removals are monitored at a level of cation accuracy and coverage that is sufficient to support the current harvest control measures. The information enables estimates of stock abundance and harvest control decisions based on the available data using the stock assessment and a range of assumptions. The MULTIFAN-CL based assessment estimates abundance using catch and effort, size composition, and tagging data. New Zealand collects appropriate data on the UoA for skipjack catches within the NZ EEZ and for NZ vessels fishing beyond the EEZ. Data used are from all fisheries and cover the entire skipjack stock. Catches are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with assessment requirements to enable management decision-making. The majority of catches are taken by purse-seine vessels under PNA VDS arrangements. Since 2010, these vessels are subject to 100% observer coverage at sea. Port and transhipment monitoring are also required. A review of sampling protocols has improved catch and size composition accuracy (Cordue 2013).

However, there are aspects of the data collection which do not meet SG100 requirements. There are delays in the collation of data from the most recent year that prevent their inclusion in the assessment. For a short-lived species such as skipjack tuna, this could lead to a mismatch between estimates of stock status from the assessment, management actions, and the actual stock status (Rice et al. 2014). Also, operational level data are not provided by some WCPFC members (although some who do not provide it to WCPFC make their country’s data available for assessment purposes).

The requirements for the SG60 and SG80 levels are met.

c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi New Zealand’s data collection systems provide good information on removals. More cation than 99% of the New Zealand skipjack catch is taken buy purse seine (WCPFC-SC 2016). The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in this scoring issue relates to vessels outside or not covered by the unit of assessment. These other removals comprise the majority of the catch of WCPO skipjack. Other removals from the stock across the WCPO include catches by other WCPFC members, again predominantly by purse seine but also by other fishing gears. Catches by members are required to be reported to the WCPFC. Article 5 of the Convention requires CCMs to “collect and share, in a timely manner, complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities on, inter alia, vessel position, catch of target and non-target species and fishing effort, as well as information from national and international research programmes.” The PNA skipjack tuna MSC assessment (Banks et al. 2011) comments on shortcomings in the information coming from some countries, in particular, Indonesia. Since that assessment there has been additional work to improve the level of data available from other sources, including non-purse seine fisheries. There is improved data from the diverse fisheries of Indonesia, Philippines, and Vietnam, including estimates of total catch, size and some effort data as a result of projects such as the Global Environment Facility (GEF) funded West Pacific East

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 82 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Asia (WPEA) Project which has provided technical assistance and financial support to the participating countries (Indonesia, Philippines and Vietnam) for tuna data collection, annual tuna catch estimation, and capacity building to refine legal, institutional and policy arrangements (WCPFC-SC 2014b).

Overall, it is concluded that there is good information on other removals and SG80 requirements are met.

Rice et al. 2014; Cordue 2013; Lehodey et al. 1997; Banks et al. 2011; WCPFC-SC References 2014b; WCPFC-SC 2016

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 83 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justifi Stock assessments are undertaken regularly, most recently in 2014 (Rice et al, cation 2014) and before that in 2011 (Hoyle et al, 2011). The assessment takes into account major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the UoA and the wider WCPO. It is implemented using MULTIFAN-CL, fitting an age- and spatially- structured model to catch, effort, size composition, and tagging data. The model first developed for skipjack in 1998 and has been continually fine-tuned and improved. The skipjack assessment is appropriate for the WCPO stock, accounting for spatial and temporal distributions, using appropriate biological assumptions, and accounting for diverse fisheries. The assessment is appropriate for the generally understood harvest control rules that are being applied and for the range of formal HCRs that are likely to be adopted. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. Following the initial draft of this report, an updated assessment of skipjack tuna was presented at the 2016 WCPFC SC (McKechnie et al. 2016). The outcomes of this assessment are yet to be considered at the December 2016 Commission meeting, however, the assessment approach and the outcomes are largely consistent with previous assessments based on the results of the reference case model and consideration of the results of sensitivity runs. The 2016 assessment incorporates a further 3 years of data, extending the model time period until the end of 2015.

b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi The assessment is used to estimate stock status relative to a wide range of cation indicators including the agreed reference points. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.

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

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 84 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Justifi The skipjack assessment explicitly explores sources of uncertainty. Statistical cation variation within a given assessment run is estimated. In addition, structural uncertainty in the assessment is examined by considering the variation in a crosswise grid of model runs which include many of the options of uncertainty explored during model development (Rice et al, 2014). Model outputs are provided in a probabilistic way. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has post been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justifi SPC-OFP provides an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and cation approaches. Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data. A suite of sensitivity analyses are undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. Aspects of uncertainty examined include stock-recruitment steepness, alternate growth assumptions, alternate mixing assumptions and changes in weighting factors (Rice et al, 2014, McKechnie et al. 2016). The assessment for skipjack tuna has been shown to be robust. The SG100 requirements are met.

e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has post status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justifi The WCPFC science and assessment processes have been externally reviewed cation (WCPFC 2009). The stock assessment itself is subject to internal peer review through the annual pre-assessment workshop and WCPFC SC annual processes. An external review of bigeye tuna (Ianelli et al, 2013) has implications for the skipjack assessment and the SPC has taken advantage of that review to further develop all tuna assessments, including that for skipjack (Rice et al, 2014). SG80 requirements are met. However, the skipjack assessment itself has not been specifically subject to external peer review, preventing a score of 100 for this scoring issue.

References Hoyle et al. 2011; Rice et al. 2014; Ianelli et al. 2013; WCPFC 2009; McKechnie et al. 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 85 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR fluctuating around a level OR consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the measures in place that PRI, there is either are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or that the UoA does not a demonstrably effective hinder recovery and strategy in place between rebuilding. all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no main primary species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met cation by default. b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justifi Minor primary species considered are jack mackerel, blue mackerel, striped marlin cation and albacore tuna. A quantitative estimate of these stocks being above the PRI is not available, however, sufficient information is available to indicate that this is highly likely (see Table 7) except for jack mackerel. The low level of catch of these species by the purse seine fishery would have minimal impact on the stocks of these species. Information on stock status for jack mackerel is poor. Total allowable catches for jack mackerel have been set for several regions around New Zealand since the 1980s and total catch has generally been well below the total allowable catch. In area JMA 1, which has the greatest overlap with the skipjack purse seine fishery, the total allowable catch of 10,000 t has been exceeded in three of the past twenty years. For the period 2010-2015 the total jack mackerel catch by the purse seine fishery has averaged 524 t. The ongoing maintenance of catches of jack mackerel over more than 30 years suggest the stock is not below the PRI. Regardless, the low level of catch of jack mackerel by the skipjack fishery would have minimal impact on the overall stock levels. SG100 requirements are met.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 86 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI.

References MPI 2016a; WCPFC-SC 2012; WCPFC-SC 2013b; WCPFC-SC 2015b; Harley et al. 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 87 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. not hinder rebuilding of not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no main primary species. Of the minor species discussed at 2.1.1, jack cation mackerel and blue mackerel are managed under NZ’s QMS. Albacore tuna and striped marlin are managed under WCPFC. These arrangements constitute a strategy for these non-target species taken at very low catch levels. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi Catches other than skipjack have been less than 1% of total catch of the purse cation seine fishery over several years. The majority of species taken are managed under the QMS scheme. Other species are managed under WCPFC arrangements. The management arrangements in place and monitoring of the fishery provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 88 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Minor catches of several shark species taken and reported in logbook data (mako, cation bronze whaler, hammerhead and thresher sharks; see Table 6). Mako sharks are managed under the NZ QMS. Management of shark species in New Zealand is driven by the National Plan of Action for Sharks (NPOA-Sharks) 2013, which includes an objective to eliminate shark finning in NZ fisheries. Since 1 October 2014, it is illegal for a commercial fisher to remove the fins from any shark and discard the body of the shark at sea in New Zealand. The ban does allow shark fins to be landed attached to the body of the shark for non-QMS species and two QMS species (spiny dogfish and blue shark). For seven QMS species (elephantfish, ghost shark, mako shark, pale ghost shark, porbeagle shark, rig, and school shark) fishers are be able to land shark fins separately to the body of the shark but only in accordance with a gazetted fin to greenweight ratio. Following the implementation of the ban on shark finning a review of the first year of fisher compliance with the finning regulations was undertaken. This review indicated overall compliance with the new regulations was high. Observer coverage of the skipjack purse seine fishery has been close to 20% in recent years and does not indicate that finning is occurring. In addition, MPI has confirmed compliance with shark finning regulations. There is also port sampling, inspections of licensed fish receivers and detailed analysis of data collected through the comprehensive reporting requirements of the QMS. Penalty provisions relating to breaches of Schedule 6 of the Fisheries Act 1996 include a maximum fine of $250,000. Measures in place suggest there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. The NPOA-Sharks 2013 is due to be reviewed beginning in 2017 which will provide an opportunity for a high-level review of the effectiveness and implementation of the shark finning prohibition and associated regulatory framework.

e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are very low levels of non-target catch and even lower levels of this catch cation would not be used. Many of the species taken as non-target catch are managed under the QMS system. References NPOA-Sharks (2013); MPI (2016b) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 89 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 90 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and is adequate impact of the UoA on the and is adequate to to assess with a high main primary species with assess the impact of the degree of certainty the respect to status. UoA on the main primary impact of the UoA on species with respect to main primary species with status. respect to status. OR

OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes for information is adequate to main primary species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Quantitative information is available to indicate that there are no main primary cation species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met by default.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justifi Catches of minor species are very low. Many of the minor species are QMS cation species. The requirements of the QMS mean that there is some quantitative information to estimate the impact of the UoA. There is also approximately 20% observer coverage of the fishery. SG100 requirements are met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to manage main Primary manage all primary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no main primary species, hence SG60 and SG80 are met by default. As cation indicated above, the many of the minor species are QMS species. The requirements of the QMS provide information to support management of these

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 91 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species species. There is also observer coverage of approximately 20% of the fishery, providing information to conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that the strategy is meeting its objective. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

See Table 6; http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=81 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 92 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of post are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to limits, there is either ensure that the UoA does evidence of recovery or not hinder recovery and a demonstrably rebuilding. effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no main secondary species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are cation met by default.

b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 93 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Met? N Justifi Species caught which do not have the management arrangements of the primary cation species in place are taken only at low levels (Table 6). Ocean sunfish (Mola mola) are the only species considered as a secondary species. They are a minor species based on available catch data. Stock assessments have not been conducted for sunfish and little is known about its status in the Pacific. Some information is available about characteristics such as diet, swimming behaviour and global distribution, but not much information exists on the life history, reproductive strategy or age at maturity (Fishbase, 2016). An ecological risk assessment for Australia’s Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fishery found the species to be at ‘precautionary extremely high risk’, mostly due to a high level of uncertainty in the data used and their uncertain life history parameters (AFMA 2012). There is insufficient information on the status of sunfish to conclude that it is highly likely they are above biologically based limits. SG100 is not met.

See Table 6; AFMA 2012; Fishbase 2016 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 94 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to secondary species. main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits or levels which are highly to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits or recovery. to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y N Justifi The only secondary species is sunfish, a minor species. SG60 and SG80 cation requirements are met by default. There is a strategy in place for the majority of species taken, however no specific management arrangements are in place for sunfish. Data is collected which would allow further analysis of threats to this species. SG100 is not met.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 95 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant) Not relevant Justifi No sharks are considered as secondary species hence scoring of this SI is not cation required. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial cation potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Guide There are very low levels of non-target catch and even lower levels of this catch post would not be used. The majority of species taken as non-target catch is managed under the QMS system. References See Table 6 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 96 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and adequate impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess to assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on with respect to status. main secondary species OR with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. main secondary species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Quantitative information is available to indicate that there are no main secondary cation species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met by default.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y Justifi Ongoing information collection is adequate to assess potential catches of cation secondary species and the impacts of these catches. Quantitative data is available from the fishery to allow further consideration of the impact of the fishery on sunfish. SG100 is met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There are no main secondary species, hence SG60 and SG80 are met by default. cation The collection of observer data provides sufficient information for management of all secondary species and SG100 is also met.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 97 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.

References See Table 6 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 98 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of there is a high degree of the population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of the within these limits. known and highly likely MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Available information indicates there is a low level of interaction with ETP species. cation Observer data from the purse seine fishery does not indicate interaction with dolphins or turtles in NZ waters. There is a reported very low level of interaction with seabirds (Table 8). Very low catches of sharks are also indicated by observer data and are reported to WCPFC via NZ’s Annual Part 1 reports (WCPFC-SC 2013b, WCPFC-SC 2015b). The highest level of interaction of the purse seine fishery with ETP species is with mobulid rays, the spinetail devil ray (Mobula japanica) and manta rays (Manta birostris) (Tables 8 and 9), though it is apparent that there has been misreporting of mobulid ray catches, with most if not all mobulid rays reported caught in commercial fisheries likely to have been spinetail devilrays (AEBR 2015). The following discussion focusses on spinetail devil ray, however, findings would also apply to manta ray. In July 2011, the spinetail devil ray and manta ray became fully protected under Schedule 7A of the NZ Wildlife Act (1953). The national requirements for ETP protection in New Zealand law notes that while interactions are not forbidden (i.e. not zero), the law requires interactions to be reported on MPI’s Non-fish and Protected Species Catch Return form. Whilst spinetail devil rays are protected under NZ legislation, no limits are set on catch levels. No international limits apply to spinetail devil ray catches.

b Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of post the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi No information is available on the spinetail devilray population status in NZ waters cation or more broadly throughout their distribution. The impacts of current catches are unknown; hence it is not known whether recovery is required. The endangered status of the species in NZ is based on its biology and low productivity. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. However, there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on the species. SG100 is not met. c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 99 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y N Justifi Indirect trophic effects of fishing for tuna on sharks and rays, cetaceans and turtles, cation and other components of the ecosystem have been considered through a variety of modelling approaches (Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007) and, although the impacts are not negligible, they have not been considered irreversible and no particular impacts on ETP species have been identified. The scale of the UoA fishery is a small component of the total purse seine fishery across the WCPO. Indirect effects of the fishery include the potential for the reduced abundance of tuna to foraging opportunities for seabirds and hence their subsequent reproductive output (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2012), and for there to be other trophic impacts from the reduction in the abundance of these predators in the ecosystem. A causal linkage has not been demonstrated, however, nor has a level of decline in a seabird population been linked to the indirect effect of reductions in tuna populations from fishing, as opposed to shifts in the distribution of tuna in response to changed oceanographic conditions. The indirect effects have thus been considered and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on any ETP species but the level of evidence is insufficient to assign a high degree of confidence to this conclusion. The requirements of the SG80 level but not of the SG100 level are therefore considered to be met.

AEBR 2015; WCPFC-SC 2013b; WCPRF-SC 2015b; Great Barrier Reef Marine References Park Authority 2012; Kitchell et al. 1999; Sibert et al. 2006; Allain et al. 2007.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 100 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive strategy UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP in place for managing the ETP species, and are species, including UoA’s impact on ETP expected to be highly measures to minimise species, including likely to achieve national mortality, which is measures to minimise and international designed to be highly mortality, which is requirements for the likely to achieve national designed to achieve protection of ETP and international above national and species. requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP for the protection of ETP species. species. Met? Y Y Not scored Justifi Key legislation for the UoA for ETP species includes the Fisheries Act (1996), cation Wildlife Act (1953), Marine Mammals Protection Act (1978), and specific regulations for birds (relating to bycatch mitigation approaches). There is a requirement to report injury or mortality of protected species to the DoC (without offence). National Plans of Action have been implemented for seabirds and sharks. Environmental risk assessments have been undertaken for seabirds and are ongoing for sharks. There are also requirements under WCPFC for seabirds and sharks. The national requirements for ETP protection in New Zealand law notes that while interactions are not forbidden (i.e. not zero), the law requires interactions to be reported on MPI’s Non-fish and Protected Species Catch Return form. The long- term aim is to minimise mortalities where possible, with the zero interactions being described as the aspirational objective. The approach requiring reporting of interactions, combined with observer coverage. provides good information on the potential effects of the fishery on ETP species. No specific limits on interactions have been set. There are also several WCPFC CMMs in place to deal with ETPs. For example, there are CMMs with specific measures for silky sharks (2013-08), oceanic whitetip sharks (CMM 2011-04) and whale sharks (CMM 2012-04), as well as CMMs for cetaceans (2011-03), and for turtles (CMM 2008-03). These are considered to constitute a strategy to manage the fishery’s impact on ETP species. The design of this strategy is considered highly likely to achieve the national and international requirements for protection. It is not, however, assessed as being designed to achieve above these requirements. This meets the requirements of the SG60 and SG80 levels. SG100 is not scored due to SG80 not being met at 2.3.2c. Spinetail devil rays are a species of concern. Given their protected status, spinetail devil rays are released when captured. Between 2005 and 2014, spinetail devil rays were caught in 8.2% of all observed skipjack purse seine sets in NZ waters (Jones and Francis, 2012).

b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive strategy ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not in place for managing

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 101 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. hinder the recovery of hinder the recovery of ETP species, to ensure ETP species. ETP species. the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi NZ legislation is in place which provides requirements for the protection of ETP cation species.

c Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is an objective The strategy/ post considered likely to basis for confidence comprehensive strategy is work, based on plausible that the mainly based on argument (e.g., general measures/strategy will information directly about experience, theory or work, based on the fishery and/or species comparison with similar information directly involved, and a fisheries/species). about the fishery and/or quantitative analysis the species involved. supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y N Not scored Justifi There is an objective basis for confidence that, in general, the fishery has a low cation impact on ETP species. However, as indicated above, spinetail devil rays are a species of concern. Reported mobulid ray catches from other MSC-assessed fishery are not always to the species level. The Tri Marine MSC assessment (Morison and McLoughlin 2015) indicates that 624 devil rays were captured and discarded by U.S. purse seine vessels in unassociated sets between 2010 and 2013. The PNA MSC assessment (Banks et al. 2011) indicates an annual average of 8.3 t of manta rays (unidentified) being caught in unassociated sets between 2005 and 2008 (0.01% of the catch). In examining cumulative/global impacts, Hall and Roman (2013) conclude that “the impacts of the purse seine captures and bycatch on the population dynamics of the pelagic stingrays are probably negligible. With regard to manta and devil rays, the numbers cannot be placed in perspective because of the lack of population abundances and stock structure information. Although the overall numbers are not large, care must be exercised when the effort concentrates in patches where it may cause localized impacts on subpopulations whose genetic structure is not well known. The development of better techniques to release these species is an important step for eliminating this bycatch”. Given their protected status in NZ, spinetail devil rays are released when captured. Between 2005 and 2014, spinetail devil rays were caught in 8.2% of all observed skipjack purse seine sets in NZ waters (Jones and Francis, 2012). Tables 8 & 9 indicated a high rate of released spinetail rays being ‘alive and uninjured’. A code of practice is in development which includes information on the handling of sharks and rays. However, recent research indicates a potential high level of mortality of released specimens (Francis and Jones 2016). A project to attach archival tags to spinetail devil rays has operated since 2013. A total of nine tags have been deployed. Overall, seven of the nine tags reported data, and four of those rays died within 2–4 days of release. All four rays that died had been brought aboard entangled in the bunt. The three surviving rays were all brailed aboard with the tuna catch. Francis and Jones (2016) acknowledges that it is premature to draw

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 102 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. conclusions about survival rates of devil rays based on seven tags returning data. Nevertheless, the four deaths observed out of seven rays indicate that mortality may be significant. Those four had all become entangled in the bunt netting, while those that were brailed aboard survived (Francis and Jones 2016). Francis and Jones (2016) also discuss a summer ‘hotspot’ near the shelf edge off the North Island (i.e. ~35.0–36.5° S off the north-eastern coast of North Island in the 150–450 m depth range) where there were catches of devil rays in 24.3% of sets in the 2005-2014 data. As discussed in the body of the report, information on handling techniques is available from several sources (Poisson et al. 2012) and Hall and Roman (2013) and a code of practice is being developed for use in the UoA fishery. Further to the handling techniques discussed, Francis and Jones (2016) comment on the implications of ‘skunked’ sets. Three of the four rays that died were caught in ‘skunked’ sets, and all four rays became entangled in the netting and were hauled aboard in the bunt. This research has provided valuable information which has the potential to improve survival rates of released rays. However, available information is not sufficient to conclude that there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work. SG60 is met but SG80 is not.

d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y Not scored Justifi As described at 2.3.2a, there are measures in place at the national and regional cation levels which are considered to constitute a strategy to manage the fishery’s impact on ETP species. Data collection from the fishery include requirements for reporting ETP interactions, as well as approximately 20% observer coverage in recent years. Information collected is reported widely in national reports and in reporting to the Commission (AEBR 2015, WCPFC-SC 2015b). These provide some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y Not scored

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 103 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Justifi A Conservation Service Programme (CSP) has operated under the administration cation of the Department of Conservation since 1996 with the aim of avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of commercial fisheries on protected species (DoC 2015). Each year, the CSP Annual Plan outlines the conservation services to be delivered. These services are subject to cost recovery from the commercial fishing industry and the Plan forms the basis for levying the commercial fishing industry under the Fisheries Act 1996. The CSP Research Advisory Group was established in December 2013 to provide guidance for the development of the Annual Plan. SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not scored due to SG80 not being met at 2.3.2c. DoC 2015; Banks et al. 2011; Morison and McLoughlin 2015; Jones and Francis References 2012; Francis and Jones 2016; AEBR 2015; WCPFC-SC 2015b; Hall and Roman 2013 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER: By the second surveillance audit, provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on 3 ETP species (in particular, the spinetail devil ray) will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 104 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate available to assess with a UoA related mortality on to assess the UoA high degree of certainty ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may be mortalities and injuries OR a threat to protection and and the consequences recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI species. species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi There is a requirement for reporting of interactions with ETP species and there is cation 20% observer coverage of the fishery. These data provide quantitative information that is adequate to assess the UoA impact on ETP species. However, there is not a high degree of certainty in relation to the consequences of these interactions for spinetail devil ray status. SG60 and SG80 are met.

b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive strategy ETP species. manage impacts on ETP to manage impacts, species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi The level of reporting from the fishery, including current observer coverage is cation adequate to measure trends and support the ETP management strategy for the fishery. At present, this information is not adequate to support a comprehensive strategy in relation to spinetail devil rays. SG60 and SG80 are met.

References AEBR 2015

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 105 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 106 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Purse seine fishing for tuna is typically undertaken in deep oceanic waters and cation does not physically impact the seafloor during operations. In the main, the commonly encountered habitat for the fishery will be confined to direct or indirect effects on the surface waters in which the fishery operates. These habitats are essentially open ocean waters in which the ability to support the target fish populations is related to temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determine the productivity of the lower trophic levels. These are primarily driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their effect on the frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. Purse seine fishing is not considered capable of affecting these key habitat drivers at a broad scale or even local levels of productivity.

Shallow water extends offshore for considerable distances on the west coast of the North Island, and in this area there is some risk of benthic impacts, although operators report using shallower nets than those used in tropical fisheries (MPI 2009a). The foot print for these interactions is likely to be small and indications are that nets would be deployed predominantly in areas of sandy/muddy bottom. Catch composition data from six observed purse seine trips in NZ waters in 2011 and 2012 supports a possible low level of interaction with benthos-related species (AEBR 2015). MPI provided the assessors that there are instances where the recorded purse seine net curtain height was larger than the recorded seabed depth at the start of event (MPI email 28 May 2016). The two UoC purse seine vessels are large vessels. The skipper of one of these commented that these vessels would make every effort to avoid contact of the net on the sea floor and if they did want to set the net where this was a possibility they would only set on sandy bottom. Available evidence indicates that there is some possibility of contact with the seafloor, however it is highly unlikely that this would reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to reduce structure and habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 107 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 108 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. Met? Y Y N Justifi The strategy in place for managing impacts on habitat is operational – the fishery cation typically operates in deep, oceanic water and has limited impact on the seafloor. Any pelagic habitat impacts will be imperceptible and highly transient. This constitutes a partial strategy which is supported by approximately 20% observer coverage. SG60 and SG80 levels of performance are met. There is some evidence of seafloor interaction and although the impacts of this are likely to be low, there is not a strategy in place for managing all impacts. SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The UoA fishery operates at the surface in open ocean waters and the gear has cation minimal contact with the seabed nor is there evidence of impacts on any pelagic habitat. This provides a plausible argument and an objective basis for confidence that the de facto strategy will work to achieve the outcome SG60 and SG80 levels. No specific testing of the strategy has been undertaken, but the nature of the fishery and the environments in which it operates makes such testing unnecessary. SG100 is met.

c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi The UoA fishery operates predominantly at the surface in open ocean waters. The cation nature of the gear, the habits of the target species and the areas in which the fishery operates provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Habitat impacts from the UoA are not directly monitored because of their low impact, however, there is observer coverage which would provide information on any potential habitat impact. New Zealand fisheries management

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 109 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. includes a high level of consultation with other agencies, including for prioritization of research needs. There are avenues for research being directed to the fishery to achieve the objectives of SIa if required. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some There is clear post evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its management with both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are no VMEs impacted by the fishery. cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 110 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all post of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular area are known at a level attention to the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable OR scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Interaction by the fishery is with the epipelagic zone which is not considered to be cation vulnerable as evidence exists that it is highly unlikely that the habitat is altered by the UoA. Oceanography and primary productivity around New Zealand has been well studied through historical and current projects, and remote sensing studies. This has allowed the distribution of habitat to be adequately described, and key areas identified. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats nature of the main the main impacts of the have been quantified fully. impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the Some quantitative consequence and spatial information is available attributes of the main and is adequate to habitats. estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 111 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The extent of any interaction with purse seine gear and the epipelagic zone is cation known to be negligible and effectively unmeasurable – the UoA gear is deployed in a very small percentage of the vast expanse of epipelagic zone. Physical impacts of the client fishery on pelagic habitat are highly unlikely to occur and quantification of the impact is not required. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. c Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Y Y Justifi Interaction with the UoA gear and the epipelagic zone is known to be of low impact. cation New Zealand marine studies are ongoing, and include information collected from research surveys, satellite imagery, fishery distribution and other techniques. This allows changes in oceanography to be identified. The current observer program also collects data which would allow monitoring of habitat impacts to the extent they might occur. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the WCPO are regularly monitored. The client vessels all operate under a VMS scheme and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

References Gordon et al. 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 112 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to a ecosystem structure and elements underlying point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The skipjack stock is currently not overfished nor experiencing overfishing cation (WCPFC-SC 2014). The diet of skipjack is well understood across their life history stages, while their predators when in their juvenile stages are also reasonably well known. They are an apex predator and as such play an important role in maintaining the health of an ecosystem, exerting substantial control over the population sizes of many species at lower levels of the food web.

Sibert et al. (2006) analysed available data from Pacific tuna fisheries for the period 1950–2004 to examine fishery impacts on population biomass and size structure. The study found that fish larger than 175 cm fork length decreased from 5% to approximately 1% of the total population. The trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on top-level predators in the Pacific Ocean were substantial but that ecosystem impacts were likely to be minor. Although catches across the WCPO have increased since the study by Sibert et al., available evidence suggests the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Ecopath with Ecosim modelling (Allain et al. 2015) suggests that the structure of the warm pool ecosystem is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community). No major impacts have been identified in relation to primary species, secondary species, ETP species and habitat. There is evidence that the scale of the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt relevant key elements (predator–prey, prey–predator relationships) underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. SG100 requirements are met.

References Allain et al. 2015; Sibert et al 2006; WCPFC-SC 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 113 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that post place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements of information and is main impacts of the the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the regional level, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is cation used as the framework for sustainable fisheries for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). Tuna are important predatory species in the WCPO. The WCPFC’s application of the FAO code extends to the highly migratory fish species including tuna through Conservation and Management Measures such as CMM 2015-01 on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack, as well as to the management of non-target species, in particular through Resolution 2005-03 on Non-Target Fish Species and CMMs to improve the protection of sharks. New Zealand’s operational plan for skipjack (MPI 2009a) outlines environmental objectives, including to “Implement an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, taking into account associated and dependent species”. Although not specifically designed to manage impacts on the ecosystem, the range of measures in place is considered to represent a partial strategy that works to achieve the intended outcome, meeting the requirements of the SG60 and 80 levels However, there is no overall ecosystem management plan for the WCPO or the UoA. SG100 requirements are not met.

b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC and national measures which form the partial strategy take into account cation the available information with the expectation that impacts on the ecosystem are restrained. The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries has been developed as a reference framework for sustainable fisheries addressing ecosystem considerations, principles and goals needed for an EAFM. No ecosystem impacts of the fishing on the UoA have been identified and it is considered highly unlikely that the fishery poses a risk to key elements of the ecosystem. Plausible argument therefore suggests that the SG60 and SG80 requirements are being met through the current partial strategy. There has been no testing to support SG100 requirements.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 114 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi Ongoing stock assessments have shown that the partial strategy represented by cation the skipjack management approach is successful in maintaining population sizes, and hence ecosystem role; the UoA only represents a small percentage of WCPO skipjack removals. The UoA also takes negligible quantities of non-target species and has low levels of interaction with ETPs. Clear evidence is available that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in SIa. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

References MPI 2009a; WCPFC CMMs OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 115 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justifi A number of organisations are collecting data to improve the knowledge of the cation structure of the WCPO pelagic ecosystem. This occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). A body of knowledge is available from studies on skipjack as a top predator in the Pacific ecosystem and from trophic status studies (Cox et al, 2002a, b; Sibert et al, 2006). Available information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem; SG80 is met.

b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N Justifi Trophic structure of pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific, including the WCPO, has cation been characterised using Ecopath and Ecosim models based on diet data (Allain et al. 2007). SEAPODYM is a dynamic system model developed for investigating spatial tuna population dynamics under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects (Lehodey et al., 2013). The continued development and application of the SEAPODYM model to the work of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, including its application to tuna and billfish fisheries in the South Pacific, is facilitated through the multi-agency Project 62 which affiliates the independently funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013). A list of current projects is given in Lehodey et al. (2013). Main impacts of the UoA on the key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail, though not to the extent to meet SG100. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.

c Understanding of component functions Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA post components (i.e., P1 on P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the the ecosystem are main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y Y

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 116 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Justifi Information on target and non-target species (bycatch and ETP species) is cation gathered through logbook data and observer programmes, as well as being available via a number of historical research projects. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of species that are impacted and to determine their respective roles e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats. In order to improve the availability of data, the Kobe Bycatch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim to Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. The KBTWG provides guidance for improving data collection efforts and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among tuna RFMOs. These data will improve future analysis of ecosystem functions. The impacts of the fishery on P1 target species are understood through regular assessments. As indicated under PI 2.3, further information is required to improve management of potential impacts on the spinetail devil ray, however, no impacts of the UoA on primary, secondary, ETP species or habitats are identified. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

d Information relevance Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y Y Justifi Data are collected on the key target and non-target tuna and billfish species taken cation by the fishery through logbooks. The observer programme provides support for the collection of retained and non-retained species data. Coverage for the UoA purse seine fishery is approximately 20% of fishing operations. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components and allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. SG80 and SG100 are met.

e Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue Information is adequate to post to be collected to detect support the development any increase in risk level. of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justifi As indicated above, data are collected on the key target and non-target tuna and cation billfish species taken by the fishery through logbooks and observer coverage. Information available is adequate to allow WCPO ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components. SG80 is met, however, in the absence of a comprehensive strategy for ecosystem management which incorporates the collection of broader ecosystem information than existing systems, SG100 is not met.

References Cox et al, 2002a, 2002b; Sibert et al. 2006; Lehodey et al., 2013

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 117 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 118 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

Met? Y Y Y Justifi At the regional level, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission cation (WCPFC) Convention is consistent with the principles and provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations Fish Stock Agreement (FSA) and Highly Migratory Species (HMS) as well as a range of other relevant international and regional fisheries instruments. These reflect the current international laws and standards relevant to the management of migratory species and the ecosystem and include specific references to the precautionary approach. The Commission seeks input from recognised international law experts to ensure that decision-making is informed in relation to compliance with international law and protocols. All WCPFC members (including New Zealand) are legally bound to apply the precautionary approach as parties to the WCPFC Convention. At the national level the NZ government is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within NZ waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC, and fishing is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by WCPFC. The Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) is responsible for the utilisation of New Zealand's fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability in accordance with its governing legislation - the Fisheries Act 1996. Under the Fisheries Act, sustainability means: (a) maintaining the potential of fisheries resources to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations, which addresses P1 and (b) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment, which addresses P2. Utilisation means conserving, using, enhancing, and developing fisheries resources to enable people to provide for their social, economic, and cultural well-being. The Fisheries Act binds the Crown. Decisions made under power given by the Act are judicially reviewable by the Courts in the event of disputes. Procedures and processes that apply to disputes about the effects of fishing on the fishing activities of any person that has a current fishing interest provided for under the Act, are set out under Part 7 of the Fisheries Act. MPI's fisheries management responsibilities extend to the 200-nautical mile limit of the NZ EEZ. MPI provides management, licensing research and compliance and education services for commercial, recreational and customary fishing. MPI assists the Minister for Primary Industries in the administration of the relevant Acts.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 119 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the context effective in dealing with of the fishery and has most issues and that is been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the regional level, The WCPFC Convention (WCPFC 2000) follows closely the cation provisions of the UNFSA, including application of the UNFSA dispute settlement provisions for disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31). The convention calls for parties to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes. If a dispute concerning the interpretation or application of this Convention involving a fishing entity cannot be settled by agreement between the parties to the dispute, the dispute shall, at the request of either party to the dispute, be submitted to final and binding arbitration in accordance with the relevant rules of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. The WCPFC has had no legal challenges do date. The transparent decision making required under Article 21 of the Convention helps prevent disputes through annual Commission meetings, representation by stakeholders at the meetings, use of scientific advice, and negotiations at technical and policy levels on issues of importance. The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. If necessary, a decision may be reviewed by a review panel at the request of a Member (Article 20).

At the national level the Fisheries Act provides opportunities to negotiate and resolve disputes. The Minister may appoint a Dispute Commissioner and the Minister makes the final determination. The consultation process is an attempt to avoid unresolved disputes by ensuring all interested parties have an opportunity to participate and have an input into decisions. There have been occasions when there has not been a satisfactory outcome and then this has gone to litigation and the Court has made a decision.

Overall, the management system incorporates transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery, meeting SG60 and SG80 requirements. Because the WCPFC management system has not been tested, the overall management system does not meet SG100 requirements.

Respect for rights

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 120 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. c Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by custom of people people dependent on custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The WCPFC recognizes, throughout the Convention, the needs of small island cation developing States, and territories and possessions, in the Convention Area whose economies, food supplies and livelihoods are overwhelmingly dependent on the exploitation of marine living resources. Part XIII of the Convention lays out specific requirements. The Convention specifically recognizes that small island developing States may be dependent on the exploitation of marine living resources, including for meeting the nutritional requirements of their populations; and recognizes the need to avoid adverse impacts on, and ensure access to fisheries by, subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers and fish workers, as well as indigenous people in developing States Parties. At the national level MPI is responsible for the administration of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, which implements the 1992 Fisheries Deed of Settlement under which historical Treaty of Waitangi claims relating to commercial fisheries have been fully and finally settled. The Ministry is also responsible for the Maori Fisheries Act 2004, which provides that the Crown allocates 20% of quota for any new quota management stocks brought into the QMS to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries commission. For non-commercial fisheries, the Kaimoana Customary Fishing Regulations 1998 and the Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 strengthen some of the rights of Tangata Whenua to manage their fisheries. These regulations let iwi and hapü manage their non-commercial fishing in a way that best fits their local practices, without having a major effect on the fishing rights of others. The management system therefore has a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. This meets the SG60, SG80, and SG100. Fisheries Act 1996; Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992; References Deed of Settlement 1992; Maori Fisheries Act 2004; Customary Fisheries Regulations 1998; UNCLOS (Part v), WCPFC 2000; Medley and Powers 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 121 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility areas of responsibility and interaction. and interaction. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been cation identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction at the WCPFC and national levels, as well as support organisations FFA and SPC. The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states (in particular, Articles 23 and 24) and the committees formed under Commission control (Scientific Committee and Technical and Compliance Committee). Key areas include providing catch and monitoring data to the Secretariat, taking part in various meetings sharing information and making decisions, meeting the requirements for conservation and other recommendations for WCPFC and applying appropriate levels of control and surveillance. There are extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the WCPFC, and FFA and other regional & international fora and national levels, including consultation with bilateral partners and domestic stakeholders. FFA plays an important role as a conduit for Pacific nations. MPI is charged with consistently monitoring the fishery resource, and making timely and appropriate policy advice on all aspects of fisheries management to the Government. The Ministry is also responsible for carrying out the Government's policies to manage and conserve fisheries, and to actively encourage compliance of fisheries regulations by all fishers. The Department of Conservation (DOC) is the central government organisation charged with conserving the natural and historical heritage of New Zealand. The department is responsible for marine reserves, seabirds, and for marine mammals such as dolphins, whales, sea lions and fur seals. At both the national and international level the functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals involved in the management process are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction, hence SG100 is considered met for the fishery. b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant from the main affected information, including information, including

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 122 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties parties, including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the regional level the WCPFC annual meetings and the annual meetings of its cation committees provide extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes. The WCPFC regularly consults with FFA and other regional and international fora that include national governments. Other organisations have access to all the main management bodies as formal observers or informally. These processes seek and accept information, and demonstrate consideration of the information. Scientific reports state exactly what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information which is rejected. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. For example, WCPFC tuna management measures CMM‐ 2008-01 (replaced by 2012-01, 2013-01 and 2014-01) and CMM‐ 2010‐ 05 attempt to restrict fishing effort and therefore fishing mortality on bigeye, yellowfin and albacore. However, limits are vague, and public information may not be available that clearly justifies the limits applied when the decision was made (Medley and Powers 2015). SG60 and SG80 are met but not SG100. At the national level- Section 12 of the 1996 Act includes a range of specific consultation requirements. MPI is required to consult with those classes of persons having an interest (including, but not limited to, Maori, environmental, commercial and recreational interests) in the stock or the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment in the area concerned; Section 12 only relates to certain sections of the 1996 Act. However, there are other sections of the 1996 Act that require the Minister or MPI Chief Executive to consult with stakeholders before making a decision. MPI has a well-defined process for stakeholder consultation. The consultation process: sets out best practice process for how MPI will meet its obligations under Section 12 of the Fisheries Act 1996 and for other decisions requiring consultation with fisheries stakeholders; helps to ensure a consistent approach across all MPI business groups when consulting with fisheries stakeholders; and sets out minimum performance measures where appropriate, e.g., a minimum period for stakeholder consultation.

Within this process, it is necessary to identify who has an interest; and who are representative of those having an interest. MPI must provide an initial consultation plan and the manner of consultation, including the timeframe for the consultation and the decision. MPI must distribute the decision, and subsequently review the process to assure that the consultation met all requirements. When management changes are proposed to meet sustainability requirements, MPI prepares a discussion document that provides the Ministry’s initial proposals for issues needing decision and a range of management options. A record of all consultations is documented which includes summaries of the basis for decisions,

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 123 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties and comments from all participating stakeholders. Information in letters, emails, and in Final Advice papers for management actions demonstrate the consideration of stakeholder input and use or non-use of that information. Explanations on how information is used or not used are conveyed by letters, emails and in Final Advice papers is evidence that consultation occurs on a regular basis and that information provided by stakeholders is often taken into account. The national management system therefore includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used. This meets the SG60, SG80, and SG100. Therefore, the overarching management system regularly seeks, accepts, and considers information, including local knowledge, meeting the SG60 and SG80, but at regional level it does not consistently explain its use or non-use so does not reach SG100. c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity all interested and affected and encouragement for parties to be involved. all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y Justifi At regional level the WCPFC has a comprehensive governance structure which, in cation addition to member participation, allows participation by non-members and territories, with particular opportunities for Cooperating non-members, and allows observers to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the SC, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee. All relevant Small Island Developing States are members through the participation of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency or cooperating non-members. Attendance at Commission and related meetings are comprehensive, and logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance, meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management. The WCPFC supports extensive consultation processes.

At the national level MPI has a well-defined process for stakeholder consultation. There is evidence of the MPI seeking stakeholder views throughout the year using, for example, the Initial Position Paper process, the Working Group, and fisheries planning meetings. As part of the consultation process, stakeholders are given the opportunity to provide feedback on the delivery of the process itself. The feedback is evaluated and used to fine-tune future consultation processes. Stakeholders are encouraged to be involved. The consultation process provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. MPI have also set up an Environmental Engagement forum. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that all interested parties have the opportunity and are encouraged to participate in consultation processes. Formal arrangements in place facilitate engagement. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met at the international and national levels

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 124 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 125 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with fisheries standard and the MSC fisheries standard MSC fisheries standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y P Justifi At the regional level, Long-term objectives are explicit within the WCPFC cation Convention. For example, Article 2 specifies that the Commission has the objective to “ensure through effective management, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the WCPO in accordance with the 1982 Convention and Agreement [UNCLOS and FSA respectively]”. Article 5 of the Convention then provides principles and measures for achieving this conservation and management objective. More specifically Article 5(c) requires the Commission to apply the precautionary approach in decision-making and Article 6 outlines the means by which this will be given effect, including through the application of the guidelines set out in Annex II of the FSA. Article 10 of the Convention is consistent with MSC principles and objectives in specifying long term objectives of “maintaining or restoring populations…above levels at which their preproduction may become seriously threatened”. Evidence that these objectives are guiding, or are starting to guide decision-making is provided in various Commission reports and in CMMs. Commission reports also indicate that explicit action is being undertaken through CMMs to support achievement of objectives, however this is yet to result in target reference points being formulated for all managed stocks. Additionally, while there is a requirement for the WCPFC to apply the precautionary principle during decision-making it has historically struggled to do so for some stocks (e.g. bigeye tuna). At the national level, Long-term fishery and environmental objectives are included within both NZ fisheries and environmental legislation and these guide decision making. In regard to information principles, Section10 of Fisheries Act states: “All persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under this Act, in relation to the utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring sustainability, shall take into account the following information principles: (a) Decisions should be based on the best available information: (b) Decision makers should consider any uncertainty in the information available in any case: (c) Decision makers should be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate: (d) The absence of, or any uncertainty in, any information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of this Act.” Fisheries 2030 sets the strategic direction for the management and use of New Zealand’s fisheries resources. One of the principles guiding Fisheries 2030 is “Precautionary approach: particular care will be taken to ensure environmental sustainability where information is uncertain unreliable or inadequate. The National Highly Migratory Fisheries Plan sets out clear long term management objectives for use outcome, environment outcome and governance conditions.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 126 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. At both the national and international level, management objectives, including the application of the precautionary approach are explicit in policy and legislation. Overall, clear explicit objectives incorporating the precautionary approach and ecosystem‐based management meet the MSC Principles and Criteria, meeting SG60, SG80 and the first part of SG100. However, there are elements of the management system at regional level where it is not yet clear that the precautionary approach is applied in practice across all policy for all stocks.SG100 is only partially met. References WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure; Medley and Powers 2015; Fisheries Act 1996; MPI 2015b; OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 127 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery- and 2, are explicit within the outcomes expressed specific management the fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 system. management system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y P Justifi There are clear objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles cation and Criteria and the precautionary approach in the WCPF Convention. Fishery- specific objectives relating to P1 and P2 outcomes are set out in various WCPFC CMMs related to target fish stocks (including CMM 2014-01; CMM 2014-04; CMM 2014-07), sea turtles (CMM 2008-03), seabirds (CMM2012-07), sharks (CMM 2014- 05; CMM 2013-08; CMM 2011-4; CMM 2010-07), whale sharks (CMM 2012-04), cetaceans (CMM 2011-03). WCPFC members also report against a number of indicators as part of their obligations through Part 2 Annual Reporting. These include short and long term conceptual and operational objectives. Some objectives (particularly in some earlier CMMs) are not well defined enough to be operational or measurable. To date, the WCPFC has not yet formally adopted precautionary and ecosystem-based target reference points for all major tuna and billfish species. However, recent CMMs for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna explicitly incorporate FMSY as the default target reference point. Well defined and measurable objectives are set out in the NZ skipjack Operational Management Plan for skipjack tuna. However, the current status of the plan is 2010- 2015 and although there is a commitment to update/review this plan, at the time of writing this had not been completed. This SI meets the SG60 and SG80 but only partially meets the SG100.

Annual operating plan for highly migratory species fisheries 2015/2016 Operational management Plan for Skipjack tuna 2010-2015 References MPI 2015a; MPI 2010; WCPFC Convention; WCPFC CMMs

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 128 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi At the WCPFC level, decision-making processes are open, seek to apply the cation precautionary approach and use the best available information and are well documented. Consensus is the general rule for decision-making by Commission Members during the annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. The decision-making processes are operationalised through the processes of the Scientific Committee, the Technical and Compliance Committee and the Commission itself. The information used to inform decision making is published. Conservation and Management Measures are binding, but Resolutions are non- binding. All management measures apply equally inside EEZ and on high seas. Flag states enforce management measures on their own vessels and coastal states within their own EEZ. At the national level the Fisheries Act (specifically Sections 10, 11, and12) clearly lays out the requirements for decision-making, and requires basing all decisions on the best available information (Section 10), the annual operations plans, implement the procedures for decision making. The MPI prepares an Initial Position Paper (IPP) that provides the Ministry’s initial proposals for issues needing decision. Subsequently, the Ministry will provide a Final Advice Paper (FAP) to the Minister for Primary Industries. The FAP will summarise the Ministry’s and stakeholder’s views on proposals and make recommendations to the Minister. A copy of the FAP and the Minister’s letter setting out his final decisions will be posted on the MPI website as soon as these become available. Altogether, these processes result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives, reaching the SG60 and SG80. At both regional and national level SG60 and SG 80 are met b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y Y N

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 129 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Justifi WCPFC decision-making processes allow consideration of serious and important cation issues through its committees (SC and TCC) and at the Commission itself. Stock assessments and studies presented at the SC (predominantly by SPC) identify serious issues, such as overfishing (e.g. Bigeye tuna) at the regional level. These issues are addressed through regionally agreed CMMs. A series of measures to control catch and effort within the WCPF Convention area were taken in 2013. Resolutions provide transparent response to the scientific, technical, social, and cultural issues. For skipjack and yellowfin tunas, the responses effectively address main issues, e.g., CMM 2014-01. CMM 2014-06 recognizes the need for improved harvest control rules, and set a path for the improvements. At national level although management decision-making can be shown to respond to serious and important issues, a very large number of ‘issues’ are identified during research and monitoring. Management does not respond formally to all of these. However, response may be informal or through discussion at various fora, such as working groups. All issues are addressed through such mechanisms, although this may not be to the satisfaction of all stakeholders. The assessment team does not have full evidence that decision-making processes respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Overall, decision‐ making processes at regional and national levels are adequate for the stocks being considered, dealing with serious and important issues and meeting SG60 and SG80 requirements. These decision making processes use a precautionary approach, and are based on best available scientific information, but WCPFC and national processes do not clearly respond to all issues in a timely transparent and adaptive manner. SG100 is not met.

c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi The WCPFC Convention requires that the members of the Commission, directly cation and through the Commission, apply the precautionary approach. The Convention requires that Commission be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and does not use the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (Medley and Powers 2015). In all cases, decisions are required to be based on the best scientific information available, and the Commission makes adequate provision for this to be achieved.

At the national level the Fisheries Act requires that MPI must follow the precautionary approach. Section 10 of the Fisheries Act Information principles states: “All persons exercising or performing functions, duties, or powers under this Act, in relation to the utilisation of fisheries resources or ensuring sustainability, shall take into account the following information principles: (a) Decisions should be based on the best available information: (b) Decision makers should consider any uncertainty in the information available in any case: (c) Decision makers should be cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable, or inadequate: (d) The absence of, or any uncertainty in, any information should not be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take any measure to achieve the purpose of this Act.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 130 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Therefore, evidence exists that decision making uses the precautionary approach and best available information, meeting the SG80

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management action provides generally available on is available on request, comprehensive request to stakeholders. and explanations are information on the provided for any actions fishery’s performance or lack of action and management associated with findings actions and describes and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the regional level information and recommendations from research, monitoring, cation evaluation and performance review are published formally. Reports of WCPFC plenary sessions are published formally and are publicly available. Annual (Part 1) reports are submitted by members providing detailed reporting on catch, fleet size and other issues relating to the fishery. The WPPFC SC and TCC papers and reports on the web provide a high level of public access and transparency, showing how scientific information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission. This reporting represents good practice. However, while reports are available, it is not clear that they represent all information that is used in decision making. There is no formal, detailed explanation linking the information provided to the decision that results. In an international context, it is recognized that it is very difficult to give full explanations for all decisions, since this might undermine co‐operation. Decisions are often negotiated outcomes with the trade-offs not always apparent. At the WCPFC level, SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. At the national level MPI provide a wide range of information to stakeholders. The documents include the Fishery Act, Plenary documents National Fisheries Plan, Annual operating plan Statements of Intent, Initial Position Papers, press releases and reports). MPI provides formal reports consistent with formalised reporting and consultation processes such as the IPP/FAP process, the Stakeholder Consultation Process Standard or the National Fisheries Plan. SG100 is met. Overall, SG60 and SG80 requirements are met at WCPFC and national levels, however, information is not comprehensive for all elements of the management system at the regional level and SG100 is not met.

e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management system The management system post management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 131 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. The cation WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two- chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. WCPFC (the Commission) has not been subject to any court challenges to date. WCPFC members are party to all decisions at the WCPFC level, including participation in the Scientific Committee, and WCPFC general sessions where regional level final decisions are taken. Disputes/disagreements are typically resolved through WCPFC meetings (being members of WCPFC and agreeing to abide by WCPFC provisions) and the members have avoided legal disputes. The management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes at the regional level by the prompt incorporation of CMMs into national legislation and the implementation of measures to support such legislation. At the national level Section VII Disputes Resolution of the Fisheries Act states that the section “(a) applies to disputes about the effects of fishing (excluding fish farming) on the fishing activities of any person who has a current fishing interest provided for or authorized by or under this Act; but (b) does not apply to disputes about ensuring sustainability or about the effects of any fishing authorised under Part 9.” Section VII further requires that the Minister publicly set out an approved statement of procedure for the resolution of such disputes. The Minister of Fisheries published in 1998 the dispute resolution procedures. The Minister’s approved statement of procedure for the resolution of disputes consists of four steps, with each step in turn involving specific actions to be undertaken by the parties to the dispute to give effect to the requirements of Section VII of the Act: Dispute summary report by the party identifying the report Production and distribution of Initial Assessment Report demonstrating the dispute is about the effects of fishing, and does not involve issues associated with ensuring sustainability Negotiation and attempts at resolution Prepare an Outcome Report with conclusion of the process including resolution or not of the dispute.

The parties to the dispute may make recommendations that involve sustainability or customary fishing that would require action beyond the authority of the Minister. The principles in the Fisheries Act require decision-makers to act: in accordance with law reasonably and fairly, in accordance with the principles of natural justice”

Decisions that do not follow requirements are open to legal challenge. Legal challenges are uncommon in the fisheries, in part because of the collaborative decision making. Therefore, the management system proactively acts to avoid disputes. Lack of judicial decisions does not provide direct evidence of rapid implementation, but the requirements of the Fisheries Act and MPI strongly suggest this would be the case. The fishery reaches the SG60, SG80, and SG100 requirements.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 132 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

References Fisheries Act 1996; WCPFC Convention; WCPFC CMMS and Resolutions; Medley and Powers 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 133 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to fishery and has reasonable expectation enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the regional level, WCPFC aims to ensure compliance through VMS, IUU vessel cation listing, port state controls, observers, logbooks and transhipment monitoring. Enforcement of these measures falls to the member States. Addressing IUU fishing over the huge area of the WCPO is a major challenge. With most of the fishing taking place in national waters, the broad strategy of the WCPFC compliance program is to focus on controlling high seas fishing, strengthening the exercise of control by coastal state CCMs, and monitoring compliance with CCM obligations throughout the range of application of Commission measures. Compliance failures by vessels are addressed by the application of the WCPFC IUU listing procedure. Compliance failures by CCMs, rather than vessels, are currently addressed through Commission processes of monitoring, reporting and accountability (i.e. Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2014-07). A MCS system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules thus meeting the SG 80 at regional level. At the national level, many of the CMMs established by WCPFC put clear obligations on parties as the flag states. Ultimately, it is the flag State that is responsible to the relevant RFMO for any failure to ensure that its measures are implemented and for the resulting violations of those measures by that State’s vessels. At the national level, there is a comprehensive monitoring control and surveillance system that has been implemented. It includes a compulsory satellite vessel monitoring system (VMS) with an onboard automatic location communicator (ALC) government observers are also periodically placed on board and accurate record keeping and recording requirements to establish auditable and traceable records. Other measures include fishing permit requirements; ● fishing permit and fishing vessel registers; ● vessel and gear marking requirements; ● fishing gear and method restrictions; ● vessel inspections; ● control of landings (e.g. requirement to land only to licensed fish receivers); ● auditing of licensed fish receivers; ● control of transhipment; ● monitored unloads of fish; ● information management and intelligence analysis; ● analysis of catch and effort reporting and comparison with VMS, observer, landing and trade data to confirm accuracy; ● boarding and inspection by fishery officers at sea; and ● aerial and surface surveillance. MPI has a sophisticated fishery outreach programme of informed and assisted

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 134 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. compliance, in which Enforcement agents work with the industry in a proactive way to ensure understanding of regulations and to prevent infractions (Gary Orr, MPI Compliance Directorate, pers. comm. 2014). In combination with at-sea and air surveillance supported by the New Zealand joint forces, vessel activity can be monitored and verified to ensure compliance with regulations and with industry- agreed codes of practice. The high level of surveillance ensures that a low number of violations results from compliance, and not just from lack of coverage. Therefore, a comprehensive strategy that demonstrates a high capability for enforcement meets the SG60, SG80, and SG100 at national level. As only the SG 80 is met at regional level a score of 80 is given for this SI.

b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y N Justifi At regional level, although conservation measures are set by WCPFC, enforcement cation falls to member States. Compliance failures by vessels are addressed by the application of the WCPFC IUU listing procedure. Compliance failures by member States, rather than vessels, are currently addressed through Commission processes of monitoring, reporting and accountability under the Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2014- 07). To date, no trade sanctions have been applied against non-compliant member States, although theoretically these may be possible (Medley and Powers 2015). Sanctions are applied only to fishing entities, such IUU vessels and vessels that are detected as being non-compliant with resolutions. WCPFC notifies Flag States of non‐ compliant vessels, which the Flag States should order to withdraw from Commission Area. These sanctions appear to be applied consistently. At the national level under the Fisheries Act, in proceedings for an offence against this Act it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the defendant intended to commit the offence; rather, the defendant must show the contravention was due to the act or default of another person, or to an accident or to some other cause beyond the defendant’s control; and the defendant took reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid the contravention. Upon conviction, the Fisheries Act allows for sanctions that may include prison time, fines from $250 to $500,000, forfeiture of quota, vessels, and other property. The industry, with its investment in the fishery through co-management, has a strong incentive to maintain its cooperative role through compliance with legal requirements. MPI uses ‘informed and assisted compliance’ help minimize infractions. Most fishermen follow the regulations; some engage in opportunistic non-compliance that is usually easily detected by enforcement agents, and a few will actively seek advantage with illegal fishing. Checking and feedback of minor infractions hold the second group in line; but only severe sanctions, up to loss of fishing permits and vessels, will deter the last group. Enforcement personnel report that compliance is high in the skipjack fishery. Together, this information demonstrates that international and national systems provide for consistent sanctions thought to provide effective compliance. This meets the SG60 and SG80. Information such as enforcement effort and violations detected at the regional is not available to demonstrate effective deterrence, and thereby this indicator does not reach SG100. Compliance

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 135 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. c Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management system comply with the comply with the for the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC has a permanent working group on compliance (the TCC) with a role to cation review and monitor compliance with WCPFC management measures. The working group also recommends measures to promote compatibility among the national fisheries management measures, addressing matters related to compliance with fisheries management measures, analyse information on compliance and report the findings to the WCPFC, which will in turn inform the members and non‐ members. An annual report is produced as part of the compliance review. Identified infringements are reported. Not all fisheries comply and clearly there is some noncompliance by some vessels as reported by the TCC. However, reporting on compliance is not as complete as other RFMOs, at least in the public domain (Medley and Powers 2015).

At the national level the industry complies with reporting requirements, traceable documentation, effective surveillance, catch documentation audits, and checks against past catch. Kazmierow et al. (2010) surveyed fishermen on compliance decision making, and found generally good compliance. SG60 and SG80 are met but it cannot be said that “there is a high degree of confidence” at the regional level so SG100 is not met.

d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justifi The high level of meeting reporting requirements, observer coverage, and ongoing cation monitoring by enforcement agents demonstrates no evidence of systematic non- compliance. This meets the SG80.

References Kazmierow et al. (2010); Medley and Powers 2015; WCPFC 2014a; WCPFC TCC minutes; Fisheries Act 1996 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 136 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC has mechanisms in place to evaluate the management system as cation demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. The WCPFC Secretariat submits a report on compliance of members with the reporting provisions of the Commission (CMM 2013-02). Progress with implementation of CMMs is monitored through the reporting provisions within the CMMs themselves, or the members Annual Reports to the Commission. Stock assessments conducted by the SPC are subject to peer review by other members of the Scientific Committee and occasional external review.

New Zealand All aspects of MPIs performance is evaluated in relation to their role in managing fisheries including  compliance services, including education, enforcement and prosecution  observer services  purchasing research and registry services  providing oversight and quality assurance of scientific research  collecting catch effort, area, method and other fisheries information  monitoring delivery of contracted and devolved fisheries registry services and  Discharging the Crown’s obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, the Mä ori Fisheries Act 2004 and the Mä ori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004.

SG80 is met at both regional and national level however it is difficult to say that ALL parts of the fishery- specific management system are evaluated at regional level so SG100 is not met.

b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the regional level, WCPFC has undertaken an independent review of its cation performance, consistent with the Kobe Course of Actions for the period 2011 to

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 137 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. 2013 (Anon. 2012). As a result, the Commission established several working groups to address the different recommendations of the report, which can be found on the WCPFC website. The review panel comprised of four external experts and three internal members. There is a high level of internal review through WCPFC processes. CMMs are often reviewed and updated, for example CMM 2008-01 (for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna) which has been strengthened and replaced by further CMMs. An independent review (MRAG, 2009) has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the SC and adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the data and science functions.

At the national level, there are reviews to encompass all parts of the management system. Progress against the objectives in the National Fisheries Plan and the Annual Operational Plan is reviewed annually and reported in the Annual Review Report. MPI conducts an extensive review of performance of the fisheries that incorporates consultations with industry and other stake holders. Parts of the management system, specifically science and enforcement, undergo external review. Although the internal review is very comprehensive and parties external to MPI participate, there is no explicit separate external review of the management system

The SG60 and SG80 are met but as there is not regular external review SG100 is not met. MPI 2015b; WCPFC 2012; WCPFC 2015; MRAG 2009 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 138 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

Not used

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 139 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table A1.3:

Condition 1 Performance PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Indicator Score 70 See evaluation table for PI 1.2.1.

Although the justification at PI 1.2.1 indicates that SI(a) has not been met, as discussed in the report, there has been progress in satisfying the requirements for this PI in recent years. CMM 2014-06 has been adopted, defining the Rationale approach for a harvest strategy with harvest controls and reference points to be adopted. A work plan for implementation was accepted at the 2015 WCPFC Commission meeting (see Appendix 6). Limit and target reference points have been adopted for skipjack.

The score for this PI is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the Condition harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives

reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that the harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving the management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. This evidence will include a summary of the actions taken by the client and other Milestones relevant parties to achieve this outcome in alignment with the WCPFC 2015 agreed work plan (see Appendix 6). Score 70.

At the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Score 80.

In order to demonstrate that the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, the client will:

Year 1 (2017) Engage with MPI’s Highly Migratory Species and International Fisheries Management teams towards prioritising the further development by the FFA and by WCPFC’s Scientific Committee, of harvest strategy elements for the skipjack Client action plan fisheries as prescribed by CMM2014-06.

Year 2 (2018) Further promote the need for analyses, modelling and management strategy evaluations to be undertaken by WCPFC’s service providers in order for the elements of the harvest strategy to be available for consideration by the WCPFC in December 2018.

Collaborate with industry sectors and NGOs towards encouraging the WCPFC to agree on and adopt the required elements for a harvest strategy for the skipjack stock.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 140 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Year 3 (2019) Engage with MPI’s Highly Migratory Species and International Fisheries Management teams and, where necessary, in collaboration with FFA members and WCPFC delegates from other major countries fishing the stock, in advance of the annual WCPFC meeting, towards developing a skipjack harvest strategy in line with the CMM 2014-06 agreed Work Plan.

Year 4 (2020) Provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. The client will consult and coordinate with the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, other members of the WCPFC, FFA and SPC as required. The client will also consult with other stakeholders in fishing for WCPO skipjack, including Consultation on environmental and industry NGOs as appropriate. condition

A letter written specifically to support the Client Action Plan from MPI has been provided at Appendix 7.

Condition 2 Performance PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 60 See evaluation table for PI 1.2.2.

The score for this PI is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). Although the justification at PI 1.2.2 indicates that well defined harvest control Rationale rules are not in place and scoring issues a, b and c have not been met, as

discussed in the report, there has been progress in satisfying the requirements for this PI in recent years. CMM 2014-06 has been adopted, defining the approach for a harvest strategy with harvest controls and reference points to be adopted. A work plan for implementation was accepted at the 2015 WCPFC Commission meeting (see Appendix 6). SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. Condition SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that well defined harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. This evidence will include a summary of the actions taken by the client and other Milestones relevant parties to achieve this outcome in alignment with the WCPFC 2015

agreed work plan (Appendix 6). Score 60.

By the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that well-defined harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score 80.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 141 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

In order to demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for skipjack that are robust to the main uncertainties, that ensure the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, that are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and that evidence indicates the HCRs are effective in achieving the desired exploitation levels for the stock, the client will:

Year 1 (2017) Engage with MPI’s Highly Migratory Species and International Fisheries Management teams towards ensuring that:  Meetings of the WCPFC Scientific Committee prioritise the analyses required for the development of harvest control rules for skipjack in accordance with the agreed Work Plan for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM2014-06.  Meetings of the FFA prioritise the implementation of initiatives to facilitate the adoption of HCRs for skipjack and New Zealand engages closely with PNA members to encourage prioritising implementation of HCRs through the vessel day scheme.

Client action plan Year 2 (2018) Engage with MPI’s Highly Migratory Species and International Fisheries Management teams towards ensuring that initiatives are undertaken to promote completion of the management strategy evaluation of candidate HCRs for consideration by the Commission in December 2018.

Collaborate with industry sectors and NGOs towards encouraging the WCPFC to agree on and adopt HCRs for the skipjack stock.

Year 3 (2019) Engagement with MPI’s Highly Migratory Species and International Fisheries Management teams, and where necessary in collaboration with FFA members and WCPFC delegates from other major countries fishing the stock, in advance of the annual WCPFC meeting, to seek support for the adoption of harvest control rules for skipjack.

Year 4 (2020) Provide evidence that well-defined harvest control rules, taking into account the main uncertainties, are in place for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. The client will consult and coordinate with the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, other members of the WCPFC, FFA and SPC as required. The client will also consult with other stakeholders in fishing for WCPO skipjack tuna, Consultation on including environmental and industry NGOs as appropriate. condition

A letter from MPI written specifically to support the Client Action Plan has been provided at Appendix 7.

Condition 3 Performance PI 2.3.2 ETP species management strategy Indicator Score 75 See evaluation table for PI 1.2.2. Spinetail devil rays are a protected species under NZ legislation. A code of practice to guide interactions between protected species and NZ purse seine Rationale vessels is in an advanced stage of development. Information from recent

tagging work provides the opportunity to optimise the release procedures for captured devil rays. In addition, information provided to the assessors suggests that there are occasions when spinetail devil rays could be visible to spotter

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 142 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

planes prior to setting, providing the opportunity to avoid sets where interactions may occur. The current draft code of practice states “The presence of protected species must be assessed prior to deployment of the purse seine net and every reasonable attempt must be made to avoid interactions.”

SI c) By the second surveillance audit, provide evidence that there is an Condition objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species (in particular, the spinetail devil ray) will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. At the first annual surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that all available information has been taken into account, including recent outcomes from tagging, to optimize the code of practice to minimize the mortality of released spinetail devil rays. Score 75. Milestones At the second surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that the code of practice is fully implemented. This will include reporting the frequency of sets not made due to spinetail devil ray sightings, the frequency of captures and release procedures used for captured rays based on observer information. Score 80. In order to provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy in place for managing the skipjack fishery’s impact on ETP species will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved, the client will:

Year 1 (2017) Engage with MPI’s Highly Migratory Species team, Department of Conservation, industry representatives and research providers to:  Evaluate the most recently available information on spinetail devil ray biology, distribution, incidental captures and tag-release results.  Optimise the mitigation practices and procedures for spinetail devil ray in the draft purse seine Code of Practice towards minimising their capture rate and maximising their survivability following capture and release.

Client action plan Year 2 (2018) Engage with MPI’s Highly Migratory Species team, Department of Conservation, industry representatives, and via MPI’s HMS Working Group and Fish Plan Advisory Group fora, to:  Ensure the agreed code of practice is adopted and fully implemented by the fishery, in particular, that ETP Incident Reports are completed and submitted for each voyage as specified by the CoP.  Evaluate ETP Incident Reports submitted in terms of the CoP to establish the frequency of sets not made due to spinetail devil ray sightings.  Interrogate MPI’s nonfish_bycatch database to determine the numbers of ETP species caught and whether they were released dead or alive.  Evaluate observer reports to establish whether devilray release procedures used for captured rays are in accordance with the CoP and are effective.

The client will consult and coordinate with the New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries, NIWA and DoC as required. The client will also consult with other WCPO skipjack tuna stakeholders, including environmental and industry NGOs Consultation on as appropriate. condition A letter from MPI written specifically to support the Client Action Plan has been provided at Appendix 7.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 143 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports Peer Review 1 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? YES Justification: No comment required The conclusion reflects the scoring, and the scoring is supported by the justifications and the data presented in the background section of the report.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? YES [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: No comment required The conditions and required milestones are explicitly written, and if satisfied will bring the fishery to the SG80 level for the deficient PIs within the required timeframe.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] YES Justification: No comment required The client action plan is clear, and when achieved will bring each of the non-passing PIs to the SG80 level. I especially appreciate the client's detailed description of the progress to be achieved each year.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 144 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The skipjack tuna stock is well above PRI, and No comment required there is a high degree of certainty that the stock has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. This is clearly documented on the justifications.

1.1.2 NA NA NA There is no need for stock rebuilding No comment required

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes This PI evaluates the harvest strategy, and for No comment required WCPO skipjack tuna the assessment team has concluded that the harvest strategy is not responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. This PI is correctly scored at 70, and a condition is required that should bring the PI score to SG80 when complete.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 145 of 172

Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes This PI addresses if there are well defined and No comment required effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place. In this case, the fishery meets the SG60 level for generally understood HCRs in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. The PI is correctly scored at 60, as the fishery only met the SG60 requirements for the three scoring issues. The three-part condition should bring the fishery to the SG80 level by the fourth surveillance audit.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates if relevant information is No comment required collected to support the harvest. The PI is correctly scored at 90, as the fishery does not meet the SG100 level requirements for SIs a and b.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the status of the stock, and the No comment required PI is correctly scored at 95, as the only SI d does not meet the SG100 level as the skipjack assessment has not been specifically subject to external peer review.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 146 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the primary species outcome. No comment required There are no primary main species, and the minor primary species considered are jack mackerel, blue mackerel, striped marlin and albacore tuna. While a quantitative estimate of these stocks being above the PRI is not available, however, sufficient information is available to indicate that this is highly likely. This PI is scored at 100, and that is appropriate.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the management strategy for No comment required primary species. It also addresses shark finning. It is scored at 95, and this is appropriate given the information presented in the background section of the report.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates primary species information. No comment required The PI is scored at 100, and the justifications are adequate to support this score.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates secondary species outcome. No comment required There are no main secondary species, and sunfish are a minor secondary species with unknown status. The PI was scored at 90, and the evidence presented supports that score;

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates secondary species No comment required management strategy. It is scored at 90, and the evidence supports this determination.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 147 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluate secondary species information. No comment required This PI is scored at 100, and the evidence presented supports that determination

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates ETP species outcome, The PI is No comment required scored at 90, and the evidence presented supports that determination.

2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes This PI evaluates ETP species management No comment required strategy. This PI is scored at 75, and the evidence presented supports this score. This is a condition proposed that states by the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species (in particular, the spinetail devil ray) will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. After meeting this condition, the fishery should score at the SG 80 level.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates ETP species information. The PI No comment required is scored at 80, and the evidence presented supports this determination.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates habitat impact outcome. This PI No comment required is scored at 100, and the available evidence supports this determination.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 148 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the management strategy for No comment required habitat impact. The PI is scored at 95, and the available evidence supports is determination.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the information available for No comment required assessing habitat impact. The Pi is scored at 100, and the evidence presented supports this determination.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the outcome for ecosystem No comment required impacts. This PI is scored at 100, and the evidence presented supports this determination.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the ecosystem impact The text for 2.5.2b indicated that SG100 is management strategy. The PI is scored at 85, but not met, however, ‘Y’ was incorrectly all three SIs at the SG80 are met, and two of three written instead of ‘N’ as to whether the of the SIs at SG100 are met. I believe that this PI scoring issue is met. This has been should be scored at 90 or 95, not 85. corrected and the score remains at 85.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA This PI evaluates the information available to No comment required assess ecosystem impacts. The PI is scored at 90, and the evidence presented supports the scoring.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA This PI ensures that the management system No comment required exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework. The PI is scored at 90, and the evidence presented supports that determination.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 149 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA This PI addresses consultation, roles and No comment required responsibilities. It is scored at 90, and the evidence presented supports this determination.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA This PI addresses the long-term objectives of the No comment required management system. The PI has a single SI, and SG100 level is scored with a P, so the PI is scored at 90. The evidence presented supports this determination

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA This PI addresses the fishery-specific No comment required management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The PI has a single SI, and SG100 level is scored with a P, so the PI is scored at 90. The evidence presented supports this determination

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA This PI ensures that the fishery-specific No comment required management system includes effective decision- making processes. The PI is scored at 85, and the evidence presented supports this determination.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 150 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA This PI addresses monitoring, control and No comment required surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. The PI is scored at 85, and the evidence presented supports this determination.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA This PI ensures that there is a system of No comment required monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. This PI is scored at 80, and the evidence presented supports this determination.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 151 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

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

In general, this is a well written assessment report. The background sections for P1, P2, and P3 are excellent and well documented. I believe that the score for PI 2.5.2 is not correct. The PI is scored at 85, but all three SIs at the SG80 are met, and two of three of the SIs at SG100 are met. I believe that this PI should be scored at 90 or 95, not 85. My only other concern with the entire report is that the justifications provided in the scoring are not sufficiently documented in the scoring section. The detailed or specific information is provided in background section, and is is referred to in the scoring. While some would argue that it is repetitive to again present tables and graphics that support scoring decisions, I personally think that a more specific approach to the justifications used in the scoring provides a better and complete explanation of the rationale for a particular score. This is especially true in selected PIs in P1 and P2. The MSC FCR states: 7.10.6 To contribute to the scoring of any PI, the team shall verify that each scoring issue is fully and unambiguously met. 7.10.6.1 A rationale shall be presented to support the team’s conclusion. ◙ 7.10.6.2 The rationale shall make direct reference to every scoring issue and whether or not it is fully met. So, I believe that the report meets the MSC FCR requirements.

CAB response:

The issue re scoring of PI 2.5.2 is addressed in the table below. The assessors acknowledge that there is a balance between the amount of information in the background sections of the report and that presented in the scoring section and have attempted to present a reasonable balance without repeating all of the background information. However, some additional information has been added to the P1 and P2 scoring. Several sections of the P2 scoring are brief because of the low impact of the fishery on several components. For example, data are presented in the background section to indicate that there are no main primary or secondary species but these data do not need to be repeated in the scoring section.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 152 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Peer Review 2 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: No comment required. See below for points raised Yes, with exception of the minor points mentioned below. Otherwise the scoring and supporting report is well researched and written.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: See comments below for points raised

Yes. My main comments are associated with client action plan (see below), rather than the conditions themselves.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: See comments below for points raised. Note the comment of Peer Review 1 on The nature of the conditions are appropriate, but the client the client action plan. action plan sequencing needs to be reviewed and possibly refined to make sure the activities and outcomes flow.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 153 of 172

Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

1.1.2 NA NA NA NA No comment required

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes The condition is general and open. It is noted that There are limitations on the ability of the this condition will require harmonization with other client to influence the development of the fisheries. One comment – it seems quite a leap harvest strategy. The client action plan from “Engage with MPI’s …. towards developing a reflects the need for the client to interact skipjack harvest strategy” (Client Action Plan Yr. with MPI and other organisations to 3) to “Provide evidence that the harvest strategy is promote the ongoing development of the responsive to the state of the stock” (Client Action harvest strategy. The timetable for this is Plan Yr. 4). This should be reviewed. aligned with the agreed WCPFC timetable for development of the harvest strategy (via CMM 2014-06). Evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock should be developed under the WCPFC processes.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes It is noted that Condition 2 (development of The development of the harvest strategy HCRs) will be developed in parallel with Condition and HCRs will occur as per the WCPFC 1 (development of a harvest strategy). It might be agreed timetable. expected that the strategy is a pre-cursor to the HCRs, and this sequential timing needs to be considered by the team.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.1.1 Yes No NA Given that the status for jack mackerel is unknown Further justification for the score has (see Figure 7), is SG 100 fully met for 2.1.1(b)? been added. The poor knowledge of stock status is acknowledged, however the skipjack fishery catch of jack mackerel is low and unlikely to impact stock status.

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes NA No comment required

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 155 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA NA No comment required

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 156 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.2.3 Yes No NA For PI 3.2.3 (a) “Medley and Powers (2015) Agree. The score for 3.2.3a has been conclude that gaps in the measures described revised to 80 and the overall score for above demonstrate that the international aspects this PI is now 80 (not 85). The changes of monitoring, control, and surveillance (MCS) are have been made to the report not comprehensive”. This might suggest that SG 100 is not fully met at the regional level.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 157 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

3.2.4 No Yes NA Scoring Issue 3.2.4b: the statement that “A recent Agree “recent” has been removed and Independent Review of the Commission’s text revised. The scoring does not Transitional Science Structure and Functions change. WCPFC has undertaken an recommended periodic external review of the independent review of its performance, stock assessments, which has been adopted by consistent with the Kobe Course of the WCPFC (MRAG, 2009)” should be supported Actions for the period 2011 to 2013 by a recent reference (2009 cannot be considered (Anon. 2012). As a result, the as recent). Commission established several working groups to address the different recommendations of the report, which can be found on the WCPFC website. The review panel comprised of four external experts and three internal members. There is a high level of internal review through WCPFC processes. CMMs are often reviewed and updated, for example CMM 2008-01 (for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna) which has been strengthened and replaced by further CMMs. An independent review (MRAG, 2009) has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the SC and adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the data and science functions

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 158 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions

No written submissions have been received.

Verbal submissions from stakeholders including the Department of Conservation and NIWA are reported as below. The stakeholders have confirmed that these are accurate records of the meetings held.

Meeting Record – Department of Conservation and Acoura: NZ Albacore troll and NZ Skipjack purse seine

Attendees: Jo Akroyd Acoura Lead Assessor and P3 expert Kevin McLoughlin P1 and P2 expert Ian Angus, Dept. of Conservation Igor Debski Dept. of Conservation Kristopher Ramn Dept. of Conservation Katie Clemens- Seely Dept. of Conservation Adrian Gutteridge MSC Observer Date: 31st May 2016 Time / Location: Department of conservation Head Office Wellington

Subjects discussed:

Principle 2

The Team Leader made introductions. The purpose of the meeting, how information is to be used and confidentiality issues were outlined. MSC Principles, Criteria and procedures were explained.

Discussion in brief as follows:

Albacore: Mention of anecdotal reports of greater albatross (called kites by some fishermen) Observer tasking; DoC role in this e.g. focus on ETP. 2013/14 report on observer program indicated catch of single Australasian gannet and flesh footed shearwater caught by troll fishery and released alive. DoC has joint role with MPI in observer planning; they purchase observer time for their priorities. There is a good process for setting priorities for individual fisheries but then have to prioritize across fisheries with limited budget. Troll tends to miss out.

Mention of Level 1 / level 2 risk assessment (L1 is broader view based on expert opinion).

What is in place for review of approaches e.g. in relation to 2.3.2: Not a regular formal process. DoC has established a strategic priorities group (DOC, industry, eNGOs, interested stakeholders). There is the possibility to feed concerns into this group to change priorities. Group has been running for 2 years and no one has put forward concerns to date. DoC annual plan is developed with 2 strategic meetings per year.

Review of information: MPI and DoC undertake reporting on bycatch (does not cover all fishing methods) DoC looks as gaps/issues to prioritize

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 159 of 172

Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Skipjack

Spinetail devil ray is primary concern. DoC funded Malcolm Francis’s (NIWA) tagging work. 8.2%of observed sets contain devil rays (~20% during peak season). Many come up alive and are reported as released alive by industry. Tagging work raises doubts about this.

Code of practice is under development. Malcolm Francis has produced reports sent to fishing fleet.

Purse seine nets are required to have an aperture. Not designed for devil rays. Original code of practice was for dolphins and porpoises. Code of practice has been extended. Looking to have this signed off within months. Interpretation of voluntary? For example, if set around a school and see devil rays, then is it still voluntary if the set continues.

The code has been developed collaboratively with industry (as has the tagging work). Mitigation approaches considered in the code of practice are very much based on avoidance.

Asked about reporting rates of listed species from fishery compared with observer data. Nothing specific from this fishery. Suggestion that across all fisheries the reporting level from a fishery is about 25% of that from observers.

A meeting taking place tomorrow to look at re-classification of species.

Question re purse seine net being in contact with sea floor. Not really looked at. Kris did spend time as an observer on a purse seiner and did occasionally see some benthos and reef species. Difficult to make a call on potential impact.

A project is underway on habitat and fishing but not well advanced.

Seabird level 1 risk assessment mentioned lights causing strike of storm petrel species due to disorientation. Observer coverage from the fishery is reasonable. No reports of bird strike have been made.

Also looking to consider wider fishing effects on seabirds in the Hauraki Gulf (not sure of the if this is in the region of purse seining).

Information

DOC has provided the audit team with published report and links to various reports to assist the team with assessment.

The Acoura Team wishes to thank the Department of Conservation for providing time and information to assist with the MSC assessments of these two fisheries.

The above notes reflect an accurate record of the main issues discussed.

Jo Akroyd

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 160 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Lead Assessor Acoura

Signed - Date 11th July 2016 Department of Conservation Kris Ramm Science Advisor

Date

Meeting Record – NIWA and Acoura: Re assessment NZ troll caught Albacore and assessment NZ skipjack purse seine fishery

Attendees: Malcolm Francis; NIWA Jo Akroyd; Acoura Lead Assessor P3 expert Kevin McLoughlin; Acoura P1 and P2 expert Adrian Gutteridge – MSC Observer

Date: Monday 30th May 2016 Time / Location: 1500hrs NIWA – Allen Building

Subjects discussed: Principle 2 Introductions were made by the Team Leader. The purpose of the meeting, how information is to be used and confidentiality issues were outlined. MSC Principles, Criteria and procedures were explained.

Discussion in brief as follows:

Bycatch/discards very low in both the albacore and skipjack fisheries.

Troll: Albacore 2012/13 troll catches were about 4000 t of albacore and other species summed to about 50 t. There is a good level of shed sampling but this does not help with discards. Small catches of barracouta, kahawai and Ray’s bream (see Griggs reference). Ray’s bream – issue of there being 2 species. Unsure of the distribution but most of the catch is likely to be Brama australis rather than Brama brama. Only 1 mako shark taken in 6 observer trips on troll.

Purse seine: MF has reviewed an updated IUCN Redlist assessment for spinetail devilray. These have low productivity (1 pup at a time and probably at 2-3 year intervals); growth rate is reasonable.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 161 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

There are fisheries in some regions targeting them for their gill rakers for the Chinese market (e.g. Indonesia, Philippines, Sri Lanka); partially due to increase in demand but also affected by protection of manta rays. They have been protected in NZ since 2010. All rays are discarded but there appears to be a high mortality rate. Working with DoC on electronic tagging program. Low catches last year and only 1 tag put out. In total, 10 tags have been put out; 5 deaths within a few days; 2 failed to produce data and 3 alive. Those brailed from the net appear to have better survival than those entangled in the bunt.

Seasonal availability; caught in NZ waters in summer after coming from the tropics. There is a hot spot near the shelf edge of the North Island between Great Barrier Is and Bay of Islands (also a hot spot for tuna purse seining). Between 2005 and 2014, rays were recorded in 8.2% of observed purse seine sets. This increased to 24.3% in the region of the hotspot. There have been 2 periods of observer coverage (late 70s/early 80s and since 2005) which have indicated similar levels of interaction with devilrays. Information from elsewhere in the Pacific is poor. Devilrays appear to scare tuna and result in more ‘skunked’ sets. Mitigation possibilities: Some vessels are starting to use a cargo net over the fish hold to ‘sieve’ the catch and allow the devilrays to be released in better condition. Spotter planes can sometimes see devilrays and so could avoid setting there. Fishing could be restricted in the hotspot area. Depth considerations – most tuna occurs in depths shallower than 200m but devilrays are more common in deeper water. Habitat interaction: There are some indications that the purse seine nets occasionally come in contact with the bottom. Skipjack purse seiners in NZ do not set around objects. The foot print of any bottom contact will be small. Most fishing takes place in featureless sand/mud areas. Observer data has suggested some catch of bottom living stingrays but there could be misidentification. Some reports from the NZ purse seine fishery report manta rays but observer data point to these being devilrays. There are no confirmed captures of manta rays. If there has been some benthos or bottom species caught in the net this could be difficult for observers to monitor due to the volume of tuna in the catches.

If needed, might be able to estimate % weight composition of devilrays in catches using average weight information.

The range of devilrays is not well known and whether migratory or not, e.g. whether all might be moving to Indonesian water and so be susceptible there. In NZ, the fringe of the stock is being impacted. Check Kevin Bailey 1980s report on bycatch across the Pacific.

Seabirds: See Abraham’s report. Very little from troll or purse seine.

Ecosystem modelling in the region: There is a project examining the Tasman Bay/Golden Bay area which is close to the South Island area of the fishery that may be of interest.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 162 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Information A number of published papers, covering the topics discussed were provided to the Acoura team by Dr Francis.

The Acoura Team wishes to thank Dr Francis for providing time and information to assist with the MSC assessments of these two fisheries.

The above notes reflect an accurate record of the main issues discussed.

Signed 8/06/2016

Jo Akroyd Lead Assessor Acoura

Signed

Malcolm Francis NIWA

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 163 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 3.1 Submissions Received During PCDR Consultation

MSC Technical Oversight MainID SubID PageReference Grade RequirementVersion OversightDescription Pi CABComment

Condition 3 PI2.3.2: In PI2.3.2 evaluation table states that The report has been condition 3 will be achieved by the amended to ensure 21109 25845 64, 104, 143 Guidance FCR-7.11.1.4 v2.0 fourth surveillance audit, but in 2.3.2 that the milestones Appendix 1.3 and Table 17 the are consistent. condition 3 milestone is set to close at year 2.

Agree. The rational was not clear. The The rationale states that SG80 is wording has been not met in paragraph 1 and in the revised. The score last paragraph it states that SG60, for 3.2.3 a meets SG 21109 25849 134 Minor FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 80 and 100 are met. The score 3.2.3 80 at the regional however is left at 80. The clarity in and SG 100 at the language is confusing and doesn't national level. A support the team's conclusion. score of 80 is given for the SI. Change of ownership occurs once the fish is Please state the intended point of landed. It then 21109 25858 60-61 Minor FCR-7.12.1.5b v2.0 change of ownership of product in enters the buyers the report. CoC. All fish traders operating in NZ buying/selling MSC certified fish must

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 164 of 172

Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

have a CoC certificate This is now stated in Section 5 Traceability Table 15 identifies traceability risk factors present in the fishery. Please also describe the mitigation against each risk. For example, how is the risk that vessels not owned by Talley's purse seine for skipjack in the NZ EEZ addressed, Table 15 has been and what prevents product from revised and includes 21109 25859 60-61 Minor FCR-7.12.1.4 v2.0 those vessels from entering mitigation against certified supply chains? Similarly, the risks. what prevents skipjack caught using other gears from being sold as certified? Under "other risks" the report states UoC and non-UoC catches can be isolated in separate wells, but what systems are in place to ensure this occurs?

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 165 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

This is an error and has been discussed Section 5.3 states, "The fishery further with the certificate will cover catch up to client. Talley’s has the point of landing at a NZ port," NEVER landed NZ but Table 15 mentions product is caught SKJ into the also landed at foreign ports. Is Pacific nor any product landed at foreign ports foreign port. Talley’s also eligible, and does the fishery 21109 25860 61 Minor FCR-7.12.2 v2.0 have clearly stated certificate cover this? If so how are that nor do they any risks or mixing/ substitution at intend to do so in foreign ports addressed? the future. The

report has been Please specify the eligible points of amended. landing as required in Section 5.3 The only eligible of the Reporting Template v2.0. ports of landing are Nelson and Tauranga

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 166 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

ISSF

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 167 of 172

Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

CAB response: Acoura welcomes the input and interest from ISSF. We note your concerns about Talley vessels fishing inside and outside the NZEEZ. This has been discussed with the client and MPI and the report amended to better reflect what actually happens. All vessels discharge their catches before leaving the NZ EEZ zone into either Nelson or Tauranga. Only SKJ from these trips would be eligible for MSC certificate. If Talley’s vessels fish outside the EEZ the catch CANNOT be MSC certified. The vessel tracking and strict reporting and documentation required by MPI ensures that it is clear where the fish are caught and the COC certificate held by Talley’s is audited each year with checks on catches and quantities and where caught.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 168 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors 1 On-site audit 1 auditor on-site From client action plan it can be deduced that with remote support information needed to verify that condition 3 from 1 auditor meets SG 80 and can be closed. 2 and 3 Off site audit 2 auditors off site Progress towards conditions 1and 2 can be provided remotely in years 2 and 3 4 On site audit 2 auditors on site Year 4 milestone requires that SG 80 has been achieved. Re assessment can commence

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1 October 2016 October 2016 Anniversary date and data available from previous season

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 4 On-site Off-site Off-site On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 169 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 5 Objections Process

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

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

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 170 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 6 WCPFC work plan for Skipjack as agreed at Commission meeting 2015.

Extracted from WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y:

Each harvest strategy developed in accordance with this CMM shall, wherever possible and where appropriate, contain the following elements: a. Defined operational objectives, including timeframes, for the fishery or stock (‘management objectives’) b. Target and limit reference points for each stock (‘reference points’) c. Acceptable levels of risk of not breaching limit reference points (‘acceptable levels of risk’) d. A monitoring strategy using best available information to assess performance against reference points (‘monitoring strategy’) e. Decision rules that aim to achieve the target reference point and aim to avoid the limit reference point (‘harvest control rules’), and f. An evaluation of the performance of the proposed harvest control rules against management objectives, including risk assessment (‘management strategy evaluation’).”

2015 Record management objectives for the fishery or stock (a).  Agree Target Reference Point (b). Commission record management objectives for skipjack noting advice provided by the SC on a range of target reference points. Commission agree to a Target Reference Point for skipjack.

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

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

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 171 of 172 Acoura Marine Final Report Talley's New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine

Appendix 7 MPI letter of support.

Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Page 172 of 172