Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Certification Report
SATHOAN French Mediterranean Bluefin tuna artisanal longline and handline fishery
On behalf of
CM des pêcheurs de Sète Môle – OP SATHOAN
Prepared by
Control Union UK Ltd
October 2020
Authors: Chrissie Sieben Jo Gascoigne Sophie des Clers
Control Union UK Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: http://uk.controlunion.com
Contents
CONTENTS ...... 1
QA FR ...... 3
GLOSSARY ...... 4
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7
2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 11
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 13 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 13 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 13 3.1.2 Final UoC(s) ...... 14 3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 14 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 14 3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 15 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 15 3.2.1 History of the fishery and its management ...... 15 3.2.2 The Client fishery ...... 15 3.2.3 Gear and operation of the fishery ...... 19 3.2.4 Fishing areas and seasons ...... 21 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 23 3.3.1 Biology ...... 23 3.3.2 Stock Definition ...... 24 3.3.3 Reference points ...... 25 3.3.4 Recruitment ...... 25 3.3.5 Stock status ...... 26 3.3.6 Stock status projections ...... 29 3.3.7 Stock status summary of different models ...... 30 3.3.8 Harvest strategy and control rule ...... 31 3.3.9 Bluefin MSE process...... 34 3.3.10 Information and monitoring ...... 34 3.3.11 Stock assessment ...... 37 3.3.12 Lower Trophic Level (LTL) species ...... 38 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 39 3.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2 ...... 39 3.4.2 Data availability ...... 40 3.4.3 Bait use ...... 43 3.4.4 Primary and Secondary species ...... 43 3.4.5 ETP species ...... 48 3.4.6 Habitats ...... 53 3.4.7 Ecosystem ...... 54 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 56 3.5.1 Jurisdictions and legal framework ...... 56 3.5.2 Consultation, Roles and Responsibilities, Dispute resolution, Respects for rights ...... 67 3.5.3 Long-term objectives ...... 69 3.5.4 Fishery-specific objectives ...... 72
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 1
3.5.5 Fishery-specific decision-making processes ...... 73 3.5.6 Fishery-specific compliance and enforcement ...... 74 3.5.7 Fishery-specific monitoring and management performance evaluation...... 77
4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 79 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 79 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 79 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 79 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 79 4.4.1 Site Visits and consultations ...... 79 4.4.2 Evaluation Techniques ...... 81
5 TRACEABILITY ...... 85 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 85 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 85 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 88 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 88
6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 89 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 89 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 89 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 90 6.4 Recommendations ...... 91 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 92
7 REFERENCES ...... 93
APPENDICES ...... 104
APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 105 Appendix 1.1 Principle 1 ...... 105 Appendix 1.2 Principle 2 ...... 129 Appendix 1.3 Principle 3 ...... 187
APPENDIX 2 RISK BASED FRAMEWORK (RBF) OUTPUTS ...... 207
APPENDIX 3 CONDITIONS ...... 211
APPENDIX 4 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 229 Appendix 4.1 Peer reviewer 1 ...... 229 Appendix 4.2 Peer reviewer 2 ...... 243
APPENDIX 5 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 254 Appendix 5.1 Submissions prior to PCDR publication (Pew) ...... 254 Appendix 5.2 Submissions prior to PCDR publication (WWF)...... 260
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 2
Appendix 5.3 Submissions post PCDR publication ...... 263 Appendix 5.3.1 Follow-up Peer Review Comments ...... 264 Appendix 5.3.2 MSC Technical Oversight ...... 265 Appendix 5.3.3 WWF Comments ...... 269 Appendix 5.3.4 Pew Comments ...... 322 Appendix 5.3.5 ISSF Comments ...... 341
APPENDIX 6 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 351
APPENDIX 7 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 352
APPENDIX 8 SPECIALLY PROTECTED AREAS OF MEDITERRANEAN IMPORTANCE (SPAMIS) ...... 353
APPENDIX 9 ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA CATCH DOCUMENT (BCD) ...... 354
APPENDIX 10 LIST OF DESIGNATED BFT LANDING PORTS IN FRANCE AND SPAIN ...... 356
APPENDIX 11 PRINCIPLE 2 CLIENT ACTION PLAN ...... 361
APPENDIX 12 ECHOSEA STEERING COMMITTEE ...... 364
APPENDIX 13 ECHOSEA/OBSENPÊCHE MEETING 19 MAY 2020 ...... 369
APPENDIX 14 EVOLUTION OF BYCATCH MANAGEMENT SATHOAN ...... 373
QA PCR
Role Signature and date Originator: C. Sieben – 23 Oct 2020 Reviewer: H. Ernst – 23 Oct 2020 Approver: T. Tsuzaki- 23 Oct 2020
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 3
Glossary
Acronym Definition
AMOP Mediterranean Association of POs
ASAP Age Structured Assessment Program
B0.1 Equilibrium biomass from fishing at F0.1
BCD Bluefin tuna Catch Document, now electronic (eBCD)
BFT Bluefin tuna
BFT-e Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock of bluefin tuna
BFT-w Western Atlantic stock of bluefin tuna
BSH Blue shark
CFP Common Fisheries Policy (EU)
CI Confidence Interval
CICTA Commission Internationale pour la Conservation des Thonidés de l’Atlantique (ICCAT)
CPCs Contracting Party, Cooperating non-Contracting Party, Entity or Fishing Entity (ICCAT)
CP Contracting Party (for RFMOs)
CPUE Catch per Unit Effort
DCE Directive Cadre Eau (UE – WFD) Direction des Pêches Maritimes et de l'Aquaculture, with the Ministère de l'Agriculture DPMA et de l'Alimentation since May 2017 (Ministerial Department) BFT Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna
EC European Commission
EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone
EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency
ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected species
EU European Union The fishing mortality rate at which the marginal yield-per-recruit (i.e. the increase in yield-per-recruit in weight for an increase in one unit of fishing mortality) is only 10 F0.1 percent of the marginal yield-per-recruit on the unexploited stock. The fishing mortality rate at which the slope of the yield-per-recruit curve is only one-tenth the slope of the curve at its origin.
Fcurrent Current level of fishing mortality (as per the stock assessment) Fishing mortality rate at the level that would produce maximum sustainable yield from FMSY a stock that has a size of BMSY FAO UN Food and Agriculture Organisation
FCR MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements
GBYP Atlantic wide research programme for Bluefin Tuna (ICCAT, since March 2010)
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 4
Acronym Definition
GFCM FAO General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean
GoM Gulf of Mexico
GRT Gross Register Tonnage
GUH Gutted Head on– landed fish product (VDK)
h Beverton-Holt steepness
HGT Headed and gutted – landed fish product (VAT)
HCR Harvest Control Rule
ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (CICTA)
IP Indicateur de Performance (PI)
IPOA International Plan of Action
IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (fishing)
LDAC Long Distance Advisory Council
M Natural mortality
MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance
MEC ME Certification Ltd
MEDAC Mediterranean Advisory Council
MSC Marine Stewardship Council
MSE Management Strategy Evaluation
MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield (RMS)
NGO Non-governmental organisation
NUTS Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics
OP Organisation de Producteurs (PO)
ORGP Organisation Régionale de Gestion des Pêches (RFMO)
PI Performance Indicator (IP)
PO Producer Organisation (OP)
RBF Risk-based framework
REFIT Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme (European Commission)
RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (ORGP)
RMS Rendement Maximum Soutenable (MSY)
SATHOAN Client Producer organisation
SCRS Standing Committee for Research and Statistics - ICCAT
SR relationship Stock-Recruit relationship
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 5
Acronym Definition
SS3 Stock Synthesis version 3 stock assessment model
SSBMSY Spawning stock biomass at MSY
SSF Spawning stock fecundity
SWO Swordfish
TAC Total Allowable Catch
UoA Unit of Assessment
UoC Unit of Certification
VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem
VMS Vessel Monitoring system
VPA Virtual Population Analysis
WFD Water Framework Directive (EU, extends to 1nm off coast - DCE)
XSA Extended Survivor Analysis
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 6
1 Executive Summary
This report covers the MSC full assessment of the SATHOAN French Mediterranean Bluefin tuna artisanal longline and handline fishery. The assessment team consisted of Chrissie Sieben (Team Leader, Principle 2), Dr. Jo Gascoigne (Principle 1) and Dr. Sophie des Clers (Principle 3). A site visit was held in Sète, France from the 29th to the 31st October 2018. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) version 2.0 for assessment procedure and scoring. The Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was applied to Performance Indicator 2.2.1 (Secondary species outcome).
The client fishery covers 24 vessels, all of which belong to the petits métiers group and are less than 18m in length overall. Except for one handline vessel, they are all pelagic longliners with membership of the Sète-based Producer Organisation (PO) Société Coopérative Maritime des Pêcheurs de Sète Môle (SATHOAN) and subscribe to the Thon Rouge de ligne Pêche Artisanale (TRL-PA) brand, which sets both environmental and product quality best practice through a code of conduct. The code of conduct covers the rules related to fishing, obligations related to the protection of the environment and sensitive species, and to the processing of fish on board to ensure quality. Not all SATHOAN members subscribe to this brand and these vessels are therefore not part of the UoA. The tuna in this fishery are caught and sold fresh on the French domestic market and sometimes in Spain. There are no other eligible fishers.
The fishery under assessment is a shallow-set pelagic longline fishery with hooks deployed between ca. 6 to 20m depth. Soak time is short, not exceeding 6 hours, and the line is deployed at nightfall with instrumented buoys placed at regular intervals to facilitate gear recovery. The bait is predominantly sardine sourced from the Adriatic, although other Mediterranean sardine stocks as well as mackerel are also sourced. Hook types are steel or iron circle hooks but may also include J hooks and Japan tuna hooks. The vessels are based along the French coast including at two ports in the North of Corsica, with fishing taking place at less than 20nm off the coast, inside the shallower waters of the Golfe du Lion and along the French Mediterranean coast and around Corsica. In all cases, fishing takes place within the UoA area as defined by GFCM statistical areas GSA 7 and GSA 8. The fishing season runs from when the bluefin tuna approach coastal waters in March/April, peaking in August/September and closing in November/December.
The bluefin tuna (BFT) Atlantic population is managed as two stocks, conventionally separated by the 45°W meridian. The eastern BFT stock (BFT-e) is a highly migratory stock of temperate tuna from the North Atlantic and Mediterranean; its main spawning ground is in the Mediterranean, and the UoA fishery targets relatively young fish that come close to the coast in pursuit of small pelagic fish. All vessels in the UoA require an ‘Authorisation européenne de pêche’ (AEP) to target BFT. There are several key jurisdictions of relevance to this assessment: ICCAT is the regional tuna fisheries management organisation which provides the management framework, translated into European legislation as part of the Common Fisheries Policy and which has direct effect in all EU member States. France is the UoA vessels’ country of registration (Flag State) and the Port State. Some fish may be landed in ICCAT BFT-registered ports in Spain, which carry the same landing protocol as if landing in France.
The BFT-e stock is managed by ICCAT and assessed using a range of different models, with one model (VPA) put forward as the basis for management advice, although the results of a second model (SS3) should also be considered. In this assessment, the team-based scoring primarily on the VPA model, whilst considering the results of the other models (mainly the SS3 model) as part of the team’s evaluation of uncertainties in the VPA conclusions. Overall, regarding stock status, it was determined that there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point of recruitment impairment
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 7
and is likely to be at or arriving at a level consistent with MSY. In terms of management, ICCAT have recently moved from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan, which came into force in
2019 (Rec. 2018-02). The stated goal of Rec. 2018-02 is to maintain the biomass around B0.1, to be achieved by fishing at F0.1 (since B0.1 cannot be measured directly). B0.1 is a reasonable proxy for BMSY. The main measure of the management plan is the total allowable catch (TAC), which has been increased stepwise to 36,000 tonnes, which will be reached in 2020. The plan also contains a series of technical measures; notably minimum size provisions and a series of seasons by gear, as well as a large quantity of provisions for reporting and inspection which are intended to ensure that the TACs and other management measures are respected. The harvest control rule (HCR) is based on the management objectives of Rec. 2018-02 with TACs set such that F=F0.1. The team, however, identified several issues with the HCR, namely that it is fishing effort, rather than the exploitation rate, that is reduced as the PRI is approached, and that it cannot be argued that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties. Finally, owing to the potential for significant IUU removals and recreational catches in mainly the Mediterranean, it is not clear that unquantified removals are sufficiently accounted for in the stock assessment. Conditions were raised accordingly.
Key data sources on interactions with non-target species were logbook and IFREMER observer data; the latter collected as part of the French national observer programme (Obsmer). For the UoA, observer coverage appears to be low, with on average 12 observed BFT trips per year between 2013 and 2017, corresponding to about 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips. The assessment team also questioned the quality and completeness of the logbook data. Recognising the short-comings with these data, SATHOAN are currently trialling a new system to record catches, called ECHOSEA, which all vessels subscribing to the TRL-PA brand are required to use for the recording of retained and discarded species, as well as for ETP species interactions. The intent is that this data will be summarised each year and analysed for trends. For this assessment, however, the team relied on the available logbook and observer data, as well as on the recently completed SELPAL study which provides a more qualitative indication of likely interactions in the UoA. Main primary species or stocks identified are Mediterranean swordfish, North Atlantic blue shark and Adriatic sardine. The only main secondary species identified was the pelagic stingray for which the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was triggered, due to a lack of population data and stock assessments for this species in the Mediterranean. Although the available data provided some indication as to the likely order of magnitude of catches, and therefore the UoA’s impact on the species concerned could be estimated, the quality of the data was concerning, and the team concluded that a meaningful strategy or partial strategy at UoA level should rely on more and better-quality data. For ETP species, the data were insufficient to determine whether the UoA is highly likely to not hinder recovery of the species concerned (sea turtles and seabirds). Furthermore, the fact that the UoA is currently not complying with the ICCAT requirement for 5% observer coverage in longline fisheries (ICCAT Rec. 16-14), was identified as an important weakness. Conditions were therefore raised throughout the primary, secondary and ETP species components. Impacts on benthic habitats or ecosystem structure and functioning, however, were not assessed as significant.
Three main jurisdictions involved in this fishery are the tuna RFMO ICCAT, the EU (as Policy maker for the fishery) and France (flag state, port state and market state). ICCAT provides the overarching framework to deliver cooperation with all parties in order to deliver outcomes for Principles 1 and 2 management of BFT-e. The international legal and administrative structure for the management of tuna is based on The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT, 2007). The management system includes several transparent and effective mechanisms for dispute resolutions at the different jurisdictional levels. Roles and responsibilities have been also identified and allocated at all jurisdictional levels. Information relative to the fishery and its management are collected and all parties are encouraged to participate. The management system includes some clear long-term objectives at all jurisdictional levels which are in line with Principles 1 and 2 of the MSC.
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 8
ICCAT’s principle objective is to maintain fish stocks at levels that will permit the maximum sustainable catch. The ICCAT Convention (art.3) requires decisions to be taken by most Contracting Parties (CPs), each with one vote. Two thirds of the CPs constitute a quorum, but ICCAT mostly seeks consensus. The Commission receives advice from its Panels and Committees, e.g. scientific advice on issues such as stock status and catch limits comes from the SCRS. The ICCAT experience on bluefin tuna in the last 10 years is an example that, with the correct synergy between CPCs and with the ICCAT secretariat, such challenges can be addressed and overcome. As such, it is an example to other RFMOs faced with major conservation challenges.” The French local decision-making processes for this fishery are clearly defined, informed by scientific information and advice from IFREMER scientists who are key contributors to ICCAT scientific working groups. For BFT-e overall, the monitoring control and surveillance system has been comprehensive for some years, but as the stock recovers, some CPCs, such as the EU may have relaxed some rules, such as increasing the number of small ports as designated ports, that have stretched their inspection capacity and increased the risk for over-quota or un-tagged BFT-e fish being landed. ICCAT relies on its Contracting Parties to implement effective sanctions over their flagged vessels. According to the PO, the vessels in the UoA demonstrate a high level of compliance by providing logbook (paper and electronic for vessels>12m), landing reports, and ICCAT daily electronic catch and sales declarations (e-BCD) for bluefin tuna. Furthermore, the SATHOAN PO also participates in and encourages research into the development of tools for additional at sea data collection and voluntary research cooperation on bycatch identification (ECHOSEA), mitigation measures (SELPAL) and ecosystem research.
The team’s determination is that the fishery meets the criteria for MSC certification. Aggregate scores for each Principle are as shown in the following table:
Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 81.7 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.7 Principle 3 – Management System 84.2
Nine conditions were raised overall: three in relation to Principle 1, six in relation to Principle 2.
Number Condition Performance Indicator 1 By 2025 (Year 5) the client should be able to show that the BFT-e 1.1.1 stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. 2 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that well-defined HCRs 1.2.2 are in place that are able to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties, as determined through simulation modelling or other appropriate method. 3 By Year 4 the client should be able to show evidence that there is 1.2.3 good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. 4 By Year 4, some quantitative information should be available and 2.1.3 adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. The information collected should be adequate to support a partial strategy to manage these species. 5 By Year 4, there should be an objective basis for confidence that the 2.2.2 partial strategy in place for pelagic stingrays will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or this species, including seasonal and spatial catch patterns.
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 9
Number Condition Performance Indicator 6 By Year 4, the information available on interactions with pelagic 2.2.3 stingray should be adequate to manage the UoA’s impact on this species, taking into account seasonal and spatial catch patterns. 7 By Year 4, direct effects of the UoA should be highly likely to not 2.3.1 hinder recovery of sea turtles and ETP seabirds. 8 By Year 3, there should be a strategy in place for managing the 2.3.2 UoA’s impact on ETP species, designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. There should be an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and evidence that it is being implemented successfully. 9 By Year 4, some quantitative information should be available and 2.3.3 adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on ETP species. The information collected should be adequate to measure trends and to support a strategy to manage these species.
Two recommendations were made by the team, as follows:
Recommendation 1 (bait):
Fishers in the UoA purchase their bait directly from traders and there is currently no systematic means through which SATHOAN monitor their members’ bait use. It is recommended that a more formal bait sourcing strategy is adopted that ensures that bait is sourced from sustainable fisheries, while endeavouring that bait use is optimized as much as possible (e.g. by exploring ways to minimize bait use per hook).
Recommendation 2 (swordfish):
One of the measures included in the Mediterranean swordfish rebuilding plan (ICCAT Rec. 17-03) is a minimum size: In order to protect small swordfish, CPCs shall take the necessary measures to prohibit catching, retaining on board, landing, transporting, storing, selling, displaying or offering for sale Mediterranean swordfish measuring less than 100 cm LJFL or, in alternative, weighing less than 11,4 kg of round weight or 10,2 kg of gilled and gutted weight (ICCAT Rec. 16-05). A recent peer-reviewed paper presented at ICCAT SCRS 2019 on reproductive biology of swordfish in the Strait of Gibraltar found that female swordfish attained larger sizes than males and mature at a larger size, at 170 cm, as opposed to 95 cm LJFL for males (noting that the reproductive characteristics of swordfish caught in the Strait of Gibraltar are similar to those of the Mediterranean) (see ICCAT-SCRS (2019) and Abid et al. (2019)). With a minimum landing size at 100 cm LJFL, there is therefore a real risk that immature individuals are being caught by the UoA. Although the team concluded that at the scale of the UoA, this will not have any effect on the recoverability of the stock, it is recommended that options are explored (e.g. changes in gear design, fishing practices or application of a voluntary minimum size) so that the UoA catch of juvenile swordfish is minimised.
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 10
2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers
Chrissie Sieben (Team Leader, Principle 2)
Chrissie Sieben has a Master’s Degree in Marine Environmental Protection which she obtained at the University of Wales, Bangor, and specialises in marine and fisheries ecology, marine environmental impact assessments and sustainable fisheries. She was the MSC fisheries scheme manager at ME Certification Ltd (which is currently known as CU UK) up until December 2018. Before joining MEC, she worked as a fisheries consultant and marine ecologist on UK-based and international projects. Chrissie is now an independent assessor with over eight years’ experience with the MSC certification requirements and has acted as team leader and P2 assessor on a range of preassessments, surveillance audits and full assessments of demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean and Pacific. She also regularly participates in MSC training sessions and workshops. Chrissie speaks fluent French and Dutch in addition to English. She acted as the Team Leader for this assessment and was responsible for Principle 2. Chrissie has successfully completed the MSC online training on the application of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF), FCRv2.0.
Dr Jo Gascoigne (Principle 1)
Dr. Gascoigne, a CU UK associate, is a former research lecturer in marine biology at Bangor University, Wales. She is an expert on fisheries science and management, with over 15 years’ experience as a consultant, working mainly on MSC pre-assessments and full assessments, as well as FIP scoping, planning and implementation. Jo has been involved as expert and lead auditor in a significant number of full MSC assessments and pre-assessments covering a range of demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean and Pacific. In addition to numerous pre-assessments, Jo has considerable experience with full assessments of tuna fisheries in the MSC programme. On 20 May 2016 a variation request was granted by MSC, qualifying Dr Gascoigne as Principle 1 (P1) assessor for tuna fisheries. She was therefore responsible for the assessment of Principle 1.
Sophie Des Clers (Principle 3)
Sophie is an independent scientific expert in fisheries management systems. She is a qualified MSC auditor and a member of the MSC peer review college. She has over 30 years' experience in the formulation, monitoring, and evaluation of fisheries and aquaculture projects to build management capacity in the public and the private sector. Sophie is trained in databases, applied statistics, population dynamics, economics, law and public policy. Her past research and consultancy projects have taken her to fishing ports around the UK, EU, Norway, Africa, the North Sea, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Pacific, Indian oceans and the Caribbean. She has been involved in a number of previous MSC assessments and pre-assessments including lobster, cod, haddock, saithe, sole, herring, blue whiting, sardine, whelks (within the EU) and tuna and billfish fisheries. Sophie has completed the required Fishery Team member MSC training modules for the V2.0 Fisheries Certification Requirements; she was responsible for the assessment of Principle 3.
Peer Reviewers:
The MSC Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for this fishery. Two peer reviewers were selected from the following list:
• John Neilson • Kevin Stokes
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 11
• Paul Medley • Susana Sainz-Trapága
A summary of their experience and qualifications is available via this link: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/sathoan-french-mediterranean-bluefin-tuna-artisanal- longline-and-handline-fishery/@@assessments
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 12
3 Description of the Fishery
3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought
3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)
CU UK confirms that the fishery under assessment is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard (7.4 of the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0):
• The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal; • The fishery does not use poisons or explosives; • The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement; • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years; • The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery; • The fishery is not an enhanced fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.3; and • The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.4.
There are no other eligible fishers. Therefore, the UoC is the same as the UoA described below.
UoA
Species Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
Stock Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna
Geographical range French and EU shared Western Mediterranean waters of the fishery
Method of capture Pelagic longline (LLD) and handline and pole-line (LHP, LHM)
Client group Member vessels of SATHOAN PO targeting bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean using pelagic longline, handline and pole-line that have signed up to the label “Thon rouge de ligne – pêche artisanale”
Other eligible None fishers
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 13
3.1.2 Final UoC(s)
The UoC remains as described above. There are no other eligible fishers.
Species Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus)
Stock Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna
Geographical range French and EU shared Western Mediterranean waters of the fishery
Method of capture Pelagic longline (LLD) and handline and pole-line (LHP, LHM)
Client group Member vessels of SATHOAN PO targeting bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean using pelagic longline, handline and pole-line that have signed up to the label “Thon rouge de ligne – pêche artisanale”
3.1.3 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data
The Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna (BFT) stock is managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) which, as part of a 15-year recovery plan running from 2007 to 2022, sets an annual Total Allowable Catch (TAC) through its Recommendation 17-07 (amending 14-04) on BFT in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. The 2018 TAC is given in Table 1. Details on quota allocations to the European Union, to France and to French vessels registered in the Mediterranean are also shown – this information was extracted from the Arrêté du 08/02/18 établissant les modalités de répartition du quota de thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) accordé à la France pour la zone « océan Atlantique à l'est de la longitude 45° O et Méditerranée » pour l'année 2018. The UoA quota share and total green weight catch for 2017/18 were provided by SATHOAN.
Table 1. TAC and Catch Data for the UoA. The total green weight catch was provided by SATHOAN.
TAC Year 2018 Amount 28,200 t Allocation European Union Year 2018 Amount 15,850 t Allocation France Year 2018 Amount 4,934 t Allocation French Mediterranean Year 2018 Amount 4,391 t Allocation Sathoan Year 2018 Amount 2,760.2 t UoA share of TAC Year 2018 Amount 271 t UoC share of total TAC Year 2018 Amount As above Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most 2018 Amount 271 t recent) Year (second 2017 Amount 239 t most recent)
3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries
The MSC defines enhanced fisheries as: Any activity aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment or improving the survival and growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total production or the production of selected elements of the fishery beyond a level that is
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 14
sustainable by natural processes. It may involve stocking, habitat modification, elimination of unwanted species, fertilisation or combinations of any of these practices.
The fishery under assessment is a wild capture fishery and does not meet the criteria for enhanced fisheries (see FCR v2.0 7.4).
3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)
The MSC defines Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) as: Any fishery which prosecutes a target fin or shellfish species that was intentionally or accidentally transported and released by human activity into an aquatic environment beyond its natural distribution range. This does not include species that are “introduced” into a location due to an expansion in their natural geographic range. The fishery is not an ISBF (see FCR v2.0 7.4).
3.2 Overview of the fishery
3.2.1 History of the fishery and its management
Bluefin tuna has been targeted in Mediterranean fisheries since Neolithic times, with the main fishing gears initially consisting of handlines and beach seines. The species played a vital role in the economies and cultures of the region and cave paintings depicting bluefin tuna have been dated back to the third millennium BC (Longo et al., 2015). These ancient civilisations established practices that evolved much later in history into the bluefin tuna trap fishery, now referred to as tonnara, madrague or almadraba, consisting of a complex net system that leads the tuna through a maze, so they may be trapped and captured. From the second half of 20th century however, pelagic longlines and purse seines became the dominant fishing gears although some tuna trap fisheries still exist today.
The industrial longline fishery, initially prosecuted by Japanese vessels in the Northwest Atlantic in the 1950s, spread to the whole of the North Atlantic in the 1990s. The purse seine fishery also progressively fished throughout the North Atlantic and Mediterranean during this period. In the Mediterranean, the purse seine fishery initially targeted young BFT in coastal waters but shifted its focus to the spawning grounds in the 1980s. In the last two decades, Atlantic BFT has been exploited by more than 20 countries, although historically the main countries have been France, Spain, Italy and Japan. The European Union accounts for more than 50% of the total allowable catch (TAC), and the Mediterranean industrial purse seine fishery now accounts for more than 70% of the annual EU share of the TAC. The purse seine fleet is based in a small number of ports in Spain, France and Italy. Tuna caught using this method are transferred to cages at sea for fattening, before being sold.
The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in charge of Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean BFT (BFT-e) stock. The objective of the Commission is to maintain the population of tuna and tuna-like fish in the Atlantic Ocean at levels that will permit maximum sustainable yields, as well as the implementation of research programmes, the analysis of fishing statistics and the formulation of stock conservation measures as recommendations.
A list and analysis of active and forthcoming recommendations is given Section 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background. The intent and effect of these recommendations are also discussed under Principle 1 (Section 3.3) and Principle 2 (Section 3.4).
3.2.2 The Client fishery
The client fishery covers the 24 vessels listed in Table 2, all of which are less than 18m in length overall (LOA). Except for one handline vessel (HL), they are all pelagic longliners (LL). All vessels are members
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 15
of the Sète-based Producer Organisation (PO) Société Coopérative Maritime des Pêcheurs de Sète Môle (SATHOAN) and subscribe to the Thon Rouge de ligne Pêche Artisanale (TRL-PA) brand, which sets both environmental and product quality best practice. Note that not all SATHOAN members subscribe to this brand and these vessels are therefore not part of the UoA. The tuna in this fishery are caught and sold fresh on the French domestic market and sometimes in Spain.
Table 2. Vessels in the client group. Fishing Tonnage Fishing vessel Homeport LOA (m) Registration number gear (GT)
ANTOINE MARIUS AIGUES MORTES 11 LL FRA000480715 11
CHARLY CHRIST AGDE 11 LL FRA000923684 12
DIEU MER SI FREJUS 11 LL FRA000917302 9
DOCHRIS LE GRAU DU ROI 8 LL FRA000900299 4
DRAGON II SIX FOURS LES P 10 LL FRA000901300 4
GALLUS LA CADIERE D'AZUR 10 LL FRA000653113 11
LAURINE FRONTIGNAN 11.95 LL FRA000910501 7.22
LE MARCO II MARTIGUES 13 LL ESP000025951 14
LE TOURNEVIRE III LE GRAU D AGDE 11.99 LL FRA000598337 9.92
L'INFERNAL LE GRAU DU ROI 17.76 LL FRA000900272 19.11
MARIE ANNONCIADE II SIX FOURS LES P 10 LL FRA000925302 3
MARINA LE GRAU DU ROI 11.9 LL FRA000925302 8.23
MORGANE AGDE 11 LL FRA000733736 5
NEPTUNE 3 GRAU D'AGDE 14 LL FRA000859093 19
PANTHERE III SETE 9 LL FRA000926014 4
PEPE FURIANI 9 LL FRA000931352 6
SAINT CHRISTOPHE II SAINT FLORENT 10 LL FRA000924960 8
TROIS FRERES II SETE 17 LL FRA000916523 48
ANDREA II AGDE 11.85 LL FRA000741371 7.96
BELLE HISTOIRE 4 MARSEILLE 9 LL FRA000930217 5
BONANZA LE GRAU DU ROI 7.25 HL FRA000781422 2.29
DEUX FRERES VI SETE 17.95 LL FRA000935041 70.83
DEUX FRERES VII SETE 17.95 LL FRA000935042 70.83
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 16
ENZO II CALVISSON 8.45 HL FRA000653113 4.53
LUCIE MANON SETE 8.9 HL FRA000925345 4.77
MAELU II MARSEILLE 10.72 LL FRA000865745 5.64
MALOVIA LATOUR-BAS-ELNE 9.9 LL FRA000932441 3.87
OLGA SETE 11 LL FRA000859056 11
PHOENIX LA SEYNE SUR MER 8.42 HL FRA000923573 3.35
PRINCE DES MERS LA SEYNE SUR MER 10 LL FRA000790176 13
3.2.2.1 SATHOAN
SATHOAN is a French company (société anonyme coopérative d'intérêt maritime à conseil d'administration) established 27 years ago in Sète, specialised in the wholesale of fish and shellfish products. SATHOAN is also a Producer Organisation (PO), an officially recognised body set up by fishery or aquaculture producers, notably in charge of the day-to-day management of European fisheries production quotas (bluefin tuna and swordfish in particular). POs play an essential role in running the European Common Fisheries Policy and Common Organisation of the Markets1. SATHOAN is a member of the French Mediterranean Federation of POs, the AMOP2, and the national federation ANOP.
SATHOAN stands for sardine/thon/anchois although since a historic drop in the Gulf du Lion sardine and anchovy stocks from 2002-2005 (GFCM, 2016) and the subsequent collapse of the local market for small pelagics, the importance of these species to the PO has reduced over the past decade. Currently, SATHOAN comprises three distinct fleets:
• A trawler fleet that, since the collapse of the small pelagics fishery, has shifted its focus onto demersal species; • The artisanal ‘petits métiers’ which includes bluefin targeting longliners, handliners and rod and line vessels. Petits métiers are defined in French legislation for Mediterranean fisheries as vessels 18m or less in length using passive gear3; and • A bluefin tuna purse seine fleet (not included in the UoA)
The vessels in the UoA all belong to the petits métiers group. They all have a European fishing authorization (Autorisation Européenne de Pêche – AEP) for bluefin tuna, and some for swordfish. The AEP is mandatory for stocks managed with EU quota.
For BFT, the SATHOAN PO represents its members through participation in all relevant meetings at international, national, Mediterranean and local levels (e.g. ICCAT, the Comité national des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins – CNPMEM, the Mediterranean Advisory Council – MEDAC, and PO federations). Within SATHOAN, members who target BFT are organised into two committees (collèges): the petits métiers and the purse seiners.
1 https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/market/producer_organisations_en 2 http://www.amop.fr/lamop/ 3 Arrêté 19 décembre 1994 regarding professional fishing in the Western Mediterranean (art.2)
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 17
SATHOAN’s responsibilities include the daily monitoring of quota uptake for each member. Quota is allocated to SATHOAN by ministerial order (see Arrêté du 08/02/18 établissant les modalités de répartition du quota de thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) accordé à la France pour la zone « océan Atlantique à l'est de la longitude 45° O et Méditerranée » pour l'année 2018) which divides the French share of the European share of the TAC set by ICCAT. This allocation is proposed by the French government to the EU Commission as part of the annual fishing plan (Plan de pêche) to be submitted to ICCAT and is subject to consultation with the POs at the Commission thon rouge of the CNPMEM. Within each PO, the quota allocation is divided up between individual members by Décision according to track record and some internal swaps. Following its policy to support the petits métiers in the Mediterranean, the French government has introduced a minimum ‘socio-economic’ BFT catch quota allocation per vessel, which was increased proportionally with the national quota, from 700 kg in 2017 to 825kg in 2018 and in 2019. The national policy also supports the quota transfers from seiners to liners, which was increased from 161 t in 2018 to 190 t in 2018. Management of EU quota uptake at PO level is very strict and each PO needs to ensure a 100% uptake without exceeding the quota. SATHOAN have developed a tablet/ smartphone ‘app’ that enables fishers to follow their own quota uptake. In the event that there is excess quota, this is redistributed on the 15th November of each year.
3.2.2.2 VALPEM
VALPEM, or Association pour la valorisation des produits de la pêche en Méditerranée, is an association created through collaboration between the producer and processing sectors with the aim of adding value to Mediterranean fisheries products in France by working with local actors. VALPEM is the representative body for all quality and origin certifications (Signes d’Identification de la Qualité et de l’Origine – SIQO) it helps the fisheries sector set up, which currently include a quality label (Label Rouge) for fish soup, line-caught swordfish, and line-caught bluefin tuna (Figure 1). For BFT, the THON ROUGE DE LIGNE - Pêche Artisanale (TRL-PA) label commits to the following:
1) A collective label identifying bluefin tuna that has been caught with respect, by artisanal fishermen; 2) To promote a socially responsible and biologically sustainable approach; 3) A product stemming from small-scale, inshore fisheries (petite pêche and pêche côtière) prosecuted by French-registered vessels, based along the French Mediterranean coast between Spain and Italy, including in Corsica; 4) All BFT are caught with hooks by longline, handline or rod and line vessels; 5) The protection of cultural identity to safeguard employment and local economic development; 6) Full and accessible traceability to the consumer with information on vessel identity, catch records, fishing techniques, location and day of catch (note traceability is further discussed in Section 5); 7) Freshness and impeccable quality of the product – note that this requires all fishing trips to be less than 24 hours; 8) A control plan that ensures that all commitments are adhered to by its participants.
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 18
Figure 1. Bluefin tuna with the THON ROUGE DE LIGNE, Pêche Artisanale quality label, created in 2015. The label is managed by VALPEM, https://www.valpem.fr/thon-rouge/
All fishers subscribing to the TRL-PA are required to follow a code of conduct (cahier de charges) which they are trained in upon entry into the programme. The code of conduct covers the rules related to fishing, obligations related to the protection of the environment and sensitive species, and to the processing of fish on board to ensure quality. The code of conduct is summarized in Table 3. Compliance with the code is verified internally at VALPEM although reduced staff availability means that vessel inspections are limited. Non-compliance may result in suspension from the programme.
Table 3. Summary of TRL-PA code of conduct on sustainability. Practices to ensure quality are not listed (https://www.valpem.fr/thon-rouge/)
Quota management Each vessel must have an AEP (European fishing authorisation or permit) and individual BFT quota, which is managed by the PO Vessel type Less than 18m LOA (Mediterranean ‘petit métier’) Gear Longline, handline or rod and line Length of trip Less than 24hrs (Mediterranean) Gear restrictions No wire leaders Data All vessels must carry onboard an observation log on ‘vulnerable’ species such as sharks, rays, turtles and seabirds. Bycatch All fishers must return to the water as quickly as possible any of the above species (if still alive) in order to ensure their survival by using the good practice guide and associated instruments (e.g. dehookers) (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf) Environment No discarding at sea of plastic, glass or metal waste Research Engagement in scientific research initiatives
3.2.3 Gear and operation of the fishery
The formal FAO gear designations for the fishery under assessment are as follows:
• Drifting longlines (LLD); • Hand operated handline and pole-lines (LHP) • Mechanised handline and pole-lines (LHM)
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 19
All UoA vessels listed in Table 2 fall under the ICCAT longliners LL category or in French, palangriers, which also includes one handliner vessel. This is in fact a rod and reel vessel (in French, à la canne), not a typical pole and line vessel using live bait, which would be included in the baitboat category (ICCAT designation BB), not covered by this assessment.
Most of the boats in the UoA are small (all are <18m LOA), carrying two crew with one skipper, although there are variations between vessels (Figure 2).
Figure 2. The Andrea, one of the longliners in the UoA (Image: CU UK)
The longline gear used in this fishery consists of a 8 – 9nm long monofilament nylon main line, with branch lines placed at regular intervals, carrying between 500 to 1,500 baited hooks (Poisson et al., 2016). Hook depth varies from ca. 6 to 20m, although this depends on the lunar cycle with deeper lines set during the full moon. The soak time is short, typically not exceeding two hours although it may be up to 6 hours. The line is deployed at nightfall, either manually or automatically, and instrumented buoys with geo-positioning capability are placed after each mile to facilitate gear recovery – according to the fishers, loss of gear is therefore very rare and although other fishing vessels such as trawlers do operate in the UoA area, this is mainly during the day. There is therefore limited overlap, further reducing the likelihood of gear loss. The bait is predominantly sardine sourced from the Adriatic, although other Mediterranean sardine stocks as well as mackerel are also used, albeit in lesser quantities (see Section 3.4.3). Most of the fishers use steel or iron circle hooks although J hooks and Japan tuna hooks are also used according to Poisson et al. (2016). The choice of hooks appears mainly related to selectivity and retention capacity and is not a requirement in the TRL-PA code of conduct. The handline vessel uses the same bait and hook types as the longline vessels although trips are shorter. Generally, 4 to 8 lines are deployed at a time.
Figure 3. Examples of circle hook and longline gear used in the UoA. Last image depicts gear being baited with frozen sardines. (Images by CU UK and courtesy of B. Wendling, SATHOAN)
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 20
Figure 4. Overview of hook types used in the bluefin tuna fishery according to Poisson et al. (2016). From left to right: circle hook (hameçon circulaire); J-hook (hameçon droit); swordfish J-hook (hameçon droit à espadon); Japan tuna hook (hameçon à thon japonais).
3.2.4 Fishing areas and seasons
Vessels in the UoA are based along the French coast including at two ports in the North of Corsica (Table 2). Poisson et al. (2016) mapped fishing effort between 2012 and 2016, for a sample of 27 vessels out of the 44 member vessels of AMOP, the Association Méditerranéenne des Organisations de Producteurs, which SATHOAN belongs to. The fishing effort shown is therefore representative of the entire French Mediterranean longline fleet, not just those in the TRL-PA brand, and includes fishing trips that target both bluefin and swordfish (Figure 5). The map shows that fishing takes place at less than 20nm off the coast and that there are two main fishing areas, inside the shallower waters of the Golfe du Lion and off the French Mediterranean coast (GFCM geographical subarea - GSA 7), and around Corsica (GSA 8). The fishing area specific to the SATHOAN vessels is illustrated for 2016 in Figure 6.
In the Mediterranean, access to Territorial waters (12 nm) is restricted to vessels of the European coastal state (CS: France, Spain, Italy etc.). Beyond 12 nm, the rest of each CS « EEZ » are shared European Community waters, which are restricted to vessels registered with EU member states unless through an access agreement with the EU. Some of the SATHOAN vessels longer than 15 m LOA (4 vessels at present, see Table 2) may fish outside 12nm off the coasts of Spain, south of the Golfe du Lion, between the continent and the Balearic Islands. In this case, they may land their catch in Spain, at ICCAT BFT-registered ports. However, this fishing activity is still within the UoA area as defined in Section 3.1. The fishing season dates are set by ICCAT per type of vessel and gear. The vessels in the UoA are all under 24m and qualify as “other gears” – see ICCAT Rec. 17-07, for which the fishery is permitted throughout the year. For this fishery, the fishing season runs from when the bluefin tuna approach coastal waters in March/April, peaking in August/September and ending in November/December.
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 21
Figure 5. 2012 – 2016 fishing effort (hooks set) for a sample of AMOP longliners by statistical square (Poisson et al., 2016)
Figure 6. Fishing operations by SATHOAN TRL-PA vessels in 2016 (Map courtesy of B. Wendling)
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 22
3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background
3.3.1 Biology
The information in this section is taken from the summary of bluefin biology provided in ICCAT (2017a), except where otherwise indicated.
Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) (BFT) are one of three species of bluefin tuna: the others are Pacific bluefin (T. orientalis) and Southern bluefin (T. maccoyii). Bluefin tuna have a more temperate distribution than the other large tuna species, with Atlantic bluefin living in the temperate North Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of St. Lawrence and Mediterranean; seasonally reaching quite high latitudes (e.g. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Iceland and Norway). These high-latitude areas are historically known to have bluefin, which disappeared during the period of population decline but have recently reappeared; it is supposed that this relates to the overall recovery of the population with environmental factors also involved.
Archival tagging data suggest that BFT can maintain a stable internal body temperature over a wide range of external conditions, and also that they can dive to >1000 m, although they usually spend their time in the surface / immediate subsurface layers. Although BFT are highly mobile and migratory, they appear to return to the same spawning sites annually. The two main spawning areas known are in the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, and it was thought that these sites correspond to the eastern Atlantic (BFT-e) and western Atlantic (BFT-w) stocks of T. thynnus. However, other potential spawning sites have recently been located (Richardson et al., 2016), suggesting that the situation may be more complex than thought (this is further discussed in Section 3.3.2).
Bluefin tuna grow fast when young, although not as fast as the tropical tunas. Fish grow to ~30-40 cm and 1 kg in the first 6 months; at 10 years, a bluefin tuna is ~2 m fork length (FL) / 170 kg and can reach 2.7 m / 400 kg at age 20. Natural mortality is estimated to be low for larger fish (estimated in Canada from acoustic tags at 0.04-0.09; < 0.12) (see Lauretta (2017)). BFT are a long-lived fish, estimated by radiocarbon dating to have a lifespan of ~40 years, by which time they will be >3 m long and can weigh ~0.75 tonnes.
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 23
Figure 7. Life history parameters used in the stock assessments of BFT. Source: ICCAT (2017b)
3.3.2 Stock Definition
The BFT Atlantic population is managed as two stocks, conventionally separated by the 45°W meridian, however efforts to understand the population structure through tagging, genetic and microchemistry studies indicate that mixing is occurring at various rates in the eastern, western and north-western Atlantic.
The BFT-e and BFT-w stocks are assumed based on spawning grounds; known in the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico (GoM), with GoM fish spawning at larger size. A third spawning ground off North- eastern US has also recently been identified, with evidence of fish visiting this ground and the Mediterranean in different years (Richardson et al., 2016). This implies two things: i) if the spawning ground is used by BFT-w fish, they might be spawning at smaller sizes or a younger age than previously thought (which would be more consistent with the BFT-e stock); and ii) there may be stronger links
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 24
between the two stocks than previously thought; both of which suggest that the BFT-w stock might be less vulnerable to overfishing than previously thought (although see Walter et al. (2016)).
In the Atlantic, there are different rates of mixing between the two stocks in different areas, complicating the stock assessment process (in particular for BFT-w), but the fish in the Mediterranean are considered to be 100 % BFT-e.
3.3.3 Reference points
The objective of the BFT-e recovery plan (discussed in Section 3.3.8) is to achieve BMSY with at least 60 % probability over the course of 15 years, starting in 2007 and initially running to 2022 (ICCAT Recommendation 2014-04, replaced by Rec. 17-07). Rec. 2014-04 (para. 4) also set an interim management objective to maintain catches below the most precautionary estimate of MSY for two years (i.e. 2015-16), then subsequently at this estimate of MSY after three years (i.e. 2017); after which the situation was revised through Rec. 17-07, based on the results of the 2017 stock assessment (ICCAT, 2017b).
Despite BMSY being the stated objective of the recovery plan, the 2017 stock assessment group decided
to base their management advice on F0.1 as a proxy for FMSY, as has been the practice in previous assessments (ICCAT, 2017b). This is because the biggest problem in evaluating the status of this stock is in understanding recruitment dynamics and, hence estimating likely future recruitment. Estimating MSY reference points depends on making assumptions about recruitment, as does estimating
associated equilibrium biomass reference points from F reference points (e.g. estimating B0.1 from F0.1). However, the scientists point out that fishing at or around F0.1 over the long term will result in
the stock stabilising at around B0.1 – even if we cannot put a figure on this biomass level.
For a given recruitment time series, the equilibrium yield from F0.1 should be somewhat lower than from FMSY, while the equilibrium stock biomass can be higher or lower (e.g. Brodziak and Overholtz
(1995)). Rademeyer and Butterworth (2018) looked at the relationship between F0.1 and FMSY for different stock-recruit relationships (different values of h – Beverton-Holt steepness) and found that
F0.1 was lower (more precautionary) than FMSY for high h, but higher (less precautionary) for low h, with the transition value at ~0.68 for BFT-e. Steepness is estimated at roughly this level in similar species (e.g. southern bluefin estimated at 0.6-0.8; tropical tunas usually in the range 0.7-0.9), suggesting that F0.1 is a suitable proxy for FMSY in this case.
It is worth noting that this inability to estimate recruitment and hence reference points which require such estimates (or an SR relationship) is not likely to change. The SCRS in 2018 noted ‘the Committee does not expect to provide further clarity regarding future recruitment’, and in 2017 ‘the 2017 Committee has not gained any further insights into future recruitment potential … the Group expects such insights to remain elusive’ (ICCAT, 2017a, 2018a). The harvest strategy based on F0.1 as a proxy for BMSY should therefore be considered to be the definitive rather than interim strategy.
3.3.4 Recruitment
As noted above, the key problem with estimating reference points and projecting future stock status is recruitment. Recruitment (as estimated from the Virtual Population Analysis or VPA stock assessment base model) was low from the start of the time series (1968) to the early 1980s, then increased; was high from the early 1990s to ~2003, then apparently decreased back to the earlier low level (although recruitment since 2012 cannot be estimated with any confidence) (Figure 8). Stock assessment projections are based on three potential levels of long-term future recruitment: low
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 25
(1968-1980 average), medium (1968-2012 – average of whole time series) and high (1990-2005 average).
Figure 8. Trends in recruitment as estimated from the VPA assessment model (ICCAT, 2018a) (BFTE-Figure 4).
3.3.5 Stock status
Five different stock assessment models were tried during the stock assessment workshop in 2017 (see Section 3.3.11 below). Only one (VPA) was considered advanced enough at the end of the meeting to provide the primary basis for management advice, but the group recommended ‘considering’ the results of the other models in scientific advice as well (ICCAT, 2017b). This is done by emphasising the uncertainty in the assessment and by recommending a step-wise rather than immediate increase in the TAC (discussed in Section 3.3.8), rather than by explicitly discussing alternative stock status scenarios. The problems with the VPA model are discussed in detail in Section 3.3.11, but in brief the main issues are that:
i. The model is unstable, with the results strongly influenced by the final year of data; and ii. One of the key assumptions of a VPA, that catch-at-age is known exactly, is not met.
Despite this, the SCRS (ICCAT, 2017c) notes that ‘the committee considers the following advice more reliable than that previously provided to the Commission’. Nevertheless, NGOs have expressed concern that the results of the SS3 model (which was used for the BFT-w stock assessment) were not taken more into account for the BFT-e stock assessment – particularly since they were less optimistic. During site visit interviews, it was reported to the team that a key reason for this was that at the end of the stock assessment workshop, the SS3 model was not yet completed (T. Rouyer, IFREMER, pers. comm.).
The VPA model was tested in various ways during the stock assessment meeting (sensitivity runs with different assumptions, jack-knife runs removing individual datasets, retrospective runs removing the most recent years from the time series) and was also adjusted during the subsequent species group meeting (ICCAT, 2017d); details are given in Section 3.3.11. Nearly all these various model iterations, however, give the same qualitative pattern in spawner biomass; i.e. a biomass maximum in the 1970s, followed by a decline to a minimum from 1990 to ~2000s, followed by an increase in the most recent data (Figure 9; Figure 10; Figure 11; Figure 12). The magnitude of the recent increase in biomass, relative to the previous minimum and the previous maximum is, however, uncertain. The other models for which results are presented (ASAP, SS3 and SCAL) showed the same increasing trend in
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 26
recent years, but with different trends prior to the mid-2000s and different quantitative levels of spawner biomass (Figure 12). The SCRS concludes, however, that despite uncertainties, the 2017
assessment gives higher confidence in the recent increase in spawner biomass, and notes that Fcurrent ‘appears to be clearly below’ F0.1 (F/F0.1=0.34 (0.25-0.44, corresponding to approx. 10 % and 90 % CIs),
with B already above B0.1 for low and medium future recruitment scenarios (see Section 3.3.4 above) but still below it under the high recruitment scenario. This is based on the VPA model (base case as adjusted by the Species Group; ICCAT (2017d)). The SS3 model, conversely, estimated spawner biomass at ~90 % of SSBMSY.
Figure 9. VPA original (left) and revised (right) base case model: from top to bottom, time series of recruitment, SSB, SSB scaled to 2008-10 average, F for ages 2-5 and F for ages 10+. Colours show retrospective analysis (sequential removal of years of data from the end of the input time series) as indicated by the scale at the top. (ICCAT, 2017d)
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 27
Figure 10. VPA base case model (original): top left – recruitment; top right – SSB; bottom left – F ages 2-5; bottom right – F plus group. Colours show jack-knife analysis (removal of individual abundance indices), as indicated in the scale at the top. From (ICCAT, 2017b)
Figure 11. Sensitivity runs for the VPA: Red – base case; other colours show a range of other scenarios (ICCAT, 2017b)
3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 28
Figure 12. SSB time series from the various models tried during the stock assessment: blue – VPA; orange – SS3; grey – ASAP; yellow – SCAL (see also Section 3.3.11 below). From (ICCAT, 2017b)
3.3.6 Stock status projections
Short-term projections from 2017-2022, for the base case VPA under the recent recruitment scenario, are provided by the SCRS under different TAC scenarios. Unfortunately, they are all based on a constant TAC from 2018 onwards, hence none of them project the actual agreed TAC scenario of stepwise increases (details given in Section 3.3.8). A constant TAC of 36,000 or less over the period 2018-2022 maintains the probability of F constant TAC of ~40,000 t (logically giving a mean probability of F SCRS (2018) does not provide projections under different assessment scenarios, but the stock assessment (ICCAT, 2017b, 2017d) gives VPA projections under low (recent), medium and high recruitment scenarios in terms of F, with the medium and high recruitment scenarios more optimistic (medium: F in a TAC of ~12-13,000 t to 2022 (F0.1 being considerably lower than FMSY under this model configuration), while a constant TAC of 30,000 t puts the SB at ~80% of the MSY level in 2022, or at 70%SBMSY for a constant TAC of 35,000 t. Returning, however, to the VPA base case / recent recruitment projections, some examples of the estimated SB under different constant TAC scenarios are set out in Table 4 below. It is worth noting that for a 60% difference in the TAC there is a ~15% difference in the projected SB in 2022 (the rebuilding target date). In other words, the level of the TAC is likely to be considerably less significant in defining the stock trajectory than other factors such as uncertainties in the stock assessment models and variability in recruitment. While it is important to be precautionary, changes of a few thousand 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 29 tonnes in the TAC are not likely to have much discernible impact on the stock trajectory relative to these much greater uncertainties. Table 4. Projected SB (2022) under different scenarios of constant TAC (2018-2022) (t) for the VPA base case model with recent recruitment assumed to continue (ICCAT, 2018a) Constant TAC 2018-2022 (t) Projected SB (2022) (t) (approx.) 24,000 (2017 TAC) 575,000 36,000 (2020 TAC) 520,000 40,000 (~F0.1) 500,000 It is important to bear in mind with these projections, that neither the stock assessment group nor the SCRS had much confidence in the estimates of biomass relative to reference points and in fact declined to provide a Kobe plot on this basis. It is therefore preferable to focus on the estimates and projections relating to F in order to evaluate the likely consequences of a given management strategy. 3.3.7 Stock status summary of different models Stakeholders requested that the report be clear about the different conclusions of different stock assessment models, and for the VPA, recruitment scenarios. In an attempt to do this, we have provided Table 5, noting that because the models estimate different parameters in different ways, and projections have been done for different scenarios for each model, they are not particularly easy to compare. For the VPA model, F0.1 is considered likely to be a good proxy for FMSY, while for the SS3 model they are very different, with F0.1 much lower than FMSY. The projections (2018, 2025) for the VPA model have been done under three different recruitment scenarios, while the SS3 model estimates a Beverton-Holt stock-recruit curve within the model (which is likely to be a significant source of process error). Unfortunately, there are no estimates of SB or F relative to reference points for the ASAP or SCAL models; the VPA projections have been done in terms of F while the SS3 projections were done in terms of catch and SB; and the TAC scenarios for the two sets of projections (VPA and SS3) are not the same. Therefore, any comparison should be interpreted with caution. Table 5. An attempted comparison of the results of the four different stock assessment models considered during the stock assessment workshop (ICCAT, 2017b). Note: VPA low / med / high refers to the different recruitment scenarios applied to the projections under the VPA model. VPA low VPA med VPA high SS3 ASAP SCAL SSB 2015 610 kt (sensitivities 500-900 kt) 240 kt 660 kt 910 kt F>F0.1 2015 ‘not likely’ SB SB F>F0.1 2018 (28 kt TAC) prob 2% prob 0% prob 0% F>F0.1 2025 (35 kt TAC) prob 62% prob 3% prob 0% SB / SBMSY 2018 (30 kt TAC) 0.85 SB / SBMSY 2025 (35 kt TAC) 0.63 2018 TAC for F=0.8FMSY 20,723 t 2018 TAC for F0.1 11,802 t 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 30 3.3.8 Harvest strategy and control rule ICCAT adopted a rebuilding plan for BFT-e in 2006, which was amended in 2013, 2014 (Rec. 2014-04) and 2017 (Rec. 2017-07). A catch limit, first set in 1998 at 32,000 t was gradually reduced from 2007 onwards to a minimum value of 12,900 t in 2010. A key element of the management strategy has been the introduction of a minimum size, raised from 6.4 kg in 2002 to 10 kg in 2004 to 30 kg currently (with some exceptions; see below). Rec. 2014-04 set TACs for 2015-17, and Rec. 2017-07 set TACs and quotas for 2018-2020 (Table 1). In 2017, SCRS recommended based on the results of the stock assessment that the Commission move from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan; this was adopted in 2018 (Rec. 2018-02) and started in 2019. The management plan is consistent with SCRS advice for 2018, which can be summarised as follows: • It is too early to evaluate the impact of Rec. 17-07. • The combination of size limits and catch reduction has ‘certainly contributed to a rapid increase of the abundance of the stock’. • The stepped increase in TAC for 2019, set out in Rec. 17-07, can be maintained. • ICCAT should move from a rebuilding plan to a management plan. The management objective of Rec. 17-07 and previous iterations of the rebuilding plan was to achieve BMSY with at least 60% probability. The management objective of Rec. 18-02 is slightly different: to achieve B0.1 (proxy for BMSY) by fishing ‘at or below’ F0.1; i.e. a slightly lower objective. Nevertheless, the key management measure (the TACs up to 2020) has not changed from Rec. 2017-07 to Rec. 2018- 02 (Table 6), on the basis that TACs are being increased incrementally to the F0.1 level. Some other measures have, however, been slightly relaxed (e.g. some longer open seasons, additional derogations from the minimum size, provisions for quota exchange and small amounts of carry-over) (Table 7). Table 6. Eastern bluefin TACs, 2015-2020. Year TAC (tonnes) Rec. 2014-04 Rec. 2017-07 Rec. 2018-02 2015 16,142 2016 19,296 2017 23,155 2018 28,200 2019 32,240 32,240 2020 36,000 36,000 Stakeholders have noted that the 2020 TAC is the highest ever set for this stock, which is true since the first TAC which was set in 1998 was ~34,000 t and TACs subsequently decreased to a low in 2009- 2014 before starting the incremental increase set out above. There are, however, two elements which need to be borne in mind in relation to this before/after comparison: i) in the period 1998-2008, TACs were not respected at all – estimated annual catch was of the order of 50,000 t or higher; and ii) the size-frequency in the catch is now completely different from the size-frequency in the 1990s, as a consequence of the minimum size limits in the various rebuilding plans. From the bottom-left figure in Figure 10 (Section 3.3.5) it is clear that F on small size-classes (ages 2-5) has decreased by an order 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 31 of magnitude (ca. 0.25-0.02) since approximately the year 2000. This means that absolute estimates of biomass reference levels such as B0.1 and BMSY will be different, and hence the two situations (before vs after) are not comparable in that way. Table 7. Comparison of the provisions of the 2017 rebuilding plan (to end 2018) and the 2018 multiannual management plan (starting 2019). From ICCAT Rec. 17-07 and 18-02. Provision Recovery plan (17-07) Multiannual management plan (18-02) Management target BMSY with at least 60 % probability by Maintaining the biomass around B0.1, via 2022 (para. 1) (B0.1 as a proxy for BMSY, fishing at or less than F0.1 (para. 1) evaluated via F0.1) TAC 2019 (t) 32,240 t; 650 t unallocated reserve 32,240 t; 100 t unallocated reserve (para. 5) (para. 5) TAC 2020 (t) 36,000 t; 750 t unallocated reserve 36,000 t; 115 t unallocated reserve (para. 5) (para. 5) Transfer of quota / Minor provisions (para. 5) Same except Libya→Algeria transfer research provision removed (para. 5) Provisions for stock Commission may suspend fishery based No such provision, but if stock assessment decline / collapse on ‘serious threat of fishery collapse’ suggests that B0.1 is not being achieved, (para. 6) SCRS shall provide new TAC advice for the following year (para. 114) Annual fishing plans Required from each ICCAT CPC by 15 Same; requirements of plans a bit more Feb., covering quota allocations, clearly specified (paras 14-16,19) inspection, capacity management and farms (paras 8,10) Individual quotas For catching vessels >24m (para. 9) Not required Sport / recreational Quota allocation optional by CPC (para. Same (paras 39-44); sport tag/release fisheries 11); authorisation required (para. 31); vessels do not require quota if in the context bag limit one fish/day/vessel for private of a scientific research programme (para. consumption (para. 32,33) 45) Quota carry-over Not allowed (para. 14) A CPC may carry over up to 5 % of 2019 quota to 2020, as long as included in fishing plan (para. 7) Quota transfer By authorisation of CPCs and By authorisation of CPCs; Commission to be Commission (para. 15) informed in advance (para. 10); allowed between gear groups / fleets within a CPC as long as Commission informed (para. 17) Chartering Not allowed (para. 16) Not allowed (para. 11) Joint Fishing Provisions for CPCs with <5 purse seine Same, but also provisions for other gear Operations vessels, under strict regulation (para. types (paras 59-62) 17) Open fishing 1 Jan-31 May, except west of 10oW and Same (para. 31) season: longline north of 42oN and in Norwegian zone (NEZ) – 1 Aug-31 Jan (para. 18) : purse seine 26 May-24 June, except NEZ – 25 Jun- 26 May-1 July, except E. Med (open 15 31 Oct (para. 19) May), Adriatic (to 15 July), NEZ and Iceland zone (25 June-15 Nov), Morocco (1 May-15 June) (para. 29); may be expanded up to 10 days to allow for bad weather (para. 30) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 32 Provision Recovery plan (17-07) Multiannual management plan (18-02) baitboats, trolling 1 Jul-31 Oct; CPCs outside To be set by CPCs and approved by Panel 2 Mediterranean may stipulate a (para. 32); complete review of seasons for different starting date but same all gears by Commission by 2020 (para. 33) duration (para. 20) pelagic trawlers 16 Jun-14 Oct (E. Atlantic only) (para. 21) recreational 16 Jun-14 Oct (para. 22) other gears any time (para. 23) Aerial searching Not allowed (para. 25) Not allowed (para. 48) Minimum size 30 kg or 115 cm FL with derogations to Same, except additional derogation to 6.4 8 kg / 75 cm for some fleets; max. 5 % kg/66 cm or 70 cm for some fleets with % undersized bycatch for catching vessels tolerance to be fixed by CPCs (7 % for / traps (paras 26-8) Croatia) (paras 34-35); rules for catching vessels / traps the same (para. 36) Bluefin bycatch for 5 % max by weight and piece (para. 29) Quota to be allocated for bycatch by CPCs; non-bluefin vessels not to include 20 % of catch onboard; to be kept separate; dead discards to count against quota (para. 38) Capacity Number and GRT of fishing vessels by Fishing and farming capacity to be adjusted management gear type limited to level of 2007-8; in line with quota availability via a capacity traps limited to number on 1 July 2008; management plan to be approved by ICCAT purse seiners limited to 2013/14 level Panel 2; farming capacity not to increase for fishing plans 2018-20; farm input over 2018 level; farm input not to increase not to increase over 2005-8 levels; over 2005-8 levels (paras 18-27) fishing and farm management plans required (paras 35-50) Control measures ICCAT to maintain a record of all Same, except data to be provided by 31 July catching and other vessels and traps; of the following year (paras 49-58,74-76) catch and effort to be reported by CPCs by vessel, no later than April 1 of the subsequent year (paras 51-57); logbooks required (paras 61-62); catch reporting for quota consumption to be done monthly (paras 67-9) Landing and Only in designated ports of CPCs (paras Same (paras 69-73,77-82) transshipment 58-60) with reporting and control requirements (paras 59-60,64-65) Transfer and caging To be authorised in advance (paras 71- Same (paras 86-104) operations 72,79), reporting (paras 73,82,86), video monitoring (paras 75,81,83), observer (paras 76-77,84), video to be made available to ICCAT and observers; tamperproof (para. 93) CPC observer Pelagic trawlers, longliners, baitboats Same (para. 83) coverage >15m: 20 %; towing vessels and trap harvesting: 100% (para. 88) ICCAT Regional 100 % coverage on purse seiners and Same (paras 84-5) Observer transport and farm activities (transfer, transport, harvesting) (para. 89) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 33 Provision Recovery plan (17-07) Multiannual management plan (18-02) Growth rates, To be provided by SCRS To be provided by SCRS (para. 28) conversion factors VMS No mention Required for vessels >15 m (see also Rec. 18- 10) Review of the n/a 2020 and after confirmation of ‘full recovery management plan of the stock’ A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process is underway at ICCAT for eastern bluefin; a preparatory meeting was held in April 2018 (ICCAT, 2018b). SCRS (2018) (ICCAT, 2018a) provides a workplan for the remainder of the MSE process for bluefin tuna (see Appendix 15), which aims to have a revised management plan based on an MSE for adoption by the Commission at the end of 2020. 3.3.9 Bluefin MSE process A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process is underway at ICCAT for BFT-e; the first meeting was held in 2014 (according to information provided by Pew) and a preparatory meeting was held in April 2018 (ICCAT, 2018b). SCRS (ICCAT, 2018a) provide a workplan for the remainder of the MSE process for BFT (see Appendix 15 of that document), which aims to have a revised management plan based on an MSE for adoption by the Commission at the end of 2020. In 2019, three intersessional meetings were held to progress the BFT MSE (ICCAT, 2019a, 2019b, 2019c). Extensive progress has been made on the technical aspects (agreeing a set of robust operating models) but numerous technical problems have arisen how to condition the models, selectivity assumptions for some fleets, migratory behaviour of spawners, exchange between stocks and some coding issues. As of the most recent meeting (September 2019) (ICCAT, 2019c), it remained to complete conditioning trials and robustness evaluations. For this reason, the group has pushed back the MSE workplan by a year. They have proposed that there be a bluefin stock assessment in 2020, following existing methodologies, to provide advice on TACs for 2021 (ICCAT, 2019d). Another issue with using the MSE to apply the current management strategy is that it is technically difficult to produce an operating model which can estimate F0.1 – the agreed target reference point, because estimating F0.1 requires information on age composition as part of the model output. They predict it might be another 5 years before an operating procedure can be put in place based on F0.1 as a management target. 3.3.10 Information and monitoring 3.3.10.1 Catch documentation scheme All ICCAT contracting or cooperating parties must submit information to ICCAT on the origin of each bluefin tuna using the bluefin tuna Catch Documentation Scheme – an electronic data submission system. The requirements for the Bluefin Catch Document (eBCD) are set out in Rec. 11-20. The document itself requires the following information to be provided, with each section individually validated by national authorities: • Catch: Details of vessel(s): name, flag, ICCAT record number, individual quota allocation; details of catch: date, area, gear, number of fish, weight, tag numbers if any 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 34 • Trade: Product, point of departure and company details, details of buyer or destination farm with ICCAT FFB4 number • Transfer: Towing vessel with flag and ICCAT Rec. no, number and weight of dead fish during towing, number of transfer declaration form • Transhipment: Carrier vessel details, date and position, product and quantity • Farm: Farm details, number and weight of fish • Farm harvesting: Date, number and weight of fish, tags, ICCAT observer details • Trade: Product, weight, exporters, transport Each form must be individually numbered following a schema developed by each CPC. The catch documentation system also requires that vessels (fishing, carrier), traps, farms and exporters be registered with the system. While the scheme is apparently not fool proof (see Section 3.5.6 P3 compliance), it certainly makes this fishery one of the best monitored anywhere. 3.3.10.2 GBYP ICCAT started the Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna (GBYP) in 2008, with the aim of improving the scientific advice by improving basic data on bluefin biology and ecology. The programme has benefited from various external contributions from CPCs (notably the EU) as well as private institutions and research foundations. GBYP has a coordinator and a Steering Committee, and its Annual and Steering Committee reports and budgets are publicly available5. The stated objectives of the GBYP are as follows: • improve basic data collection: historical data mining, size of caged fish, fishery- independent surveys and large-scale tagging; • improve understanding of biological and ecological processes: electronic tagging, biological sampling (gonads, liver, otoliths, spines etc.), analysis of reproductive state, analysis of mixing and population structure, predator-prey relationships; • improve stock assessment and scientific advice: modelling of biological processes (growth, stock-recruit relationship), stock assessment models including mixing, operational models for MSE. The key activities of the GBYP have been6: • Aerials surveys, focusing on spawning areas in the Mediterranean, in late spring (spawning aggregations) and late summer-autumn (juvenile feeding aggregations) – as well as conducting surveys, development of methodology and training is also critical. • Large-scale tagging in the initial phase of the project, moving towards electronic tagging more recently; also awareness-raising for tag recovery. 4 farming facilities authorized to operate for farming of bluefin tuna caught in the ICCAT Convention area 5 See https://www.iccat.int/GBYP/en/overview.asp and select tab ‘documents’ 6 See https://www.iccat.int/GBYP/en/index.asp and select individual tabs 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 35 • Historical data mining: This has various elements and has contributed to developing the ‘inflated catch’ time series essential to the stock assessment (see below) as well as in generating a trap fishery catch time series which goes back to 1512 (see for example Garcia et al. (2017)). • Biology and ecology: Genetics, otolith and spine aging and microchemistry, surveys of spawning areas. • Modelling: The MSE process. 3.3.10.3 Data required for stock assessment The data required for the stock assessments are described below: Catch data: Catch data have in the past been problematic, because of the large quantity of undeclared catches when Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) fishing was prevalent (1998-2007). The level of this IUU fishing has been estimated using the likely catch rates of the vessels known to have been operating, or using market data (Apostolaki et al., 2018). The resulting ‘inflated catch’ is applied to the purse seine fishery for this period as the best catch estimate; reported purse seine catches are not used. This is inevitably uncertain, and SCRS (2017) notes that attempts to retrieve historical data for this period have finished and the situation is not likely to improve. At the data preparatory workshop for the stock assessment (ICCAT, 2017e), the group revised completely the catch data with help from national scientists. Altogether ~15% of the catch records were adjusted, but these adjustments were mainly confined to better defining and completing gear-based time series and did not result in a significant change to estimates of overall catches. Abundance indices: A series of 9 abundance indices were used in the 2017 stock assessment, including 2 trap indices, 5 catch per unit effort (CPUE) indices and two survey (fishery-independent) indices. These are: • Combined Morocco/Spain trap index, 1981-2011 • Combined Morocco/Portugal trap index, 2012-15 • Japanese longline, eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, 1975-2009 • Japanese longline, northeast Atlantic, 1990-2009 • Japanese longline, northeast Atlantic, 2010-15 • Spain baitboat (pole-and-line), 1952-2006 • Combined Spain and France baitboat, 2007-2014 • French aerial survey (see under GBYP above), 2000-03, 2009-12 and 2014-15 • Larval survey index, western Mediterranean, 2001-05, 2012-15 A problem with the fishery CPUE indices, as noted by SCRS (ICCAT, 2018a) is that CPUE has been significantly affected by the wide range of regulatory measures that have come in since the start of the rebuilding plan, which has changed the fishing season, target sizes, quota availability and hence operational pattern. Despite standardisation techniques, it is difficult to separate out changes in CPUE from changes in the operation of the fishery from those due to changes in stock abundance. (This is a problem which is not specific to this fishery.) Catch at size: The stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT, 2017e) noted that revisions to various datasets have improved estimates of catch-at-size and catch-at-age matrices (for details of 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 36 aging and growth curves, see below). This includes revision and improvement of existing datasets (e.g. by Japanese scientists) as well as new size data (e.g. from Algeria and Sardinia). Crucially, it is now required to record cage transfer operations using stereoscopic camera, allowing direct size measurement of fish (available since 2014). Nevertheless, size in vs size out from the farms remains a problem, because the growth rates of farmed fish has not been fully quantified, in particular when fish are retained for longer periods. An attempt to compare growth as back-calculated from harvesting data, with direct measures from stereoscopic cameras (Ortiz, 2018) was successful in some cases (i.e. the two sets of measurements matched) but not in others. Further investigation of this question is ongoing, but the analysis was not ready as an input to the 2017 stock assessment. Age and growth: Work is ongoing in this area, and the stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT, 2017e) reviewed various analyses; e.g. analysis of age and growth of young-of-the-year fish in the Mediterranean, to evaluate variation in early growth rates in time and space and how that might relate to spawning areas and timing; validation of growth curves via independent estimates of Linf and Lmax; methods to identify outliers in the size/age database; comparison of BFT-e and BFT-w growth curves; evaluation of different methods for obtaining catch-at-age estimates from size data using real and simulated data. Catch-at-size data have also been recovered from market and auction data (Di Natale et al., 2017) Based on tagging and otolith data, the data preparation workshop (ICCAT, 2017e) reviewed the fit of two different growth curves for BFT-e, and concluded that one had a better fit for smaller fish, while one worked better for larger fish. On this basis, they recommended fitting a revised growth curve for the stock assessment, and also recommended more otolith aging of large fish. Stock composition: Tagging, genetics and otolith microchemistry have all contributed to an analysis of stock composition and stock mixing – details are given in Section 3.3.2 above. Natural mortality: M has been investigated extensively for bluefin (Lauretta, 2017), with various models evaluated against tagging data. There was extensive discussion at the data preparation workshop as to how M should be treated – previously a M vector from southern bluefin was used. M clearly varies by size, and may also vary over time, although the data are not sufficient to estimate a time-varying M vector. Tagging: According to GBYP Steering Committee reports, ~60 electronic tags were deployed in 2018, and ~70 in 2017 (ICCAT, 2017f, 2018c). Prior to this there was extensive conventional tagging which has been used to evaluate growth and mortality as discussed above. 3.3.10.4 Environmental cues and drivers Work has been done on various issues relating to environmental drivers of bluefin distribution, behaviour and (critically) recruitment, including in relation to the role of climate change (Di Natale et al., 2018) and climate variability (Faillettaz et al., 2019), migratory behaviour (Carruthers et al., 2018) and habitat suitability (Druon et al., 2016). 3.3.11 Stock assessment The stock assessment process at ICCAT is as follows: a data preparation workshop is convened, which reviews all available fisheries datasets, and any new information (e.g. recent relevant research, new data) and makes recommendations as to the use of different abundance indices, growth curves, natural mortality and other data inputs to the stock assessment. A stock assessment workshop is then convened, which runs and reviews the various competing models across an evolving range of settings and assumptions over the course of several days. The stock assessment group comes to a conclusion 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 37 regarding which model and settings should be considered the ‘reference case’, although it may recommend a range (see below). The results of the stock assessment are then passed to the species group, which formulates management advice which is goes to SCRS for review and approval. As already noted above, a range of stock assessment modelling platforms were tried during the stock assessment meeting, but ultimately only the VPA model was considered sufficiently advanced to be used to provide management advice, although the stock assessment group recommended ‘considering’ the other results in the advice as well. Other than the VPA, the most advanced model was the SS3 model, which is used for the assessment of BFT-w. VPA is a method for using observed fisheries mortality (catch) plus assumed or estimated natural mortality to back-calculate the size of age-cohorts over time, generally carried out using the modelling platform Extended Survivor Analysis (XSA). VPA is a widely used technique in fisheries stock assessment; e.g. it is commonly used by ICES for assessments of Northeast Atlantic stocks, although it is gradually being superseded by more sophisticated statistical models such as SS3, CASAL and MULTIFAN which are already commonly used for tropical tuna stocks. The results of the VPA are presented in detail in Section 3.3.5 and are not repeated here. The uncertainties in the assessment have already been emphasised: the stock assessment workshop was particularly concerned about the inconsistency in recruitment shown in the retrospective analysis (see Figure 9 in Section 3.3.5). However, the VPA was subsequently amended slightly (ICCAT, 2017d), providing a new reference case model in which retrospective instability was somewhat less marked (Figure 9). A key issue with VPA is the assumption that catch-at-age is known without error; the stock assessment group considered that the poor quality of historical catch-at-size data and the problems inherent in converting size data to age data were key sources of uncertainty for the VPA. These problems are less significant for some of the other models (SS3, SCAL), but nevertheless the group concluded that the results of these models were ultimately ‘not more reliable’ than those of the VPA (ICCAT, 2017b). Fromentin et al. (2014) provide a nice summary of the range and sources of uncertainty in the BFT-e stock assessment over time; noting that in practice, the situation is not all that different from many other exploited fish stocks. It is relatively rare that a stock assessment presents and compares the results of several different modelling approaches using the same data. It is also usual that recent and future recruitment and the Stock recruitment (SR) relationship are a big source of uncertainty; most tuna stock assessments simply assume a SR relationship rather than address this specifically (but see the alternative approach of IATTC for its tropical tuna stocks – who assume no SR relationship; (IATTC, 2017). Age and growth is another significant source of uncertainty for many stock assessments, including tuna species; the recent assessment history of western Pacific bigeye is a good example (Sieben et al., 2019). 3.3.12 Lower Trophic Level (LTL) species Bluefin tuna has a trophic level of 4.5 and is not considered a low trophic level (LTL) species (Fishbase, 2019) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 38 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 3.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2 The fishery’s impact of non-target species is analysed differently if the species is from a “managed” stock or not, or considered Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP). These are defined as follows: Primary species (MSC Component 2.1): • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 • Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points (TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as ‘managed species’. Secondary species (MSC Component 2.2): • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 • Species that are not managed in accordance with limit or target reference points, i.e. do not meet the primary species criteria • Species that are out of scope of the programme, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (see below). ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species (MSC Component 2.3) are assigned as follows: • Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation • Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) • Species classified as ‘out-of-scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). Both primary and secondary species are defined as ‘main’ if they meet the following criteria: • The catch comprises 5 % or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC; • The species is classified as ‘less resilient’ and comprises 2 % or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC. Less resilient is defined here as having low to medium productivity, or species for which resilience has been lowered due to anthropogenic or natural changes to its life-history; • The species is out of scope but is not considered an ETP species (secondary species only); • Exceptions to the rule may apply in the case of exceptionally large catches of bycatch species. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 39 3.4.2 Data availability The Principle 2 analysis is based on two key sources of information: logbook and observer programme datasets. For each UoA vessel, paper logbooks issued by the European Community (or in the case of the larger vessels, electronic logbooks) are the standard form through which data are collected. The logbooks detail estimated live weight (kg) or number of individuals of retained catch per species, as well as time and coordinates of the sets. In addition to retained catches, information on discards and interactions with Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP) species may also be recorded although this happens less consistently. These logbook data are fed through to the central data management system (SIOP, Système d'Informations pour Organisations Producteurs) managed by the DPMA. The SIOP gathers catch, landings and sales data from logbooks, as well as the auctions (RIC, Réseau Inter Criée) and makes these data available to the POs including SATHOAN. For this assessment however, the SIOP data were incomplete (partly due to technical issues and partly related to a lack of capacity at FranceAgrimer). The system also relies on submission of data by the fish buyers (mareyeurs) which does not happen consistently. The data gaps therefore need to be filled in with logbook data. For this reason, SATHOAN also compiles its members’ logbook data with the main aim of monitoring quota uptake. While data on bluefin tuna and swordfish are assumed to be complete, other retained species are only partially entered as only trips for which geolocation data are available contribute to the dataset (related to capacity issues at SATHOAN). The data extracted from the SIOP and SATHOAN databases are shown in Table 8 and Table 9 respectively. Note that the SATHOAN data do not distinguish between the fisheries that target bluefin tuna or swordfish. The swordfish catch levels shown in Table 9 are therefore likely to be an overestimate of the UoA catches. Table 8. Summary of SIOP data for UoA (in kilogrammes and as % of total catch). Main species are shown in red. Kg % Species Designation 2014 2015 2016 2017 2014 2015 2016 2017 Thunnus Bluefin Target, P1 13,391 72,923 63,848 58,011 98.28 93.95 99.41 98.35 thynnus Swordfish Xiphias gladius Primary 235 4,053 380 973 1.72 5.22 0.59 1.65 Blue Prionace glauca Primary 0 644 0 0 0.00 0.83 0.00 0.00 shark Total 13,626 77,620 64,228 58,984 100 100 100 100 Table 9. Summary of SATHOAN data (in kilogrammes and as % of total annual catch). Main species are shown in red. % between brackets indicate how representative the data are of the total fishery. Note: the data do not distinguish between the fisheries that target bluefin tuna or swordfish Kg % Species Designation 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 (17%) (43%) (60%) Bluefin Thunnus thynnus Target, P1 141,477 224,934 162,168 87.83 87.01 71.68 Swordfish Xiphias gladius Primary 17,130 31,693 59,490 10.63 12.26 26.30 Blue shark Prionace glauca Primary 1,484 597 663 0.92 0.23 0.29 Albacore T. alalunga Primary 182 96 2,715 0.11 0.04 1.20 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 40 Kg % Species Designation 2015 2016 2017 2015 2016 2017 (17%) (43%) (60%) Red seabream Pagellus bogaraveo Secondary 335 350 700 0.21 0.14 0.31 Littlehead porgy Calamus proridens Secondary 320 0.00 0.00 0.14 Opah Lampris guttatus Secondary 120 50 0.07 0.00 0.02 Rudderfish Centrolophus niger Secondary 40 608 24 0.02 0.24 0.01 Silver scabbardfish Lepidopus caudatus Secondary 10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Atlantic horse mackerel Trachurus trachurus Secondary 30 2 0.00 0.01 0.00 Greater amberjack Seriola dumerili Secondary 135 90 0.00 0.05 0.04 Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax Secondary 23 0.00 0.01 0.00 Merluccius Hake Secondary 70 40 0.04 0.02 0.00 merluccius Total 161,088 258,526 226,232 100 100 100 The main source of information on discards and interactions with ETP species is the IFREMER observer data, collected as part of the French national observer programme (Obsmer). Although the observer trips come under the remit of IFREMER, the DPMA is responsible for determining observer coverage for each fleet. For the UoA, observer coverage appears to be low, with on average 12 observed BFT trips per year between 2013 and 2017, corresponding to about 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips. The observer data for the UoA fleet for the period 2012 – 2015 are summarised in Table 10. Note that these data show interactions in numbers of individuals only, not weights, making meaningful quantitative analysis difficult. Nevertheless, the number of interactions with bluefin tuna, swordfish, blue shark and pelagic stingray far outnumber those of the other species. The three latter species were therefore considered as ‘main’ in the Principle 2 assessment. Note that the client fishery also obtained Obsmer observer data for the years 2016/2017; however, these were clearly partial with only records for pelagic stingray and blue shark shown, as well as some interactions with birds. The assessment team therefore decided not to present them here; they were however considered in a qualitative capacity in the assessment. The SELPAL report (Poisson et al., 2016) revealed that in addition to blue shark, other pelagic shark species such as the common thresher (Alopias vulpinus) and short-fin mako (Isurus oxyrhincus) may also be landed by the French tuna longline fishery. Both species would be considered as secondary species. Considering neither species makes an appearance in the observer data (Table 10) any quantities landed by the fishery are probably minor. Nevertheless, the complete absence of those species in the logbook data (Table 8, Table 9) does put into the question the quality of the data received. Table 10. Summary of 2012 – 2015 Obsmer data showing recorded interactions with target and non-target species (in numbers). The ‘main’ species are shown in red. Row Labels Designation 2012 2013 2014 2015 Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus Target, P1 501 237 510 240 Pelagic stingray Pteroplatytrygon violacea Secondary 455 130 595 151 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 41 Row Labels Designation 2012 2013 2014 2015 Blue shark Prionace glauca Primary 52 23 105 57 Swordfish Xiphias gladius Primary 15 2 36 39 Mackerel Scomber scombrus Secondary 33 1 Sunfish Mola mola Secondary 3 12 Hake Merluccius merluccius Secondary 2 1 4 2 Atlantic bonito Sarda sarda Secondary 9 Albacore Thunnus alalunga Primary 2 1 Gilthead seabream Sparus aurata Secondary 2 Scalloped ribbonfish Zu cristatus Secondary 2 Blackmouth catshark Galeus melastomus Secondary 2 Atlantic wreckfish Polyprion americanus Secondary 1 Silver scabbardfish Lepidopus caudatus Secondary 1 Dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus Secondary 1 Bullet tuna Auxis rochei rochei Secondary 1 Total 1072 394 1261 502 Recognising the short-comings with the observer data in particular, SATHOAN are currently trialling a new system to record catches, called ECHOSEA (http://amop-selpal.com/images/AMOP-A5_version- 4-1.pdf). For each trip, all vessels subscribing to the TRL-PA brand are required to record all retained and discarded species, either by using the ECHOSEA app (which automatically links these data to a geolocation) or by using a paper observation log (Figure 13) which is transmitted to SATHOAN every 10 trips. The intent is that these data will be summarised each year and analysed for trends. It is understood that an intern is currently constructing a database, incorporating the information gleaned from Obsmer, SELPAL (Poisson et al., 2016) and ECHOSEA. It is important to note that the ECHOSEA data will be solely based on the self-declarations by the fishers with no third-party auditing taking place. Figure 13. Paper version of the Echosea bycatch recording tool, with an example page for the pelagic stingray (P. violacea). Data are recorded by perforations (Images by CU UK) The project SELPAL SELPAL (Sélectivité de la Palangre or Longline selectivity) was a study carried out by Poisson et al. (2016) in the period 2013 – 16, with the principal aim of quantifying the impact of the bluefin tuna longline fishery on species of particular vulnerability (espèces sensibles) and to test measures to increase the fishery’s selectivity and reduce its impacts. The focal point of the study was the Golfe de 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 42 Lion where most of the fishery takes place. The study was commissioned by AMOP (the Association Méditerranéenne des Organisations de Producteurs, which SATHOAN belongs to) and was carried out in scientific partnership with IFREMER and IRD-MARBEC. The SELPAL report was made available to the assessment team and its findings were incorporated where appropriate. 3.4.3 Bait use Fishers in the UoA purchase their bait directly from traders and there is currently no systematic means through which SATHOAN monitor their members’ bait use. For this assessment, an analysis was commissioned by the client to determine bait volumes and source fisheries for the 2017/2018 period. Based on these data, the UoA predominantly uses sardine sourced from the Adriatic, although other Mediterranean sardine stocks as well as mackerel are also used, albeit in lesser quantities. Overall, it is estimated that 20 – 30 kg of mainly fresh bait are used per trip. The data obtained by the client were compared against logbook data scaled up to fleet level, indicating the levels of bait use shown in Table 11. Note that the percentages shown indicate contribution to total retained catch, not including discards, and are therefore a more precautionary estimate of the likely contribution of bait volume to total catch. Table 11. Bait use in the UoA (based on Client data). The ‘main’ species are shown in red. Source fishery Species Source Designation Estimated % of total stock annual volume landed catch used (tonnes) 2017 Sardine (Adriatic) Sardina GSA 17-18 Primary 16.7 4.4 pilchardus Sardine Sardina GSA 01, 06 Secondary 1.5 0.4 (Mediterranean, Spain) pilchardus Sardine Sardina GSA 07 Secondary 1.7 0.5 (Mediterranean, pilchardus France) Sardine Sardina GSA 08 Secondary 0.2 0.05 (Mediterranean, pilchardus Corsica) Mackerel (Northeast Scomber Northeast Primary 3.6 0.9 Atlantic) scombrus Atlantic and adjacent waters (ICES) Based on the table above, the team decided to retain the Adriatic sardine, sourced from the GSA 17- 18 stock, as a ‘main’ species. 3.4.4 Primary and Secondary species Primary species are those for which management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points. This applies to the Mediterranean swordfish stock which is henceforth considered as Primary ‘main’. As for the North Atlantic blue shark stock, there is a stock assessment and an ICCAT Recommendation for blue shark with an associated catch limit (Section 3.4.4.2). This species was therefore also considered as Primary ‘main’. For the Adriatic sardine (GSA17-18), stock assessments and reference points are available and management measures are laid out in Recommendation GFCM/40/2016/3. This stock was also 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 43 considered a Primary species (Section 3.4.4.3). In the absence of any stock assessment or management for pelagic stingray, this species was considered as Secondary ‘main’ (Section 3.4.4.4). Minor primary and secondary species are shown in Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11. 3.4.4.1 Mediterranean swordfish The relevant stock for the fishery under assessment is the Mediterranean swordfish stock, for which the most recent assessment was carried out in 2016. The assessment uses an age-structured population model (XSA) and confirms that the stock is overfished and suffering overfishing and has been since the late 1980s (ICCAT, 2016a). According to the assessment, catches of immature fish remain high and the greatest mortality is suffered by fish of age 3. Recruitment has been declining for the last 15 years, and recent recruitments have been lower than the level expected to be available given recent levels of the spawning stock biomass (SSB). Nevertheless, biomass levels over the last 25 years appear to be stable at low levels, with fishing mortality levels showing a declining trend since 2010. According to ICCAT (2016a), the total landings of this stock in 2014 were 9,794 tonnes. Based on Table 9, which represents a worst-case for swordfish landings by the UoA as the data do not distinguish between BFT or SWO targeting SATHOAN vessels, 59.5t were landed in 2017 according to 60% of the logbook data. Roughly estimated, this would equate to 99.2t for the whole fishery. Even doubling this figure to account for discards leads to annual estimate of 200t swordfish, or 0.02% of the total catch in 2014. Considering the state of the stock, a 15-year recovery plan is in place (ICCAT Rec. 16-05) starting in 2017 and continuing through to 2031, with the goal of achieving BMSY with at least 60% probability. The plan inter alia sets out: • A TAC of 10,500 t for 2017 which should be gradually reduced by 3% each year from 2018 to 2022. This approach shall continue to apply until a mutually agreed TAC allocation is adopted through a supplementary Recommendation; • A capacity limitation for the duration of the recovery plan, requiring CPCs to limit the number of fishing vessels authorised to fish for Mediterranean swordfish to the average yearly number of their vessels that fished for, retained on board, transhipped, transported, or landed Mediterranean swordfish over the period 2013-2016 (with a 5% tolerance for the years 2017, 2018 and 2019 and a derogation for under 7m vessels before 15 January 2017); • A closed season from 1 October to 30 November and during an additional period of one month between 15 February and 31 March, or alternatively, during the period from 1 January to 31 March each year. The choice of closed season appears to be left to CPCs; however, for the longline fishery, a closure applies from 1 October to 30 November each year.; • Only entire specimens of swordfish, without removal of any external part, or gilled and gutted specimens, can be retained on board, landed, transhipped and first transported after landing; • A minimum landing size of 100 cm LJFL or weighing less than 11,4 kg of round weight or 10,2 kg of gilled and gutted weight applies. However, vessels which have incidentally captured small fish below the minimum size may land the fish, under the condition that this incidental catch shall not exceed 5 % by weight or/and number of pieces per landing of the total swordfish catch of the said vessels. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 44 • Restrictions on the number of hooks (max. 2,500), hook size (min. 7cm for vessels targeting swordfish) and main line maximum length of 55km for longlines. In line with the ICCAT Recommendation, the EU TAC for Mediterranean swordfish was decreased to 7,188 t in 2018 (EU, 2018a); this quota may only be fished from 1 April 2018 to 31 December 2018 and also applies to the recreational fisheries. The Recovery plan also sets out requirements for control measures (record of authorized vessels, bycatch, designated ports, controls of landings, recording and communication of catches, and transshipment), the ICCAT Scheme of Joint International Inspection in International Waters and the provision of Scientific information which are not detailed here. It is important to note that the level of the stock to be rebuilt to as specified in the recovery plan is contingent on the assumption on future recruitment which is highly uncertain (ICCAT, 2016a). Furthermore, since the establishment of minimum landing sizes, the discard levels of undersized swordfish may have increased. At UoA level, some boats have an authorisation to fish both bluefin tuna and swordfish. Those that do not are only permitted to land one swordfish per fishing day7, 8 and the total amount landed is deducted from the swordfish bycatch quota. The total swordfish quota for the French Mediterranean was 123 tonnes in 2018 of which 44 tonnes were allocated to SATHOAN (Arrêté du 13 mars 2018 établissant les modalités de répartition du quota d'espadon de Méditerranée (Xiphias gladius) accordé à la France pour la zone « Mer Méditerranée » pour l'année 2). 3.4.4.2 North Atlantic blue shark Note on stock structure: The team based their assessment on the most recent blue shark reference point-based stock assessment adopted by the RFMO responsible for monitoring and managing of blue shark catches in the Mediterranean (ICCAT), which currently considers the North Atlantic stock as a single stock. The team are aware of the difficulties surrounding stock identity for this species, particularly between the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic; however, at present there is no clear, conclusive evidence that there are two separate stocks. Although Leone et al. (2017) conclude that “The weak, but significant, differences in Mediterranean and adjacent North-eastern Atlantic blue sharks revealed a complex phylogeographic structure, which appears to reject the assumption of panmixia across the study area”, the study also “supports a certain degree of population connectivity across the Strait of Gibraltar, despite the lack of evidence of migratory movements observed by tagging data.” Blue sharks are capable of long-distance migrations and sperm storage as well as delayed fecundation, all of which likely contributes to the lack of any apparent strong barrier to gene flow among distant ocean basins (Bailleul et al. (2018) and references therein). Ver횤ssimo et al. (2017) sampled the least mobile component of blue shark populations, i.e. young-of- year and small juveniles (<2 year; N = 348 individuals), at three reported nursery areas, namely, 7 Arrêté du 5 juillet 2018 portant modification de l’arrêté du 29 mars 2017 portant création d’une autorisation européenne de pêche pour la pêche professionnelle de l’espadon (Xyphias gladius) de la Méditerranée pour les navires de pêche professionnelle battant pavillon français ; et 8 Arrêté du 29 mars 2017 portant création d’une autorisation européenne de pêche pour la pêche professionnelle de l’espadon (Xyphias gladius) de la Méditerranée pour les navires de pêche professionnelle battant pavillon français 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 45 western Iberia, Azores, and South Africa, and found temporally stable genetic homogeneity among the three Atlantic nurseries at both nuclear and mitochondrial markers, suggesting basin-wide panmixia. The authors further state that genetic homogeneity at the maternally inherited mitochondrial level indicates that adult female blue sharks may give birth in nursery areas other than their natal ones, even if located in opposite hemispheres. Thus, there is no evidence of female philopatry to discrete Atlantic nursery areas in P. glauca. The authors do caution that ocean-wide genetic stocks (i.e. where allele frequencies are similar among distant locations) can be maintained at the rate of only a few long-distance migrants per generation and thus does not preclude the existence of several demographic stocks relevant to stock assessment and management. Similar conclusions were made more recently by Bailleul et al. (2018) who found evidence of widespread genetic homogeneity of blue shark in samples across the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Pacific, reflecting large-scale panmixia, i.e. random mating at the worldwide scale, or a departure from random mating too recent to have left a signature on the genome, depending on the population size(s). Here also, however, the authors caution that the scenario of widespread genetic interdependence does not equate to demographic unity. E.g. tag studies would support the existence of two blue shark stocks in the North and South Atlantic, consistent with the different periods of reproduction that may suggest a phase difference among populations inhabiting distinct hemispheres. Similarly, despite the apparent homogeneity of the Mediterranean and Atlantic groups of specimens, no or very rare shark movements were detected between the Atlantic and Mediterranean basins using conventional tagging. This result may be due to the low statistical power and representativeness of tags on a limited number of specimens but also could reflect a real demographic independence not revealed in the genetic estimates of differentiation (Bailleul et al. (2018) and references therein). Overall, none of the aforementioned studies have resolved the matter of blue shark stock structure between the North Atlantic and Mediterranean and research into this is ongoing. The uncertainty in stock structure has been acknowledged by the ICCAT Working Group on Sharks in their 2015 stock assessment and dedicated research is ongoing including through the MedBlueSGen project which produced the Leone et al. (2017) study. Therefore, until the science supports the assessment of Mediterranean blue shark as a separate stock, and is adopted as such by ICCAT, the team have based their assessment on ICCAT-SCRS (2015) and considered the associated uncertainties in scoring. Stock status: Although there is ongoing genetic research as to whether the Mediterranean blue shark population should be regarded as a single stock (the EU project MedBlueSGen) – see above - ICCAT currently only considers there to be separate South Atlantic and North Atlantic stocks. On that basis, the fishery under assessment interacts with the latter. The most recent assessment for this stock was carried out in 2015 (ICCAT-SCRS, 2015), using both Bayesian Surplus Production Model (BSP) and Stock Synthesis (SS3) assessment methods. The data used in the assessment includes available catch, CPUE, length composition, and life history data. Scenarios with the BSP Model estimated that the stock was not overfished (B2013/BMSY=1.50 to 1.96) and that overfishing was not occurring (F2013/FMSY=0.04 to 0.50). Estimates obtained with SS3 varied more widely, but still predicted that the stock was not overfished (SSF2013/SSFMSY=1.35 to 3.45) and that overfishing was not occurring (F2013/FMSY=0.15 to 0.75). Overall, the authors of the report stressed that significant uncertainty remains, and that some important data are yet to be incorporated into the assessment (e.g. tagging data and spatial fleet structure for the North Atlantic). Because of the levels of uncertainty, no quantitative projections of future stock status have been carried out. Catches of the North Atlantic blue shark are subject to Recommendation 16-12, which sets a catch limit corresponding to the average level observed during the period 2011-2015 (i.e. 39,102 t) and which was adopted as a TAC under EU legislation (EU, 2018a). If this limit is exceeded in any two 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 46 consecutive years, ICCAT shall review the implementation and effectiveness of these measures. Based on the review and the results of the next stock assessment scheduled for 2021 or at an earlier stage if enough information is provided to SCRS, the Commission shall consider introduction of additional measures. At UoA level, the fishery has adopted a voluntary measure to release all blue sharks that are caught (this is part of the TRL-PA code of conduct). In the SELPAL study, Poisson et al. (2016) estimated mortality rates of blue shark upon hauling at 6%. Although limited information was available on post- release mortality, it was believed that this is relatively low (below 25%), based on electronic tagging data for a sample of blue sharks released as part of the study (Poisson et al., 2016). 3.4.4.3 Adriatic sardine The GSA17 – 18 sardine stock is shared between Croatia, Italy, Slovenia, Montenegro and Albania, although Croatia and Italy take by far the majority of the catch using purse seines. Somewhat unusually, this stock is the subject of two stock assessments using two sets of reference points to provide two sets of scientific advice (GFCM and STECF). This has been summarised in Table 12 below. Ultimately both sets of assessments and advice are very similar and conclude that the stock is overfished, with overfishing occurring, and that fishing mortality should be reduced. In terms of management, Recommendation GFCM/40/2016/3 applies principally, which aims to establish further emergency measures in 2017 and 2018 for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea (GSAs 17 and 18) and to achieve MSY by 2020. The measures include provisions on catch limitations (to the 2014 level), limits on the amount of fishing days, spatio-temporal closures in view of protecting nursery and spawning areas, additional closures for vessels over 12 m length overall, limitations on the overall capacity of the fleet to the 2014 level, as well as provisions for scientific monitoring and control measures. Table 12. Comparison of GFCM and STECF stock assessment outcomes for the Adriatic sardine (GSA17 – 18). GFCM STECF Latest stock assessment State-Space Assessment Program State-space Assessment Model (SAM) (SAM) with data from 1975 to 2016 with data from 1975 to 2016 as well as with short time series from 2000 to 2016. Most recently available Not given 78,355 t (2016) catch estimate Reference points E=F/Z=0.4 FMSY = 0.44 (E = 0.4 MSY proxy) Blim = 125,318 t Bpa = 250,636 t Bcurrent = 161,297 t FMSY = 0.47 (E = 0.4 MSY proxy) Status Fcur/FMSY = 2.77; The stock is F >> FMSY; the stock is considered overexploited and in overfished overexploitation Advice Reduce fishing mortality STECF EWG 17-09 advises that when MSY considerations are applied fishing mortality should be reduced to no more than F=0.44 or a catch of 30,679 t in 2018. References GFCM (2017) STECF (2017) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 47 3.4.4.4 Pelagic stingray Apart from bluefin tuna, pelagic stingray (P. violacea) appears to be the dominant species in the UoA catch (Table 10), and particularly so in the summer months (Poisson et al., 2016). The species is consistently discarded; as their name suggests, stingrays have a powerful poisonous tail spine that fishers are keen to avoid – any stingray caught is therefore systematically cut off the line, as close to the hook as possible. Due to the lack of population data or stock assessments for this species in the Mediterranean, the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was triggered in line with Table 3 of the MSC FCR v2.0 to assess this species’ outcome score (PI 2.2.1). The results of the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis are given in Appendix 2. 3.4.5 ETP species The sole source of information on UoA interactions with ETP species is the Obsmer observer data (see Section 3.4.2) although the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016) also gives a more qualitative indication of likely interactions. A summary of the observer data for the period 2014 – 17 is shown in Table 13. The team only decided to present records of actual interactions as there were also numerous entries where ETP species were simply sighted near the vessel. It is worth noting that the format of the data was quite difficult to interpret and does not appear to be suited to the accurate recording of ETP interactions, particularly regarding the nature of interactions, or the state and fate of each specimen. For example, for the year 2014 in Table 13 below, seabird interactions with the longline took place 17 times but it is unclear whether any of these interactions resulted in a capture or whether the birds were injured in some other way. Furthermore, with the exception of the 2017 data in which only one species was mentioned, none of the animals mentioned in the dataset, whether it is birds, sea turtles or marine mammals, appear to have been identified to species level. According to fishers interviewed during the site visit, interactions with seabirds are relatively rare, with about 2 birds caught each year per vessel. Sea turtles are reportedly never caught and interactions with marine mammals are thought to be extremely rare. Depredation for example is also considered a rare occurrence. Table 13. Summary of interactions with ETP species according to Obsmer data for the UoA ETP species 2014 2015 2016 2017 Puffin 5 interactions with 4 birds caught on hook - 18 captures of longline (2 dead, 2 alive) Puffinus yelkouan Tern 6 interactions with - - - longline Gull 6 interactions with 2 unhooked - - longline Sea turtle - 1 found at the surface - in difficulty – unclear whether linked to fishery 3.4.5.1 Sea turtles Within the Mediterranean, two species of sea turtle are known to occur – these are the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green turtle (Chelonia mydas) which use the basin for reproduction as well as feeding. The leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) is also increasingly observed. Wallace et al. (2010) defined 58 sea turtle Regional Management Units (RMUs) globally, comprising multiple nesting sites, nesting populations and breeding populations, defining core distribution areas that are considered 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 48 optimal for assessing the conservation status of marine turtles and for management applications. The fishery under assessment overlaps with the three RMUs shown in Figure 14 (note that the RMUs are continually updated as new stock information becomes available; the green turtle RMU for the Mediterranean is now larger than shown in the map below and extends to the whole of the basin - for the latest map, see this link: http://seamap.env.duke.edu/swot). 1 2 3 Figure 14. Sea turtle Regional Management Units according to Wallace et al. (2010). The fishery under assessment overlaps with the Mediterranean RMUs of Caretta caretta (1), Chelonia mydas (2) and Dermochelys coriacea (3). All of the species concerned are listed under Appendix I of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) and Appendices I and II of the CMS (Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals, or the Bonn Convention). An assessment of the conservation status of marine turtle RMUs by Wallace et al. (2011) evaluated the risk level of each RMU based on a range of population parameters (e.g., population size, recent and long-term population trends, rookery distribution and vulnerability, genetic diversity) and the degree of threats (e.g. bycatch, coastal development, pollution and pathogens, climate change) impacting each RMU (Wallace et al., 2011, 2013). Wallace et al. (2013) further evaluated the relative bycatch impacts across different fishing gears across sea turtle RMUs globally. The study found that longlines were most frequently found to have the highest bycatch impact scores for individual RMUs, but this result was likely due to the higher availability of longline records than for other gear types and in general, mortality rates in longlines, with the exception of bottom-set longlines, were significantly lower than mortality rates in most nets and trawls. 3.4.5.2 Seabirds Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this section was taken from UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013). The Gulf of Lions is one of the hotspots of productivity in the Mediterranean Sea, offering ideal conditions for foraging seabirds, which concentrate on it over much of the year. The presence of fishing vessels acts as a visible mark for seabird distribution, and only one of the species discussed below - the Mediterranean storm petrel - has a spatial distribution that does not overlap with the main fishing grounds. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 49 It is important to note that one of the main characteristics of the Mediterranean marine avifauna is the high number of endemic taxa. All four Procellariiforms (petrels and shearwaters) present in the Mediterranean are endemic taxa: two at species level (Puffinus mauretanicus and Puffinus yelkouan) and two at subspecies level (Calonectris d. diomedea and Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis). Besides, one endemic cormorant (Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), three gulls (Mediterranean Larus melanocephalus, Audouin’s Larus audouinii and Yellow-legged Larus michahellis michahellis) and one tern (Lesser-crested Sterna bengalensis emigrata) also originate from the Mediterranean region. UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013) presented an overview of seabirds occurring in the Gulf of Lions shelf and slope area and the extent to which interactions with fisheries, including pelagic longlines, may occur. Much detail has been provided in the report which has not been repeated here. Table 14 instead summarises the key points for the main species in the report, relevant to the scoring of this fishery. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 50 Table 14. Summary of information on presence, likelihood of interaction with pelagic longlines and protection status on the main bird species in the UoA area. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this table is from UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013) and references cited therein. Species Presence Interactions with pelagic longlines Protection Main species (listed in Annex II of the UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA Biodiversity Protocol and with populations that make important use of the Gulf of Lions shelf and slope area) Yelkouan shearwater October and July, with a peak in In the Mediterranean, bycatch is the main cause of Annex I of the European Directive (Puffinus yelkouan) February-June. Ca. 10,000 birds use the population declines for this species (Cortés et al., 2018) 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild area for feeding during the breeding and there is evidence that individuals of this species get birds season. caught in pelagic longlines (Bourgeois & Vidal 2008 – Annex II of the SPA/BD9 Protocol of the cited in UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013)). Barcelona Convention and in Annex II of the Berne Convention Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009 fixant la liste des oiseaux protégés sur l'ensemble du territoire et les modalités de leur protection (art. 3) ICCAT Rec. 07-07 Balearic shearwater September and June; most birds leave In the Mediterranean, bycatch is the main cause of Annex I of the European Directive (Puffinus the Mediterranean and ‘summer’ in the population declines for this species (Cortés et al., 2018). 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild mauretanicus) Atlantic Ocean. Breeding birds from the Individuals might resort to feeding astern of longline birds Balearics forage off the continental coast vessels on the days/hours when trawlers are not so easily Annex II of the SPA/BD Protocol of the of Spain, regularly reaching the S waters available (Laneri et al. 2010 – cited in Barcelona Convention and in Annex II of of the Gulf of Lions. Smaller numbers UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013)). This would increase their the Berne Convention venture further N to forage off the coast risk of mortality, which is higher in longline fisheries. Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009 of Bouches du Rhône and the PACA (note that the UoA sets their longlines around nightfall 10 region of France. when most trawlers will have stopped fishing) CMS Appendix I species ACAP11 species 9 SPA/BD: Specially Protected Areas/Biodiversity Protocol: the Mediterranean’s main tool for implementing the 1992 Convention on Biological Diversity, as regards the in situ sustainable management of coastal and marine biodiversity. 10 CMS: Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals 11 ACAP: Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels 3288R06C 51 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Species Presence Interactions with pelagic longlines Protection Scopoli’s or Cory’s The wider Gulf of Lions offers excellent In the Mediterranean, bycatch is the main cause of Annex I of the European Directive shearwater foraging conditions and attracts birds population declines for this species (Cortés et al., 2018). 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild (Calonectris from breeding colonies in the Balearics, The species regularly attends trawlers and longlining birds diomedea) the PACA region of SW France, Corsica, vessels, and is the species suffering the heaviest Annex II of the SPA/BD Protocol of the Sardinia and possibly even beyond. mortality toll. Barcelona Convention and in Annex II of Several studies indicate that this is the species suffering the Berne Convention the heaviest mortality from bycatch in longline fisheries, Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009 both demersal and pelagic (Belda & Sánchez 2001, Cooper et al. 2003, Laneri et al. 2010, Igual et al. 2009, García-Barcelona et al. 2010 – all cited in UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013)). Annual declines of 4-6 % have been recorded putting some Mediterranean populations in serious danger of extinction (Carboneras 2004 – cited in UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013)). Mediterranean storm Storm petrels are present in the Interactions with this species are somewhat less likely in Annex I of the European Directive petrel (Hydrobates Mediterranean in all months, although in longline fisheries as they are mainly found over the 2009/147/EC on the conservation of wild pelagicus melitensis) the N Mediterranean and in the Gulf of external half of the continental shelf and in the high seas, birds Lions in particular, observations often very far from land. This minimises their probability Annex II of the SPA/BD Protocol of the concentrate in spring and summer of contact with humans and makes the species less Barcelona Convention and in Annex II of vulnerable to interactions at sea than other the Berne Convention Mediterranean seabirds. Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009 Other species of interest: Mediterranean shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), Northern gannet (Morus bassanus), Audouin’s gull (Larus audouinii), Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus), Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis) – all are protected in France through the Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009 3288R06C 52 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure 15. Summer distribution of 120 Scopoli’s Shearwaters based on fixed kernel density analysis: 90, 70 and 50% kernel contours are displayed for each colony. Shearwaters were fitted with GPS on 5 different nesting sites (stars) during the chick-rearing period (mid-July to mid-Sep 2011). From Péron et al. (2012). 3.4.5.3 Marine mammals Relative to other fishing gear such as gillnets, longline fishing generally does not pose as much of a threat to marine mammals, although many individuals suffer mortality and serious injury as a result of the interactions (Gilman et al., 2006; Garrison, 2007 cited in Werner et al. (2015)). According to anecdotal evidence and the Obsmer observer data, interactions between the UoA and marine mammals never or at the very least rarely take place. In the Spanish tuna longline fishery, an onboard observer programme was implemented by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute (IEO, Instituto Español de Oceanografía) with the aim to report data on marine mammal bycatch in the western Mediterranean. Data on marine mammal bycatch were collected during the period 2000- 2009, revealing that Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) is the species most affected by the Spanish longline fishery in the western Mediterranean. Overall however, the bycatch per unit effort (0.011 marine mammals/1000 hooks; for G. griseus this was 0.007 dolphins/1000 hooks) was low compared to other bycatch species, such as sharks, seabirds and sea turtles, and the number of incidental marine mammals per set caught by Spanish drifting longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean remains less than that in other fisheries, such as purse seine and trawl (López et al., 2012). 3.4.6 Habitats This fishery is strictly a pelagic fishery and does not interact with benthic habitats. Although the pelagic realm constitutes a ‘habitat’ this is dealt with under ecosystems below. Another issue which needs to be considered is the issue of unobserved mortality due to ghost fishing by discarded or lost fishing gear which may consist of monofilament and/or hooks. Currently, 3288R06C 53 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) information on the proportion of hooks that are lost at sea (via bite-offs of terminal tackle or loss of complete branch lines) is not routinely collected on logbook or observer forms. However, gear loss is reportedly minimal and vessels deploy the longline gear with radio beacons placed at varying intervals along the mainline. These radio beacons enable the captain of the vessel to not only locate the drifting longline but also if the mainline breaks anywhere when hauling or otherwise, the captain is able to locate the separated section with the radio beacons that are placed along this section. Also, longline sets are marked and recorded on GPS so if for some reason the radio beacons are not functioning, the captain can return to the coordinates marked on the GPS, estimate the direction and speed of the current and search for the longline, probably with a 90% or more recovery rate. Therefore, the incidence of gear loss is very rare. In any case, lost pelagic longline or handline gear is only likely to continue to fish as long as bait remains on the hooks. Bait tends to be stripped relatively quickly off the hooks and as such, the ghost fishing mortality rate associated to lost longlines is usually low (Macfadyen et al., 2009). 3.4.7 Ecosystem Mediterranean waters are characterised by predominantly low productivity although the Gulf of Lions is considered to be a highly productive system due to riverine inputs from the Rhone, coastal upwelling, bottom morphology and water circulation stemming from its proximity to the straits of Gibraltar (Estrada, 1996; Petrenko et al., 2005). As a result, the area is an important feeding area for fish, birds and mammals, for both resident and migratory species (Bănaru et al., 2013). The north- western Mediterranean coastlines (that include the Gulf of Lions) have been inhabited for millennia, and as a result the body of water is considered to be highly altered by anthropogenic activity. This is emphasised by a much lower starting value of the mean trophic level of the catch in the past 50-year historical series for the Mediterranean Sea when compared to oceanic areas of the world (Pauly et al., 1998a in Coll et al. (2006)). Coll et al. (2006) applied ecological modelling using Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) software to the exploited continental shelf and upper slope ecosystem of the South Catalan Sea associated with the Ebro River Delta. The model enabled the description of the structure and functioning of this ecosystem with the analysis of a broad number of ecological indicators related with trophic flow description and thermodynamic concepts and considered fishing activities within the ecosystem context to assess the ecosystem effects of fishing. The study highlighted a susceptibility of the ecosystem to synergistic effects of fishing with environmental forcing. The ecosystem itself, however, was dominated by the pelagic domain (particularly small pelagic species such as sardine and anchovy, although hake and horse mackerel also played an important role), which accounted for the main biomass and catches and where flows mainly occurred, and a marginal top–down control of forage fish by predator populations (e.g. dolphins and adult hake). The latter is in agreement with the long history of fishing activity in the region that would have strongly reduced the biomass of top predators to low levels, resulting in the fishing fleets acting as top predators in the ecosystem (Coll et al., 2006). These findings suggest the presence of a wasp-waisted ecosystem structure that are typical for upwelling ecosystems (Jarre-Teichman, 1998; Cury et al., 2000; Shannon et al., 2003; Heymans et al., 2004; Moloney et al., 2005 – all cited in Coll et al. (2006)) and which could be regarded as representative of other shelf and upper slope regions of the western Mediterranean. A similar study was carried out by Bănaru et al. (2013) who applied the EwE software to the entire Gulf of Lions ecosystem, taking into account the entire food web from primary producers to top predators, and covering a large area from the coast up to 2500 m. Here also, the highest predation flows were found at the lower trophic levels (TL 1, 2 and 3), suggesting good coupling between zooplanktivores and detritivores and their predators, while flows in the upper TLs (anglerfish, 3288R06C 54 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) European conger, juvenile Atlantic bluefin tuna and European hake) were almost insignificant. Bănaru et al. (2013) highlighted the importance of small pelagic fish species, particularly sardine and anchovy, representing key link groups in term of consumption and flows between pelagic primary producers and consumers from both the pelagic and the demersal compartments and highlighting possible wasp- waist predator–prey interactions. Fishing was considered an important pressure component in the Gulf of Lions food-web as it is responsible for a high rate of “consumption” of the fish compartment. According to Coll et al. (2006), neither the consumption of fished production nor the mixed trophic impact analysis suggested significant competition between vulnerable species (cetaceans, seabirds and turtles) and fishing activity. Therefore, as discussed in previous sections, the main ecosystem impact of the UoA is likely the removal of large predators such as bluefin tuna, pelagic stingray, swordfish and blue shark which make up the vast majority of the catch. Considering the dominant role of small pelagic species in the northwest Mediterranean (Coll et al., 2006; Bănaru et al., 2013), the team considered that the scale of the UoA (limited number of vessels, small quota allocations for bluefin tuna and swordfish), together with the implementation of the TRL-PA Code of Conduct (non- retention of sharks, best handling and release for ETP species) makes it highly unlikely that the fishery under assessment would lead to irreversible ecosystem impacts. On this basis, it is considered highly unlikely that the UoA fishery will disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. 3288R06C 55 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 3.5.1 Jurisdictions and legal framework The fishery targets the eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna stock (BFT-e) in the north-western Mediterranean Sea in the Gulf du Lion along the coast and around mostly the northern part of Corsica (Figure 5 and Figure 6). The BFT-e is a highly migratory species (HMS) of temperate tuna from the North Atlantic and Mediterranean; its main spawning ground is in the Mediterranean, and the fishery targets relatively young fish that come close to the coast in pursuit of small pelagic fish. 3.5.1.1 Jurisdictions There are several key jurisdictions of relevance, listed in Table 15. ICCAT is the regional tuna fisheries management organisation (RFMO) which provides the management framework, translated into European legislation as part of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and which has direct effect in all EU member States. France is the UoA vessels’ country of registration (Flag State) and the Port State. Some fish may be landed in ICCAT BFT-registered ports in Spain, which carry the same landing protocol as if landing in France (also see Section 5 Traceability). Table 15. Jurisdictions involved in the fishery’s management system. Jurisdiction Key instruments ICCAT for the protection of tuna, tuna-like and associated species: BFT-e Recovery Plan (until 2018) followed by multi-annual Management Plan (from 2019), conservation and Tuna RFMO management measures (CMM); Vessel registers (fishing and carriers); VMS; eBCD; inspections. European Union: translation of ICCAT Recommendations into the CFP, which has direct effect in the French legal system; BFT recovery and multi-annual management plans, Habitat and Biodiversity protection (Marine Framework Strategy Directive - Western Mediterranean region, marine spatial planning); Research programmes; fisheries European Union monitoring control and surveillance (MCS) through the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA). Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) Working Group 2: Large Pelagic Fishes (BFT- e - SWO-MED and other species managed by ICCAT) Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime; Code de l’Environnement; BFT-e specific provisions (MCS, quota allocation, information), IUU-specific and other Flag State Measures (FSM), limited entry vessel licensing and vessel quota systems, individual fish tail tags Flag State: France for BFT and SWO; limited fishing season and area; Petite pêche (small-scale fishery, vessels LOA< 18m) trips less than 24 hours, specific reporting obligations, including landing of catch at specific times, derogation and special provisions for undersize fish, no discards; Coverage; International Conventions and IPOAs. Port States France and Spain: ICCAT- EU registered ports + EU-IUU Port State Measures (PSM) 3.5.1.2 ICCAT ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in charge of tuna, tuna-like and associated species targeted by the fishery. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas is the formal document that establishes the international legal and administrative structure for the management of tuna and 3288R06C 56 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) tuna-like stocks (ICCAT, 200712). Under the Convention, the Contracting Parties and Cooperating non‐ Contracting Parties, Entities, and Fishing Entities (CPCs) undertake to collaborate and carry out studies on target fish stock biology, abundance and data collection and analyses on current conditions and trends of target fish stocks and other fish species caught incidentally, such as sharks. In addition to its Secretariat, which performs multiple administration and coordination functions for the Commission and the Standing Committee on Finance and Administration (STACFAD), the Commission organises its fisheries management work through a number of Committees, Panels and Working Groups (WG, Table 16 and ICCAT 2006-2016 Chap. 1). The Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) is tasked to ensure that the Commission has available at all times the most complete and current statistics concerning fishing activities in the Convention area as well as biological information on the stocks that are fished. It also coordinates various national research activities, develops plans for special international cooperative research programmes, carries out stock assessments, and advises the Commission on the need for specific conservation and management measures. There are four species-focused Panels; Panel 2 is the one relevant to this fishery’s target species. A number of ad hoc groups may also be convened, in support of the Commission as a whole (COM) such as the Technical and Legal Editing Group of Contracting Parties, the Integrated Monitoring Measures WG (IMM) or the Port Inspection Expert group for Capacity and Assistance and the Compliance Committee (COC). The Commission has also set up a number of data collection and research programmes funded by the Commission as part of the regular budget, and in some cases funded by contributions from individual Contracting Parties and other agencies. They include the Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna (GBYP) and the Shark Research and Data Collection Program (SRDCP)13. Ahead of meetings, the Commission may take the initiative or act on the proposal of an appropriate Panel and, “on the basis of scientific evidence, make recommendations designed to maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes that may be taken in the Convention area at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch” (art. VIII). Recommendations become effective for all Contracting Parties (CPs) six months after its notification from the Commission, unless a majority of CPs raise an objection, and only for CPs that have not raised an objection if at least one fourth of the CPs have objected (within a set period of 60 days+). Recommendations may include set expiry dates. Recommendations concern management measures of the target species, eastern stock of the Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna (BFT-e, Principle 1), of associated species (Principle 2) as well as data collection, research and compliance (Principle 3). Table 16. ICCAT subsidiary bodies, Panels and BFT Research programme Acronyms Names STACFAD Standing Committee on Finance and Administration Standing Committee on Research and Statistics Bluefin Species Group SCRS Working Group on Stock Assessment Methods Data preparatory Meetings Species Stock Assessment Meetings 12 ICCAT, 2007. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (as amended) http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Commission/BasicTexts.pdf 13 See list: https://www.iccat.int/en/ResProgs.html 3288R06C 57 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Acronyms Names Bluefin MSE Technical Group Species Group Meetings Shortfin Mako Stock Assessment Update Meeting Sub-Committee on Ecosystems (ECO) COC Conservation & Management Measures Compliance Committee Permanent Working Group for the Improvement of ICCAT Statistics and Conservation PWG Measures SWGSM Standing Working Group on Dialogue between Fisheries Scientists and Managers Panel 1: Tropical tunas (yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack) Panel 2: Northern temperate tunas (albacore and Atlantic bluefin) Panels Panel 3: Southern temperate tunas (albacore and southern bluefin) Panel 4: Other species (swordfish, billfishes, small tunas) GBYP Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna The Commission holds a regular meeting every two years and special meetings as needed. The last (25th) Regular Meeting of the Commission was held in Marrakesh, Morocco, 14-21 November 2017). Following its regular meetings, ICCAT issues a Biennial Report, which contains the Report of the Regular Meeting and the reports of meetings of the Panels, Standing Committees and Sub- Committees, as well as some of the Working Groups. It also includes a summary of the activities of the Secretariat and the Annual Reports of the Contracting Parties of the Commission and Observers, relative to their activities in tuna and tuna-like fisheries in the Convention area. All reports are available from the ICCAT website14. The last Special Meeting of the Commission, its 21st, was held in Dubrovnik (Croatia) 18-25 November 2018. The BFT-e stock has been managed by ICCAT through a 15-year Recovery Plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean initiated in 2007 and updated several times since. The plan fixes annual total allowable catches (TACs), which are then distributed on the basis of established national shares. For the years 2018-2020 TACs were set at: 28,200 t for 2018; 32,240 t for 2019; and 36,000 t for 2020, with a possibility of annual TACs reviews by the Commission, based on the advice of the SCRS. For Europe, the corresponding quota allocations were 15,850 t in 2018; 17,536 t in 2019; and 19,360 t for 2020 (Rec. 17-07) (ICCAT, 2018b). Table 17. Active ICCAT Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions for BFT-e as of December 201815. Year Reference Key Management and other measures Bluefin tuna (Principle 1) 2006 [06-07] Recommendation by ICCAT on Bluefin Tuna Farming 2006 [06-08] Resolution by ICCAT on Fishing Bluefin Tuna in the Atlantic Ocean Resolution by ICCAT Concerning Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Scientific Research on 2008 [08-06] Stock Origin and Mixing Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Atlantic-Wide Research 2011 [11-06] Programme for Bluefin Tuna (GBYP) Recommendation by ICCAT on the Development of Harvest Control Rules and 2015 [15-07] of Management Strategy Evaluation (all ICCAT species stocks) 14 https://www.iccat.int/en/pubs_biennial.html 15 https://iccat.int/com2018/ENG/PLE_102_ENG.pdf 3288R06C 58 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Year Reference Key Management and other measures Recommendation by ICCAT to Supplement Recommendation 14-04 by ICCAT 2016 [16-09] Amending the Recommendation 13-07 by ICCAT to Establish a Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Recommendation by ICCAT amending the recommendation 14-04 by ICCAT to 2017 [17-07] establish a multi-annual recovery plan for Bluefin Tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (repealed by 18-02 and then 19-04; see below) By-catch species, habitats and ecosystems – Principle 2 2005 [05-08] Resolution by ICCAT on circle hooks Recommendation by ICCAT replacing recommendation 13-04 and establishing 2006 [16-05 a multi-annual recovery plan for Mediterranean swordfish Recommendation by ICCAT on Management Measures for the Conservation of 2016 [16-12] Atlantic Blue Shark Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries Recommendation by ICCAT on Improvement of Compliance Review of 2016 [16-13] Conservation and Management Measures regarding Sharks Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries Monitoring, Compliance, Management planning – Principle 3 Recommendation by ICCAT to Establish a Process for the Review and reporting 2008 [08-09] of Compliance Information Recommendation by ICCAT on the Principles of decision-making for ICCAT 2012 [11-13] Conservation and Management measures 2011 [11-17] Resolution by ICCAT on Best Available Science Recommendation by ICCAT on an electronic Bluefin tuna catch documentation 2010 and [10-11] programme (eBCD) 2017 [17-09] Recommendation by ICCAT amending Recommendation [15-10] on the application of the eBCD programme Resolution by ICCAT Concerning the Application of an Ecosystem Approach to 2015 [15-11] Fisheries Management Resolution by ICCAT Concerning the Use of a Precautionary Approach in 2015 [15-12] Implementing ICCAT Conservation and Management Measures 2015 [15-13] Resolution by ICCAT on Criteria for the Allocation of Fishing Possibilities 2016 [16-15] Recommendation by ICCAT on Transhipment Guidelines for preparing the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Bluefin tuna 2016 [16-24] fishing, inspection and capacity management plan ICCAT decisions become active 6 months after being accepted. It is therefore relevant to also consider three forthcoming recommendations that applied to the 2019 fishing season and another for 2020 (Table 18. Additional ICCAT Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions for BFT-e as of December 2018 and December 2019.). 3288R06C 59 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Table 18. Additional ICCAT Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions for BFT-e as of December 2018 and December 201916. Reference Key Title Recommendation by ICCAT establishing a multi-annual management plan for bluefin tuna [18-02] in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (repealed by 19-04; see below) Resolution by ICCAT on development of initial management objectives for eastern and [18-03] western bluefin tuna Recommendation by ICCAT concerning minimum standards for VMS in the ICCAT [18-10] Convention area (VMS for vessels >15mLOA no later than 1 January 2020) Recommendation by ICCAT amending the recommendation 18-02 establishing a multi- [19-04] annual management plan for bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (replacing and repealing Rec. 18-02 above). The same TACs for BFT-e are kept in the forthcoming multi-annual Management Plan (Rec. 18-02) as in the Recovery Plan, with slightly increased quotas for all (European Union: 17, 623 t in 2019; and 19,460 t for 2020) resulting from the redistribution of part of the Unallocated Reserves, noting that the Commission stresses that this “shall not be interpreted to have changed the allocation keys” (see section 3.5.2). The ICCAT BFT-e recovery and management plans include specific provisions for artisanal fleet as follows: • CPCs shall limit the maximum number of its artisanal fleet authorized to fish actively bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean to the number of the vessel participating in the fishery for bluefin tuna in 2008 (Rec. 17-07 and 18-02); • Each CPC may allocate no more than 2% of its quota for bluefin tuna among its coastal artisanal fishery for fresh fish in the Mediterranean (Rec. 17-07 and 18-02); • Each CPC shall ensure coverage by observers, issued with an official identification document, on vessels active in the bluefin tuna fishery on at least 20% of its active longline vessels (over 15 m) (Rec. 17-07 and 18-02); • CPCs shall take the necessary measures to prohibit catching, retaining on board, transhipping, transferring, landing, transporting, storing, selling, displaying or offering for sale bluefin tuna weighing less than 30 kg or with fork length less than 115 cm (Rec. 17- 07 and 18-02); although, • By derogation, a minimum size for bluefin tuna of 8 kg or 75 cm fork length shall apply to Bluefin tuna caught in the Mediterranean Sea by the coastal artisanal fishery for fresh fish by baitboats, longliners and handliners (Rec. 17-07 and 18-02); • CPCs should also encourage research and trials on the use of circle hooks in recreational and artisanal fisheries (Rec 05-08). Finally, • The interests of artisanal, subsistence and small-scale coastal fishers are taken into account as one of the BFT-e quota Allocation criteria (Res. 13-14). 16 2020 https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/COMPENDIUM_ACTIVE_ENG.pdf 3288R06C 60 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 3.5.1.3 GFCM The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) is the competent RFMO for the Western Mediterranean area where the fishery is taking place, for the management of species stocks other than those covered by ICCAT. The GFCM has a strong focus on small-scale fisheries (SSF) of which this fishery is an example. The EU and France are both contracting parties. The GFCM has adopted binding recommendations regarding the conservation of sharks and rays and emergency measures for small pelagic stocks in the Adriatic Sea (bait species stock) as well as access to information and data related to monitoring, control and surveillance and regional marking of fishing gear17, which are relevant for Principle 2 and Principle 3 indicators. In December 2018, the GFCM organised Fish Forum 2018, which aimed to bring together the « wider community of scientists and experts working on fisheries and the marine environment in the Mediterranean and Black Sea, in order to build a lasting network, discuss advancements in research, integrate scientific knowledge in support of decision-making and identify research priorities for the coming decade18». The PO presented some of its research collaboration with IFREMER developed for this fishery (Wendling et al., 2018). 3.5.1.4 European Union The European CFP (EU, 2013a) limits the EU fishing capacity (vessel numbers) and production-catching quotas for BFT as part of its international obligations to ICCAT (EU, 2015). To take part in the French BFT fishery, a European fishing authorisation (autorisation européenne de pêche - AEP) is required and frames the current limited entry system for all EU member states. Table 19. EU institutions involved in the SATHOAN BFT-e artisanal line fishery management system European level European Union EU Commission DG MARE: negotiates and legislates the basis of the EU Common Fisheries Policy, which applies to all EU member States. STECF: The Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries provides scientific advice to the EU Commission. EU Council of Ministers Fisheries Ministers or Secretary of States from all EU member states EU Parliament (EUP) Elected members from all EU member states and EUP Fisheries Committee MEDAC WG2 The three French CRPMEMs (OCCITANIE, PACA and Corse) involved in the fishery are members of MEDAC WG2, which brings together managers, scientists, professional and recreational/sportive fishermen representatives from all EU Member States with interest in the BFT (and swordfish) fishery. EU Agencies EFCA - European Fisheries Control Agency: has a specific BFT Joint deployment plan (JDP) to coordinate operation between EU member states EFSA - European Food Safety Agency. Its thorough food safety MCS system for seafood products works alongside the EU Fisheries MCS system. Every year, the European Union presents its fishing plan for the coming season at the ICCAT Panel 2 meeting. For 2018, the EU representative noted that the comments received on its 2017 plan had 17 http://www.fao.org/gfcm/en/ 18 See http://www.fao.org/gfcm/fishforum2018/en/ 3288R06C 61 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) been taken into account in the drafting of the 2018 plan and noted a need to clarify any obligation to report discards of fish below minimum size under the new management plan (ICCAT, 2018d). He also noted that all ICCAT Recommendations had been transposed into European law (see EU (2016) or Rec. 17.07), and that the transposition of the adopted Multi-Annual management Plan Recommendation 18-02 will soon follow. Within this multi-annual framework, member states’ shares of the EU TAC share are defined annually for the « Atlantic Ocean, east of 45° W, and Mediterranean (BFT/AE45WM), together with additional EU-specific technical measures and provisions. Therefore, although the EU could take over a year in transposing the recovery/management plan, the EU adopts annually a Regulation fixing fishing possibilities (TACs) and other provisions (including those from ICCAT) for the following fishing season (see as examples ANNEX ID of COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2018/120 (EU, (2018a). For 2018, provisions for BFT in the ICCAT area were set out in Council Regulation (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks (Section 1 art. 17 - EU (2018a)). In the context of this fishery in particular, measures limit the following: • The number of Union coastal artisanal fishing vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Mediterranean – 98,68 t by 118 vessels for 2018 (point 2 Annex IV); • The number and total capacity in gross tonnage (GT) of fishing vessels authorised to fish for, retain on board, tranship, transport, or land bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, which includes 118 Polyvalent vessels, using multi-gear equipment (longline, handline, trolling line) (as “Other artisanal vessels” - point 4 Annex IV); Where appropriate, Member States shall allocate a specific share for recreational fisheries from their allocated quotas. The French share of the TAC, in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, for all fleet types including catches transferred to farms was 4,933.97 t in for 2018, most of it allocated to the Mediterranean (see Table 1). Two other important pieces of EU legislation concern Producer Organisations or POs such as SATHOAN (EU, 2013b) and the EU specific control and inspection programme for certain fisheries (EC, 2018), which include bluefin tuna. Regarding controls and inspections, a new Commission Implementing Decision (2018/1986) came into force on 1st January 2019 (EU, 2018b), which aims to further strengthen existing MCS measures (Implementing Decision 2014/156 - EU (2014) (see section 3.5.6). Details of the legal texts mentioned in this section are given in Table 20. Table 20. European legislation important for the fishery (from http://eur-lex.europa.eu) Type Ref. n° Title CFP No 1380/2013 of the European On the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulation Parliament and of the Council of Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 (EU) 11 December 2013 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC CMO No 1379/2013 of the European On the common organisation of the markets in fishery Regulation Parliament and of the Council of and aquaculture products, amending (EU) 11 December 2013 Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000 Commission 2015/98 of 18 November 2014 On the implementation of the Union's international Delegated obligations, as referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the 3288R06C 62 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Type Ref. n° Title Regulation Council, under the International Convention for the (EU) Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Regulation No 2016/1627 of the European On a multiannual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the (EU) Parliament and of the Council of eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and repealing 14 September 2016 Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009 Regulation No 2017/2017 of the European Laying down management, conservation and control (EU) Parliament and of the Council of measures applicable in the Convention area of the 15 November 2017 International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1936/2001, (EC) No 1984/2003 and (EC) No 520/2007 Council No 2018/120 of 23 January Fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish Regulation 2018 stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union (EU) waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non- Union waters Commission No 2018/1986 of 13 December Establishing specific control and inspection programmes Implementing 2018 for certain fisheries and repealing Implementing Decision (EU) Decisions 2012/807/EU, 2013/328/EU, 2013/305/EU and 2014/156/EU As part of the EU CFP-specific institutions (Table 19), the Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) provides a fisheries and aquaculture specific forum for stakeholders, professionals, scientists, environmental NGOs, to prepare “opinions on fisheries management and socio-economic aspects in support of the fisheries sector in the Mediterranean, to be submitted to the Member States and the European institutions in order to facilitate the achievement of the objectives of the CFP. MEDAC also proposes technical solutions and suggestions, such as joint recommendations (ex. Art. 18 Reg. 1380/2013) at the request of the Member States.” Of relevance to this fishery, for example, the MEDAC submitted a contribution to the Regional Plan of Action on small-scale fisheries (SSF), related to management measures, data, and scientific research in March 2019. The MEDAC has also been represented at the FAO Fish Forum 2018 and the GFCM 42th Commission meeting and at the EFCA Advisory board and consultation meeting on the EU Control System. Finally, through its CFP prerogatives, the European Commission relies on the contribution of scientists from member states active in the BFT fisheries and in the Mediterranean generally. For this fishery, this may be facilitated through the EU support to scientist members of RFMO working groups, through ICCAT and GFCM. It may also happen through the participation of scientists to the Advisory Council (MEDAC) working groups. Finally, the European Commission may also formally request specific stock assessment modelling from the STECF. It did so for the BFT-e stock in 2017, asking STECF to provide “input to the ICCAT stock assessment process taking place in late July 2017, and in particular that it can offer an alternative to the use of VPA and its associated limitations” (STECF, 2017). 3.5.1.5 France The French fisheries management arrangements are nested within the ICCAT and EU CFP systems. Several levels of administrative services and professional organisations are involved, with a degree of co-management typical of the French – especially small-scale - fisheries. The national - central administration for fisheries in France presently sits with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture Directorate (Direction des pêches maritimes et de l'aquaculture, the DPMA). Other Ministries are also involved more or less directly, such as the Ministry for research and Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity Transition, for the fisheries research 3288R06C 63 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) institute, IFREMER; and the Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity Transition also for the national Fisheries MCS competent authority, the French Centre National de Surveillance des Pêches (CNSP), hosted by the Surveillance/ Sea Search and Rescue Centre in Brittany, the CROSS Etel. The DPMA coordinates the French submission to ICCAT through the EU Commission and legislates in application of the national Fisheries Policy set out in the primary legislation of the Code Rural. At national level, professional organisations are represented through the CNPMEM, and the Producer Organisation through its national Federation. At regional and local levels, the DIRM Mediterranée (DIRM-MED) coordinates the government services across the DDTM (counties or départements) and administrative regions concerned by the fishery (Occitanie, PACA and Corsica). Fishermen are represented by one of three regional committees (CRPMEM), depending on the vessel port of registration, and also through the SATHOAN Producer Organisation (PO), which is key in the implementation of the EU CFP and CMO Regulations (see above). The main institutions involved are listed in Table 21. Table 21. French institutions involved in the SATHOAN BFT-e artisanal line fishery management system National level Ministère de l’Agriculture et Direction des pêches maritimes et de l’aquaculture – DPMA de l’Alimentation Central government legislative level, negotiates and legislates the basis of the EU Common Fisheries Policy in France. Centre National de French national Fisheries MCS competent authority, located with CROSS Etel, Surveillance des Pêches in Brittany. Process VMS data, eBCD, notice of arrival in port (including for (CNSP) small ports in Spain) prior to BFT landings etc. IFREMER Scientific research and stock assessment – a national organisation with headquarters in Brest (Brittany) but with various regional offices dealing with local issues, including one in Port-en-Bessin, Basse-Normandie. The IFREMER institute based in Sète, together with other research institutions, is a recognised centre of excellence for tuna research. Comité National des Pêches Policy and regulatory recommendations at national level; licensing and other maritimes et des élevages bylaws; marins (CNPMEM) Represents the fishing industry at national level; brings together BFT fishery stakeholders; obtains and provides expert advice from/to the 12 regional committees (CRPMEM). Three regional Committees are involved in the fishery. The Bluefin tuna and swordfish national working group meets up regularly with the Ministry (DPMA) to discuss the fishing season, forthcoming regulations and also ahead of ICCAT Commission meetings. Sub-national ’région’ and local levels Direction inter-régionale de The DIRM-MED is in charge of the government’s policies for marine la mer Méditerranée (DIRM sustainable development, resource exploitation and maritime activities. It MED), based in Marseilles reports Ministry for Ecological and Solidarity Transition and represents the wider regional coastal jurisdiction, in charge of facilitating implementation of the national integrated maritime policy, strengthening safety at sea and marine environment protection, and developing training and employment of seafarers. It executes ministerial instructions (from DPMA) and CFP measures, publishes bylaws (arrêtés) from CRPMEM proposals (délibérations) and coordinates fisheries MCS on land and at sea. The DIRM (or local offices) delivers annual fishing permits (AEP), and follows up on any administrative and penal sanctions reported by enforcement agencies. 3288R06C 64 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) DDTM Local (county or département) government office, in charge of fishing vessels registration. Request for BFT-specific permits have to be submitted to their Direction de la Mer et du Littoral (DML). Comité Régional des Pêches For bluefin tuna, co-management measures are discussed at national level Maritimes et des élevages (CNPMEM) and also in the three Regional Committees (Occitanie, Provence- marins (CRPMEM) Alpe-Côte d’Azur (PACA) and Corsica). The CRPMEM representatives sit on the MEDAC. CRPMEMs are mostly involved in the fishery’s interaction with the ecosystem (protected area, interactions with birds, sharks and rays, turtles), they make management recommendations, initiate data collection and collaborative research projects. SATHOAN Producer Organisation (PO), with members along the coasts of the French Mediterranean and Corsica. Has specific quota management powers and reporting obligations set out by the EU Market Regulation the Sits on the MEDAC and work with the CRPMEMs. On the basis of the TAC share of the EU and the French share, a ministerial decree (arrêté) is issued at the beginning of the year, to allocate the national BFT quota between vessels operating off the Atlantic (East of 45°W) and Mediterranean coasts, setting aside a share for recreational catches at national level. The legal basis for this are i) the ICCAT recommendation – e.g. Rec. 18-02 for 2019 (ICCAT, 2018d), ii) the CFP (Reg. n° 1380/2013), and annually following ICCAT’s recommendation (EU, 2013a), and iii) the EU regulation (n° 2019/124) (EU, 2019a), which sets out the shares between member states (see sections above). EU regulations have direct effect in EU member states’ legal order. However, additional provisions and implementation details are also published as French arrêtés (see table below). For the French legal basis, primary and derived legislation governing fishing activities, administrative procedures for the UoA vessels to operate in the BFT-e fishery in the Mediterranean, and the decree setting out the quota allocation between POs, fleet segments and gear types for 2019, are listed in Table 22. It is important to note that consultation is organised at all levels of the French fisheries management system, whether vessels are PO members (this fishery) or not. From the bottom up, small-scale fishermen are required to be members of the local professional association CRPMEM, which are represented through the CNPMEM in the discussion at national levels with the DPMA. Details of prior deliberations are given in the preamble of each decree/ bylaw. Specifically, for vessels registered in Mediterranean ports, the BFT-e quota are allocated to each PO or group of POs, groups of vessels, and vessels that are not PO members (as a group), according to article R. 921-4 of the Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime. Allocations to vessels 24m are nominative. Quotas are allocated annually, on 1st November 2018 for 2019. The UoA regroups vessels that under 12 m LOA, classified as “petits métiers”, and a few vessels between 12-18m (artisanal), called “palangriers hauturiers” because they fish further offshore and have bunks for the crew to rest while steaming. There is a specific provision for the track record of LL petits métiers (rod and line, handline and longline), which have historically operated mixed gear in mixed fisheries, based on their catch history between 1st January 2009 – 31st August 2010. Table 22. French legislation pertinent to the SATHOAN BFT-e artisanal line fishery management system Type Ref. n° Title General 3288R06C 65 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Type Ref. n° Title Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime, esp. livre IX : Pêche maritime et Code aquaculture marine / Fisheries Act (online consolidated version) Relatif à l’organisation et aux missions des directions interrégionales de la Décret 2010-130 mer / Defines the DIRM organisation and missions Specific to BFT in the Mediterranean Portant création d'une autorisation européenne de pêche pour la pêche Arrêté professionnelle du thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) dans l'océan Atlantique 22 mars 2013 ministériel à l'est de la longitude 45° Ouest et en mer Méditerranée / Creates BFT AEP = BFT EU fishing permit Précisant les conditions de débarquement et de transbordement du thon Arrêté 11 avril 2014 rouge (Thunnus thynnus) etc. / BFT-e landing procedures Définissant les mesures de contrôle de la pêcherie de thon rouge (Thunnus 26 avril 2017 thynnus) dans le cadre du plan pluriannuel de reconstitution des stocks de Arrêté 11 mai 2017 thon rouge dans l’Atlantique Est et la Méditerranée / BFT-e fisheries control provisions Etablissant les modalités de répartition du quota de thon rouge (Thunnus 8 février 2018 thynnus) accordé à la France pour la zone “Océan Atlantique à l’est de la Arrêté longitude 45° Ouest et Méditerranée” pour l’année 2018 / BFT-e quota allocation for 2018 (consolidated version, usually two updates) Arrêté 7 février 2019 BFT-e French quota allocation for 2019 Précisant les conditions d’exercice de la pêche de loisir réalisant des Project – Public captures de thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) dans le cadre du plan Arrêté consultation 1- pluriannuel de reconstitution des stocks de thon rouge dans l’Atlantique Est 21 March 2019 et la Méditerranée pour l’année 2019 / conditions for recreational and sport fishing for BFT-e in the Mediterranean There is an ICCAT tolerance for fish smaller than 30kg (or 115cm) to make up to 5% of the TAC share. The tolerance for coastal artisanal fishing vessels authorised to fish actively for bluefin tuna between 8 kg/75 cm and 30 kg/115 cm in the Mediterranean is limited is also limited in the EU legislation (point 2 of Annex IV), and in turn by French legislation with a specific sub-quota to POs, which is then managed by the PO between its fleet segments. The SATHOAN PO quota allocation by category other than seiners is given in Table 23 (from Arrêté 7th February 2019). Table 23. 2019 SATHOAN BFT-e quota allocation (t) for liners in the Mediterranean 2019 SATHOAN quota allocation for liners Tonnes Incl. 8-30kg (t) Palangriers hauturiers titulaires d'une AEP "thon rouge" 18.7 4.2 Palangriers "petits métiers" titulaires d'une AEP "thon rouge" 304.0 68.7 Canneurs, ligneurs "petits métiers" titulaires d'une AEP "thon rouge" 7.3 1.7 3.5.1.6 Port states The EU jurisdiction is relevant for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) purposes (section 3.5.6) because, in addition to the vessels being registered and based at French ports, they land at French, and for the larger vessels sometimes at Spanish, ports. The EU has transposed all ICCAT active Recommendations (ICCAT, 2018d) into law, and has a specific control and inspection programme targeting fisheries exploiting the BFT-e stock in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (including 3288R06C 66 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) recreational and conducted by EU vessels/ fish farmers / operators / citizens19. In addition, the EU Regulation to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (Council Regulation (EC) No.1005/2008 - IUU Regulation20), which entered into force on 1 January 2010, applies to all landings and transhipments of EU fishing vessels in European ports (see section 3.5.6). France and Spain communicate a list of their designated ports to the EU Commission / ICCAT Secretariat by 1 March each year. For a port to be determined as designated port, the Port state shall specify permitted transhipping times and places or/and permitted landing times and places. An up-to- date list of designated ports for BFT-e is kept on the ICCAT website21 and is also given in Appendix 10 of this report for traceability purposes. 3.5.1.7 Market state All fish are sold fresh to traders (mareyeurs) who usually provide bait to the vessels. Traders then sell the fish fresh to wholesalers on to supermarket and restaurant buyers or retailers. Details of the first buyer has to be entered in the eBCD system by the seller, with details of all tail tag numbers affixed when the fish are individually weighed as they are landed. The same system applies for fish landed in Spain. Ports have to be ICCAT-registered for BFT-e. The French MCS competent authority (CROSS-Etel) is notified ahead of landing as for a French port, and in turns notifies its Spanish colleagues, as part of the EU BFT MCS Joint Deployment Plan (JDP) arrangements. In turn, the Spanish authorities would notify the French authorities back of any inspection and inspection results. Ultimately, details of landings and MCS checks would be available to the DIRM-MED for all vessels in the fishery. 3.5.2 Consultation, Roles and Responsibilities, Dispute resolution, Respects for rights 3.5.2.1 ICCAT The ICCAT Convention and basic texts (ICCAT, 2007) define the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, of the Secretariat and the Contracting Parties (CPCs). The ICCAT Convention (Article XI) states that the Commission may invite any appropriate international organization and any non-member Government that is a member of the UN or of any Specialized Agency to send observers to meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. ICCAT Commission meetings provide the consultative mechanism for the currently 52 CPCs to agree management measures and share information through annual national reports. Annual reports include feedback on technical measures, local knowledge and other matters pertinent to management to be reviewed in Commission meetings and included in its reports. The ICCAT Manual (ICCAT, n.d.) provides an organisational chart and explicitly describes the functions, roles and responsibilities of the various ICCAT subsidiary bodies. ICCAT meetings are advertised and provide opportunities for all interested and affected parties to be involved, including in the Scientific process. Each year, scientists from the CPCs are invited to present their results to the relevant ICCAT Panels and Species Groups and to the SCRS. Up-to-date information and analyses contributed by groups and individual experts become part of the knowledge base used 19 Commission implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1986 of 13 December 2018, establishing specific control and inspections programmes for certain fisheries 20 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:02008R1005-20110309&from=EN 21 https://www.iccat.int/en/Ports.asp 3288R06C 67 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) in stock assessments. This scientific process is demonstrably consultative and the SCRS provides a forum that reports on how the information obtained is used or not, which is demonstrated in its reports. The participation of NGOs (environmental, industry representatives or other) in ICCAT meetings is explicitly mentioned in the “Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Observer Status at ICCAT Meetings” (ICCAT, 2005). All NGOs which support the objectives of ICCAT and with a demonstrated interest in the species under the purview of ICCAT are eligible to participate as an observer in all, but extraordinary meetings held in executive sessions or meetings of Heads of Delegations. Observers may be required to pay a fee to contribute to additional expenses generated by their participation. Applications have to be made through the Secretariat at least 50 days in advance of the meeting. CPCs are notified and given opportunity to object, although applications are accepted unless one-third of the CPCs object. Observers are not allowed to vote, but they can, upon invitation by the chair, make an oral statement during the meeting and distribute documents at meetings through the Secretariat. Evidence of their contribution are available in each meeting report, from the list of participants and written contributions are included in full. ICCAT has a tradition of making decisions by consensus and resolving disputes informally. This is evident in ICCAT species Panel 2, for example, where issues and concerns raised by individual CPCs and thee Commission are aired in an effort to avoid disputes. In cases where disputes cannot be avoided, the ICCAT Convention provides a process of objection allowing individual Contracting Parties to withdraw from endorsing and implementing an ICCAT recommendation (ICCAT Convention Article VIII). This procedure has been used infrequently in the course of ICCAT’s history; 12 times since 1969, with 7 of these being objections raised by two member states with respect to their bluefin tuna allocation (Spencer et al., 2016). Nevertheless, ICCAT has recognised the need for a more formal dispute settlement procedure and a Working Group on Convention Amendment (WGCA) was tasked with looking at this issue in 2012 (one of the priority matters listed in the Annex 1 of ICCAT Recommendation 12-10). The latest WGCA meeting in 2018 noted some progress on the issue although, not yet some points of disagreement remain, such as whether dispute settlement procedures would be compulsory or not and whether procedures could only be instituted jointly by all parties to a dispute or, instead, by a single or number of Contracting Parties. At this stage, after incorporating all agreed revisions, the WGCA Chair noted that there was agreement in principle on the text of Article VIII bis and to retain Annex 1. These proposals are finalised would need to be officially incorporated into the ICCAT’s Convention to be final (ICCAT, 2018c). The new provisions will then need to be tested and proven effective as the need arises. Regarding fishing rights, ICCAT includes a specific Recommendation on “Criteria for the Allocation of Fishing Possibilities” or national (CPCs) quota allocations (ICCAT, 2015a). Among these criteria, the interests of artisanal, subsistence, small-scale coastal fishers, coastal fishing communities, coastal states and regions dependent on fishing, as well as the right to fish on the high seas are recognised. For BFT-e, the same formal commitment to established rights holds. For example, several CPCs expressed concerns (based on 2005 quotas / catch levels) that certain specific needs had not been met and dissatisfaction with their quota for 2018. These were considered by Panel 2, to allow adjustments to the 2019 and 2020 quotas for those CPCs, using some of the reserved quotas, with an agreement that the allocation keys would be re-considered in 2020 (ICCAT, 2017g). 3.5.2.2 European Union The roles and responsibilities are well known with the EU-CFP system for BFT. Institutions have been working together across member states and EU, for all quota-managed shared fisheries, and closely with ICCAT since the Recovery Plan. For this fishery, stakeholders are represented through the French 3288R06C 68 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) system of “Comité des Pêches” and PO at all relevant working groups and meetings of the Advisory Council MEDAC, and on ICCAT and GFCM EU-delegations. In accordance with Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013, when allocating the fishing opportunities for bluefin tuna and swordfish stocks available to them, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria, including those of an environmental, social and economic nature, and shall also endeavour to distribute national quotas fairly among the various fleet segments giving special consideration to traditional and artisanal fishing, and to provide incentives to Union fishing vessels deploying selective fishing gear or using fishing techniques with reduced environmental impact (EU Reg 2017-2017 Art 43). Several cases regarding BFT fisheries in the Mediterranean have been brought to the ECJ by various parties some years ago. The process takes time, but it is transparent and considered to be effective. 3.5.2.3 France The co-management arrangements of French small-scale operators (SSF) through the Comités des Pêches régionaux (CRPMEM), and Mediterranean SSF fisheries in particular, are built on local arrangements (the Prud’hommies) inside territorial waters (12nm), which endure to this date. French authorities have local offices, the DDTM, which relay information and queries to and from the DIRM. Scientists from IFREMER and from the marine protected areas (MPAs) present their research, with UoA vessels also actively participating in research projects (e.g. Selpal - Poisson et al. (2016)). Local arrangements are repeated for each region, Occitanie, PACA and Corsica from East to West, and the DIRM-MED is common and known to all. As mentioned previously, the French management system for small-scale fisheries relies on bottom- up consultations through mandatory membership of the local professional organisation (Comité des Pêches). For the UoA vessels, which are all members, SATHOAN provides an additional level of discussion, mediation, advocacy and internal mitigation. As a matter of course, regulations are submitted to a period of public consultation, following which the proposed administrative decision may be revised. Once published, the bylaw may be appealed in the administrative courts. This has happened recently, as the French ICCAT TAC /EU /French share has increased annually with the Recovery Plan, some SSF from the Golfe du Lion who are outside Producer Organisations and wished to obtain some or more BFT quota, challenged the French Ministry decisions over their AEP and non-PO quota allocation decisions in the Administrative Court in 2017 (SPLMR, 2017) at the same time as making representations through other avenues. Existing representations and dispute mechanisms can be considered appropriate and effective, because BFT opportunities (AEPs and quotas) for SSF have already been increased for 2019, even though the court case has not yet been settled. 3.5.3 Long-term objectives 3.5.3.1 ICCAT The long-term objective set out in Article VIII of the ICCAT Convention is to “maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes that may be taken in the Convention area at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch”. There is no mention of the precautionary approach in the Convention text as it stands but it is explicitly mentioned since the ICCAT’s 2015 adoption of two resolutions consistent with the UN Fish Stock Agreement and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, that when making recommendations pursuant to Article VIII of the Convention, the Commission should: 3288R06C 69 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) • Apply an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management (Resolution 15-11) (ICCAT, 2015b), and • Use a precautionary approach in implementing ICCAT conservation and management measures (Resolution 15-12) (ICCAT, 2015c), in accordance with relevant international standards. Clear long-term objectives to guide management consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within ICCAT’s management policy. For Principle 1, the objective of ICCAT’s Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean (Rec.16-09) since 2014 has been to recover by 2022 and maintain the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) over or at a level corresponding to SSBMSY and to manage fishing activities by maintaining catches at or below the most precautionary MSY estimate of the SCRS (Rec 17-07). The overarching objective of ICCAT is to maintain catches at maximum sustainable levels (ICCAT, 2007). For the short-term and specifically for BFT-e, this was translated - with CPCs’ commitment - into drastic reductions in fishing mortality in support of the Recovery Plan [see Rec. 17- 07]. The Recovery Plan has been effective enough in meeting its objectives to justify a transition to a multi-annual management Plan (Rec. 18-02). The agreement on a reduced TAC, reducing fishing capacity and fishing plans, together with country-specific quota allocations resulted in a recovery of the stock ahead of schedule, showing that the objectives were both well‐defined and measurable. With the transition from Recovery to Management Plan, ICCAT has also clearly set out the need to establish new management objectives for Eastern and Western Bluefin tuna and tasked Panel 2 to do so preferably in 2019 (Rec. 18-03). Regarding Principle 2, ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) has a Sub- Committee on Ecosystems, which according to its Terms of Reference, aims to serve as the scientific cornerstone in support of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) in ICCAT. It also has several species groups, including a Sharks Group that meets intersessionally and carries out stock assessments and ecological risk assessments (ERAs). The use of a precautionary approach in implementing ICCAT CMM as set out in Resolution (Res.15-12) (ICCAT, 2015a) is not required by ICCAT because resolutions are non-binding under the current terms of Article VIII. However, for BFT-e specifically, the use of a precautionary approach is explicitly referred to in all management measures through recommendations, which are binding on ICCAT CPCs, including the MSY estimate of the SCRS (see ICCAT Recommendation 17-07) and for Principle 2 species (see Rec. 16-13) . Therefore, although long-term objectives make explicit reference to the ecosystem and the precautionary approaches for the BFT-e stock management and this fishery, these are not required by ICCAT’s management policy. 3.5.3.2 GFCM The General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM) is the regional fisheries management organization (RFMO) that aims to ensure the long-term sustainability of fisheries (except those under ICCAT’s purview), aquaculture and their ecosystems in the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. Its main objective is to ensure the conservation and the sustainable use, at the biological, social, economic and environmental level, of living marine resources as well as the sustainable development of aquaculture. The importance of a precautionary approach and an ecosystem approach is made clear in the GFCM Agreement Preamble, article 5 (General principles) and article 8 (Functions of the Commission) of the GFCM Agreement (FAO, 2016). 3288R06C 70 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 3.5.3.3 European Union and France French legislation defers to the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and its clearly stated objectives (CFP Regulation 1380/2013 Article 2): 1. The CFP shall ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and contributing to the availability of food supplies. 2. The CFP shall apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management and shall aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels, which can produce the maximum sustainable yield. In order to reach the objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks. 3. The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment. 4. The CFP shall contribute to the collection of scientific data. 5. The CFP shall, in particular: • gradually eliminate discards, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the best available scientific advice, by avoiding and reducing, as far as possible, unwanted catches, and by gradually ensuring that catches are landed; • where necessary, make the best use of unwanted catches, without creating a market for such of those catches that are below the minimum conservation reference size; • provide conditions for economically viable and competitive fishing capture and processing industry and land-based fishing related activity; • provide for measures to adjust the fishing capacity of the fleets to levels of fishing opportunities consistent with paragraph 2, with a view to having economically viable fleets without overexploiting marine biological resources; • promote the development of sustainable Union aquaculture activities to contribute to food supplies and security and employment; • contribute to a fair standard of living for those who depend on fishing activities, bearing in mind coastal fisheries and socio-economic aspects; • contribute to an efficient and transparent internal market for fisheries and aquaculture products and contribute to ensuring a level–playing field for fisheries and aquaculture products marketed in the Union; • take into account the interests of both consumers and producers; • promote coastal fishing activities, taking into account socio- economic aspects; • be coherent with the Union environmental legislation, in particular with the objective of achieving a good environmental status by 2020 as set out in Article 1(1) of Directive 2008/56/EC, as well as with other Union policies. Regarding Principle 2, the EU Birds and Habitats Directives provisions have been transposed in the French Code de l’Environnement, and so have the long-term objectives of the EU’s Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD), to develop a regional seas approach (the Mediterranean Sea applies 3288R06C 71 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) here) to managing the marine environment. The overall marine good environmental status (GES) for Descriptor 3 is that “Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock.” The types of measures proposed to achieve GES from fisheries impacts include input controls, output controls and spatial and temporal restrictions on economic activities. The Criteria and methodological standards for Descriptor 3 of the MSFD are laid down in the Annex of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (including fishing mortality, spawning stoke biomass, age and size distribution).The Action Plan is being finalised for the Mediterranean sub-region with the adoption of a programme of measures and is expected to be finalised in 2019. French legislation incorporates the EU Fisheries and Environment policies overarching objectives. For Principle 1, the long-term objective is the sustainable management of fisheries resources (Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime art.L2) to be at MSY (art. D922-1). For Principle 2, the Code de l’Environnement (in conformity with the CFP and EU marine environment protection directives, and with international obligations), the objective is to exploit fisheries sustainably (art. L219-1). In addition, France has transposed the requirements of the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD 2008/56/CE, 17 June 2008) that aims to reach or maintain good ecological status for marine waterbodies by 2020, and the EU Marine Spatial Planning Directive (MSP 2014/89/UE, 23 July 2014), which provides a framework to coordinate development activities at sea. The precautionary principle is enshrined in French law since the Loi Barnier (2 Feb. 1995) on improved environmental protection. It was integrated in the Constitution in 2005 and through the Charte de l’Environnement became a legal obligation for all government services in 2008. France published its National Marine and Coastal Strategy (stratégie nationale pour la mer et le littoral - SNML) in February 2017 with four long-term objectives: i) to facilitate the necessary ecological transition (away from fossil fuel), ii) to develop a sustainable ‘blue economy’, iii) to reach Good Ecological Status (GES), and iv) to further France’s influence as a maritime nation. There is a specific strategic document for the French Mediterranean, which sets out national objectives with respect to the region’s specific economic, social and ecological challenges. 3.5.4 Fishery-specific objectives For the fishery specifically, all ICCAT recommendations apply in the European legislation, which had the same objectives as ICCAT in its Recovery Plan, and now in the Multi-Annual Management Plan. The French legislative system is based on the same BFT-e specific management Plan, by direct effect or through additional provisions, with additional provisions such as to support social benefits from small-scale fisheries (SSF) and for the protection and sustainable management of marine biodiversity through national parks and reserves. The objective set out in the Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime, is as follows: in agreement with the principles and rules of the European Common Fisheries Policy, its first objective is (own translation): to allow a sustainable exploitation and value addition to the collective patrimony that are fisheries resources available to France (…) in respect of international agreements or on the High Seas, framed by an ecosystem approach to keep to a minimum any negative impacts on the environment. The local fisheries management objectives are, for the Producer Organisation and stakeholder institutions involved in the fishery’s management at local level, to abide by the recovery/ management plans as translated into French legislation for Mediterranean waters. In addition, the UoA vessels subscribe to the voluntary TRL-PA Code of Conduct (see Table 3), which aims to promote a “socially responsible and biologically sustainable approach”. 3288R06C 72 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 3.5.5 Fishery-specific decision-making processes The fishery consists of French-registered artisanal (LOA<18m) longline/ rod and line vessels. The French decision-making processes are nested under those of the EU-CFP, themselves subject to the agreed results of ICCAT’s deliberations. The French system has several layers from national, to regional (Mediterranean with the DIRM-MED and PO, to local). These are described in sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.3. 3.5.5.1 ICCAT Decisions regarding the BFT-e stock management taken by the Commission are based on scientific advice provided by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) and its working groups (see Table 16) to evaluate fishing mortality and resulting BFT-e stock status. The SCRS proposed a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) set at 36,000 t to be reached in 2020 in a gradual stepwise way without undermining the success of the recovery plan (Rec. 17-07 amending Rec. 14-04). It is also SCRS who advised, as foreseen in paragraph 4 of Rec. 17-07, that the Commission could “consider moving from the recovery plan to a management plan and that the current status of the stock no longer appears to require the emergency measures introduced under the Recovery plan”. Accordingly, a multi-annual management plan for Bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean developed by SCRS was formalised by the Commission as Rec. 18-02, which will come into force on 21 June 201922. The ICCAT website provides a comprehensive and easy access to ICCAT’s documents and reports. Minutes of meetings and the preamble to ICCAT’s Recommendations refer to the fishery-specific objective and the precautionary approach. The ICCAT fishery managers for BFT-e meet annually in Panel 2 (Northern temperate tunas) to examine annual national fishing, inspection and capacity management plans presented by CPCs with BFT-e quota. Plans may be endorsed, or actions (clarification within set time) may be required to be communicated to the Chair by correspondence before the next Commission meeting. The Commission meets to approve the recommendations of the SCRS, Panels and other subsidiary bodies, providing another opportunity for discussion and decision-making in response to serious issues. The second Independent Performance Review of ICCAT (Spencer et al., 2016) found the consensus decision-making process adopted within ICCAT had not always been able to ensure the adoption of conservation and management measures “in a timely manner”, especially as the number of CPCs (currently 52) increased over time. At the time, this concern related notably to the highly depleted BFT-e stock. As detailed in this report’s previous sections, additional conservation and management measures have been adopted in a much more timely and effective manner since, resulting in stock recovery ahead of what was originally expected. ICCAT adopted its 2015-2020 Science Strategic Plan (SSP) for the functioning and orientation of the SCRS in 2014. The plan sets out a Mission, a Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies to achieve each goal as well as measurable targets. Before its adoption, it was presented to the First Meeting of the Standing Working Group to Enhance Dialogue between Fisheries Scientists and Managers (SWGSM) in 2014 (ICCAT, 2018e). The SSP aims to improve data collection and analyses relating to Principle 1 (stock assessment, uncertainties and management advice for BFT-e) and Principle 2 (bycatch species, habitats, ecosystems) and encourages an open dialogue between the SCRS and Working Groups, the Commission and stakeholders (through the Standing Working Group to Enhance Dialogue between Fisheries Scientists and Managers (SWGSM) including the wider scientific community. 22 See https://www.iccat.int/Documents/newsletter/NEWSLETTER_ENG_29.pdf 3288R06C 73 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Another issue of relevance is a lack of transparency in decision-making relating to the allocation of fishing opportunities noted by some CPCs. This matter has been noted by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the follow up of the 2nd ICCAT Performance Review (ICCAT, 2017h) and Panel 2, and is scheduled to be thoroughly analysed by 2020 when allocations keys will be re-examined (ICCAT, 2017g). The ICCAT Secretariat is accessible to stakeholders and supports direct enquiries through its website and to locate relevant ICCAT documents. 3.5.5.2 Europe and France Once the ICCAT Recommendation stipulating the EU share of the TAC is accepted, the EU publishes its allocation between member states and gear. The French government department (DPMA), in concertation with the DIRMs, POs and CNPMEM, publishes detailed allocations and fishing plans. The legislation, institutions and stakeholder consultations involved are detailed above (sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2). The details are given in the French sections of the EU Fishing Plan for the larger vessels and the fleet segment for the smaller vessels (“artisanal” <18m) including this fishery. The Fishing Plans are established using a precautionary approach and best available information. Annually, the DIRM publishes a list of the vessels that have – and those that have applied and have not – obtained a BFT fishing permit (AEP). Interested parties may obtain comprehensive information on the wider small- scale French liners fishery’s performance and management actions in the Mediterranean, through the CRPMEMs, the CNPMEM and the EU Fishery Council MEDAC, which describes how the management system responded to findings and recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Formal reporting specifically for the UoA vessels performance may only be available on request, because of the small number of vessels. 3.5.6 Fishery-specific compliance and enforcement There are four levels to the fishery’s compliance system that correspond to each jurisdictional level (Table 15): • The ICCAT – Tuna RFMO Joint Scheme of International inspections (Annex 7 of Rec. 14-04) and annual Compliance Committee (COC) reporting obligation; complemented by the BFT- specific at least daily reporting through the eBCD catch documentation system; • The limited entry system of European fishing permits (AEP) for the BFT fishery, fixed vessel quota allocations and the European CFP Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) arrangements and coordination of all member states through the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) and its BFT Joint Deployment Plan (JDP) in the Mediterranean (and the Atlantic); • The French flag state arrangements, which include quota allocation conditional on the owner/operator+vessel application having the necessary permit (AEP), the annual permit itself being contingent on compliant vessel*gear characteristics and on the vessel owner and crew being up to date with the professional organisation and social security payments. Locally, members of a Producer Organisation (PO) - the SATHOAN for all vessels in the UoA - also have to comply with PO rules and quota management decisions, which provide another layer of compliance checking; • The French and sometimes Spanish Port State compliance check as the vessels have to report prior to landing at ICCAT BFT-registered ports where the logbooks, eBCD catch and sales documentation must carry the numbers of each individual BFT tail tags used together with the actual weight of each fish. 3288R06C 74 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) In addition, for trade-related matters, the INTERPOL23 Global Fisheries Enforcement team may be involved to “ensure the traceability and legality of fish along all points of the supply chain”. The Agency also has a Fisheries Crime Working Group that engages with fisheries and tax authorities, customs, police, navies and coastguards. Its “cross-sector approach is strengthened by collaboration with intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, academia and the public and private sectors, who are encouraged to enter into dialogue with national enforcement authorities and combine their efforts to tackle transnational fisheries crime.” The growing risk of IUU fishing that accompanies the widening spatial distribution range and abundance of BFT-e in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic is an acknowledged cause for concern. As the stock is recovering, it is resulting in an increasing risk of IUU fishing activities from recreational fishers and from unlicensed fishing operators (EFCA, 2017). The acknowledged risk provides a focus for the EU JDP across all member states as well as for French control authorities, as illustrated by the high profile and heavy sanctions awarded in recent cases (see Gendarmerie de l’Hérault24 and République des Pyrénnés25). For the Mediterranean alone, a compilation of IUU BFT-e catches seized by surveillance authorities in Italy, Spain and Tunisia and Algeria in 2017 and 2018 by WWF-Mediterranean shows that present surveillance and control programmes (at sea, in port, transport, supply chain, restaurants), and the high levels of sanctions applied (fines, destruction, licence revocation) did not appear to have provided enough of a deterrent (WWF Mediterranean team, pers. com.). For the BFT-e stock, EUROPOL (the European counterpart of INTERPOL) is currently leading an investigation that concerns an alleged 2,500 t tonnes annually of undeclared farmed BFT, involving Spanish and Italian Mediterranean Ports and tuna farms in Malta (‘Operation Tarantelo’26). The matter is very serious because of the very large quantities of IUU fish that were estimated to have entered the market unnoticed, which were then estimated to represent nearly 19% of the 2017 EU share of the TAC in the Mediterranean (see Hosch (2019)). However, the high-profile case, which was unveiled when Malta held the presidency of the EU Council and the Commissioner in charge of Environment, Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (Karmenu Vella) was from Malta, resulted in an increased resolve from the EU to reinforce its monitoring and control system, notably of caging and intra-farm live fish transfers. During the 2018 ICCAT annual meeting, the CPCs acknowledged the need to reinforce controls for certain bluefin tuna operations, and it was agreed that CPCs responsible for farms should ensure full traceability of caging operations and should undertake random controls based on risk analysis. As part of the EFCA Joint Deployment Plan, the French Navy has been mobilised annually to take part in offshore Fisheries inspections and patrols of purse seiners fishing and fish transfer activities, including a team of ICCAT inspectors and specialist divers using stereoscopic cameras 3.5.6.1 ICCAT As with other RFMOs, ICCAT relies on its Contracting Parties to implement management measures, through their annual fishing plans and other control measures, which are set out and monitored annually through Panel 2. The ICCAT Convention does not explicitly provide ICCAT with competence related to monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), but there is a large number of reporting and inspections obligations, which are monitored by the Conservation and Management Measures Compliance Committee (COC). CPCs’ annual reports to the COC have five sections: 23 https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Environmental-crime/Fisheries-crime 24 https://www.facebook.com/GendarmerieHerault/posts/2236321583327159/ 25 https://www.larepubliquedespyrenees.fr/2019/08/29/saisie-de-300-kg-de-thons-rouges-a-hendaye,2595333.php 26 https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/how-illegal-bluefin-tuna-market-made-over-eur-12-million-year- selling-fish-in-spain 3288R06C 75 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) • Annual fisheries information; • Research and statistics; • Compliance with reporting requirements under ICCAT conservation and management measures; • Implementation of other ICCAT Conservation and Management Measures; and • Difficulties encountered in implementation of and compliance with ICCAT conservation and management measures. Annual COC reports are publicly available on ICCAT’s website, associated with the reporting for each Commission meeting (ICCAT, 2018f). ICCAT’s MCS system has been greatly strengthened over recent years, with coordinated inspection and data entry and validation systems that allow near real-time and at least daily updates at all levels (ICCAT, 2016b). Catch certification or catch document schemes encouraged in the FAO's International Plan of Action on IUU Fishing have been fully implemented for this fishery through ICCAT's Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Programme (e-BCD) and BFT Catch Documentation Scheme (Rec. 07-10), which is to be further strengthened in 2018. ICCAT has also integrated all key Port State Measures (PSM) requirements in its recommendations established or interventions undertaken by port states which a foreign fishing vessel must comply with or is subjected to as a condition for use of ports within the port state. National PSM would typically include requirements related to prior notification of port entry, use of designated ports, restrictions on port entry and landing/transhipment of fish, restrictions on supplies and services, documentation requirements and port inspections, as well as related measures, such as IUU vessel listing, trade-related measures and sanctions. Many of these measures have in recent years seen their inclusion and development in international instruments, including as part of the EU-CFP. The 2nd Performance Review (Spencer et al., 2016) found that “with the exception of eastern bluefin tuna, ICCAT does not possess sufficient mechanisms for effective at-sea monitoring of fishing operations for most stocks” (ICCAT, 2018f), and generally, a stronger compliance assessment process is also needed (Pew, 2018; WWF, 2018). Therefore, although the BFT-e fishery is probably one of the most documented fisheries in the world and there are no instances of systematic non-compliance for UoA vessels, it appears that the scope for non-compliance is generally on the increase, with previously well-known risks (esp. IUU trade of farmed fish) increasing again, together with new risks of IUU fishing from recreational and small-scale operators coming across increasing quantities of fish without permits to catch and retain them. 3.5.6.2 Europe The EU jurisdiction prevails through the European CFP reporting and compliance obligations to ICCAT, to which EU member States are held through their national administrations. The EU signed the UN Agreement on Port State measures (PSM) to prevent and deter IUU fishing at its onset in 2009 and published its IUU Regulation (Regulation (EC) No.1005/2008 mandatory catch documentation on 1 January 2010. The PSM Agreement entered into force on 5th June 2016, therefore IUU-control procedures adopted by ICCAT CPCs for bluefin tuna are integrated; this includes inspections in port and at sea, including the High Seas, under the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA, 2017) Eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean Bluefin Tuna Joint Deployment Plan (JDP). The new EU specific control and inspection programme (EU, 2018b) which came into force on 1st January 2019, aims to strengthen existing provisions in all member states (EU, 2014). Notably, it introduces target inspection benchmarks, to conduct on a yearly basis, 60% of total inspections at sea 3288R06C 76 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) (excluding aerial surveillance) and 60% of total inspections at landing (inspections in ports and before first sale) shall be conducted on “fishing vessels belonging to the (BFT) fleet segments in the two highest risk level categories, ensuring that both these fleet segments are adequately and proportionally covered”. The French risk assessment for its BFT fisheries fleet segments is not publicly available yet. This will change following the new EU requirements; Member States will have to report on yearly evaluations of their control and inspection programmes in to assess and possibly adapt the benchmark targets. 3.5.6.3 France French-registered fishing vessels and crew are regularly controlled by the French authorities for their compliance with administrative obligations, in particular regarding maritime safety, and any risks to the marine environment. In France, the DIRM-MED coordinates the government’s command of fisheries surveillance operations for the central (DPMA) administration, while the CROSS-Etel (Centre national de surveillance des pêches, CNSP) coordinates operations. A Fisheries patrol vessel based in Marseilles is in charge of offshore fisheries surveillance, and local units (the unités littorales des affaires maritimes - ULAM) under the county (département)-level (DDTM/DML) are in charge of surveillance in coastal waters and on land. Each ULAM has about 6-7 agents equipped with small fast surveillance vessels and vehicles. In addition to fisheries surveillance and control, their role is also to inform the public as well as control vessel safety provisions, seafarers working conditions, environmental protection measures as well as seafood trading establishments. There are two avenues for sanctions in the French fisheries surveillance system, administrative and penal, which may be used together or separately, depending on the type and severity of non- compliance. Administrative sanctions may result in a fishing licence being suspended or withdrawn while the criminal law may impose fines or prison sentences. In addition, there is a specific category of offence related to non-compliance with RFMO regulations, which automatically qualifies any other offence as ‘serious’ (ClientEarth, 2016). Several other services also contribute to fisheries surveillance, such as the Navy, Gendarmerie nationale, national Police and Customs / Coast guards that all bring specific means and expertise27. Of note, the county-level Direction Départementale de la Cohésion Sociale et de la Protection des Populations (DDCSPP) is in charge of consumer protection and food safety inspections, including for seafood products and may operate together with the DDTM/DML as necessary. 3.5.7 Fishery-specific monitoring and management performance evaluation There are internal and external reviews and evaluations of the fishery’s management system and components at all key levels as follows. The performance of ICCAT has been independently evaluated twice. The second Performance Review (ICCAT, 2016a) issued recommendations that are examined by all components of the ICCAT structure, and progress reported is monitored and summarised annually by an ad hoc Working Group (ICCAT, 2017h). 27 See http://www.dirm.mediterranee.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/fascicule_operationnel_cmf.pdf 3288R06C 77 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) ICCAT’s results in terms of stock health for BFT are closely monitored, and analyses are discussed in WG, SCRS and Commission meetings, and also scrutinised and commented upon throughout the year by environmental NGOs with ICCAT Observer status and published in peer-reviewed scientific papers. ICCAT is developing a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for bluefin tuna, which aims to check the adequacy of various management measures, and their robustness to key sources of uncertainty, in the models and in the data used to provide scientific management advice. One of the main goals of the SCRS current Science Strategic Plan (2015-2020) is to evaluate precautionary management reference points and robust harvest control rules (HCRs) through management strategy evaluations (MSE). These are presently developed and discussed annually between ICCAT scientists for the BFT-e specifically (Carruthers and Kell, 2017). ICCAT’s BFT research programme (GBYP) is also externally evaluated. It was reviewed by ICES in 2001, by an independent panel at mid-term in 2013 (Fonteneau et al., 2014) and again in 2016 (MRAG, 2016). 3.5.7.1 European Union and France As a CPC, the EU reports to ICCAT annually on its implementation of active recommendations, on the basis of its member states’ reports. EU institutions representatives and scientists contribute to all relevant ICCAT bodies and meetings, as evidenced by the report contents and participants lists. The European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) itself is evaluated and revised every 10 years. In the interim, its performance in terms of stock sustainability is regularly monitored. Article 50 of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP; Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013) stipulates: “The Commission shall report annually to the European Parliament and to the Council on the progress on achieving maximum sustainable yield and on the situation of fish stocks, as early as possible following the adoption of the yearly Council Regulation fixing the fishing opportunities available in Union waters and, in certain non-Union waters, to Union vessels.” Key CFP institutions and components such as the EFCA (Blomeyer and Sanz, 2017), the Fisheries Control Regulation28, or the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund are evaluated separately, including public consultations. The French government’s performance in terms of compliance with ICCAT’s recommendation and reporting obligation is published every year, as part of the EU CPC reporting obligations, to ICCAT’s Compliance Committee (COC) and Panel 2. There is also an annual assessment of the PO’s compliance with its’ EU quota management and reporting obligations by the DPMA through a detailed scrutiny of SATHOAN annual Production and Marketing Plan report. 28 See https://ec.europa.eu/info/consultations/evaluation-fisheries-control-regulation_en#references and https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/control_en 3288R06C 78 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 4 Evaluation Procedure 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment This fishery overlaps with one other bluefin tuna fishery: the Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic longline bluefin tuna fishery. Both fishery assessments are managed by CU UK and the assessment of Principle 1 is carried out by the same expert, Dr. Jo Gascoigne. As both assessments took place quasi simultaneously, harmonization was a continuous process. The Principle 1 outcomes are therefore the same; note, however that the Usufuku Honten fishery has IPI catches (with the western Altlantic bluefin tuna stock) which is not the case for this fishery. For Principle 3, harmonisation ensured consistency of scores that relate to the RFMO level. There are no other Mediterranean bluefin tuna fisheries in the MSC programme requiring further harmonization. 4.2 Previous assessments This is an initial full assessment, there are no previous assessments. 4.3 Assessment Methodologies This assessment was conducted in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0 and MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template version 2.0. The default assessment tree was used without adjustments. The Risk-Based Framework was applied to Performance Indicator 2.2.1 (Secondary Species Outcome). This is further discussed in Section 4.4.2. 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 4.4.1 Site Visits and consultations The site visit was held in Sète, France from the 29th to the 31st October 2018. The individuals met during the site visit and their roles in the fishery are listed in Table 24. Table 24. List of stakeholders consulted with during the assessment Name Position Type of consultation Bertrand WENDLING Directeur Général, SATHOAN Provision of information during site visit and throughout assessment, participation in RBF Pierre D’ACUNTO Président, SATHOAN Provision of information during site visit, participation in RBF Benjamine VANDEPUTTE Experte en Indications géographiques Provision of information during site et Labels de qualité et d'origine visit and throughout assessment, SATHOAN / VALPEM participation in RBF Morgane MARCHAND Chargée d’études, SATHOAN Provision of information during site visit, participation in RBF Caroline MANGALO Chargée de mission, Comité National Provision of information during site des Pêches maritimes et des élevages visit (remote call) marins (CNPMEM) Sebastien FORTASSIER Vessel owner, Andréa Provision of information during site visit 3288R06C 79 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Name Position Type of consultation Jordan VALENTIN Vessel owner, Deux Frères IV Provision of information during site visit, participation in RBF Tristan ROUYER Chercheur IFREMER / MARBEC Provision of information during site visit (Principle 1) François POISSON Chercheur IFREMER / MARBEC Provision of information during remote call, participation in RBF Renaud HERDE Unité littorale des affaires maritimes Provision of information during site (ULAM) visit, participation in RBF Dominique GIMONNEAU Unité littorale des affaires maritimes Provision of information during site (ULAM) visit, participation in RBF Shana Miller Program Manager, Global Tuna Remote consultation after site visit – Conservation at The Ocean Foundation see Appendix 5 for details. Grantly Galland Senior Associate, Global Tuna Remote consultation after site visit – Conservation at The Pew Charitable see Appendix 5 for details. Trusts Thea JACOB Chargée de programme Cétacés et Remote consultation after site visit – Pêche Durable, WWF France (bureau see Appendix 5 for details. Marseille) Thierry MICOL Chef du Service Etudes, Provision of general information after Développement durable, International site visit (Remote call) et outre-mer, LPO (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux) Jo GASCOIGNE Principle 1 assessor CU UK Assessor Sophie DES CLERS Principle 3 assessor CU UK Assessor Chrissie SIEBEN Team Leader, Principle 2 assessor CU Assessor UK The site visit included a visit to the Port du Grau d’Agde where the team visited the vessel Andrea. The vessel owner, M. Fortassier, was interviewed and the fishing gear was inspected. The information obtained during the site visit has been incorporated throughout the main report; however key points are summarised below: • CNPMEM/ CRPMEM: local and national concertation, BFT quota allocation between gear types, biodiversity protection inside and around marine parks; • DG MARE and DPMA : European and French management structures and responsibilities, management plans, regulations, consultation mechanisms; • DIRM and DDTMs: Information about the functioning and management of the fishery (operations, data collection, validation and reporting, enforcement); • MARBEC / IFREMER: Information about bluefin tuna regional management, harvest strategy and management objectives, bluefin tuna stock assessment, UoA observer coverage, SELPAL, fishery catch profile, ETP interactions. 3288R06C 80 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) • SATHOAN: Information about traceability from capture to 1st point of sale, details on fishing operations, gear use, bait use, bycatch avoidance tactics, ETP interactions, TRL-PA code fo conduct, gear loss, trends in bycatch. • PEW / Ocean Foundation: comments on bluefin tuna stock assessment models and associated uncertainty; ICCAT management decision-making; IUU fishing in the Mediterranean • WWF: comments on ICCAT management decision-making and uncertainty in stock assessment models; ongoing survey of enforcement reports and IUU fishing in the Mediterranean especially recreational fishery; insufficient controls on longline vessels; UoA bycatch and ETP interactions. 4.4.2 Evaluation Techniques a) Media announcements: CU UK selected the MSC as media outlet. The MSC press release targeted a wide range of stakeholders within the sustainable seafood industry, ensuring that key stakeholders were notified of this fishery’s announcement. b) Methodology for information gathering: Review of data and documentation, interview of stakeholders. c) Scoring process: Scoring was agreed by the team via email correspondence. Consensus was reached for all scores. The scores were decided as follows: How many scoring SG60 SG80 SG100 issues met? All 60 80 100 Half FAIL 70 90 Less than half FAIL 65 85 More than half FAIL 75 95 Note that where there is only one scoring issue in the SG, the issue can be partially scored – in this case the team used their judgement to determine what proportion of it was met, e.g. at the 100 level, a small part met = 85, about half met = 90, nearly all met = 95. d) Decision rule for reaching the final recommendation: The decision rule for MSC certification is as follows: • No PIs scores below 60; • The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above. The aggregate score for each Principle is the sum of the weighted score of each Performance Indicator within that Principle. e) Scoring elements: The set of scoring elements considered in the assessment is listed in 3288R06C 81 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Table 25. 3288R06C 82 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Table 25. Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or not Target species – Bluefin N/a No No tuna Primary species Mediterranean swordfish, North Atlantic main No blue shark, Adriatic sardine Mediterranean albacore, Northeast minor No Atlantic mackerel Secondary species Pelagic stingray main Yes See Table 8, Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11 minor No ETP species Sea turtles (loggerhead, green turtle, N/a no leatherback); seabirds (yelkouan shearwater, Balearic shearwater, Cory’s or Scopoli’s shearwater, Mediterranean storm petrel, Mediterranean shag, northern gannet, Audouin’s gull, Mediterranean gull, Sandwich tern); marine mammals (Risso's dolphin) Habitats None N/a N/a f) Use of the RBF The risk-based framework (RBF) is an alternative evaluation system for some Performance Indicators (PI), based on an acknowledgement by the MSC that in some cases quantitative data and formal stock assessments with reference points may not be available. In this case, the use of the default assessment tree becomes difficult and the RBF is triggered. The RBF can be used for outcome PIs only. These PIs are: • 1.1.1 (Target species outcome) • 2.1.1 (Primary species outcome) • 2.2.1 (Secondary species outcome) • 2.3.1 (Endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species outcome) • 2.4.1 (Habitats outcome) • 2.5.1 (Ecosystem outcome) The RBF trigger criteria for each PI are shown in Table 3 of the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. For this assessment, the RBF was triggered for 2.2.1 because of the presence of pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea), for which no stock assessments or reference points exist. The application of the RBF is laid out in Annex PF of the MSC FCRv2.0. For PI 2.2.1, the RBF requires a Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) to be carried out. For the Productivity component, a risk score is calculated based on the species’ life history characteristics which can be obtained from peer- reviewed and grey literature. The Susceptibility component on the other hand examines the species’ susceptibility to interact with the fishery (and other MSC fisheries where applicable) and requires stakeholder input. Prior to the assessment site visit, stakeholders were provided with a preparatory 3288R06C 83 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) document, detailing the information available on management arrangements, monitoring strategies, gear characteristics, fishing footprint, as well as pelagic stingray spatial and temporal distribution. Much of this information was extracted from the SELPAL report (Poisson et al., 2016). This information, combined with anecdotal information gained during the site visit, enabled a Susceptibility risk score to be calculated (see Appendix 2). The stakeholders that participated in the RBF are shown in Table 24; some were present during the site visit while others were contacted remotely. They represent a wide range of backgrounds including scientists, fishers, local residents, managers and NGOs. The outputs of the RBF consultations are shown in Appendix 2. In summary, interviews with stakeholders present during the site visit (see Table 24) led to lower susceptibility risk scores than those arrived at during subsequent consultations. The difference in perception appears to be mainly related to the species’ seasonal distribution patterns which can significantly increase catchability over the summer months, the importance of which was likely underestimated during the initial interviews. The input of scientific expertise was invaluable in this regard. Overall however, there is a consensus that the pelagic stingray is a relatively robust species, and while it has been shown to dominate catches in this fishery, the UoA footprint is sufficiently low so that an MSC equivalent outcome score of at least 80 was achieved. Note that the RBF was not applied to any of the minor secondary species in the dataset. The 2.2.1 PI score was therefore capped at 80. 3288R06C 84 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 5 Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The Eligibility Date has been set as the date of certification. Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna caught by the vessels in the UoA (Table 2) after the date of certification will be eligible to enter further chains of custody. 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery All vessels in the UoA require an ‘Authorisation européenne de pêche’ (AEP) to target bluefin tuna. Fishing takes place mainly in French waters (the UoA area) although some vessels may also operate outside territorial waters, in shared European Community waters. In all cases, fishing takes place within the UoA area as defined by GSA 7 and GSA 8. Aboard all vessels, the EC logbook is completed in terms of estimated volume (tonnes) and number of individuals of retained catch per species, as well as time and coordinates of the set. The retained bluefin tuna (BFT) is processed on board with the Ikejime method which involves the insertion of a spike quickly and directly into the fish’ brain before being stored in iced seawater. The fish therefore remains easily identifiable as a BFT even after processing. Each individual BFT is then issued with a unique eBCD (electronic bluefin tuna catch document) number which is an ICCAT requirement (see ICCAT Rec. 10-11, 11-20, 13-16, 17-09), printed on plastic barcoded tag which is attached to the caudal fin of the fish (see Figure 16 and Figure 17). All tags are issued by the French government (DIRM) and are distributed through SATHOAN. The tags are tamperproof (they have to be cut in order to be removed) and the caudal fin must be retained by the vendor until the entire fish has been sold/consumed. A copy of the eBCD document must furthermore stay with the fish at all times and must be validated by a ‘validating authority’ (i.e. an authorized government official) before the eBCD can pass onto the next actor in the supply chain29. The information contained in the eBCD inter alia includes the following (see Appendix 9 for an example of the eBCD form): • Name of the Catching Vessel or Trap name • Name of the Other Vessels (in case of JFO) • Flag • ICCAT Record No. • Individual Quota • Quota used for this BCD • Date, area of catch and gear used • Number of fish, total weight, and average weight • ICCAT Record number of Joint Fishing Operation (if applicable) • Tag No. (if applicable) • Government validation: Name of authority and signatory, title, signature, seal and date 29 This was seen in practice by the assessment team over lunch at a restaurant serving bluefin tuna (selected at random). The chef was able to show the BCD document and the caudal fin of the fish that it belonged to – in fact, the caudal fin must be retained until the entire fish has been consumed. 3288R06C 85 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Furthermore, as all vessels in the UoA subscribe to the “Thon Rouge de ligne Pêche Artisanale” (TRL- PA) brand, the TRL-PA online database enables consumers to trace any fish stemming from the UoA back to the date of capture and the catching vessel, together with the relevant logbook number (‘livre de bord’) and the eBCD number: http://www.thonrougedeligne.com/mon-poisson-a-la-trace/ (556465 can be used as an example label number). Figure 16. Example of eBCD tags issued by the French administration to the UoA. Figure 17. Image of eBCD tag attached to BFT caudal fin. The label ensures traceability is maintained as the fish moves through the supply chain. The BFT are landed at designated ports in France or Spain: Rec. 17-07 requires that each ICCAT CPC designates ports in which landing of eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna is authorised. 3288R06C 86 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) The list of ports is shown in Appendix 10. All vessels are required to notify the port authorities 4 hours ahead of arrival into port. After landing, the BFT are either sold directly or via auction. In both situations, the eBCD document and tag must always accompany the fish. While it is true that the eBCD document is just that and is therefore not physically attached to the fish, the tag is placed around the caudal fin and cannot be removed without tampering (Figure 17). As each tag is linked to a unique eBCD number, traceability is maintained as the fish moves through the supply chain. The eBCD number must furthermore be mentioned on all documentation that accompany transactions (such as invoices). There is no transhipment in this fishery. Table 26. 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 used No gears outside the UoA are used by the vessels; this risk is within the fishery minimal. Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish The vessels do not fish outside the UoA area (GSA 7 and GSA 8). outside the UoC or in different geographical The odds of vessels fishing outside the UoA area unnoticed by areas (on the same trips or different trips) either SATHOAN or the authorities are limited; vessels over 12 meters in length are required to be equipped with an electronic logbook and to regularly transmit catch and positional data. Although vessels between 12 and 15m may be exempt, they would still be required to carry VMS and would be limited to < 24h trips. Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or client Vessels from outside the UoC are likely to fish for the same stock group fishing the same stock but will not be covered by this assessment. To avoid the risk of vessels landing BFT from outside the UoC as MSC (i.e. vessels not associated with this assessment) an up to date list of vessels will be published with the certificate. This list can then be used by companies with MSC CoC to ensure product is originating from a vessel covered by this assessment. Also note that bluefin tuna harvested in sport and recreational fisheries for which sale is prohibited is not subject to the terms of Recommendation 11- 20 and need not be recorded in the eBCD system. These fish will therefore not have the BCD number. Risks of mixing between certified and non- On board the vessels, processing is minimal (as per the Ikejime certified catch during storage, transport, or discussed previously). The risk of mixing MSC and non-MSC BFT handling activities (including transport at sea during a trip is minimal. Prior to landing, all UoA-caught BFT are and on land, points of landing, and sales at linked to a eBCD number and a TRL-PA barcoded label is auction) attached to the caudal fin. This label stays with the fish from the point of landing through the supply chain and has to be physically cut from the fish (and is therefore tamperproof). The risk of mixing during storage, transport, or handling activities is therefore minimal. Risks of mixing between certified and non- As above, the TRL-PA label combined with the eBCD minimises certified catch during processing activities (at- the risk of mixing MSC with non-MSC product. sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody) 3288R06C 87 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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) Risks of mixing between certified and non- There is no transhipment in this fishery. certified catch during transhipment Any other risks of substitution between fish None were identified. from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Bluefin tuna caught by the vessels listed in Table 2, meeting the UoA description as given below and after the date of certification will be eligible to enter further chains of custody. Species Bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) Stock Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna Geographical range French and EU shared Western Mediterranean waters of the fishery Method of capture Pelagic longline (LLD) and handline and pole-line (LHP, LHM) Client group Member vessels of SATHOAN PO targeting bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean using pelagic longline, handline and pole-line that have signed up to the label “Thon rouge de ligne – pêche artisanale” Other eligible None fishers Separate chain of custody (CoC) certification will be required after the first point of sale. In the case where the product is sold through auction, no separate CoC is required for the only auction concerned: • Criée de Sète All bluefin tuna must be landed at designated authorised ports in France or Spain as per ICCAT requirements. The list of ports is shown in Appendix 10. 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody There are no IPI catches in this fishery. 3288R06C 88 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 6 Evaluation Results 6.1 Principle Level Scores The final principal scores are provided in Table 27. Table 27. Final Principle Scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 81.7 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 80.7 Principle 3 – Management System 84.2 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score 1.1. Stock status 0.5 70 0.3 1 Outcome 3 1.1. Stock rebuilding 0.5 100 2 1.2. Harvest strategy 0.25 95 1 One 1.2. Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 65 Manage- 0.6 2 ment 7 1.2. Information & monitoring 0.25 75 3 1.2. Assessment of stock status 0.25 85 4 2.1. Outcome 0.33 85 1 Primary 2.1. 0.2 Management strategy 0.33 85 species 2 2.1. Information/Monitoring 0.33 65 3 2.2. Outcome 0.33 80 1 Two Secondary 2.2. 0.2 Management strategy 0.33 75 species 2 2.2. Information/Monitoring 0.33 75 3 2.3. Outcome 0.33 70 1 ETP species 0.2 2.3. Management strategy 0.33 65 2 3288R06C 89 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score 2.3. Information strategy 0.33 60 3 2.4. Outcome 0.33 100 1 2.4. Habitats 0.2 Management strategy 0.33 95 2 2.4. Information 0.33 85 3 2.5. Outcome 0.33 100 1 2.5. Ecosystem 0.2 Management 0.33 85 2 2.5. Information 0.33 85 3 3.1. Legal &/or customary framework 0.33 80 1 Governance 3.1. 0.5 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.33 85 and policy 2 3.1. Long term objectives 0.33 100 3 3.2. Three Fishery specific objectives 0.25 80 1 3.2. Fishery Decision making processes 0.25 80 specific 2 0.5 manage- 3.2. Compliance & enforcement 0.25 80 ment system 3 3.2. Monitoring & management 0.25 80 4 performance evaluation 6.3 Summary of Conditions A summary of conditions is provided in the following table. For more detail on the conditions and the corresponding Client Action Plan, see Appendix 3. Table 28. Summary of conditions Number Condition Performance Indicator 1 By 2025 (Year 5) the client should be able to show that the BFT-e 1.1.1 stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. 2 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that well-defined HCRs 1.2.2 are in place that are able to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties, as determined through simulation modelling or other appropriate method. 3288R06C 90 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Number Condition Performance Indicator 3 By Year 4 the client should be able to show evidence that there is 1.2.3 good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. 4 By Year 4, some quantitative information should be available and 2.1.3 adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. The information collected should be adequate to support a partial strategy to manage these species. 5 By Year 4, there should be an objective basis for confidence that the 2.2.2 partial strategy in place for pelagic stingrays will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or this species, including seasonal and spatial catch patterns. 6 By Year 4, the information available on interactions with pelagic 2.2.3 stingray should be adequate to manage the UoA’s impact on this species, taking into account seasonal and spatial catch patterns. 7 By Year 4, direct effects of the UoA should be highly likely to not 2.3.1 hinder recovery of sea turtles and ETP seabirds. 8 By Year 3, there should be a strategy in place for managing the 2.3.2 UoA’s impact on ETP species, designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. There should be an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and evidence that it is being implemented successfully. 9 By Year 4, some quantitative information should be available and 2.3.3 adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on ETP species. The information collected should be adequate to measure trends and to support a strategy to manage these species. 6.4 Recommendations Following peer review, two recommendations were made by the team, as follows: Recommendation 1 (bait): Fishers in the UoA purchase their bait directly from traders and there is currently no systematic means through which SATHOAN monitor their members’ bait use. It is recommended that a more formal bait sourcing strategy is adopted that ensures that bait is sourced from sustainable fisheries, while endeavouring that bait use is optimized as much as possible (e.g. by exploring ways to minimize bait use per hook). Recommendation 2 (swordfish): One of the measures included in the Mediterranean swordfish rebuilding plan (ICCAT Rec. 17-03) is a minimum size: In order to protect small swordfish, CPCs shall take the necessary measures to prohibit catching, retaining on board, landing, transporting, storing, selling, displaying or offering for sale Mediterranean swordfish measuring less than 100 cm LJFL or, in alternative, weighing less than 11,4 kg of round weight or 10,2 kg of gilled and gutted weight (ICCAT Rec. 16-05). A recent peer-reviewed paper presented at ICCAT SCRS 2019 on reproductive biology of swordfish in the Strait of Gibraltar found that female swordfish attained larger sizes than males and mature at a larger size, at 170 cm, as opposed to 95 cm LJFL for males (noting that the reproductive characteristics of swordfish caught in the Strait of Gibraltar are similar to those of the Mediterranean) (see ICCAT-SCRS (2019) and Abid et al. (2019)). With a minimum landing size at 100 cm LJFL, there is therefore a real risk that immature individuals are being caught by the UoA. Although the team concluded that at the scale of the UoA, 3288R06C 91 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) this will not have any effect on the recoverability of the stock, it is recommended that options are explored (e.g. changes in gear design, fishing practices or application of a voluntary minimum size) so that the UoA catch of juvenile swordfish is minimised. 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement Following consideration of all stakeholders’ inputs and comments to the Public Comment Draft Report (PCDR), the fishery assessment team concluded that the fishery should be certified against the MSC standard. This determination remained a recommendation pending the completion of the formal objections process and the final certification decision by the CU UK official decision making entity. The final CU UK Certification Decision was made on the 23rd October 2020, following an objection period in which no objections were raised, with the Certification Decision Maker approving the decision to certify the fishery. 3288R06C 92 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 7 References Abid, N., Laglaoui, A., Arakrak, A., Bakkali, M., 2019. The reproductive biology of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the Strait of Gibraltar. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 99, 649–659. Albores-Barajas, Y., Massa, B., Tagliavia, M., Soldatini, C., 2015. Parental care and chick growth rate in the Mediterranean Storm-petrel Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis. Avocetta 39, 29–35. Albores-Barajas, Y., Riccato, F., Fiorin, R., Massa, B., Torricelli, P., Soldatini, C., 2011. Diet and diving behaviour of European storm petrels Hydrobates pelagicus in the Mediterranean (ssp. melitensis). Bird Study 58, 208–212. Allain, V., Nicol, S., Polovina, J., Coll, M., Olson, R., Griffiths, S., Dambacher, J., Young, J., Molina, J.J., Hoyle, S., Lawson, T., Bell, J., 2011. Report of the international workshop on opportunities for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. WCPFC. Apostolaki, P., Pearce, J., Barbari, A., Beddington, J., 2018. Alternative catch estimates from market and third party data. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 75(6), 2536-2553. Aranda, G., Medina, A., Santos, A., Abascal, F.J., Galaz, T., 2013. Evaluation of Atlantic bluefin tuna reproductive potential in the western Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Sea Research 76, 154–160. Arroyo, G.M., MATEOS-RODRÃGUEZ, M., Munoz, A.R., Cruz, A. De la, Cuenca, D., Onrubia, A., 2016. New population estimates of a critically endangered species, the Balearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus, based on coastal migration counts. Bird Conservation International 26, 87. Bailleul, D., Mackenzie, A., Sacchi, O., Poisson, F., Bierne, N., Arnaud-Haond, S., 2018. Large-scale genetic panmixia in the blue shark (Prionace glauca): A single worldwide population, or a genetic lag-time effect of the “grey zone” of differentiation? Evolutionary applications 11, 614–630. Bănaru, D., Mellon-Duval, C., Roos, D., Bigot, J.-L., Souplet, A., Jadaud, A., Beaubrun, P., Fromentin, J.- M., 2013. Trophic structure in the Gulf of Lions marine ecosystem (north-western Mediterranean Sea) and fishing impacts. Journal of Marine Systems 111, 45–68. Biton-PorSmoguer, S., LLoret, J., 2018. Potentially unsustainable fisheries of a critically-endangered pelagic shark species: The case of the Blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Western Mediterranean Sea. Cybium 42, 299–302. Block, B.A., Dewar, H., Blackwell, S.B., Williams, T.D., Prince, E.D., Farwell, C.J., Boustany, A., Teo, S.L.H., Seitz, A., Walli, A., Fudge, D., 2001. Migratory Movements, Depth Preferences, and Thermal Biology of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna. Science 293, 310-314. Blomeyer, R., Sanz, 2017. Final Report - Five-year Independent External Evaluation of the European Fisheries Control agency. Bonnaud, E., Berger, G., Bourgeois, K., Legrand, J., Vidal, E., 2012. Predation by cats could lead to the extinction of the Mediterranean endemic Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan at a major breeding site. Ibis 154, 566–577. Bourgeois, K., Vidal, E., 2008. The endemic Mediterranean yelkouan shearwater Puffinus yelkouan: distribution, threats and a plea for more data. Oryx 42, 187–194. 3288R06C 93 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Broderick, A.C., Glen, F., Godley, B.J., Hays, G.C., 2002. Estimating the number of green and loggerhead turtles nesting annually in the Mediterranean. Oryx 36, 227–235. Brodziak, J., Overholtz, W., 1995. A comparison of some biological reference points for fisheries management. NOAAlNational Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543-1097. Campana, S.E., Joyce, W., Fowler, M., Showell, M., 2016. Discards, hooking, and post-release mortality of porbeagle (Lamna nasus), shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus), and blue shark (Prionace glauca) in the Canadian pelagic longline fishery. ICES Journal of Marine Science 73, 520–528. Campana, S.E., Joyce, W., Francis, M.P., Manning, M.J., 2009. Comparability of blue shark mortality estimates for the Atlantic and Pacific longline fisheries. Marine Ecology Progress Series 396, 161– 164. Carruthers, T., Kell, L., 2016. Simulation testing a multi-stock model with age-based movement. SCRS/2016/144. Carruthers, T., Kell, L., 2017. Simulation testing a multi-stock model with age-based movement. ( No. 73(6)). ICCAT SCRS/2016/144, Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT. Carruthers, T., Natale, A.D., Lauretta, M., García, A.P., Tensek, S., 2018. Migratory behaviour of Atlantic bluefin tuna entering the Mediterranean. Collect. Vol. Sci. Papers ICCAT 74(6) 3082-3099. Casale, P., 2011. Sea turtle by-catch in the Mediterranean. Fish and Fisheries 12, 299–316. ClientEarth, 2016. Contrôle et sanction des infractions en matière de pêche en France, Décembre 2016, 30 pp. https://www.documents.clientearth.org/wp-content/uploads/library/2016-01-10- controle-et-sanction-des-infractions-en-matiere-de-peche-en-france-ce-fr.pdf. Coll, M., Albo-Puigserver, M., Navarro, J., Palomera, I., Dambacher, J.M., 2019. Who is to blame? Plausible pressures on small pelagic fish population changes in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series 617, 277–294. Coll, M., Palomera, I., Tudela, S., Sardà, F., 2006. Trophic flows, ecosystem structure and fishing impacts in the South Catalan Sea, Northwestern Mediterranean. Journal of Marine Systems 59, 63–96. Collette, B., 2018. Bluefin tuna science remains vague. Science 358, 879-880 (Letter). Corriero, A., Firdes, K., Santamaria, N., Deflorio, M., Spedicato, D., Addis, P., Desantis, S., Cirillo, F., Fenech-Farruggia, A., Vasssallo-Agius, R., Serna, A., Oray, Y., Cau, A., Megalofonou, P., Metrio, G., 2005. Size and age at sexual maturity of female bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus L. 1758) from the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21, 483–486. Cortés, V., Garc횤a-Barcelona, S., González-Sol횤s, J., 2018. Sex-and age-biased mortality of three shearwater species in longline fisheries of the Mediterranean. Marine Ecology Progress Series 588, 229–241. Deflorio, M., Aprea, A., Corriero, A., Santamaria, N., De Metrio, G., 2005. Incidental captures of sea turtles by swordfish and albacore longlines in the Ionian sea. Fisheries Science 71, 1010–1018. Defos du Rau, P., Bourgeois, K., Ruffino, L., Dromzée, S., Ouni, R., Abiadh, A., Estéve, J., Durand, J., Anselme, A., Faggio, G., others, 2012. New assessment of the world’s largest colony of Scopoli’s 3288R06C 94 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Shearwater Calonectris diomedea, in: Proceedings 13th Medmaravis pan-Mediterranean Symposium. pp. 26–28. Di Natale, A.D., Bonhommeau, S., Bruyn, P. de, Die, D., Melvin, G.D., Mielgo, R., Bregazzi, A.P.G., Palma, C., Porch, C., Takeuchi, Y., Tensek, S., 2017. Bluefin tuna weight frequencies from selected market and auction data recovered by the GBYP. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 73(6): 2129- 2149. Di Natale, A.D., Tensek, S., García, A.P., 2018. The disappearance of young-of-the-year bluefin tuna from the Mediterranean coast in 2016: is it an effect of climate change? Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 74(6), 2850-2860. Druon, J.-N., Fromentin, J.-M., Hanke, A.R., Arrizabalaga, H., Damalas, D., Ticina, V., Quílez-Badia, G., Ramirez, K., Arregui, I., Tserpes, G., Reglero, P., Deflorio, M., Oray, I., Karakulak, F.S., Megalofonou, P., Ceyhan, T., Grubišic, L., MacKenzie, B.R., Lamkin, J., Afonso, P., Addis, P., 2016. Habitat suitability of the Atlantic bluefin tuna by size class: An ecological niche approach. Progress in Oceanography 142, 30-46. EC, 2018. COM (2018) 368: Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1224/2009, and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 768/2005, (EC) No 1967/2006, (EC) No 1005/2008, and Regulation (EU) No 2016/1139 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards fisheries control. EFCA, 2017. European Fisheries Control Agency - Annual Report 2016. European Fisheries Control Agency. 153p. EFCA, 2020. European Fisheries Control Agency - Annual Report 2019. European Fisheries Control Agency. 193p. Estrada, M., 1996. Primary production in the northwestern Mediterranean. EU, 2013a. Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the Common Fisheries Policy, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1954/2003 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2371/2002 and (EC) No 639/2004 and Council Decision 2004/585/EC. EU, 2013b. Regulation (EU) No 1379/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the common organisation of the markets in fishery and aquaculture products, amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1184/2006 and (EC) No 1224/2009 and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 104/2000. EU, 2013c. Regulation (EU) No 605/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. EU, 2014. Commission Implementing Decision of 19 March 2014 establishing a specific control and inspection programme for fisheries exploiting stocks of bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, swordfish in the Mediterranean and for fisheries exploiting stocks of sardine and anchovy in the Northern Adriatic Sea (notified under document C(2014) 1717). EU, 2015. Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2015/98 of 18 November 2014 on the implementation of the Union’s international obligations, as referred to in Article 15(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council, under the International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas and the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries. 3288R06C 95 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) EU, 2016. REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL on a multiannual recovery plan for Bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 302/2009. European Union, 2015/0096 (COD). EU, 2017. Regulation (EU) 2017/2107 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2017 laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention area of the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1936/2001, (EC) No 1984/2003 and (EC) No 520/2007, 39p. EU, 2018a. COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2018/120 of 23 January 2018 fixing for 2018 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters, and amending Regulation (EU) 2017/127. EU. EU, 2018b. Commission Implementing Decision (EU) 2018/1986 of 13 December 2018 establishing specific control and inspection programmes for certain fisheries and repealing Implementing Decisions 2012/807/EU, 2013/328/EU, 2013/305/EU and 2014/156/EU. EU, 2019a. Council Regulation (EU) 2019/124 of 30 January 2019 fixing for 2019 the fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks, applicable in Union waters and, for Union fishing vessels, in certain non-Union waters. EU, 2019b. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a multiannual management plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean, amending Regulations (EC) No 1936/2001, (EU) 2017/2107, and (EU) 2019/833 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2016/1627, MARE (DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries), COM(2019)619/F1, 28/11/2019. Faillettaz, R., Beaugrand, G., Goberville, E., Kirby, R.R., 2019. Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations drive the basin-scale distribution of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Science Advances 5(1), eaar6993 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar6993. Ferretti, F., Myers, R.A., Serena, F., Lotze, H.K., 2008. Loss of large predatory sharks from the Mediterranean Sea. Conservation Biology 22, 952–964. Fishbase, 2019. Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758) Atlantic bluefin tuna. Fonteneau, A., Suzuki, Z., Payne, A.I., 2014. Mid-term review of the ICCAT Atlantic-wide research programme on bluefin tuna (ICCAT/GBYP Phase 3-4). ICCAT. FR_Senat, 2011. Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 1185/2003 du Conseil relatif à l’enlèvement des nageoires de requin à bord des navires COM (2011) 798 final du 21/11/2011. Examen dans le cadre de l’article 88-4 de la Constitution. Texte déposé au Sénat le 01/12/2011 Examen : 20/01/2012 (commission des affaires européennes), https://www.senat.fr/ue/pac/E6865.html. France, 2019. Arrêté du 2 mai 2019 définissant les mesures de contrôle de la pêcherie de thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) dans le cadre du plan pluriannuel de gestion du thon rouge dans l’Atlantique Est et la Méditerranée. Fromentin, J., Kell, L., 2008. Evaluation of the performance and robustness of VPA-based stock assessment and MSY-based management strategy to process error: the Atlantic bluefin tuna case study. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 44, 491–506. 3288R06C 96 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Fromentin, J.-M., Bonhommeau, S., Arrizabalaga, H., LaurenceT.Kell, 2014. The spectre of uncertainty in management of exploited fish stocks: The illustrative case of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Marine Policy 47, 8-14. Garcia, A.P., Palma, C., Di Natale, A., Tensek, S., Parrilla, A., Bruyn, P. de, 2017. REPORT ON REVISED TRAP DATA RECOVERED BY ICCAT GBYP FROM PHASE 1 TO PHASE 6. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 73, 2074–2098. GFCM, 2016. Scientific Advisory Committee on Fisheries (SAC) Working Group on Stock Assessments of Small Pelagic Species (WGSASP), Rome, Italy, 7-12 November 2016 Final Report. GFCM, 2017. Scientific Advisory Committee on Fisheries (SAC) - Working Group on Stock Assessment of Small Pelagic species (WGSASP) Report. FAOHQ, Rome, Italy, 13-18November 2017. GFCM. Gómez-D횤az, E., González-Sol횤s, J., Peinado, M., 2009. Population structure in a highly pelagic seabird, the Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea: an examination of genetics, morphology and ecology. Marine Ecology Progress Series 382, 197–209. Goodyear, C.P., 1995. Red snapper in US waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Grewe, P.M., Feutry, P., Hill, P.L., Gunasekera, R.M., Schaefer, K.M., Itano, D.G., Fuller, D.W., Foster, S.D., Davies, C.R., 2016. Evidence of discrete yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) populations demands rethink of management for this globally important resource. WCPFC Scientific Committee, 12th Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, 3-11 August 2016. WCPFC-SC12-2016/ SA-IP- 02. Guilford, T., Wynn, R., McMinn, M., Rodr횤guez, A., Fayet, A., Maurice, L., Jones, A., Meier, R., 2012. Geolocators reveal migration and pre-breeding behaviour of the critically endangered Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus. PLoS One 7, e33753. Hamlett, W.C., 1999. Sharks, skates, and rays: the biology of elasmobranch fishes. JHU Press. Hosch, G., 2019. The 2018 Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Trade Scandal: The catch & trade control framework of ICCAT - and how to fix it. Luxembourg, Europe. 65pp. IATTC, 2017. TUNAS, BILLFISHES AND OTHER PELAGIC SPECIES IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2017. IATTC - Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission. ICCAT, 1993a. 93-08 MISC RESOLUTION BY ICCAT ON COOPERATION WITH THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES). ICCAT. ICCAT, 1993b. 93-09 MISC RESOLUTION BY ICCAT CONCERNING THE COMPOSITION OF DELEGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO ICCAT FROM CITES. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2005. Guidelines and criteria for granting observer status at ICCAT meetings [Rec. 05-12]. https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2005-12-e.pdf, ICCAT. ICCAT, 2007. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (as amended), The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Available at: http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Commission/BasicTexts.pdf. ICES. ICCAT, 2010. 10-09 RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON THE BY-CATCH OF SEA TURTLES IN ICCAT FISHERIES. ICCAT. 3288R06C 97 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) ICCAT, 2011a. 11-09 BYC SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON REDUCING INCIDENTAL BYCATCH OF SEABIRDS IN ICCAT LONGLINE FISHERIES. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2011b. 11-17 GEN - RESOLUTION BY ICCAT ON BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2014. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION 13-07 BY ICCAT TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-ANNUAL RECOVERY PLAN FOR BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC AND MEDITERRANEAN. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2015a. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION 13-07 BY ICCAT TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-ANNUAL RECOVERY PLAN FOR BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC AND MEDITERRANEAN. ICCAT - 14-04. ICCAT, 2015b. Resolution 15-11 by ICCAT concerning the application of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, see https://iccat.int/Documents/Recs/COMPENDIUM_ACTIVE_ENG.pdf, ICCAT. ICCAT, 2015c. 15-12 Resolution by ICCAT concerning the use of a precautionary approach in implementing ICCAT conservation and management measures, see https://iccat.int/Documents/Recs/COMPENDIUM_ACTIVE_ENG.pdf, ICCAT. ICCAT, 2016a. Report of the second independent performance review of ICCAT. Special Issue. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2016b. RESOLUTION BY ICCAT ESTABLISHING AN ICCAT SCHEDULE OF ACTIONS TO IMPROVE COMPLIANCE AND COOPERATION WITH ICCAT MEASURES. ICCAT, 2017a. Report for biennial period, 2016-17 PART I (2017) - Vol. 2 Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) and its appendices. International Commision for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. ICCAT, 2017b. REPORT OF THE 2017 ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION. ICCAT, BFT STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION – Madrid, Spain 20-28 July, 2017. ICCAT, 2017c. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, Spain, 2- 6 October 2017. ICCAT, 2017d. Addendum to the detailed report of the 2017 bluefin tuna stock assessment session. Updates to bluefin tuna stock assessment models adopted during the 2017 bluefin tuna species group meeting. ICCAT, BFT STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION - SCRS 2017/188. ICCAT, 2017e. REPORT OF THE 2017 ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA DATA PREPARATORY MEETING. ICCAT, BFT STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION – Madrid, Spain 6-11 March, 2017. ICCAT, 2017f. ICCAT GBYP Steering Committee Meeting – Phase 7 07-08 March 2017 REPORT. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2017g. Report of the Inter-sessional meeting of Panel 2, Madrid 2-3 March 2016. Japan national report: 37-39. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2017h. REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE AD HOC WORKING GROUP ON FOLLOW UP OF THE SECOND ICCAT PERFORMANCE REVIEW (Madrid 27-28 June 2017). ICCAT, 2017i. 17-07 RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION 14-04 ON BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC AND MEDITERRANEAN. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, Madrid. 3288R06C 98 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) ICCAT, 2017j. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the follow up of the 2nd ICCAT Performance Review, Madrid 27-28 June 2017. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2018a. REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND STATISTICS (SCRS). INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS, Madrid, Spain, 2 to 6 October 2017. ICCAT, 2018b. REPORT OF THE 2018 ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA SPECIES GROUP MSE INTERSESSIONAL MEETING. BFT MSE INTERSESSIONAL MEETING – MADRID, 16-20 April 2018. ICCAT, 2018c. GBYP Steering Committee Meeting Madrid, 18‐19 April 2018. ICCAT. ICCAT, 2018d. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ESTABLISHING A MULTI-ANNUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC AND THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA 2018-02, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNA. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2018-02-e.pdf. ICCAT, 2018e. REPORT OF THE FOURTH MEETING OF THE STANDING WORKING GROUP TO ENHANCE DIALOGUE BETWEEN FISHERIES SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS (SWGSM) (Funchal, Portugal, 21-23 May 2018). ICCAT, 2018f. SECRETARIAT’S REPORT TO THE ICCAT CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE Doc. No. COC-303/2018. ICCAT, 2018g. Compendium Management Recommendations and Resolutions adopted by ICCAT for the Conservation of tunas and tuna-like species, PLE-102/2018 , 388p. ICCAT, 2018h. Report of the Inter-sessional Meeting of Panel 2, 5-7 March 2018, Madrid, Spain, 115pp. From https://iccat.int/com2018/ENG/PA2_603_ENG.pdf. ICCAT, 2019a. REPORT OF THE 2019 INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA MSE TECHNICAL GROUP (Madrid, Spain – 7-9 February 2019). ICCAT BFT MSE INTERSESSIONAL MEETING – MADRID 2019. ICCAT, 2019b. REPORT OF THE 2019 SECOND INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA MSE TECHNICAL GROUP. ICCAT, SECOND BLUEFIN TUNA MSE TECHNICAL MEETING – ST. ANDREWS 2019, Canada, 23-27 July 2019. ICCAT, 2019c. REPORT OF THE 2019 THIRD INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA MSE TECHNICAL GROUP (Madrid, Spain, 19-21 September 2019). ICCAT, THIRD BLUEFIN TUNA MSE TECHNICAL MEETING – MADRID. ICCAT, 2019d. REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND STATISTICS (SCRS). ICCAT, (Madrid, Spain, 30 September to 4 October 2019). ICCAT, n.d. ICCAT Manual. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna. In: ICCAT Publications [on-line]. Updated 2016. https://www.iccat.int/en/iccatmanual.html#. ICCAT-SCRS, 2015. REPORT OF THE 2015 ICCAT BLUE SHARK STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION (Oceanário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal - July 27 to 31, 2015). ICCAT-SCRS. ICCAT-SCRS, 2016. REPORT OF THE 2016 MEDITERRANEAN SWORDFISH STOCK ASSESSMENT MEETING. ICCAT-SCRS. 3288R06C 99 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) ICCAT-SCRS, 2017. REPORT OF THE 2017 ICCAT ALBACORE SPECIES GROUP INTERSESSIONAL MEETING (INCLUDING ASSESSMENT OF MEDITERRANEAN ALBACORE) (Madrid, Spain 5-9 June, 2017). ICCAT-SCRS. ICCAT-SCRS, 2019. REPORT OF THE 2019 ICCAT INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE SWORDFISH SPECIES GROUP (Madrid, Spain, 25-28 February 2019), Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 76(3): 1-52 (2019). ICCAT-SCRS. ICES, 2018. Mackerel (Scomber scombrus) in subareas 1–8 and 14, and in Division 9.a (the Northeast Atlantic and adjacent waters). ICES Advice on fishing opportunities, catch, and effort - Ecoregions in the Northeast Atlantic and Arctic Ocean. Published 28 September 2018. Version 2: 24 October2018; Version 3: 25 October 2018. ICES. Kasparek, M., Godley, B.J., Broderick, A.C., 2001. Nesting of the green turtle, Chelonia mydas, in the Mediterranean: a review of status and conservation needs. Zoology in the Middle East 24, 45–74. Kell, L., Kimoto, A., Kitakado, T., 2016. Evaluation of the prediction skill of stock assessment using hindcasting. Fisheries Research 183, 119-127. Lauretta, M., 2017. A brief review of Atlantic bluefin natural mortality assumptions SCRS/2017/083. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS. Leone, A., Urso, I., Damalas, D., Martinsohn, J., Zanzi, A., Mariani, S., Sperone, E., Micarelli, P., Garibaldi, F., Megalofonou, P., others, 2017. Genetic differentiation and phylogeography of Mediterranean-North Eastern Atlantic blue shark (Prionace glauca, L. 1758) using mitochondrial DNA: panmixia or complex stock structure? PeerJ 5, e4112. Longo, S.B., Clausen, R., Clark, B., 2015. The tragedy of the commodity: Oceans, fisheries, and aquaculture. Rutgers University Press. López, D.M., Barcelona, S.G., Báez, J.C., Serna, J.M. De la, Urbina, J.M.O. de, 2012. Marine mammal bycatch in Spanish Mediterranean large pelagic longline fisheries, with a focus on Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus). Aquatic Living Resources 25, 321–331. Macfadyen, G., Huntington, T., Cappel, R., 2009. Abandoned, lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. UNEP Regional Seas Reports and Studies No. 185. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 523. UNEP/FAO. Mart횤nez, C., Roscales, J.L., Sanz-Aguilar, A., González-Sol횤s, J., 2019. Inferring the wintering distribution of the mediterranean populations of european storm-petrels hydrobates pelagicus melitensis from stable isotope analysis and observational field data. Ardeola 66, 13–32. Medley, P.A.H., Gascoigne, J., Akroyd, J., 2019. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 6). ISSF Technical Report 2019- 02. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Medley, P.A.H., Gascoigne, J., Akroyd, J., 2020. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 7). ISSF Technical Report 2020- 09. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Meier, R.E., Wynn, R.B., Votier, S.C., Grivé, M.M., Rodr횤guez, A., Maurice, L., Van Loon, E.E., Jones, A.R., Suberg, L., Arcos, J.M., others, 2015. Consistent foraging areas and commuting corridors of the critically endangered Balearic shearwater Puffinus mauretanicus in the northwestern Mediterranean. Biological Conservation 190, 87–97. 3288R06C 100 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Morse, M., Cadrin, S., Kerr, L., Secor, D., Siskey, M., Arrizabalaga, H., Hanke, A., Porch, C., 2017. AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF BLUEFIN TUNA STOCK MIXING. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS, SCRS/2017/190. MRAG, 2016. Second Review of the Atlantic-wide research programme for bluefin tuna (ICCAT GBYP PHASE 6-2016), 94p. https://www.iccat.int/GBYP/Docs/GBYP_Second_Review_2016.pdf. MSC, 2014. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance, Version 2.0, 1st October, 2014. Marine Stewardship Council. Natale, A.D., Tensek, S., García, A.P., 2018. The disappearance of young-of-the-year bluefin tuna from the Mediterranean coast in 2016: is it an effect of climate change? Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 74(6), 2850-2860. Neer, J.A., 2008. The biology and ecology of the pelagic stingray, Pteroplatytrygon violacea (Bonaparte, 1832). Blackwell Publishing: Oxford. Ortiz, M., 2018. Estimation of size at catch and potential growth of farmed bluefin tuna from farm harvest database, 2014-16. Collect. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 74(6), 2670-2685. Péron, C., Grémillet, D., 2013. Tracking through life stages: adult, immature and juvenile autumn migration in a long-lived seabird. PLoS One 8, e72713. Péron, C., Grémillet, D., Culioli, J.-M., Faggio, G., Gillet, P., Mante, A., Vidal, P., 2012. Exploring marine habitats of two shearwater species breeding on French Mediterranean islands. ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION OF MEDITERRANEAN SEABIRDS 19. Péron, C., Grémillet, D., Prudor, A., Pettex, E., Saraux, C., Soriano-Redondo, A., Authier, M., Fort, J., 2013. Importance of coastal Marine Protected Areas for the conservation of pelagic seabirds: The case of Vulnerable yelkouan shearwaters in the Mediterranean Sea. Biological conservation 168, 210–221. Petrenko, A., Leredde, Y., Marsaleix, P., 2005. Circulation in a stratified and wind-forced Gulf of Lions, NW Mediterranean Sea: in situ and modeling data. Continental Shelf Research 25, 7–27. Pew, 2018. The Charitable Trusts’ Statement to the Compliance Committee of the 21st Special Meeting of ICCAT, November 2018. COC_320/2018, 13pp. Poisson, F., Métral, L., Brisset, B., Wendling, B., Cornella, D., Segorb, C., Marchand, M., Cuvilliers, P., Guilbert, G. and others. 2016. Rapport de fin de projet. Projet SELPAL.125p. AMOP. Poisson, F., Wendling, B., Cornella, D., C., S., 2015. Guide de bonnes pratiques pour réduire la mortalité des espèces sensibles capturées accidentellement par les palangriers pélagiques français en Méditerranée. Projets SELPAL et RéPAST. 60 pages. Porch, C., Hanke, A., 2017. Estimating the fraction of western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawn by age from size frequency data collected on the Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds SCRS/2017/164. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS. Rademeyer, R.A., Butterworth, D.S., 2018. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN F0.1 AND FMSY VALUES FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC BLUEFIN ASSESSMENT AND ITS DEPENDENCE ON THE BEVERTON-HOLT STOCK RECRUITMENT STEEPNESS PARAMETER h. SCRS/2017/227. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 74, 3560–3564. 3288R06C 101 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Richardson, D.E., Marancik, K.E., Guyon, J.R., Lutcavage, M.E., Galuardi, B., Lam, C.H., Walsh, H.J., Wildes, S., Yates, D.A., Hare, J.A., 2016. Discovery of a spawning ground reveals diverse migration strategies in Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113, 3299–3304. Rigby, C.L., Barreto, R., Carlson, J., Fernando, D., Fordham, S., Francis, M.P., Herman, K., Jabado, R.W., Liu, K.M., Marshall, A., Pacoureau, N., Romanov, E., Sherley, R.B., Winker, H., 2019. Prionace glauca. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2019: e.T39381A2915850. https://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2019-3.RLTS.T39381A2915850.en. Downloaded on 17 August 2020. IUCN. Rooker, J.R., Arrizabalaga, H., Fraile, I., Secor, D.H., Dettman, D.L., Abid, N., Addis, P., Deguara, S., Karakulak, S., Kimoto, A., Sakai, O., Macías, D., Santos, M.N., 2014. Crossing the line: migratory and homing behaviors of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 504, 265–276. Rotger, A., Sola, A., Tavecchia, G., Sanz-Aguilar, A., 2020. Foraging Far from Home: Gps-Tracking of Mediterranean Storm-Petrels Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis Reveals Long-Distance Foraging Movements. Ardeola 68, 3–16. Rouyer, T., Miller, S., 2018. Updating fishing capacity estimates for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean sea. SCRS/2018/130. SATHOAN, 2019. Bilan - Plan de Production et de Commercialisation 2016, 2017 and 2018. (Production and Marketing Plan) Annual reports submitted to the DPMA and European Commission under obligations set out by Article 28 du Règlement 1379/2013 du 11/12/2013 Portant Organisation Commune des Marchés (OCM) des produits de la pêche et de l’aquaculture. Consulted in confidence. Sieben, C., Gascoigne, J., Watt, P., 2019. Public Certification Report SZLC CSFC & FZLC FSM EEZ Longline Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna Fishery (Bigeye UoA). Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Spencer, J., Maguire, J.J., Molenar, E., 2016. Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT., Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Other/02nd_PERFORMANCE_REVIEW_TRI.pdf. SPLMR, 2017. Thon rouge: Les pecheurs petits metiers saisissent le conseil d’état. STECF, 2017. Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) – Mediterranean Stock Assessments 2017 part I (STECF-17-15). Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2017, ISBN 978-92-79-67487-7, doi:10.2760/897559, JRC109350. STECF. Tomás, J., Gozalbes, P., Raga, J.A., Godley, B.J., 2008. Bycatch of loggerhead sea turtles: insights from 14 years of stranding data. Endangered Species Research 5, 161–169. UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2006. Proceedings of the first symposium on the mediterranean actionplan for the conservation of marine and coastal birds. Aransay N. edit., Vilanova i la Geltrú, (Spain), 17- 19November 2005, RAC/SPA pub. Tunis : 103p 37. UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2013. Seabirds in the Gulf of Lions Shelf and Slope Area. By Carboneras, C. Ed. RAC/SPA, Tunis. 26pp. United Nations Environment Programme - Mediterranean Action Plan - Regional Activity Centre For Specially Protected Areas. Urbina, J.O. de, Saber, S., Garc횤a, S., Rioja, P., Gómez-Vives, M., Godoy, D., Meléndez, M., Puerto, M., Mac횤as, D., 2019. STANDARDIZED CATCH RATES FOR MEDITERRANEAN SWORDFISH (XIPHIAS 3288R06C 102 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) GLADIUS LINNAEUS, 1758) FROM THE SPANISH LONGLINE FISHERY. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 76, 53–64. Van Beveren, E., Fromentin, J.-M., Bonhommeau, S., Nieblas, A.-E., Metral, L., Brisset, B., Jusup, M., Bauer, R.K., Brosset, P., Saraux, C., 2017. Prey predator interactions in the face of management regulations: changes in Mediterranean small pelagics are not due to increased tuna predation. Ver횤ssimo, A., Sampaio, Í., McDowell, J.R., Alexandrino, P., Mucientes, G., Queiroz, N., Silva, C. da, Jones, C.S., Noble, L.R., 2017. World without borders—genetic population structure of a highly migratory marine predator, the blue shark (Prionace glauca). Ecology and Evolution 7, 4768– 4781. Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D., Bolten, A.B., Chaloupka, M.Y., Hutchinson, B.J., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., Mortimer, J.A., Seminoff, J.A., Amorocho, D., Bjorndal, Karen, A., others, 2011. Global conservation priorities for marine turtles. PloS one 6, e24510. Wallace, B.P., DiMatteo, A.D., Hurley, B.J., Finkbeiner, E.M., Bolten, A.B., Chaloupka, M.Y., Hutchinson, B.J., Abreu-Grobois, F.A., Amorocho, D., Bjorndal, K.A., others, 2010. Regional management units for marine turtles: a novel framework for prioritizing conservation and research across multiple scales. PloS one 5, e15465. Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., DiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, Larry, B., Lewison, R.L., 2013. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4, 1–49. Walter, J., Porch, C., Lauretta, M., Cass-Calay, S., Brown, C., 2016. Implications of alternative spawning for bluefin tuna remain unclear. PNAS 113 (30) E4259-E4260. WCPFC, 2018. Fourteenth Regular Session of the Scientific Committee, Busan, South Korea, 8–16 August 2018. OUTCOMES DOCUMENT (Version 2). WCPFC. Wendling, B., Poisson, F., Cuvillier, O., Marchand, M., 2018. Developing innovative and participatory strategies for the sustainable exploitation of French Bluefin tuna fisheries. Presentation made to the Fish Forum (FAO) https://gfcm.sharepoint.com. Werner, T.B., Northridge, S., Press, K.M., Young, N., 2015. Mitigating bycatch and depredation of marine mammals in longline fisheries. ICES Journal of Marine Science 72, 1576–1586. WWF, 2018. Position paper presented at the 21st Special Meeting in Dubrovnik, Croatia, November 2018, 5pp. https://www.iccat.int/com2018/TRI/PLE_120.pdf. 3288R06C 103 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Appendices 3288R06C 104 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales Appendix 1.1 Principle 1 Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Stock status relative to recruitment impairment Guidep It is likely that the stock is above the point It is highly likely that the stock is above the There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is ost where recruitment would be impaired (PRI). PRI. above the PRI. Met? Y Y N Justific Definitions: ation MSC defines a default level for the PRI at 0.5BMSY or 20%B0 (GSA 2.2.3.1). SA2.2.1: Likely means greater than or equal to the 70th percentile; Highly likely 80th percentile, High degree of certainty 95th percentile. Scoring stock status against the different models used in the stock assessment: The stock assessment workshop used a range of different models to tackle the stock assessment of BFT-e, as described in the P1 background section. They took one model (VPA) forward as the basis for management advice but noted that the results of a second model (SS3) should be ‘taken into account’. Since the results of these two models are qualitatively different, this presents a difficultly for the assessment team in terms of how much weight should be placed on each. The assessment team noted the following points: • The stock assessment workshop selected the VPA model, noting that the SS3 was ‘not more reliable’ than the VPA ((ICCAT, 2017b), p.17); • The SS3 model was not completed at the end of the workshop (T. Rouyer, pers. comm.); the report notes that only the VPA was sufficiently advanced to provide the primary basis for management advice (ref; p. 15), although in the same paragraph the group also expresses its concern over the validity of some of the assumptions in the VPA; • Because the VPA was taken as the basis for management advice, more information is available on this model from the stock assessment report, plus amendment, the species group report and the SCRS report, compared to the others. • The key uncertainty in terms of estimating biomass and MSY reference points (see Section 3.3.3) – i.e. recruitment and the SR relationship – does not disappear with the other models, although it is mainly discussed in the context of the VPA (because more information is provided about this model). Although the SS3 model attempts to estimate B/BMSY, and provides forward projections based on a SR relationship 3288R06C 105 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) estimated within the model, inspection of the various time series of biomass vs recruitment will immediately show that this must be highly uncertain. • Management is based on the assumption that F0.1 is a suitable proxy for FMSY, which is a valid assumption in the VPA model (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2018) but not in the SS3 model (see Section 3.3.11 and note also the group’s reluctance to estimate MSY reference points). For these reasons, the assessment team (after discussion and agreement) decided that the scoring approach should be based primarily on the VPA model, but that the results of the other models (mainly the SS3 model) should be considered as part of the team’s evaluation of uncertainties in the VPA conclusions. Analysis: For this stock, F0.1 is used as a proxy for FMSY and has been tested and shown to be appropriate (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2018). Hence logically B0.1 is a proxy for BMSY. B0.1 is not estimated, but ICCAT scientists point out that fishing at or around F0.1 over the long term will result in the stock stabilizing at around B0.1 – even if a value cannot be assigned. Stock assessment projections from the base-case VPA model estimate that for low (recent) and medium (time-series average) recruitment scenarios, fishing at F0.1 results in a decline in biomass; i.e. that SB is currently above B0.1. Under the high recruitment scenario, this is not the case (but under that scenario, recruitment is not impaired by definition). (Note that in the stock assessment report, the retrospective analysis shows much of the recent increase in biomass driven by the final year of data, but this is much improved in the amended version where the final year of data shifts the whole biomass time series upwards but does not change relative trends; unfortunately a revised jack-knife analysis is not provided.) Under GSA 2.2.3 MSC require that when there is explicit use of only a target reference point (F0.1) there should be some implicit consideration of a limit reference point (LRP). For the VPA model this is considered from Figure 1 below. Empirically, the base-case VPA results show a peak in recruitment ~1990-2010, corresponding to the low in the SB time series with an increase in SB since (see Figure 18 below; it is not very clear but is the only figure showing recruitment estimates for the amended base-case model used by SCRS (ICCAT, 2017d). Taking into consideration the other stock assessment models, which were not used for providing advice, the SS3 and ACAP models show the same qualitative pattern; i.e. a recruitment maximum corresponding with a SB minimum and an increase in SB since (Figure 19). (The SCAL model shows a completely different biomass trend and estimates biomass to be higher than the other models but also increasing.) Taking this biomass low point as an implicit LRP, it is clear from the associated estimated trends in recruitment that it is above the PRI. Only the SS3 model was used to estimate stock status directly in relation to biomass reference points; projections for 2018 estimated SB at 85 % of SBMSY (see Table 5); i.e. significantly above the MSC default PRI of 50%SBMSY, although probability estimates are not provided. 3288R06C 106 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure 18. Trends in R (top) and SSB (bottom) for the original (left) and amended (right) base case VPA model. From (ICCAT, 2017d) Figure 19. Recruitment (left) and SB (right) as estimated by the four different assessment models. From (ICCAT, 2017b) Scoring: There is no clear quantitative analysis which allows us to use the probabilistic definitions of likely, highly like etc. provided by MSC. Scoring therefore needs to be based on qualitative perceptions of probability and risk. In summary: For the base-case VPA model with recent or average recruitment, biomass is estimated to be already above B0.1 (i.e. fishing at F0.1 results in a decline in biomass); only a high recruitment scenario estimates that biomass is below B0.1 (because in this case, B0.1 is higher). In other words, according to the VPA either the biomass is already above the BMSY target level (proxy) or recruitment is high. The SS3 model estimates biomass at ~85 % of SBMSY, which is above the MSC default PRI. However, both models are uncertain: the VPA assumption that catch-at-age is known is breached, while estimating MSY reference points based on a SR-relationship is very problematic. Qualitatively, both models, plus the ASAP model show a peak in recruitment corresponding to a low in biomass (which is required to drive the observed 3288R06C 107 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) rapid recovery of biomass), suggesting that recruitment cannot be driven by SB down to the minimum observed biomass level (LRP implicit proxy). Scientists working in the Mediterranean on BFT-e spawning also noted that ‘there are small fish everywhere’ (T. Rouyer, pers. comm.). The team also decided to turn the question around and evaluate if there could be a 5 % probability that the stock is below the PRI / recruitment is impaired. The team noted that the VPA estimates that recruitment is not impaired (SB at target level or recruitment high), the SS3 model says that recruitment is not impaired (SB at 85 % of SBMSY), all the models show maximum recruitment at biomass levels lower than the current levels and the perception of stakeholders is that recruitment is currently high. On this basis, the team concluded that it is not possible to argue for any significant possibility of recruitment impairment. The team concluded on this basis, that it is at least ‘highly likely’ that the stock is above the PRI and recruitment is not impaired; SG60 and SG80 are met. SG100 is not required to be considered in the overall score for PI1.1.1 as SI 1.1.1b does not reach SG80. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating around a level There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has ost consistent with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? N N Justific Neither the stock assessment group nor the SCRS considered that biomass reference points were reliable indicators of stock status, so this Scoring ation Issue is evaluated in relation to F0.1 (the agreed proxy for FMSY for the VPA model), although it is impossible to avoid drawing inferences about biomass. MSC FCR2.0 GSA 2.2.4 is used as a reference here. The stock assessment (VPA base-case model, assuming that recent (low) recruitment patterns continue) estimated that Fcurrent/F0.1 = 0.34 (0.25-0.44 ~10 % and 90 % CIs). Biomass projections for the base-case model suggest that fishing at F0.1 would imply a TAC of ~40,000 t and would result in a decline in biomass, suggesting that biomass is at or above B0.1 (although this value remains unmeasured). Although under the VPA high recruitment scenario, B is estimated to be still below B0.1, TACs in the range set in recent years all result in F ‘At least an 80 score is justified (B highly likely above the PRI and at or fluctuating around BMSY) if F is likely to have been at or below FMSY for at least two generation times (or for at least four years, if greater) … while most species require about 2 generation times to recover from the PRI to BMSY when fishing is at FMSY, when F is reduced to 80 % FMSY or 60 % FMSY, the time for recovery may be halved.’ Generation time (GT) for BFT-e, calculated using MSC’s default method (Box GSA4) is 11.2 years, based on the age-at-maturity estimate published by Corriero et al. (2005) (5 years) and the age-specific rates of natural mortality used in the last stock assessments of BFT-e published by (Lauretta, 2017), extrapolating the plus 10 age group to 35 years based on the latest longevity assumptions (ICCAT, 2017e). However, due diligence from the assessment team identified a technical difference in the calculation of GT between that presented by MSC in Box GSA 4 and the source GT equation cited by MSC in Box GSA4 (Goodyear, 1995); MSC define Ea as maturity-at-age whilst in Goodyear (1995) it is fecundity-at-age. The assessment team sought 3288R06C 108 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) clarification from MSC as to their intent and rationale for the difference in their GT calculation to that of Goodyear (1995). MSC are working on an answer to this request but one has not yet been provided. It therefore remains unclear to the assessment team for the moment as to whether the equation substitution is an error, or whether it is MSC’s intent for CABs to use this modified equation for scoring PI1.1.1b. Under the MSC method for estimating GT, a default recovery time of ~22 years (2* GT of 11.2 years) is required to satisfy GSA 2.2.4. Under the Goodyear equation, this time extends to 33.4 years (2*GT of 16.7 years). However, this default recovery time assumes a starting point of the PRI and can be halved when F is 60 %- 80 % of FMSY (GSA2.2.4, as cited above). The stock assessment report provides values and trends in F for two sets of age classes: F2.5 (ages 2-5 – younger fish) and Fplus (fish aged 10+). Both these F values have been low since ~2007-8 (Figure 9). It is, however, not clear how these values of F relate to the overall F which is used to calculate F0.1. To clarify this, the assessment team sought additional information from the ICCAT stock assessment group. BFT-e reference points are calculated using Pro2Box which calculates the reference points using an apical F, i.e. the F of the age where selectivity at age is maximum (i.e. the age-class most subject to fishing mortality). So the age at which F is calculated varies depending on the overall selectivity of each year class. Recruiting year classes considered to be uncertain can be removed from the projections and reference point calculations and replaced with a recent average (L. Kell pers. comm.). The assessment team evaluated output data files from the VPA model scenario runs. In each of the VPA scenario runs values for apical F were available in forms ‘median F’, ‘mean F’, and ‘95 % CI for F’. The assessment team took the highest scenario output for each value (median, mean etc.) as the most precautionary and plotted it by year (Figure 11). This gives an estimate of Fcurrent of 0.06 (taking the most precautionary estimate of the mean/median). (Note this is a more precautionary estimate of Fcurrent than that used to estimate F/F0.1, hence why the ratio of F/F0.1 from these estimates do not align with the values given at the bottom of this table.) Taking the estimate of F0.1 provided in the 2017 SCRS report (0.107), Figure 20 suggests on that basis that apical F has been below F0.1 since 2007 (and actually since F fell dramatically in 2007 from >0.2 to <0.1, this would be true for a wide range of absolute values of F0.1). For this time period since 2007, the estimates of Fcurrent have been below 80%F0.1 (0.086), as has the upper CI from 2009, except for 2014. The median estimates has been fluctuating around ~50%F0.1 (0.054) since 2009. This analysis suggests that the timeframe requirements for halving the default recovery time from two to one generation time is met. Based on the MSC equation, one GT is estimated at 11 years, while under the Goodyear equation one GT is estimated at 16.7 years. F has been below F0.1 for 13 years, assuming that it has remained below the F0.1 level since the end of the stock assessment time series (2017 = 11 years) until the cut- off point (PCDR) for scoring this fishery (2019 = 13 years). This seems to be a reasonable assumption since the projections provided in the stock assessment suggest a minimum probability of 92% of F 3288R06C 109 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure 20. Mean (95 % Confidence Intervals) and median apical F calculated from the maximum value of each from 26 VPA scenario runs between 1968-2017. References (Goodyear, 1995; Corriero et al., 2005; ICCAT, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2017e, 2018a; Lauretta, 2017) 3288R06C 110 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point Reference point used in scoring stock Empirical patterns in n/a n/a relative to PRI (SIa) recruitment and biomass Reference point used in scoring stock F0.1, B0.1 F0.1 = 0.107 (0.103-0.120) (median and ~10 % and F/F0.1 = 0.34 (0.25-0.44) relative to MSY (SIb) 90 % CIs, based on base case VPA with recent recruitment); B0.1 is not directly estimated OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1 3288R06C 111 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding PI 1.1.2 Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guidep A rebuilding timeframe is specified for the The shortest practicable rebuilding timeframe is ost stock that is the shorter of 20 years or 2 specified which does not exceed one generation time times its generation time. For cases for the stock. where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? Y Y Justific GSA2.3 - The CR text does not refer to “formal recovery plans”, as in some jurisdictions this terminology carries specific legislative or regulatory ation meaning. Fisheries are instead expected to have “recovery strategies”, which may or may not be binding in a statutory context. Such recovery strategies are scored in the management component of Principle 1 (particularly PI 1.2.2). Here in PI 1.1.2, the material concerns are that an appropriate rebuilding timeframe is set, and that the exploitation rate and other factors confirm that rebuilding is likely to be achieved within that timeframe. As per 1.1.1b the generation time for the BFT-e stock is estimated on a precautionary basis to be 16.7 years, based on the Goodyear equation. ICCAT adopted a rebuilding plan for eastern bluefin in 2007, amended in 2013, 2014 (Rec. 2014-04, (ICCAT, 2014)) and 2017 (Rec. 2017-07, (ICCAT, 2017i)). Rec. 2014-04 sets TACs for 2015-17, and Rec. 2017-07 sets TACs for 2018-2020. Rec. 2018-02 maintained the TACs from 2017-07 for 2019- 2020. The objective of the rebuilding plan was to rebuild the stock to BMSY with 60% probability in 15 years (i.e. by 2022). Rebuilding in 20 years as required by SG60 requires a rebuilding target date of 2027 at the latest, while rebuilding in 16.7 years (one Goodyear GT) for SG100 requires a latest possible target date of 2024. The management plan is complex, with a wide range of elements (summarized in Table 7. Comparison of the provisions of the 2017 rebuilding plan (to end 2018) and the 2018 multiannual management plan (starting 2019). From ICCAT Rec. 17-07 and 18-02., and section 31). The main measure is the TAC, which has been increased step-wise to 36,000 t, to be reached in 2020. This TAC is still somewhat below the TAC implied by F0.1 (the proxy for FMSY (Rademeyer & Butterworth 2018), SA2.3.5) under the base-case stock assessment model (see Table 5. An attempted comparison of the results of the four different stock assessment models considered during the stock assessment workshop (ICCAT, 2017b). Note: VPA low / med / high refers to the different recruitment scenarios applied to the projections under the VPA model.Table 5), reflecting the goal of the rebuilding plan (Rec. 17-07 and previous iterations) which was to achieve BMSY (measured as B0.1) with at least 60 % probability (implying a median estimate of B somewhat above B0.1). The plan also contains a series of technical measures; notably minimum size provisions and a series of seasons by gear, as well as a large quantity of provisions for reporting and inspection which are intended to ensure that the TACs and other management measures are respected (see discussion in Section 3.3.8 and PI 3.2.3). 3288R06C 112 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) In 2017, SCRS recommended based on the results of the stock assessment that the Commission move from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan; this was adopted in 2018 (Rec. 2018-02, (ICCAT, 2018d)) and started in 2019. The stated goal of Rec. 2018-02 is to maintain the biomass around B0.1, to be achieved by fishing at F0.1 (since B0.1 cannot be measured directly). F0.1 has been evaluated as a proxy for FMSY and is considered to be appropriate for the VPA stock assessment model. (This is not the case for the alternative SS3 model, for which the estimate of F0.1 is much lower than FMSY, and the estimate of MSY reference points is also not robust because of poorly supported assumptions about the SR relationship.) As noted in the rationale for 1.1.1b, the estimate of F0.1 provided in the 2017 SCRS report is 0.107. According to the VPA base case model (see Figure 41 in 1.1.1b), apical F (F on the most heavily fished year class) has been below this value since 2007. (F fell dramatically in 2007 from >0.2 to <0.1, so this statement is true for a wide range of estimates of F0.1.) The median estimate of F has in fact been fluctuating around ~50%F0.1 (0.054) since 2009, and the upper 5% CI has also been below F0.1 from 2009, except for 2014. In other words, F has been estimated at around half of the level which would result in equilibrium biomass at the target level (BMSY proxy) for a decade, and below this level with ~95% probability over the same timeframe. The rebuilding plan has therefore achieved a massive reduction in exploitation rate, consistent with what would be required to rebuild the stock. Despite uncertainties in the stock assessment, the SCRS concluded in 2017 than on balance of probabilities rebuilding was complete and ICCAT should move to a multi-annual plan, although increases in the TAC are still being implemented in a stepwise, precautionary manner. The stock assessment (ICCAT, 2017b, 2017d) gives VPA projections under low (recent), medium and high recruitment scenarios in terms of F. Under the low recruitment scenario, a constant TAC of 36,000 t or less (2018-2022) maintains the probability of F b Rebuilding evaluation Guidep Monitoring is in place to determine There is evidence that the rebuilding There is strong evidence that the rebuilding strategies ost whether the rebuilding strategies are strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is likely are rebuilding stocks, or it is highly likely based on effective in rebuilding the stock within the based on simulation modelling, exploitation simulation modelling, exploitation rates or previous specified timeframe. rates or previous performance that they will performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock be able to rebuild the stock within the within the specified timeframe. specified timeframe. Met? Y Y Y 3288R06C 113 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Justific Relevant requirements and guidance: ation SA2.3.4: In Scoring Issue (b), where fishing mortality rate is available for the UoA: SA2.3.4.1 Current F shall be “likely” to be less than FMSY to justify an 80 score; and SA2.3.4.2 Current F shall be “highly likely” to be less than FMSY to justify a 100 score. SA2.3.4.3 A UoA need not meet the above requirements if there is alternative clear evidence that the stocks are rebuilding GSA2.3.4: Teams should note the requirement to explicitly consider levels of fishing mortality rate in this PI, where this information is available (SA2.3.4). (critical guidance): The MSC’s expectation of rebuilding is that for most stocks, scores of 80 or 100 will require fishing mortality to be lower than FMSY, as described in SA2.3.4.1 and 2.3.4.2. The alternative allowance in SA2.3.4.3 would apply only in exceptional circumstances where there is real demonstrated recovery in the stock even though F is not less than FMSY. This may still occur in some years, for example, in HCRs where F is specifically used as a target rather than a limit, as described in the examples in Box GSA3. It may also be temporarily acceptable following a series of recent high levels of recruitment due to good environmental conditions. In such cases, the “alternative clear evidence that the stocks are rebuilding” should include that the stock has increased in at least the last two years (or other period as used in the assessment of the fishery). Evidence of only one year/period of growth should not be accepted as sufficient evidence in these cases. The scoring rationale in these cases should thus include some understanding of why the stock is rebuilding even though F is higher than FMSY. Teams should give particular consideration to the level of fishing mortality in cases where environmental variability appears to be affecting the ability of the stock to recover. SA2.3.5: In UoAs that use assessments and reference points that are regarded as proxies of FMSY and/or BMSY, teams shall take account in their scoring of any differences between the proxy reference levels and MSY levels and shall provide justification that the assigned Scoring Guidepost (SG) level is met Rationale: For this stock, F0.1 is used as a proxy for FMSY and has been tested and shown to be appropriate (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2018). As noted in the rationale for 1.1.1b and 1.1.2a, the median estimate of F has been fluctuating around ~50%F0.1 (proxy for FMSY) since 2009, and the upper CI has also been below F0.1 from 2009 (implying a 95 % probability that the estimate of F is below F0.1, within the model), except for 2014. This means that F has been below the FMSY proxy with >80 % probability (‘highly likely’ – see FCR2.0 Table SA9) for the last 10 years. According to SA2.3.4.2, this is consistent with SG100 being met. Stock assessment projections are available from the VPA model to 2022 (the specified endpoint of the rebuilding plan – see 1.1.2a). As already emphasized, it is preferable to consider F rather than B where possible, because the stock assessment group were clear that estimates of biomass reference points are not robust. Table 29 gives the % probabilities that F 3288R06C 114 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Table 29. Probability that F will be below F0.1 in 2022 for a given level of TAC and recruitment, based on the VPA stock assessment model (see 2017 stock assessment report, Table 10). (Scenario of 35,000 t TAC is closest to current TAC of 36,000 t.) Model / recruitment scenario Probability that F2022 < F0.1 for this level of TAC 30,000 t 35,000 t 40,000 t 45,000 t 50,000 t VPA low (recent) recruitment 93% 71% 36% 15% 7% VPA medium (average) recruitment 100% 97% 91% 73% 49% VPA high (1990s) recruitment 100% 100% 100% 97% 91% Scoring: It is clear that monitoring is in place suitable to determine whether the rebuilding strategies are effectively rebuilding the stock within the specified timeframe – F mortality rate is monitored and there is a periodic stock assessment, most recently in 2017, supported by a wide range of information as summarised in Section 3.3.10. This includes the bluefin tuna Catch Documentation Scheme; the Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna (GBYP); nine abundance indices; age and growth studies and tagging programs. SG60 is met. There is evidence from both estimates of recent exploitation rate (F) and simulation modelling (short-term projections) that the stock either has rebuilt or will rebuild in the specified timeframe of 15 years (to 2022). SG80 is met. The exploitation rate is below F0.1 (a suitable proxy for FMSY) with a probability of >80 % (‘highly likely’), providing ‘strong evidence’ according to SA2.3.4.2. Simulation modelling to 2022 also suggests that F will remain at or below F0.1 through 2022 at the current level of TAC (36,000 t), even under a low recruitment scenario (Table 29). SG100 is met. Rec. 2014-04 Rec. 2017-07 Rec. 2018-02 References (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2018) (ICCAT, 2017b, 2017d) MSC (2014). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 115 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 Guidep The harvest strategy is expected to The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of ost achieve stock management objectives stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work the stock and is designed to achieve stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. together towards achieving stock management management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y Y Justific MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may ation include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE’ (MSC – MSCI Vocabulary v1.1). ICCAT have recently moved from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan, which came into force in 2019 (Rec. 2018-02). The stated goal of Rec. 2018-02 is to maintain the biomass around B0.1, to be achieved by fishing at F0.1 (since B0.1 cannot be measured directly). B0.1 is considered to be a reasonable proxy for BMSY. The plan is complex, with a wide range of elements (summarised in Section 3.3.8). The main measure is the TAC, which has been increased step-wise to 36,000 t, which will be reached in 2020. This TAC is still somewhat below the TAC implied by F0.1 under the base-case stock assessment model (see Table 6), reflecting the goal of the rebuilding plan (Rec. 17-07 and previous iterations) which was to achieve BMSY (B0.1) with at least 60% probability (implying a median estimate of B somewhat above B0.1). The plan also contains a series of technical measures; notably minimum size provisions and a series of seasons by gear, as well as a large quantity of provisions for reporting and inspection which are intended to ensure that the TACs and other management measures are respected (see discussion in Section 3.3.8 and PI 3.2.3). Unlike the previous rebuilding plan, the management plan does not include a specific provision allowing ICCAT to suspend the fishery from one year to the next. It does, however, include various provisions for modification of the plan based on new information: e.g. paragraph 1 allows for the plan to be modified based on the outcome of the MSE (currently underway; see Section 3.3.10), while paragraph 114 (Safeguards) allows SCRS to propose adjustments to the TAC if stock assessment suggests that the plan is not achieving its objective and paragraphs 115-116 (Review clause) allow for i) annual review by Panel 2 and ii) review of the plan in 2020. The intent was that by 2020 the MSE process would be finalised, but it seems that this is not likely (see Section 3.3.9; ICCAT-SCRS, 2019, (ICCAT, 2019d), the bluefin MSE group have proposed that Panel 2 instead prepare a bluefin stock assessment in 2020 following the current methodology. On this basis, the harvest strategy can be said to be responsive to the state of the stock. The plan has been designed as a whole rather than put in place piecemeal and is the results of lessons learned over several years of rebuilding plans (since Rec. 2013-07). It includes the full range of elements in the MSC definition of a harvest strategy (i.e. monitoring, stock assessment, a harvest control rule and management actions), as well as implementation and enforcement provisions; but not yet an MSE, which is still in development. On this basis, SG80 and SG100 are met. 3288R06C 116 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) b Harvest strategy evaluation Guidep The harvest strategy is likely to work The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested The performance of the harvest strategy has been ost based on prior experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. fully evaluated and evidence exists to show that argument. it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justific The stock assessment base case model, with stock projections under different scenarios (see Sections 3.3.6 and 3.3.7) provide evidence that the ation strategy is achieving its objectives, with F likely to be c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidep Monitoring is in place that is expected to ost determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justific Monitoring and data collection (in general and of the UoA) is described in Section 3.3.10. This includes the CPC Bluefin Catch Document (BCD) scheme ation (the UoA uses the electronic version) and the GBYP programme for improving biology information. The stock assessment is compiled from information from the following sources: • Catch data • Abundance indices • Catch at size information • Age and growth data • Stock composition data 3288R06C 117 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) • Natural mortality information • Tagging studies This comprehensive list indicates that the monitor is in place to determine if the HS is working. SG60 met d Harvest strategy review Guidep The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and ost improved as necessary. Met? Y Justific The harvest strategy (rebuilding plan / management plan) has been reviewed extensively, e.g. in 2013 (Res. 13-07); 2014 (14-04; 2017 (17-07) and ation 2018 (18-02). The management plan (18-02) is due to be reviewed again in 2020. ICCAT has a commitment to developing formal HCRs via an MSE process for all its stocks, under Rec. 15-07. Whether it has been improved is perhaps another question; the target biomass was reduced slightly from 17-07 to 18-02, and practical changes from 17-07→18-02 were mainly about reducing some of the practical requirements (seasons a bit longer, more derogations, some of the reserve quota distributed) rather than making substantive improvements. Nevertheless, an MSE process is underway, and the management plan is due for a full review in 2020, when the MSE is due to be completed. More generally, ICCAT’s approach could be summarised as subjecting the stock to incremental increases in fishing pressure with monitoring to evaluate the outcome. Given the uncertainty in the stock assessment, this seems like a reasonable empirical approach. Met. e Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning is not taking It is highly likely that shark finning is not taking There is a high degree of certainty that shark ost place. place. finning is not taking place. Met? N/a N/a N/a Justific The target species is not a shark – this scoring issue is not relevant. ation f Review of alternative measures Guidep There has been a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biannual review of the potential ost effectiveness and practicality of effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative alternative measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of related mortality of unwanted catch of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are unwanted catch of the target stock, and they are the target stock. implemented as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate. 3288R06C 118 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Met? N/a N/a N/a Justific In PIs 2.1.2 and 2.2.2, the term ‘unwanted catch’ shall be interpreted by the team as the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but ation could not avoid and did not want or chose not to use. For this fishery, approximately 20% of the quota is taken as fish in the size range 8-30 kg; i.e. below the minimum size of 30 kg / 115 cm FL. In 2018, this came to 63 t out of a total quota of 300 t for artisanal métiers. The fishery has a derogation for this under Para. 27 of Rec. 14-04 and its successors, as given below (this fishery is included in category c): 27. By derogation of paragraph 26, a minimum size for bluefin tuna of 8 kg or 75 cm fork length shall apply to the following situations in accordance with the procedures set out in Annex 1. a) Bluefin tuna caught by baitboats and trolling boats in the eastern Atlantic. b) Bluefin tuna caught in the Adriatic Sea for farming purposes. c) Bluefin tuna caught in the Mediterranean Sea by the coastal artisanal fishery for fresh fish by baitboats, longliners and handliners Annex 1 of 14-04 sets a series of conditions to be met for this derogation, i.e. that capacity should be limited, a specific authorisation system put in place, total catch should be not more than 100 t, tail tagging etc. On this basis, these fish are legally caught, and are landed. No fish are discarded or unused. This means that there is no ‘unwanted catch’ – not applicable. Rec 18-02, 17-07, 14-04, 13-07 References (ICCAT, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2018a, 2018b) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 119 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 Guidep Generally understood HCRs are in place or Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating ost available that are expected to reduce the that the exploitation rate is reduced as the at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or exploitation rate as the point of recruitment PRI is approached, are expected to keep the another more appropriate level taking into account impairment (PRI) is approached. stock fluctuating around a target level the ecological role of the stock, most of the time. consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N N Justific The HCR is based on the management objectives of Rec. 2018-02 with TACs set such that F=F0.1. The HCR exists in a written form: Rec. 18-02 the bluefin ation multi-annual management plan. There is a clear management objective (B0.1), to be achieved following the HCR (fishing at or less than F0.1). All this is clearly set out in para. 1 of 18-02. The objective and the HCR is therefore explicitly defined and agreed. In practice, however, the TACs set out in 2018-02 are most likely somewhat below this level and are therefore more conservative (see Table 6). As noted above, this is because they are the same as those already agreed under the rebuilding plan (Rec. 17-07) where the objective was more conservative (B above B0.1 with 60 % probability). In addition, it was proposed by the SCRS and agreed by the Commission that TACs should be increased step-wise rather than in large jumps. Thus, the TACs set out in 2018-02 do not in practice conform to the HCR (they are more conservative). Nevertheless, given the history of this stock, it is hard to criticize ICCAT for being cautious (in fact, criticism generally says the opposite). The HCR target reference point (F0.1) is clearly defined and should ensure that exploitation rate is maintained around B0.1 (by way of adjusting exploitation rate to maintain F at F0.1, depending, for example, on future levels of recruitment). B0.1 is considered by the SCRS to be a suitable proxy for BMSY. MSC critical guidance on generally understood vs. well-defined HCRs is as follows (GSA2.5): HCRs should be regarded as ‘well-defined’ in the sense required to achieve an 80 score when they exist in some written form that has been agreed by the management agency, ideally with stakeholders, and clearly state what actions will be taken at what specific trigger reference point levels. HCRs should be regarded as only ‘generally understood’ as required to achieve a 60 score in cases where they can be shown to have been applied in some way in the past, but have not been explicitly defined or agreed. The requirements for a generally-understood HCR at SG60 are clearly met: TACs and other management measures are agreed and applied consistent with the management objective; this has also been done in the past (see Table 6 and Table 7). There is monitoring in place (periodic stock assessments) which allows technical measures to be adjusted based on stock status in relation to objectives, following MSC’s guidance GSA 2.5. The first component 3288R06C 120 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) of the requirements for a well-defined HCR at SG80 is clearly met: it exists in a written form (2018-02) agreed by ICCAT. In relation to the second part, a large range of actions are stipulated which are consistent with management reference points; however 2018-02 is not specific on future scenarios – i.e. how should these actions be changed in the event that F>F0.1 and needs to be reduced? On that basis, it is arguable that the full requirements for a well-defined HCR are not met. There is also an issue with how the HCR operates should the PRI be approached. The HCR stipulates exploitation at F0.1. This should operate such that the stock is maintained at equilibrium biomass B0.1 as explained above. This occurs because if biomass falls below B0.1, fishing effort would have to be reduced to avoid F exceeding F0.1 (and vice versa if biomass is above B0.1, as appears to be the case currently). However, this is not the same as arguing that the exploitation rate is reduced – in fact, fishing effort is reduced to keep the exploitation rate at the same level. As is clear from the recent history of the stock (see rationale for 1.1.1a) it is highly likely that this HCR will maintain the stock far away from the PRI unless there is a catastrophic and long-lasting failure of recruitment for environmental reasons (and this argument applies to any managed fish stock). There are also elements of the harvest strategy that in practice will act to reduce the exploitation rate as biomass declines; such as the MLS (the proportion of the stock above a given size declining as stock biomass declines). There is also a clear process of review and revision of the harvest strategy and the TACs as explained above, with the MSE process also underway (if behind schedule). For these reasons, the HCR can be ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the PRI is approached’ – SG60 is met. It cannot be argued, however, that the HCR ‘ensures’ that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. SG80 is not fully met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidep The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main The HCRs take account of a wide range of ost uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? N N Justific As noted above, some of the main uncertainties have been incorporated into the HCR (i.e. via applying it to F rather than B) but some have not (e.g. ation choice of stock assessment model, future recruitment). SCRS have so far proposed (and ICCAT have agreed) to apply the HCR with circumspection; i.e. maintaining in 2018-02 the agreed TACs from 2017-07 rather than setting TACs based on F0.1 as implied by the HCR. This suggests that they are not confident that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties. Indeed, if at the next stock assessment, the Stock Synthesis model can be developed to a point where it is equally as suitable as the VPA for providing management advice (as is the case for the western stock), conclusions as to F and TACs may be somewhat different. On this basis, it is hard to argue that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties; in our view, ICCAT are wise to use it with caution. SG80 is not met. c HCRs evaluation 3288R06C 121 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidep There is some evidence that tools used or Available evidence indicates that the tools Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are ost available to implement HCRs are appropriate in use are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the exploitation levels required and effective in controlling exploitation. achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. under the HCRs. Met? Y Y N Justific The main tool to implement the HCR is TACs, which as noted above are currently at a lower level than implied by the HCR, on the basis that increases ation should be incremental. The stock assessment assumes that there are no unreported catches which may not in fact be the case (see 3.2.3), but overall monitoring, reporting and enforcement measures are strict relative to most tuna fisheries. Nevertheless, there are concerns about catches outside the TAC, notably IUU, following a recent scandal in EU fisheries. So far, the available information suggests that this was not at a level to significantly compromise the TAC (best estimates ~18% of the EU quota per year; Hosch (2019)), although it of course needs to be stopped. It is considered further in P1 under 1.2.3 below. A range of other tools are also in use; i.e. MLS, seasons and requirements on CPCs to manage capacity. The MLS provisions appear to have been successful in reducing F on juveniles enormously (an order of magnitude; see Figure 11). Fishing capacity has also clearly declined since 2008 but may now be increasing faster than estimated by SCRS (Rouyer and Miller, 2018); changes to fishing capacity must be presented in a capacity management plan to be approved by ICCAT Panel 2. Despite uncertainties in the stock assessment, the SCRS appear confident that F is likely to be below F0.1, has been since 2010 (VPA model, Figure 9) and will likely continue to be based on the current TAC regime for the next few years. Biomass can be seen to be recovering in all the stock assessment models (Figure 12). SG80 is met. SG100 requires that the evidence ‘clearly shows’ that tools are effectively achieving F0.1 or below. While this is likely, the judgement of the team is that the stock assessment remains too uncertain to make this statement definitively. Furthermore, while catches should be restrained by the TAC, clearly a faster underlying increase in capacity risks increasing political pressure for increases in the TAC above a precautionary level. SG100 is not met. (Fromentin and Kell, 2008) Res 17-07 and 18-02 References (ICCAT, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2018a) (Rouyer and Miller, 2018) (Hosch, 2019) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2 3288R06C 122 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 Guidep Some relevant information related to Sufficient relevant information related to stock A comprehensive range of information (on stock ost stock structure, stock productivity and structure, stock productivity, fleet composition structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock fleet composition is available to and other data is available to support the abundance, UoA removals and other information such support the harvest strategy. harvest strategy. as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Justific There has been significant effort to improve information and monitoring for eastern Atlantic bluefin over the last decade; both in terms of monitoring ation the fishery (the electronic catch documentation scheme) and in terms of understanding the biology, ecology and dynamics of the stock (GBYP). The requirements of the eBCD and the objectives and activities of the GBYP are described in Section 3.3.10. In relation to the types of information listed in the SGs: Stock structure: Otolith microchemistry, genetics and tagging have been used to evaluate stock structure and specifically mixing between eastern and western Atlantic stocks, although in terms of stock assessment, this is more of an issue for the western Atlantic stock which is much smaller. The stock assessment has been run based on fish origin as well as fish capture location. Details are given in Section 3.3.2. Stock productivity: Age and growth has been extensively studied; some information about recent work is given in Section 3.3.10. It remains a source of uncertainty in the assessment, as it does for most tuna stock assessments (see for example recent assessments of western Pacific bigeye and yellowfin), but particularly in this case because of the assumptions underlying a VPA, and because age cohorts are hard to distinguish above a certain size. Size composition in cages is monitored directly via stereoscopic cameras during cage transfer operations. Various options for estimating and modelling natural mortality were considered by the stock assessment during the data preparation phase. Fleet composition: Fleet composition is known; all vessels targeting bluefin must be registered with ICCAT upon submission by the EU, which delivers the AEP (European Fisheries Authorisation) provided the vessel is registered in France, has applied annually to the DIRM and is a member of a PO that vouches for its quota allocation (see section 3.5). Stock abundance: Various indices are used as proxies for stock abundance, including passive fishery indices (trap indices), fishing CPUE indices and fishery-independent indices (larval and aerial surveys); see Section 3.3.10 for a list. Removals: Catches were severely under-reported from the mid-1990s and early 2000s and have been reconstructed as described in Section 3.3.10. The eBCD system now aims to track all removals with high confidence and accuracy. Growth of farmed fish (weight in vs weight out) remains 3288R06C 123 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) problematic, although stereoscopic cameras are now used for monitoring of all transfers. As noted below, it is not fool-proof (see 3.2.3) but is better than exists in most tuna fisheries. Biology: As well as age/growth, natural mortality and genetics, other aspects of bluefin basic biology have been studied under the GBYP programme; e.g. using conventional and electronic tags to evaluate migratory routes, seasonal movements, dive behaviour and the location of feeding and spawning areas. Environmental information: Seasonal movements, spawning and (crucially) recruitment are thought to be linked to environmental cues and drivers; there has been research in this area although as for most species of fish, it is not well understood. Other: A remarkable result of the GBYP, and is extremely rare for an exploited fish species, is the study of the history of exploitation of eastern bluefin, and the development of extremely long historical time series of catches – back as far as the early 16th century. This has allowed exploration of multi-decadal trends and cycles and their possible connection with large-scale oceanographic processes such as the NAO (Faillettaz et al., 2019). On this basis, we conclude that there is a comprehensive range of information available, sufficient for the harvest strategy and including some not directly related to the harvest strategy (although nevertheless of great interest). SG100 is met. b Monitoring Guidep Stock abundance and UoA removals Stock abundance and UoA removals are All information required by the harvest control rule is ost are monitored and at least one regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and monitored with high frequency and a high degree of indicator is available and monitored coverage consistent with the harvest control certainty, and there is a good understanding of with sufficient frequency to support rule, and one or more indicators are available inherent uncertainties in the information data] and the the harvest control rule. and monitored with sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment and management to this support the harvest control rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justific Stock abundance and removals (total and UoA) are monitored as described in SIa above; as specified in the provisions of Rec. 18-02. Because of the ation eBCD system, coverage and accuracy are thought to be high, although estimates of some removals such as recreational catch may be less accurate, SG60 is met. Indicators are reviewed annually by SCRS, and there are periodic stock assessments (2014, 2017, recommended for 2020). SG80 is met. Although uncertainties for the HCR relate more to structural factors in the stock assessment (e.g. choice of assessment model), some information which would be extremely useful in applying (or choosing) the HCR is not easily available, notably recruitment. Although recruitment is monitored to some extent (e.g. via aerial surveys of spawning aggregations and larval surveys in the western Mediterranean, and from fisheries which take relatively small individuals), factors which might predict the level of recruitment (be that spawner biomass or environmental factors) are not well understood, and this is a significant source of uncertainty in the stock assessment and hence the application of the HCR. It is also not possible to estimate biomass-based reference points, requiring the HCR to be expressed in terms of F. There are also concerns about how fishing capacity is estimated and monitored; a potential future risk. SG100 is not met. c Comprehensiveness of information 3288R06C 124 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidep There is good information on all other fishery ost removals from the stock. Met? N Justific MSC guidance GSA2.6.1: The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in scoring issue (c) relates to vessels outside or not covered by the unit of ation assessment. These require good information but not necessarily to the same level of accuracy or coverage as that covered by the second scoring issue. The ICCAT requirements for recording catch information (catch documentation scheme) are summarised in Section 2.3.9.1. These apply to all fisheries targeting bluefin tuna or which have bluefin quota. There is therefore good information on these removals. There are two areas of potential concern: IUU removals and the recreational fishery. WWF-Mediterranean have been compiling information on seizures of illegal bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean (which has been the key area for IUU on BFT-e for several decades) since 2015. They record IUU landings over the last 4 years (2015-2018) ranging from 35-117 tonnes per year, from four countries – Spain, Italy, Tunisia and Algeria. 117 t of bluefin represents 0.4% of the TAC for 2018. It is likely that the real quantity of IUU landings is much higher than the quantity seized. If we assume that 10% of IUU landings are seized and recorded by WWF, this means that Mediterranean IUU would account for ~4% of the TAC. (This is, however, just an order of magnitude estimate.) The team were given an overall estimate of 2500 t IUU, but neither the source nor the time period over which this occurred is clear, however, if over one year this would represent 9% of the (2018) TAC. The recreational fishery is likewise mainly from the Mediterranean, and mainly from EU countries. The stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT 2017j) indicates that recreational catches are quantified in the catch data, at least in the more recent parts of the time series (since 1990), although they may not be that accurate. It is reported in France that recreational catches are estimated to be minor (~1% of the quota) but this may not be the case throughout the Mediterranean. Overall, there is not clear evidence that unquantified removals are a major concern for the stock assessment; they are one of a range of uncertainties, and most likely not the most serious. However, it is not possible to say at this point that there is ‘good’ information on all removals from the stock – SG80 not met. (ICCAT, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2018a, 2018b) (Block et al., 2001; Aranda et al., 2013; Rooker et al., 2014; Richardson et al., 2016; Druon et al., 2016; Porch and Hanke, 2017; Lauretta, 2017; Morse References et al., 2017; Apostolaki et al., 2018; Rouyer and Miller, 2018; Carruthers et al., 2018; Natale et al., 2018; Ortiz, 2018; Faillettaz et al., 2019); Di Natale et al. (2017, 2018) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3 3288R06C 125 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 Guidep The assessment is appropriate for the stock and The assessment takes into account the major features ost for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y N Justific The stock assessment uses a wide range of data, as described in Section 3.3. A range of models were tried, and hence the outcome makes the best ation use of the available data. It provides the required information (F/F0.1) for the HCR, giving a range of results for different scenarios. SG80 is met. The assessment incorporates elements of the biology of the species (e.g. age/growth, M, size/age at maturity etc.). However, VPA is an unsophisticated stock assessment approach compared to that used for most tuna assessments (including for wBFT) and cannot take account of elements such as population spatial structure (although this is not guaranteed to improve the output; Carruthers and Kell, 2016). There remain issues in the biology of the species which cause considerable problems for the VPA assessment; notably the requirement for accurate catch-at-age data, as well as drivers of recruitment. SG100 is not met. b Assessment approach Guidep The assessment estimates stock status The assessment estimates stock status relative ost relative to generic reference points to reference points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the species category. stock and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justific Reference points F0.1 (and implicitly B0.1) are considered more appropriate for the stock than MSY reference points, because it is not possible to make ation a robust estimate of a SR relationship. F0.1 can be estimated and hence forms the basis of the HCR – fishing at F0.1 will result in biomass B0.1 in the long term even if this is unknown and variable (due to changes in recruitment). Given the uncertainties, this seems to be the best approach. SG80 is met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guidep The assessment identifies major The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is ost sources of uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. 3288R06C 126 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Met? Y Y N Justific The uncertainties in the assessment are highlighted by stock assessment group as well as SCRS; a Kobe plot is not provided because estimates of ation biomass reference points are not considered robust. Projections under the VPA are given under three different recruitment scenarios, and the scientists do not try to predict which is the ‘reference case’ from these three. The results of alternative models and model settings were extensively considered and discussed during the stock assessment workshop. SG80 is met. Approximate CIs are provided for some parameter estimates (e.g. F/F0.1) from the VPA reference case model, but of course this is not a true reflection of the actual level of uncertainty (i.e. considering other possible VPA settings, other models). SG100 is not met. d Evaluation of assessment Guidep The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. ost Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? N Justific The assessment is not very robust, for reasons already outline above and in PI 1.1.1. Testing with simulated data shows the potential for bias in outputs. ation Alternative approaches have been extensively tried but so far have not proved robust either. Not met. e Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock status is subject to peer The assessment has been internally and externally peer ost review. reviewed. Met? Y Y Justific It is the intent of ICCAT to provide external review as part of their initiative to provide best available science (see Resolution 2011/017). The ation assessments are conducted by a group of 30-40 scientists of many different nationalities and representing many different countries as well as formal observers (fisherman groups, NGOs). Qualified scientists representing different interest groups are often included within a member state's scientific delegation, as are scientists hired as external reviewers by the member state. Additionally, the ICCAT-SCRS has a system of bringing on external reviewers for key issues on the SCRS agenda including BFT. Also, BFT-e status has been reviewed through CITES criteria with FAO expert working groups. Finally, BFT assessments have had a history of journal-peer review articles addressing aspects of the assessment. The degree of "peer" review of Atlantic BFT surpasses most assessments. SG80 and SG100 are met. (ICCAT, 2017b, 2017c, 2017d, 2018a) References (Fromentin et al., 2014; Carruthers and Kell, 2016; Kell et al., 2016; Collette, 2018) 3288R06C 127 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 128 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Appendix 1.2 Principle 2 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guidepost Main primary species are likely to be above Main primary species are highly likely to be There is a high degree of certainty that main the PRI above the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR OR fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the PRI, there is either measures in place that are expected to evidence of recovery or a demonstrably ensure that the UoA does not hinder effective strategy in place between all MSC recovery and rebuilding. UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? SWO – Y SWO – Y SWO – N BSH – Y BSH – Y BSH – N PIL – Y PIL – Y PIL – N Justification Main primary species are Mediterranean swordfish (SWO), North Atlantic blue shark (BSH) and Adriatic sardine (PIL) (see Section 3.4.2, 3.4.3 and 3.4.4 for discussion). Swordfish: The most recent stock assessment was carried out in 2016 (ICCAT-SCRS, 2016). The assessment uses an age-structured population model (XSA) and confirms that the stock is overfished and suffering overfishing and has been since the late 1980s (see Figure A). Recruitment has been declining for the last 15 years, and recent recruitments have been lower than the level expected to be available given recent levels of the spawning stock biomass (SSB). There is considerable uncertainty regarding the possible levels of future recruitment (Figure B). It is unclear whether the most recent levels are associated with a change in stock productivity, if they are an artefact of the estimation process, or if they are a random occurrence that could be reverted naturally by a series of positive recruitment anomalies (ICCAT-SCRS, 2016). Although biomass levels over the last 25 years appear to be stable at low levels, with fishing mortality levels showing a declining trend since 2010 and projections showing an upward trend in biomass under different F scenarios (see Figure B), the uncertainty associated with recruitment is high and it is not clear whether the levels of probability are sufficient to state that the stock is likely to be above the PRI. On a precautionary basis, the team therefore concluded that the first part of SG60 is not met. It should thus be demonstrated that there is either evidence of 3288R06C 129 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding (SG80 requirement). According to ICCAT (2016a), the total landings of this stock in 2017 were 8,402 tonnes (ICCAT, 2018a). Based on Table 9, which represents an overestimate of swordfish landings by the UoA as the data do not distinguish between BFT or SWO targeting SATHOAN vessels, 59.5t were landed in 2017 according to 60% of the logbook data. Roughly estimated, this would equate to 99.2t for the whole fishery. Even doubling this figure to account for discards (on which there is limited UoA information) leads to annual estimate of 200t swordfish, or 2.8% of the total ICCAT catch in 2018. In the absence of other fisheries in the MSC programme that interact with this stock, and in line with MSC Guidance GSA3.4.6 (MSC FCRv2.0), the team considered that it is highly likely that UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG80 is met. Figure A: Kobe Phase Plot, showing trajectories by XSA scenario; points represent the error in the 2015 estimates derived from a Monte Carlo simulation of the internal standard errors of the terminal N-at-age in the last year (from ICCAT-SCRS (2016)) 3288R06C 130 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure B: Projections from 0 to 2.5 times FMSY; showing catch and fishing mortality (Harvest), simulated recruitment (Rec) and spawning stock biomass (SSB); lines are medians and ribbons inter-quartiles Blue shark: ICCAT currently only considers a South Atlantic and North Atlantic stock – see Section 3.4.4.2 for a discussion on stock structure. The team considers the fishery under assessment to interact with the North Atlantic stock. The most recent assessment for this stock was carried out in 2015 (ICCAT-SCRS, 2015), using both Bayesian Surplus Production Model (BSP) and Stock Synthesis (SS3) assessment methods. Scenarios with the BSP Model estimated that the stock was not overfished (B2013/BMSY=1.50 to 1.96) and that overfishing was not occurring (F2013/FMSY=0.04 to 0.50). Estimates obtained with SS3 varied more widely, but still predicted that the stock was not overfished (SSF2013/SSFMSY=1.35 to 3.45 – SSF: spawning stock fecundity) and that overfishing was not occurring (F2013/FMSY=0.15 to 0.75). Overall, the authors of the report stressed that significant uncertainty remains and that some important data are yet to be incorporated into the assessment (e.g. tagging data and spatial fleet structure for the North Atlantic). Because of the levels of uncertainty, no quantitative projections of future stock status have been carried out. The team considered that the North Atlantic blue shark stock is highly likely to be above the PRI (SG80 is met); however, owing to the uncertainty in the stock assessment, the rather dated stock assessment (the most recent year in the assessment is 2013) and the uncertainty as to whether the Mediterranean population should be regarded as a separate stock, SG100 is not met. 3288R06C 131 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Adriatic sardine: also see Section 3.4.4.3. According to the GFCM and STECF stock assessments (GFCM, 2017; STECF, 2017), the stock is overfished with overfishing occurring. Bcurrent (161,297 t) is however at a level above Blim (125,318 t) according to the GFCM (2017) assessment. The team therefore concluded that the stock is likely above the PRI (SG60 is met); however, in the absence of more detailed information on uncertainty levels in the stock assessment, the team considered the second part of SG80 on a precautionary basis. According to Client data, the UoA uses approximately 16.7 t of this stock for bait annually. According to STECF (2017), the estimated annual catch for 2016 was 78,355 t. This fishery therefore accounts for less than 0.1% of the total catch of this stock. In the absence of any other fisheries in the MSC programme that interact with this stock, the team concluded that the UoA is highly unlikely to hinder recovery and rebuilding of the Adriatic sardine. SG80 is met. SG100 is not met because F is significantly above FMSY. Unobserved mortality of primary species is most likely to occur through ghost fishing. However, minimal gear loss is reported, and vessels deploy the longline gear with radio beacons placed at varying intervals along the mainline. These radio beacons enable the captain of the vessel to not only locate the drifting longline but also if the mainline breaks anywhere when hauling or otherwise, the captain is able to locate the separated section with the radio beacons that are placed along this section. Also, longline sets are marked and recorded on GPS so if for some reason the radio beacons are not functioning, the captain can return to the coordinates marked on the GPS, estimate the direction and speed of the current and search for the longline, probably with a 90% or more recovery rate. Therefore, the incidence of gear loss is very rare. In any case, lost pelagic longline or handline gear is only likely to continue to fish if bait remains on the hooks. Bait tends to be stripped relatively quickly off the hooks and as such, the ghost fishing mortality rate associated to lost longlines is usually low (Macfadyen et al., 2009). The team considered that unobserved mortality through ghost fishing was unlikely to be a significant factor in the fishery’s interactions with primary species. b Minor primary species stock status Guidepost For minor species that are below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? ALB – Y MAC – Y Justification Mediterranean albacore (ALB) and Northeast Atlantic mackerel (MAC) are the only minor primary species (see Section 3.4.2 and 3.4.3). Although there is considerable uncertainty associated with the ALB stock assessment, recent fishing mortality levels appear to be below FMSY, and current biomass is approximately at BMSY level (ICCAT-SCRS, 2017). Albacore is therefore not below the PRI and SG100 is met. For MAC, although F is well above FMSY, B is only just below MSY Btrigger and is still above Blim (ICES, 2018). SG100 is met. References Macfadyen et al. (2009), ICCAT-SCRS (2015, 2016), GFCM (2017) and STECF (2017), ICES (2018) Swordfish (SWO) 80 3288R06C 132 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Blue shark (BSH) 80 Adriatic sardine (PIL) 80 Minor (ALB, MAC) 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 133 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidepost There are measures in place for the UoA, if There is a partial strategy in place for the There is a strategy in place for the UoA for necessary, that are expected to maintain or UoA, if necessary, that is expected to managing main and minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the species at/to levels which are likely to above main primary species at/to levels which are the point where recruitment would be highly likely to be above the point where impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? SWO – Y SWO – Y SWO – Y BSH – Y BSH – Y BSH – Y PIL – Y PIL – Y PIL – N Minor – Y (default) Minor – Y (default) Minor (ALB) – Y Minor (MAC) – N Justification The relevant MSC definitions are as follows (from FCRv2.0): “Measures” are actions or tools in place that either explicitly manage impacts on the component or indirectly contribute to management of the component under assessment having been designed to manage impacts elsewhere. A “partial strategy” represents a cohesive arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and an awareness of the need to change the measures should they cease to be effective. It may not have been designed to manage the impact on that component specifically. A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. Swordfish: A 15-year recovery plan is in place (ICCAT Rec. 16-05) starting in 2017 and continuing through to 2031, with the goal of achieving BMSY with at least 60% probability. Further detail is provided in Section 3.4.4.1, but in summary the plan relies on a TAC of 10,500 t for 2017 which should be gradually reduced by 3% each year from 2018 to 2022, as well as limits on the number of vessels authorised to fish for Mediterranean swordfish, closed fishing seasons (for the longline fishery: from 1 October to 30 November), an obligation to land swordfish 3288R06C 134 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) whole, a minimum landing size and gear restrictions for longlines. Rec. 03-04 also prohibits the use of drift-nets targeting large pelagic s in the Mediterranean. A new stock assessment is due to be completed by the SCRS in 2019, at which point the effectiveness of the Recovery plan will be assessed and advice will be provided on possible amendments of the various measures. Furthermore, for swordfish, France has put in place the current Arrêté du 26 mars 2020 définissant les mesures de contrôle de la pêcherie de l’espadon (Xiphias gladius) dans le cadre du plan pluriannuel de rétablissement du stock d’espadon dans la Méditerranée and is one of the only EU countries to require all swordfish landed to carry a tag with unique reference number (as for bluefin) whether targeted or bycatch, and this has been incorporated into the OP’s management system for monitoring swordfish landings. The team concluded that these measures together meet the MSC definition of a strategy. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Blue shark: Catches of the North Atlantic blue shark are subject to ICCAT Recommendation 16-12, which sets a catch limit corresponding to the average level observed during the period 2011-2015 (i.e. 39,102 t) and which was adopted as a TAC under EU legislation (EU, 2018a). If this limit is exceeded in any two consecutive years, ICCAT shall review the implementation and effectiveness of these measures. Based on the review and the results of the next stock assessment scheduled for 2021 or at an earlier stage if enough information is provided to SCRS, the Commission shall consider introduction of additional measures. At UoA level, the fishery has implemented a non-retention policy and implementation of best-practice handling and release techniques (all part of the TRL-PA label). Compliance with the ICCAT catch limit is ascertained through the non-retention policy, which in turn is verified through the combination of logbook and observer data and the wider MCS system which closely monitors all landings by these vessels. Overall, the team decided that this constitutes a strategy. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. Sardine and mackerel: As set out in PI 2.1.1(a) and Table 11, the amount of bait used by this fishery is small in comparison to the total landings and biomass for the source stocks. This constitutes a partial strategy to ensure that the fishery has no impact on the stock. It does not, however, meet MSC’s definition of a strategy as given above, so SG100 is not met. Albacore: since minor species intervene at SG100 only, SG60 and 80 are met by default. For Mediterranean albacore, Rec. 17-05 aims to prevent an increase in fishing effort and to maintain catches below MSY until the SCRS can deliver more specific advice. Each CPC is therefore required to limit the number of their fishing vessels authorised to fish for Mediterranean albacore to the number of vessels that were authorized in 2017 under article 28 of Recommendation 16-05. CPCs may apply a tolerance of 10% to this capacity limit. There is also a closed season between 1 October to 30 November inclusive, as long as the closure period defined in paragraph 12 of ICCAT Recommendation 16-05 remains in force. The next stock assessment is due in 2021, providing an opportunity to review the stock status and the effectiveness of these management measures. The team considered that this is a strategy and that SG100 is met for this stock. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g., general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on experience, theory or comparison with based on some information directly about information directly about the fishery and/or similar fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species involved. species involved. Met? SWO – Y SWO – Y SWO – N 3288R06C 135 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) BSH – Y BSH – Y BSH – N PIL – Y PIL – Y PIL – N Minor – Y (default) Minor – Y (default) Minor – N Justification Swordfish: projections were carried out as part of the 2016 stock assessment (ICCAT-SCRS, 2016) under several F scenarios from FMSY to 2.5FMSY (see Figure B in 2.1.1a). Although the projections provide some objective basis for confidence that the stock will in time rebuild to BMSY, the rate of recovery will depend on possible levels of future recruitment which are at present highly uncertain. According to ICCAT-SCRS (2016), there are three possible scenarios: 1) If recruitment can naturally come back to the levels of recruitment observed in the 1980s and 1990s, then the stock is severely overfished and will require long recovery times (ca. until 2040) before it reaches again BMSY (this scenario is the one assumed for the projections in the stock assessment report). 2) If the tendency of recruitment is an artefact of the estimation process (such as severe underestimation of small fish killed by the fishery (because of discarding), then current recruitment may be underestimated. The stock could recover to the level of BMSY faster than in case a, if undersized fish mortality is reduced. 3) If recruitment has changed because of a regime shift or changes in ecological conditions, then current stock productivity may be lower than in the 1990s and current reference points do not represent current stock conditions. Furthermore, one of the measures included in the rebuilding plan is a minimum size: In order to protect small swordfish, CPCs shall take the necessary measures to prohibit catching, retaining on board, landing, transporting, storing, selling, displaying or offering for sale Mediterranean swordfish measuring less than 100 cm LJFL or, in alternative, weighing less than 11,4 kg of round weight or 10,2 kg of gilled and gutted weight (ICCAT Rec. 16-05). A recent peer-reviewed paper presented at ICCAT SCRS 2019 on reproductive biology of swordfish in the Strait of Gibraltar found that female swordfish attained larger sizes than males and mature at a larger size, at 170 cm, as opposed to 95 cm LJFL for males (noting that the reproductive characteristics of swordfish caught in the Strait of Gibraltar are similar to those of the Mediterranean) (see ICCAT-SCRS (2019) and Abid et al. (2019)). With a minimum landing size at 100 cm LJFL, there is therefore a real risk that immature individuals are being landed by the UoA. At the scale of the UoA (i.e. the SWO catch accounts for 2.8% of the total SWO catch for that stock), the fact that some of these catches may be juveniles will not have any effect on the recoverability of the stock. This provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, at least at UoA level. SG80 is met. The level of uncertainty in the projections is, however, too significant for SG100 to be met. The team did raise a recommendation in relation to the minimum size and the likelihood of juvenile catches by the UoA (see Section 6.4) Blue shark: No projections were carried out as part of the ICCAT-SCRS (2015) stock assessment. However, the UoA’s non-retention policy, combined with the likely high post-capture and post-release survivability of this species in the fishery under assessment (see Section 3.4.4.2 and Poisson et al. (2016)), provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG80 is met. Nevertheless, the Poisson et al. (2016) study was relatively limited in scale (only 44 blue sharks were tagged) and in the absence of formal testing at stock level, SG100 is not met. 3288R06C 136 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Bait (sardine and mackerel): the amount of bait used by this fishery being small in comparison to the total landings and biomass for the source stocks, provides an objective basis for confidence that the UoA is not having any impact on the stock. SG80 is met. Although the team had high confidence of a lack of impact, there is nothing in place that would constitute testing. SG100 is not met. For albacore, as far as the team is aware, the strategy has not been tested; improvements to the stock assessment are required for more precision, as noted in SIa. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/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? SWO – Y SWO – N BSH – Y BSH – N PIL – Y PIL – Y Minor – Y (default) Minor (ALB) – N Minor (MAC) – Y Justification Swordfish: landings of swordfish are closely monitored in the UoA, and vessels either have an authorization to target the species or catch it under a bycatch quota (limited to one specimen per day of fishing). Furthermore, the boats in the UoA are required to register all swordfish landings which are monitored in real-time by SATHOAN for quota-uptake management. Interviews with compliance officers at the DML indicate that non-compliance with swordfish regulations is not an issue in this fishery. This provides some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully and SG80 is met. However, considering the very low observer coverage in this fishery (see 2.1.3 rationale), clear evidence is lacking. SG100 is not met Blue shark: there is some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully for blue shark on the basis of the following: - Echosea App data indicates that all blue sharks were released (note not all fishermen are currently making use of this app) (information provided by client following PCDR publication) Year Number declared caught Number declared retained Number of trips Number of hooks 2018 187 0 794 693,956 2019 128 0 722 522,006 2020 237 0 428 291,468 3288R06C 137 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) - SIOP landings data for the UoA fleet show that since implementation of the non-retention policy in the course of 2018, the number of landed sharks has decreased significantly, down to 0 in 2020. (information provided by client following PCDR publication) Year Landed kg Number of trips Number of hooks 2018 658,6 794 693,956 2019 166 722 522,006 2020 0 428 291,468 The UoA’s non-retention policy is furthermore audited on a regular basis by VALPEM (i.e. the organization in charge of the TRL-PA brand). In addition, the landing of blue sharks by SATHOAN vessels in the fishery caught with bluefin tuna has to be declared to the national fisheries control Centre (CNSP) prior to arrival in a BFT registered port. The French MCS provisions regarding BFT stipulate that, when brought on board, any bluefin tuna has to be stored in a separate tank from all other species caught (France, 2019). All fish would also be controlled by the MCS authorities at auctions when sold. On the basis of the policies in place and the absence of reports or concerns from the MCS competent authorities, combined with the SIOP landings data provides some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met. However, as for swordfish above, the observer coverage is too low for SG100 to be met. The same applies for albacore (minor species) for which SG100 is also not met. The quantity of bait (sardine and mackerel) used is known, as are total landings from the source stocks. SG80 is met. The low quantities of bait used (compared to the total catches of the source stocks) constitute the partial strategy and as such there is clear evidence that it is being implemented successfully and it is achieving its objective. SG100 is met. d Shark finning Guidepost It is likely that shark finning is not taking It is highly likely that shark finning is not There is a high degree of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? SWO – N/a SWO – N/a SWO – N/a BSH – Y BSH – Y BSH – N PIL – N/a PIL – N/a PIL – N/a Minor – N/a Minor – N/a Minor – N/a Justification ICCAT recommendation 04-10 requires CPCs to take necessary measure to ensure fishers utilize entire catches of sharks and ensure that fins do not exceed 5 % of the weight of sharks. It also requires that fins are not transhipped. In addition a European regulation prohibits the 3288R06C 138 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) practice of “shark finning” and forbids any removal of fins of sharks on board vessels (EU, 2013c) by EU-registered vessels. The stricter provisions were strongly supported in France where there has never been a market for shark fins (see FR_Senat (2011)). The landing of blue sharks by SATHOAN vessels in the fishery caught with bluefin tuna has to be declared to the national fisheries control Centre (CNSP) prior to arrival in a BFT registered port. Finally, the French MCS provisions regarding BFT stipulate that, when brought on board, any bluefin tuna has to be stored in a separate tank from all other species caught (France, 2019). All fish would be controlled by the MCS authorities, and the sharks’ body integrity would also be controlled at auctions when sold. On the basis of the policies in place and the absence of reports or concerns from the MCS competent authorities, the team considers that SG60 and SG80 are met but not SG100 on the basis over the low level of at sea observer coverage. e Review of alternative measures Guidepost There is a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species. of unwanted catch of main primary species of unwanted catch of all primary species, and and they are implemented as appropriate. they are implemented, as appropriate. Met? SWO – Y SWO – Y SWO – N BSH – Y BSH – Y BSH – N PIL – N/a PIL – N/a PIL – N/a Minor – Y (default) Minor – Y (default) Minor (ALB) – N Minor (MAC) – N/a Justification Bait species (sardine and mackerel): there is no unwanted catch as all of it is purchased and used. This scoring issue is therefore not relevant. The SELPAL project (Poisson et al., 2016) was designed in such a way as to respond to the recommendations of ICCAT, GFCM and the FAO on the need to increase knowledge to ensure the conservation and management of populations of sharks/rays, marine turtles and seabirds incidentally caught by tuna longlines. To do this, collaborative actions between professional fishermen and scientists were carried out over a period of 4 years, through the recording of fishing activities, tagging operations, data analysis, in situ testing of mitigation measures and the implementation of an information tool and good practices. The SELPAL project also considered the results of the REPAST project which was aimed at quantifying the impact of the longline fishery on the pelagic stingray specifically. The SELPAL study identified a need to: - Sustain and globalize the acquisition of data on bycatch: this recommendation led to the development of the Echosea software which enables all interactions with commercial and non-commercial species to be recorded. Use of this system is now obligatory in the UoA. - Adhere to the best practice guide: The observations collected within the framework of the SELPAL projects show that the mortality rates of sharks and rays brought on board are very low; this is due to the characteristics of the gear and the fishing strategy (small straight or circular hooks, rare use of light lures, mono-filament leader, reduced number of hooks set and limited set times. It is therefore recommended to 3288R06C 139 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) adopt the release procedures presented in the SELPAL report and in the good practice guide drawn up as part of this project to ensure a high survival rate after release. The handling and release techniques in the guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf) have been developed with CEFAS, CESTMED (Mediterranean sea turtle rescue centre), SeabirdLife-France, LPO (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux) amongst others and represent best practice. - Modify fishing gear to limit interactions and mortality: small straight or circular hooks used in the fishery appear to be selective in terms of fish sizes; nylon leaders (as opposed to wire leaders) are often severed by sharks which end up escaping when the line is being hauled; straight hooks detach more quickly from the jaw of rays; the use of sardines dictates the size of the hooks which are small compared to those used in other similar fisheries in the Mediterranean. All of the above recommendations have been implemented in the UoA. Furthermore, as part of the TRL-PA brand, regular audits are commissioned by VALPEM to determine compliance with the code of conduct, gather details on gear use and bait use and make improvements where required. Finally, the UoA participates in collaborative actions with scientists to reduce accidental catches of rays, sharks and birds. The Sharkguard project was designed to test new devices for repelling rays and sharks. Tests were carried out by professional fishermen in 2019 which show a certain effectiveness of the device on rays and sharks but also impacts on tuna catches. New tests are also planned for 2021. A collaboration is underway with IRD as well as part of the PARAPED project to test a depredation reduction device under development Overall, there is a regular review of primary species interactions which supplements the data gathered through the Obsmer programme, and measures are implemented as appropriate. SG80 is met. Whether this review is biennial is unclear and remains to be seen now that the SELPAL study in particular has been completed. SG100 is not met. References EU (2018a), ICCAT-SCRS (2015, 2016), Poisson et al. (2016), ECHOSEA (http://amop-selpal.com/images/AMOP-A5_version-4-1.pdf) Swordfish 85 Blue shark 85 Adriatic sardine 85 Minor (albacore) 85 Minor (mackerel) 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 140 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the PI 2.1.3 strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and is estimate the impact of the UoA on the main and is adequate to assess the impact of the adequate to assess with a high degree of primary species with respect to status. UoA on the main primary species with certainty the impact of the UoA on main OR respect to status. primary species with respect to status. If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: estimate productivity and susceptibility Some quantitative information is adequate attributes for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? SWO – Y SWO – N SWO – N BSH – Y BSH – N BSH – N PIL – Y PIL – Y PIL – N Justification For both swordfish and blue shark, logbook data provide information on the amount of landed fish (although this should no longer be applicable to blue shark which are according to the client no longer landed by the UoA from 2018 onwards). Although all vessels are required to complete an EU logbook and 100% coverage can therefore be expected, the reality is that the collection of logbook data at national level by FranceAgriMer (made available through SIOP) is partial at best. This is reportedly related to capacity issues and to technical problems. At UoA level, SATHOAN also compiles its members’ logbook data with the main aim of monitoring quota uptake. While data on bluefin tuna and swordfish are assumed to be complete, other retained species are only partially entered as only trips for which geolocation data are available contribute to the dataset (related to capacity issues at SATHOAN) – see Section 3.4.2 for more detail. All this relates to landed catch only and information on discards is only available through the IFREMER observer data, collected as part of the French national observer programme (Obsmer). Note that discard data are starting to be collected through the ECHOSEA app (Section 3.4.2) however this has only started to be implemented in 2018. For the UoA, IFREMER observer coverage appears to be low, with on average 12 observed BFT trips per year between 2013 and 2017, corresponding to about 0.5% of the overall effort inAg terms of trips. Although these data combined provided the team with a good indication of which the ‘main’ primary species are, as well as what the order of magnitude of catches is, the quality of the data was 3288R06C 141 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) concerning. Although assumptions can be made to estimate the fishery’s impact on the species concerned (see 2.1.1) and therefore SG60 is met, SG80 is not met. Bait species (sardine): There is quantitative information on the amount of sardines used as bait (based on UoA data – Table 11). The quantity of bait used is therefore known, as are the landings of the source stock. Some quantitative information is thus available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the species. SG80 is met. SG100 is not met as bait usage is not systematically monitored by the UoA and the data collected are based on only one year’s worth of data. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Guidepost Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Minor - N Justification For the same reasons outlined in scoring issue a, SG100 is not met for albacore and mackerel. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidepost Information is adequate to support measures Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a to manage main primary species. strategy to manage main Primary species. strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? SWO – Y SWO – N SWO – N BSH – Y BSH – N BSH – N PIL – Y PIL – Y PIL – N Minor – Y (default) Minor – Y (default) Minor – N Justification For the bait species (sardine and mackerel), the team concluded that there is a ‘partial strategy’ in place for bait rather than a strategy (see 2.1.2). The information available (purchase data, landings data) is sufficient to support this partial strategy and SG80 is met. However, the quality of the bait data are insufficient for there to be a high degree of confidence, so SG100 is not met. Although a good amount of information is available on landings of non-bait primary species, particularly swordfish, UoA information on discarding of both swordfish and blue shark is lacking – some information is available through the Obsmer observer programme, but observer coverage is too low to be truly representative of the fishery. Although a strategy is in place at ICCAT level for swordfish, concern was raised by the SCRS that since the establishment of minimum landing sizes, the discard levels of undersized swordfish may have increased (ICCAT- 3288R06C 142 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) SCRS, 2016). For blue shark, since the UoA’s non-retention policy has come into effect, the only independent data source is the Obsmer data for which coverage is currently insufficient. Overall, UoA level impacts can be estimated for the species concerned, based on a combination of logbook and observer data, sufficient to support relevant management measures (SG60 is met). A meaningful strategy or partial strategy at UoA level should, however, rely on more and better-quality data. SG80 is not met. References ICCAT-SCRS (2015, 2016), Poisson et al. (2016) Swordfish 60 Blue shark 60 Adriatic sardine 80 Minor (albacore) 80 Minor (mackerel) 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4 3288R06C 143 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are PI 2.2.1 below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guidepost Main Secondary species are likely to be Main secondary species are highly likely to There is a high degree of certainty that main within biologically based limits. be above biologically based limits secondary species are within biologically OR OR based limits. If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically based limits, there is measures in place expected to ensure that either evidence of recovery or a the UoA does not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective partial strategy in rebuilding. 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? RBF RBF RBF Justification The pelagic stingray (P. violacea) is the only main secondary species according to Obsmer observer data. The dominance of this species in the catch was confirmed by stakeholders during site visit interviews. The species is consistently discarded; as their name suggests, stingrays have a powerful poisonous tail spine that fishers are keen to avoid – any stingray caught is therefore systematically cut off the line, as close to the hook as possible. Due to the lack of population data or stock assessments for this species in the Mediterranean, the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) was triggered in line with Table 3 of the MSC FCR v2.0 to assess this species’ outcome score (PI 2.2.1). The results of the Productivity Susceptibility Analysis are given in Appendix 2. A PSA score of 2.66 was calculated, which equates to an MSC PSA derived score of 82. As the RBF was not applied to any of the minor species listed in Table 8 to Table 11, the PI score is capped at 80 (this is in line with clause PF5.3.2.1 of the MSC FCRv2.0) 3288R06C 144 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) b Minor secondary species stock status Guidepost For minor species that are below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? RBF RBF RBF Justification See above – the score is capped at 80. References Appendix 2. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 145 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 PI 2.2.2 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 Guidepost There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for the UoA for which are expected to maintain or not hinder necessary, for the UoA that is expected to managing main and minor secondary species. rebuilding of main secondary species at/to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main levels which are highly likely to be within secondary species at/to levels which are biologically based limits or to ensure that the highly likely to be within biologically based UoA does not hinder their recovery. limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y N Justification See 2.1.2 for MSC definitions. No pelagic stingrays are retained in the UoA. All specimens are systematically discarded and cut off the line as close to the hook as possible (as per the Good Practice Handbook which is a requirement for TRL-PA membership). It is worth noting that fishers have limited interest in bringing this species onboard the vessel due to the dangerous and potentially lethal tail spine. Bearing in mind that this is a relatively robust species (RBF PSA score of 82 – see Appendix 2) with post-release mortality rates estimated at 28% (albeit for a small sample – see Poisson et al. (2016)), the non-retention policy with associated best practice release techniques is considered a partial strategy expected to maintain or not hinder rebuilding of this species. SG60 and SG80 are met. However, the management in place does not address whether more could be done by the UoA to avoid catches of this species in the first place, which can only be ascertained through better data collection. For this reason, SG100 is not met. In the absence of a strategy for minor species, SG100 is not met overall. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g. general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on experience, theory or comparison with based on some information directly about information directly about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/species). the UoA and/or species involved. species involved. Met? Y N N 3288R06C 146 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Justification As mentioned above, the estimated mortality rates, robust nature of the species and best practice handling techniques combined give some plausible argument that the strategy will work. SG60 is met. There remain, however, significant question marks as to what the actual levels of interaction are with pelagic stingrays in this fishery. At 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips, the observer coverage in this fishery is too low to enable meaningful analysis of impacts at UoA level, and to determine whether additional management action may be required. The team concluded that this information gap needs to be filled before it can be determined whether there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG80 is not met c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/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 N Justification Implementation of the Good Practice Handbook is a requirement for TRL-PA membership. Furthermore, fishers have limited interest in bringing this species onboard the vessel due to the dangerous and potentially lethal tail spine and the absence of a European market for pelagic stingray. This combined with the observer data which shows that all specimens are systematically discarded, and the absence of the species in the SIOP data (which only shows landed catch), provides some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met. In the absence of better observer coverage however, SG100 is not met. d Shark finning Guidepost It is likely that shark finning is not taking It is highly likely that shark finning is not There is a high degree of certainty that shark place. taking place. finning is not taking place. Met? Y Y N Justification As explained in Section 3.4.2, the fishery also interacts with sharks; these are blue shark, common thresher and short-fin mako. With the exception of blue shark, which is a primary species, sharks are considered under Secondary species. REGULATION (EU) No 605/2013 of 12 June 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels stipulates that sharks caught by EU vessels anywhere in the world must be landed with their fins naturally attached. Implementation is confirmed by the French and European (EFCA-no risk)) fisheries surveillance authorities, SG60 and SG80 are met. Recommendation GFCM/36/2012/3 on fisheries management measures for the conservation of sharks and rays in the GFCM area of application also prohibits the practice of shark finning. In addition, the European market for shark fins is virtually non-existent. In the absence of any non-compliance incidents regarding shark finning, the team was satisfied that 80 is met. SG100 is not met because of the low observer coverage in this fishery. 3288R06C 147 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justification There is a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary of unwanted catch of main secondary of unwanted catch of all secondary species, species. species and they are implemented as and they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Guidepost The SELPAL project (Poisson et al., 2016) was designed in such a way as to respond to the recommendations of ICCAT, GFCM and the FAO on the need to increase knowledge to ensure the conservation and management of populations of sharks/rays, marine turtles and seabirds incidentally caught by tuna longlines. To do this, collaborative actions between professional fishermen and scientists were carried out over a period of 4 years, through the recording of fishing activities, tagging operations, data analysis, in situ testing of mitigation measures and the implementation of an information tool and good practices. The SELPAL project also considered the results of the REPAST project which was aimed at quantifying the impact of the longline fishery on the pelagic stingray specifically. The SELPAL study identified a need to: - Sustain and globalize the acquisition of data on bycatch: this recommendation led to the development of the Echosea software which enables all interactions with commercial and non-commercial species to be recorded. Use of this system is now obligatory in the UoA. - Adhere to the best practice guide: The observations collected within the framework of the SELPAL projects show that the mortality rates of sharks and rays brought on board are very low; this is due to the characteristics of the gear and the fishing strategy (small straight or circular hooks, rare use of light lures, mono-filament leader, reduced number of hooks set and limited set times. It is therefore recommended to adopt the release procedures presented in the SELPAL report and in the good practice guide drawn up as part of this project to ensure a high survival rate after release. The handling and release techniques in the guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf) have been developed with CEFAS, CESTMED (Mediterranean sea turtle rescue centre), SeabirdLife-France, LPO (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux) amongst others and represent best practice. - Modify fishing gear to limit interactions and mortality: small straight or circular hooks used in the fishery appear to be selective in terms of fish sizes; nylon leaders (as opposed to wire leaders) are often severed by sharks which end up escaping when the line is being hauled; straight hooks detach more quickly from the jaw of rays; the use of sardines dictates the size of the hooks which are small compared to those used in other similar fisheries in the Mediterranean. All of the above recommendations have been implemented in the UoA. Furthermore, as part of the TRL-PA brand, regular audits are commissioned by VALPEM to determine compliance with the code of conduct, gather details on gear use and bait use and make improvements where required. 3288R06C 148 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Finally, the UoA participates in collaborative actions with scientists to reduce accidental catches of rays, sharks and birds. The Sharkguard project was designed to test new devices for repelling rays and sharks. Tests were carried out by professional fishermen in 2019 which show a certain effectiveness of the device on rays and sharks but also impacts on tuna catches. New tests are also planned for 2021. A collaboration is underway with IRD as well as part of the PARAPED project to test a depredation reduction device under development Overall, there is a regular review of secondary species interactions which supplements the data gathered through the Obsmer programme, and measures are implemented as appropriate. SG80 is met. Whether this review is biennial is unclear and remains to be seen now that the SELPAL study in particular has been completed. SG100 is not met. Appendix 2, Poisson et al. (2016), VALPEM Good Practice Handbook (http://www.thonrougedeligne.com/wp- References content/uploads/2015/04/espece.pdf), ECHOSEA (http://amop-selpal.com/images/AMOP-A5_version-4-1.pdf) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 5 3288R06C 149 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the PI 2.2.3 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 Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and estimate the impact of the UoA on the main and adequate to assess the impact of the adequate to assess with a high degree of secondary species with respect to status. UoA on main secondary species with respect certainty the impact of the UoA on main OR to status. secondary species with respect to status. If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: estimate productivity and susceptibility Some quantitative information is adequate attributes for main secondary species. to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Met? Pelagic stingray - Y Pelagic stingray - Y Pelagic stingray - N Justification For the pelagic stingray, the only available information on UoA level interactions stems from the IFREMER observer data, collected as part of the French national observer programme (Obsmer). For the UoA, observer coverage appears to be low, with on average 12 observed BFT trips per year between 2013 and 2017, corresponding to about 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips. Due to limited information on stock identity and the absence of reference points for this species, the RBF was triggered to score 2.2.1 (see Appendix 2). The quantitative information available on the species’ life-history characteristics was sufficient to score productivity. Some quantitative information was also available to score susceptibility (e.g. the depth profile of the fishery and the species, as well as UoA post-capture and post-release mortality rates for pelagic stingray, all of which were examined empirically as part of the SELPAL study - Poisson et al. (2016)). SG60 and SG80 are therefore met. In the absence of a high degree of certainty on the impact of the UoA on pelagic stingrays, SG100 is not met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidepost Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? Minor - N 3288R06C 150 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Justification Although some observer data are available, indicating the likely level of interactions with minor species, the degree of coverage is insufficient for SG100 to be met. Furthermore, The SELPAL report (Poisson et al., 2016) revealed that in addition to blue shark, other pelagic shark species such as the common thresher (Alopias vulpinus) and short-fin mako (Isurus oxyrhincus) may also be landed by the French tuna longline fishery. Both species would be considered as secondary species. Considering neither species makes an appearance in the observer data (Table 10) any quantities landed by the fishery are probably minor. Nevertheless, the complete absence of those species in the logbook data (Table 8, Table 9) does put into the question the quality of the data received. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidepost Information is adequate to support measures Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a to manage main secondary species. strategy to manage main secondary species. strategy to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Pelagic stingray – Y Pelagic stingray – N Pelagic stingray – N Minor - Y (default) Minor - Y (default) Minor - N Justification The research into post-capture and post-release mortality rates of pelagic stingrays in the UoA provides some useful information on the effectiveness of the partial strategy. There remain, however, significant question marks as to what the actual levels of interaction are with pelagic stingrays in this fishery. At 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips, the observer coverage in this fishery is too low to enable meaningful analysis of impacts at UoA level, and to determine whether additional management action may be required. The team therefore decided that SG80 was not met. For the same reason, SG100 is not met for minor species. References Poisson et al. (2016); Obsmer observer data Pelagic stingray 70 Minor species 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 6 3288R06C 151 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 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 Guidepost Where national and/or international Where national and/or international Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the requirements set limits for ETP species, the requirements set limits for ETP species, there effects of the UoA on the population/stock combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the is a high degree of certainty that the are known and likely to be within these population/stock are known and highly likely combined effects of the MSC UoAs are limits. to be within these limits. within these limits. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justification None of the ETP species identified as potentially interacting with this fishery have limits. This scoring issue is not relevant. b Direct effects Guidepost Known direct effects of the UoA are likely to Direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to There is a high degree of confidence that not hinder recovery of ETP species. not hinder recovery of ETP species. there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Seabirds – Y Seabirds – N Seabirds – N Sea turtles – Y Sea turtles – N Sea turtles – N Marine mammals – Y Marine mammals - Y Marine mammals - N Justification The sole source of information on UoA interactions with ETP species is the Obsmer observer data (see Section 3.4.2) although the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016) also gives a more qualitative indication of likely interactions. Based on stakeholder interviews and available literature (e.g. Wallace et al. (2013), UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013), López et al. (2012) and Poisson et al. (2016)), this fishery is likely to interact with three groupings of ETP species: seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals. Although the fishery also interacts with sharks, none of the species identified in the data or through stakeholder interviews would qualify as ETP species (these are blue shark, common thresher and shortfin mako). With the exception of blue shark, sharks were therefore considered under Secondary species. According to fishers interviewed during the site visit, interactions with seabirds are relatively rare, with about 2 birds caught each year per vessel. Sea turtles are reportedly never caught and interactions with marine mammals are thought to be extremely rare. Depredation for example is also considered a rare occurrence. 3288R06C 152 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Seabirds : A summary of the observer data for the period 2014 – 17 is shown in Table 13, indicating that interactions with seabirds take place each year (varying between 6 and 18 annually, except for 2016 when none were recorded). Some of these interactions result in hooked birds with a degree of associated mortality. However, the nature of all interactions is not detailed in the observer data and information on the fate of all individuals involved is not available. Between 2014 and 2016, none of the seabirds in the dataset were identified to species level although interactions took place with puffins, terns and gulls. In 2017, 18 interactions with Puffinus yelkouan were reported by observers. As explained in Section 3.4.2, the observer coverage in this fishery is low, with on average 12 observed BFT trips per year between 2013 and 2017, corresponding to about 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips. According to UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013), the Gulf of Lions is one of the hotspots of productivity in the Mediterranean Sea, offering ideal conditions for foraging seabirds, which are concentrated on it over much of the year. In addition, the Mediterranean marine avifauna is characterised by a high number of endemic taxa. All four Procellariiforms (petrels and shearwaters) present in the Mediterranean are endemic taxa: two at species level (Puffinus mauretanicus and Puffinus yelkouan) and two at subspecies level (Calonectris d. diomedea and Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis). Besides, one endemic cormorant (Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), three gulls (Mediterranean Larus melanocephalus, Audouin’s Larus audouinii and yellow-legged Larus michahellis michahellis) and one tern (Lesser-crested Sterna bengalensis emigrata) also originate from the Mediterranean region. Generally speaking, based on the observer data shown in Table 13, it is clear that seabird encounters for an average of 12 observed trips per year were infrequent/sporadic and that some trips do not appear to have any encounters recorded at all. According to the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016), some fishers have indicated that interactions with puffins in particular may occur during the start of the fishing season. Although the actual impact is currently difficult to estimate, Poisson et al. (2016) do assume the overall impact level likely to be low. January February March April May June July August SeptemberOctober NovemberDecember Fishery Yelkouan shearwater Balearic shearwater Cory's sheawater Med. storm petrel Figure 21. Approximate temporal overlap between the UoA fishery and those ETP bird species considered most at-risk. See text below for references. Coloured cells indicate that the fishery is in operation (yellow; orange indicates peak season) or that the species may be present in the UoA area (green). Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan): Overlaps with the fishery during most of the year (~67%), although not during the fishery’s peak season (August/Sept) according to data in UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013) (see Figure 21). Ca. 10,000 birds use the area for feeding during the breeding season. The Gulf of Lions likely serves as a foraging ground for the smaller local French breeding population (1350-1650 breeding pairs in 2006) and for birds from more distanced colonies (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2013). According to Bourgeois and Vidal (2008), the area of occurrence of the yelkouan shearwater may extend from the Marseille islands in the west to Bulgarian islands in the Black Sea in the east, and from the Bulgarian islands in the north to Malta in the south. This gives a yelkouan shearwater extent of occurrence of ca. 1,117,100 km2. With 35 additional possible breeding locations (because of lack of breeding confirmation) this could extend to 1,322,100 km2 (Figure 21, Figure 23), although the authors caution that because of the lack of breeding confirmation for many of the possible breeding sites and the 3288R06C 153 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) imprecision and probable overestimation for most given population sizes, the yelkouan shearwater world population is likely to be at the low end of previous estimate ranges (i.e. 15,000 pairs). Figure 22. Locations of breeding sites of the yelkouan shearwater in the Mediterranean Basin (including the Black Sea), with number of breeding pairs determined by censuses on land or at sea (including sites were breeding is both certain and possible, see Bourgeois and Vidal (2008) for details), and of the nine sites where the species appears to be extinct. From Bourgeois and Vidal (2008). 3288R06C 154 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure 23. Areas of yelkouan shearwater concentration at sea (passage, moulting and/or feeding), with maximum numbers, period of maximum occurrence (not indicated when occurrence is high throughout the year) and areas with decreasing numbers (indicated by an arrow). From Bourgeois and Vidal (2008). As shown in Figure 21, there have been localized extinctions of breeding colonies. Although according to Bourgeois and Vidal (2008) the causes of extinction are not clear, harvesting and predation by ship rats and feral cats are considered particularly problematic (see Bourgeois and Vidal (2008) and references therein; Bonnaud et al. (2012)). Little is known about mortality of yelkouan shearwaters at sea as a result of accidental bycatch in longlines and fishing nets, although in the 1970s net bycatch of yelkouan shearwaters off the south-east French coast was estimated at 800 per year and dead yelkouan shearwaters are regularly found with signs of netting. More recently, some yelkouan shearwater deaths from longlines have also been reported in the Gulf of Lions (Bourgeois and Vidal, 2008). In a study carried out by Péron et al. (2013) near French MPAs, all data gathered from biotelemetry tracking, ship-based and aerial observations concurred to show that birds mainly remained within 20 km from the coast during the breeding, post-breeding and inter- breeding phases of the annual cycle. Yelkouans, however, spent most of the nighttime resting on the water (80% on average) and dived almost exclusively (99%) during daytime. All the above evidence leads to the following conclusion: - There is a ~67% likelihood of seasonal overlap (Figure 21); 3288R06C 155 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) - Although there is likely high local overlap between the species’ occurrence and the fishery (overlapping with the Gulf of Lions and north of Corsica – see Figure 23 and Figure 6), the overall spatial overlap between the fishery and the yelkouan shearwater population is relatively low, at less than 30% (visual estimate by team); - The likelihood of interactions is reduced by the diurnal foraging behaviour of the species as demonstrated by Péron et al. (2013) (noting that this fishery sets longlines at nightfall). - Any interactions will be further mitigated by implementation of the Good Practice Guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf), drafted in collaboration with IFREMER and UMR MARBEC and the use of which is obligatory for vessels subscribing to the TRL-PA brand. This is accounted for in the FCR2.0 under clause SA3.10.3. Overall, it can therefore be concluded that the known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of the yelkouan shearwater. SG60 is met. SG80 is not met as the levels of encounters with this species in the UoA are not sufficiently well known to ensure that the fishery is highly likely to not hinder recovery of the yelkouan shearwater. Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus): The Balearic shearwater is restricted, as a breeding bird, to the Balearic Is., Spain (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2013). The species is highly gregarious despite the fact that the global population is small: probably less than 10,000 individuals (according to BirdLife International 2011, cited in UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013), although Arroyo et al. (2016) believe the actual population size to be 2.5 times higher based on coast-based counts from a strategically located vantage point in the Strait of Gibraltar. According to Guilford et al. (2012), the breeding Balearic shearwater’s year at sea is divided predominantly between two distinct phases. During spring breeding, and in the autumn and winter months beforehand (about three quarters of the year), movements are predominantly concentrated in a remarkably restricted area around the Balearic Islands where they breed, extending to the Spanish mainland coast and encompassing the productive shallow waters of the Iberian continental shelf (Guilford et al., 2012). Based on data collected by Meier et al. (2015) the birds appear to forage on prey (either small shoaling pelagic fish or fisheries discards) with relatively predictable distributions within coastal Catalan waters, as well as along the Mallorcan and Menorcan coast with extended movements into the Gulf of Lion (Meier et al., 2015) (Figure 24). The birds then migrate into the Atlantic in summer, soon after they have finished breeding in mid-summer (median 27th June), presumably to exploit seasonally productive shelf waters around the Iberian and French Atlantic coasts, and to moult (Figure 25). The Atlantic migration lasts around 3 months (median 88 days). Return from migration occurs predominantly during September (median 23/09/2010) (Guilford et al., 2012). Based on this, temporal overlap is estimated at ca. 60% - 67%. As for the yelkouan shearwater, the species does not appear to overlap with the fishery during its peak season (see Figure 21). 3288R06C 156 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure 24. Balearic shearwater foraging trips recorded during incubation periods in 2011 (n = 16), 2012 (n = 14), 2013 (n = 23) and 2014 (n = 14). Individual trips are coloured in unique shades within each year, and only complete foraging trips are displayed. Isobaths are denoted with grey lines (200 m, 1000 m, 1500 m, 2000 m and 2500 m; GEBCO 30-arc second bathymetry data) and the colony location is indicated with a star (Meier et al., 2015). 3288R06C 157 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure 25. Balearic shearwater movements at sea. The inset shows the 50% occupancy kernels for all birds of all valid locations through the entire annual cycle, with each individual coloured separately. The main figure shows the 50% occupancy kernels for all birds of locations between leaving and returning to the Mediterranean on migration, in the same colours. The coloured circles are spatial median positions for four birds that made a second trip into the Atlantic post-migration (same individual colours). These latter estimated positions are very approximate, and should not be taken to signify that birds are inland. The red symbol is the position of the breeding colony at Sa Cella cave on Mallorca (Guilford et al., 2012). Mortality at sea has long been suspected to take a heavy toll in this species; evidence points at longlines, particularly demersal, killing most birds, although this is a difficult event to watch (BirdLife International 2009 in UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013)). Meier et al. (2015) identified strong diel patterns in Balearic shearwater activity, as with other Puffinus shearwaters (Aguilar et al., 2003; Dean et al., 2013; Péron et al., 2013; Raymond et al., 2010; Ronconi et al., 2010 in Meier et al. (2015)). Birds were mostly active during daylight hours and dived predominantly within the top 4 m of the water column, although observations of peak bird activity around dusk and dawn support recommendations for restrictions on the timing of longline settings outside these hours (Meier et al., 2015). All the above evidence leads to the following conclusion: 3288R06C 158 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) - There is a ~60 - 67% likelihood of seasonal overlap with the fishery; - Spatial overlap is limited in the sense that the fishery is concentrated in the Gulf of Lions which is demonstrated not to be a key foraging ground for the species (which predominantly feeds off the Balearic islands and the Catalan coast when not migrating to the Atlantic). - The likelihood of interactions is reduced by the diurnal foraging behaviour of the species, although there remains a risk of interactions during the setting of the longlines at nightfall. - Any interactions will be further mitigated by implementation of the Good Practice Guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf), drafted in collaboration with IFREMER and UMR MARBEC and the use of which is obligatory for vessels subscribing to the TRL-PA brand. Overall, it can therefore be concluded that the known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of the Balearic shearwater. SG60 is met. SG80 is not met as the levels of encounters with this species in the UoA are not sufficiently well known to ensure that the fishery is highly likely to not hinder recovery of the Balearic shearwater. Cory’s or Scopoli’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea): The Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) is separated into two subspecies, one that breeds in the Mediterranean (C. d. diomedea) and one that breeds in the Atlantic (C. d. borealis) (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2006; Gómez- D횤az et al., 2009). The subspecies diomedea is endemic to the Mediterranean Sea, although there is thought to be some exchange of individuals between the Atlantic and Mediterranean subspecies, mainly from Atlantic individuals migrating to Mediterranean colonies although the opposite is true as well (Gómez-D횤az et al., 2009). Defos du Rau et al. (2012) proposed a breeding population estimate for the Mediterranean from 57,000-76,000 to 179,000-193,000 breeding pairs. The Cory’s shearwater is a long-distance migrant that leaves the Mediterranean to spend the non-breeding season in Atlantic waters off Africa and South America. It is present in the Mediterranean between March and October, breeding on islands across the basin from the Iberian coast to the Adriatic and Aegean Seas (see Figure 26 for locations of some breeding colonies), with the largest colony likely situated on Zembra Island, Tunisia (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2006, 2013; Gómez-D횤az et al., 2009). Cory’s shearwaters make the longest foraging trips of all Mediterranean seabirds (see Péron and Grémillet (2013)), and birds from distant breeding colonies often converge spatially. Factors causing loss or decline result from the introduction of mammals, such as rats, which affect breeding success; illegal hunting; taking of eggs and/or chicks; mortality from bycatch, development close to colonies and disturbance, and possibly oil spills and chemical pollution of the sea (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2006, 2013). 3288R06C 159 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Figure 26. Breeding colonies of Mediterranean (Calonectris diomedea diomedea o ) and Atlantic (C. d. borealis •) Cory’s shearwaters sampled by Gómez-D횤az et al. (2009). Note: largest colony likely situated on Zembra Island, Tunisia, which is not shown here. Extracted from Gómez-D횤az et al. (2009). All the above evidence leads to the following conclusion: - There is a ~ 67% likelihood of temporal overlap, including the peak fishing season (Figure 21); - Spatial overlap with the Mediterranean subspecies is limited in the sense that the fishery is concentrated in the Gulf of Lions and to the north of Corsica, whereas breeding colonies of Cory’s shearwater are widespread throughout the basin. Furthermore, there will be no spatial overlap when the birds migrate to the Atlantic outside the breeding season. - Any interactions will be further mitigated by implementation of the Good Practice Guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf), drafted in collaboration with IFREMER and UMR MARBEC and the use of which is obligatory for vessels subscribing to the TRL-PA brand. Overall, it can therefore be concluded that the known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of the Cory’s shearwater. SG60 is met. SG80 is not met as the levels of encounters with this species in the UoA are not sufficiently well known to ensure that the fishery is highly likely to not hinder recovery of the Cory’s shearwater. Mediterranean storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis): In the Mediterranean, the endemic subspecies melitensis has a small population (<16,000 breeding pairs – UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2006, 2013)) and is present in the Mediterranean year-round (Mart횤nez et al., 2019), with important breeding colonies found in the western and central parts of the Mediterranean, particularly in Malta, the Balearics, Sardinia and Sicily (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2006). European Storm- petrels are pelagic seabirds, found over the external half of the continental shelf and in the high seas, often very far from land. The selection of this type of habitat, which is typical among the storm petrel family, 160inimizes their probability of contact with humans and makes the species less vulnerable to interactions at sea than other Mediterranean seabirds (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2013). The species occurs in coastal 3288R06C 160 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) waters to a greater extent during the breeding season than during the rest of the year, although Rotger et al. (2020) indicate that foraging areas may be located further from the colony than previously thought, on deep sea areas of the Alboran Sea and Cartagena Canyons. The Mediterranean storm petrel arrive in breeding colonies in March, lay their single egg between April and June and chicks mainly fledge in late August (Mínguez, 1994 in Mart횤nez et al. (2019)). In the Western Mediterranean, the species almost disappears in winter, the latest observations in coastal areas being in late November (Mart횤nez et al., 2019). Findings by Mart횤nez et al. (2019) suggest a southward wintering migration to the Alboran Sea and Northwestern Africa, particularly Tunisian waters, where resource availability in winter is high (Figure 27). In spring, the most highly productive spots in the Mediterranean are the Gulf of Lion and the Balearic Sea, but from December to February the most productive area is the Tunisian Platform (Mart횤nez et al., 2019). Figure 27. Probable distribution of European Storm-petrels in the Mediterranean Sea in winter. A: Regions where we found three independent sources (published material or personal communications) reporting the species in winter, with at least two sources reporting occurrence as regular. B: Regions where we found two independent sources reporting the species in winter, with one of them reporting it as regular. C: Regions where we found only one original source reporting the species in winter. All of these cases reported the species as occasional, except for the Tyrrhenian Sea, where it was reported as regular by the sole source found. D: Regions where we found no 3288R06C 161 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) winter reports for the species. E: Specific sites where we found at least one source reporting the species as regular in winter. (Mart횤nez et al., 2019) The main threats for the species on land are related to its small size and nocturnal habits: predation by introduced mammals, habitat occupation and degradation, luring of fledglings to built-up areas by artificial lights and the increase in generalist predators such as gulls favoured by poor management of rubbish dumps. At sea, storm petrels are threatened by pollution and overfishing (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2013). All the above evidence leads to the following conclusion: - Although the species is present in the Mediterranean throughout the year, there is a southward migration to the Alboran Sea and North Africa during winter, when the species becomes almost absent from Western Mediterranean waters. There is therefore a ~75% likelihood of temporal overlap, including the peak fishing season (Figure 21); - Spatial overlap with the Mediterranean subspecies is limited in the sense that the fishery is concentrated in the Gulf of Lions and to the north of Corsica, whereas breeding colonies of the Mediterranean storm petrel are widespread throughout the western and central parts of the Mediterranean, with foraging grounds far from coastal areas over deep waters. Furthermore, there will be no spatial overlap when the birds migrate to the southern Mediterranean outside the breeding season. - Findings by Albores-Barajas et al. (2015) suggest diurnal foraging behaviour in the open sea although night-time foraging closer to the breeding colonies may also occur (Albores-Barajas et al., 2011); therefore there remains a risk of interactions during the setting of the longlines at nightfall. - Any interactions will be further mitigated by implementation of the Good Practice Guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf), drafted in collaboration with IFREMER and UMR MARBEC and the use of which is obligatory for vessels subscribing to the TRL-PA brand. Overall, it can therefore be concluded that the known direct effects of the UoA are likely to not hinder recovery of the Mediterranean storm petrel. SG60 is met. SG80 is not met as the levels of encounters with this species in the UoA are not sufficiently well known to ensure that the fishery is highly likely to not hinder recovery of the Mediterranean storm petrel. Other bird species: Mediterranean shag (Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii), Northern gannet (Morus bassanus), Audouin’s gull (Larus audouinii), Mediterranean gull (Larus melanocephalus), Sandwich tern (Sterna sandvicensis) – all are protected in France through the Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009. These species are not discussed in the same level of detail as the UoA area is numerically of little relevance (because the bulk of their populations in the Mediterranean is situated outside of the Gulf of Lions) or because they are not listed in the Biodiversity (SPA/BD) Protocol (because their Mediterranean population are of little conservation relevance, i.e. they are not endangered or threatened in the Mediterranean) (UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2013). Therefore, it is considered likely that the known direct effects of the UoA will not hinder recovery of these species, and SG60 is met. Because of the low observer coverage, however, this cannot be determined with sufficient certainty and SG80 is therefore not met for any of these species listed. Sea turtles: Within the Mediterranean, two species of sea turtle are known to occur – these are the loggerhead (Caretta caretta) and green turtle (Chelonia mydas) which use the basin for reproduction as well as feeding. The leatherback (Dermochelys coriacea) is also increasingly 3288R06C 162 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) observed, although only a few large juvenile or adult leatherback turtles enter the Mediterranean from the Atlantic, without breeding in the basin (Casale et al. 2003 in Casale (2011)). The fishery under assessment overlaps with the three Mediterranean RMUs shown in Figure 14 (see Section 3.4.5.1 for more detail) indicating interactions are likely. Green turtle: Green turtles reproduce in nesting beaches in Turkey, Cyprus and Syria, and they frequent mainly the Levantine basin (Turkey, Syria, Cyprus, Lebanon, Israel, Egypt) with some foraging areas also in Greece and Libya (Casale et al. 2010 in Casale (2011)). Loggerhead turtle: This is thought to be the most abundant species in the Mediterranean, nesting mainly in Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and Libya. At sea, loggerhead turtles frequent the whole basin and especially the area from the Alboran Sea to the Balearic Islands, the Sicily Strait, the Ionian Sea and the wide continental shelves in the north Adriatic, off Tunisia-Libya, off Egypt and off southeast coast of Turkey; some of these foraging grounds (including the Western Mediterranean) are shared with loggerheads from the Atlantic (Casale et al. 2010 in Casale (2011)). Leatherback turtle: Although leatherback turtles do get incidentally caught in Mediterranean fisheries in general, the low numbers of individuals involved probably make the Mediterranean fishery a minor threat to the Atlantic populations of this species (Casale et al. 2003 in Casale (2011)). In the observer data (Table 10), only one sea turtle was recorded – it was found at the surface in difficulty, however it is unclear whether this was caused by an interaction with the fishery. Overall, according to the fishers and other stakeholders interviewed during the assessment, sea turtle interactions do not appear to be a concern in this fishery. In the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016), interactions between sea turtles and the UoA longline fishery were considered infrequent although they do exist. In a review of Mediterranean sea turtle bycatch by Casale (2011), sea turtle interaction rates for the French pelagic longline fishery were estimated at 10 per annum (the vast majority of interactions and mortalities in this country stemming from the set net fishery), with turtles considered most at risk in the Alboran/Balearic area, the central Mediterranean and the Ionian (Casale, 2011). In the same study, the authors estimate that the annual number of captures by Mediterranean pelagic longlines may well be above 57,000. Furthermore, as for seabirds above, all vessels in the UoA are required to adhere to the Good Practice Guide which includes handling techniques for sea turtles. The team’s overall determination is therefore that the risk of the UoA by itself hindering recovery of the three sea turtle species discussed is sufficiently low for SG60 to be met. This assessment takes into account the 1) low interaction levels reported in the UoA observer data, 2) the anecdotal information gained during the site visit and from the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016), 3) the species’ ecology within the Mediterranean including for the green turtle and loggerhead turtle, their more widespread distribution including to the east of the basin, and 4) peer reviewed literature (see Casale (2011)) which suggests that interactions in the French pelagic longline fishery are significantly lower than other nations’ longline fisheries or other gear types (including bottom trawl and set nets) with the Western Mediterranean considered more low-risk than for example the Alboran/Balearic area, the central Mediterranean and the Ionian. As for seabirds, however, the observer coverage is too low to determine that the UoA is highly likely to not hinder recovery. SG80 is not met. Marine mammals: interactions with marine mammals (either through depredation, entanglement or direct capture) is reportedly very rare – this was confirmed by all stakeholders during site visit interviews. Other than some reported sightings of dolphins (which did not interact with the vessel), no interactions were noted in the observer data. In the Spanish tuna longline fishery, an onboard observer programme was 3288R06C 163 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) implemented by the Spanish Oceanographic Institute (IEO, Instituto Español de Oceanografía) with the aim to report data on marine mammal bycatch in the western Mediterranean. Data on marine mammal bycatch were collected during the period 2000-2009, revealing that Risso's dolphin (Grampus griseus) is the species most affected by the Spanish longline fishery in the western Mediterranean. Overall however, the bycatch per unit effort (0.011 marine mammals/1000 hooks; for G. griseus this was 0.007 dolphins/1000 hooks) was low compared to other bycatch species, such as sharks, seabirds and sea turtles, and the number of incidental marine mammals per set caught by Spanish drifting longline fisheries in the western Mediterranean remains less than that in other fisheries, such as purse seine and trawl (López et al., 2012). On this basis, and despite the low observer coverage, the assessment team considered that the UoA is highly likely to not hinder recovery of marine mammals. SG60 and SG80 are met. There is, however, no high degree of confidence that this is the case and as such SG100 is not met. Unobserved mortality of ETP species is most likely to occur through ghost fishing. However, gear loss is reportedly minimal, and vessels deploy the longline gear with radio beacons placed at varying intervals along the mainline. These radio beacons enable the captain of the vessel to not only locate the drifting longline but also if the mainline breaks anywhere when hauling or otherwise, the captain is able to locate the separated section with the radio beacons that are placed along this section. Also, longline sets are marked and recorded on GPS so if for some reason the radio beacons are not functioning, the captain can return to the coordinates marked on the GPS, estimate the direction and speed of the current and search for the longline, probably with a 90% or more recovery rate. Therefore, the incidence of gear loss is very rare. In any case, lost pelagic longline or handline gear is only likely to continue to fish as long as bait remains on the hooks. Bait tends to be stripped relatively quickly off the hooks and as such, the ghost fishing mortality rate associated to lost longlines is usually low (Macfadyen et al., 2009). Although ETP species may be more vulnerable to ghost fishing through entanglement than primary or secondary species, the team considered that any effects of ghostfishing are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. c Indirect effects Guidepost Indirect effects have been considered and There is a high degree of confidence that are thought to be highly likely to not create there are no significant detrimental indirect unacceptable impacts. effects of the fishery on ETP species. Met? Seabirds – Y Seabirds – N Sea turtles – Y Sea turtles – N Marine mammals – Y Marine mammals - N Justification Note: Discard and post-release mortality is accounted for in the data cited above and is therefore not an indirect effect. The team considered possible indirect effects to be as follows: Seabirds (see 2.3.1b for detail on species): Disturbance around nesting / roosting areas / foraging areas; reduced food availability Sea turtles (green, loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles): Disturbance around nesting areas / inter-nesting foraging areas; reduced food availability 3288R06C 164 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Marine mammals: Noise disturbance, change in foraging behavior; reduced food availability Regarding food availability, none of the species mentioned in 2.3.1 above are reliant on any of the principal species caught in this fishery (i.e. bluefin tuna, swordfish, blue shark and pelagic stingray). Although there is likely to be some overlap in prey species with the minor secondary species identified, the quantities taken by the fishery are considered sufficiently low so as not to limit ETP species food resources. Bait species come from a separate ecosystem (see 2.1.1). For sea turtles and seabirds, disturbance around inshore nesting, foraging or roosting areas is highly unlikely as the fishery takes place along some of the most populated coastline around the Mediterranean and most breeding and nesting of seabirds is therefore likely to take place in areas that have been protected by law, as part of the Natura 2000 framework, as follows (from UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013)): - FR9112034 – Cap Béar–Cap Cerbère (very important site P. yelkouan ; important site P. mauretanicus and C. diomedea ) - FR9112035 – Côte Languedocienne (very important site P. yelkouan) - FR9310019 – Camargue (very important site P. yelkouan ; presence P. mauretanicus, C. diomedea and H. pelagicus) - FR9112013 – Petite Camargue Laguno-Marine (presence P. mauretanicus and C. diomedea) - FR9312007 – Îles Marseillaises–Cassidaigne (breeding; remarkable site P. yelkouan, P. mauretanicus, C. diomedea and H. pelagicus) - FR9310020 – Îles d’Hyères (breeding; remarkable site P. yelkouan, P. mauretanicus and C. diomedea; important site H. pelagicus) In terms of foraging, it is likely that the fishery facilitates foraging (through discards) rather than disturbs it as birds are attracted to fishing vessels – it is true however that this may instead lead to direct impacts which is covered in 2.3.1b above. For sea turtles (green, loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles), most of the green sea turtle nesting sites are situated in the Eastern Mediterranean (Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Lebanon, Israel and Egypt and Libya) (Kasparek et al., 2001). For the loggerhead, the main nesting concentrations are in Greece, Turkey and Cyprus and potentially Libya, and minor nesting aggregations have been described in Egypt, Lebanon, Israel, Italy, Syria and Tunisia (Broderick et al., 2002). Disturbance of nesting and inter-nesting areas along the French Mediterranean coastline is therefore highly unlikely. The leatherback turtle does not have nesting sites in the Mediterranean and those individuals present are thought to be visitors from the Atlantic (Casale, 2011). Sea turtles are also highly migratory and are unlikely to be significantly affected by the relatively small footprint of the UoA. Finally, for marine mammals, noise disturbance is likely to be minimal because of the small number of vessels, all of which are under 18m in length, and the low noise impact from the gear itself (compared to bottom trawls for example). It is known that marine mammals have changed their foraging behaviour in response to the availability of fish on longlines and although this is likely to present increased foraging opportunities, any negative consequences on fitness cannot be excluded (e.g. through changes in diet). Therefore, although indirect effects of the fishery are highly likely to not create unacceptable impacts at the population level (SG80 is met), there is no high degree of confidence that this is the case. SG100 is not met. Overall, the team concluded that indirect impacts on seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals are highly unlikely. SG80 is met. Considering the low level of observer coverage, the team felt that a better understanding of interactions with sea turtles and seabirds in particular is needed before there can be a high degree of confidence. SG100 is not met. The low observer coverage is less problematic for marine mammals however which have been shown to benefit from depredating longlines. SG100 is met for marine mammals. 3288R06C 165 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Wallace et al. (2013), Broderick et al. (2002), UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013), Kasparek et al. (2001), López et al. (2012), Poisson et al. (2016), Albores-Barajas et al. (2015), Albores-Barajas et al. (2011), Arroyo et al. (2016), Bonnaud et al. (2012), Bourgeois and Vidal (2008), Casale References (2011), Deflorio et al. (2005), Guilford et al. (2012), Gómez-D횤az et al. (2009), Mart횤nez et al. (2019), Meier et al. (2015), Péron and Grémillet (2013), Péron et al. (2013), Rotger et al. (2020), Tomás et al. (2008) and UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2006), Defos du Rau et al. (2012) Seabirds 70 Sea turtles 70 Marine mammals 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 7 3288R06C 166 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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) Guidepost There are measures in place that minimise There is a strategy in place for managing the There is a comprehensive strategy in place the UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and UoA’s impact on ETP species, including for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP are expected to be highly likely to achieve measures to minimise mortality, which is species, including measures to minimise national and international requirements for designed to be highly likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve the protection of ETP species. national and international requirements for above national and international the protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species. Met? Y – all species N – all species N – all species Justification Measures in place to manage the UoA’s impact on ETP species in general include the following: At regional level: - ICCAT Rec. 07-07 on Reducing Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. This recommendation sets out inter alia requirements for recording interactions with seabirds; for CPCs to seek to achieve reductions in levels of seabird by-catch across all fishing areas, seasons and fisheries, through the use of effective mitigation measures; and the obligatory use of bird-scaring lines (tori poles) for vessels fishing south of 20°S (which is therefore not applicable to the UoA); - ICCAT Rec. 10-09 on the bycatch of Sea Turtles in ICCAT Fisheries, requiring inter alia for longline vessels to carry on board safe handling, disentanglement and release equipment capable of releasing sea turtles in a manner that maximizes the probability of their survival; - ICCAT Rec. 11-10 on Information Collection and Harmonization of Data on bycatch and Discards in ICCAT Fisheries requiring inter alia the collection of bycatch and discard data in CPC’s existing domestic scientific observer programs and logbook programs; - ICCAT Rec. 16-14 to establish minimum standards for fishing vessel scientific observer programs, requiring inter alia a minimum of 5% observer coverage of fishing effort in each of the pelagic longline, purse seine, and, as defined in the ICCAT glossary, bait boat, traps, gillnet and trawl fisheries. For vessels less than 15 meters, where an extraordinary safety concern may exist that precludes deployment of an 3288R06C 167 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) onboard observer, a CPC may employ an alternative scientific monitoring approach that will collect data equivalent to that specified in this recommendation in a manner that ensures comparable coverage; - Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/3 on reducing incidental bycatch of seabirds in fisheries in the GFCM area of application includes requirements for monitoring and recording of seabird bycatch, and provisions for exploring options for the mitigation of seabirds bycatch in the Mediterranean fisheries; - Recommendation GFCM/35/2011/4 on the incidental bycatch of sea turtles in fisheries in the GFCM area of application includes requirements for monitoring and recording of sea turtle bycatch, requires the adoption of sea turtle bycatch mitigation measures (although these are not defined), requires all sea turtles to be safely handled and released and requires all vessels using longlines in the GFCM area of application to carry on board safe handling, disentanglement and release equipment, capable of releasing sea turtles unharmed and in a manner that maximizes the probability of their survival. At national level: - Arrêté du 14 octobre 2005 fixant la liste des tortues marines protégées sur le territoire national et les modalités de leur protection ; prohibiting (inter alia) the harming or killing of any sea turtle ; - Arrêté du 29 octobre 2009 fixant la liste des oiseaux protégés sur l'ensemble du territoire et les modalités de leur protection ; prohibiting (inter alia) the harming or killing of any bird listed in the Arrêté. - Arrêté du 1er juillet 2011 fixant la liste des mammifères marins protégés sur le territoire national et les modalités de leur protection In addition, the Protocol Concerning Mediterranean Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity (Adopted on 10 June 1995) has enabled the establishment of Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMI) for the protection of areas of particular natural or cultural value and the protection, preservation and management of threatened or endangered species of flora and fauna – see Appendix 8 for a map showing all SPAMIs. Five of these SPAMIs are located in the UoA area. At UoA level: The implementation of the Good Practice Guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf), drafted in collaboration with IFREMER and UMR MARBEC and the use of which is obligatory for vessels subscribing to the TRL-PA brand, is the main instrument for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species. Another measure includes the independent monitoring of UoA vessels under the Obsmer programme (estimated at 0.5% coverage for 2017 – see Section 3.4.2), as well as the recent implementation of the ECHOSEA app which enables self-recording of all species interactions (including ETP) by the fishers. All of these measures aim to minimise the UoA-related mortality of ETP species and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species – SG60 is therefore met. In the absence of any other information sources from which to derive the likely level of ETP interactions, the team considered that the observer programme is an integral part of the ETP management strategy. Although 5% monitoring is required at ICCAT level, it does not appear to be implemented in this fishery. The level of monitoring in the UoA with regard to ETP species was therefore found to be insufficient for SG80 to be met. b Management strategy in place (alternative) 3288R06C 168 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidepost There are measures in place that are There is a strategy in place that is expected There is a comprehensive strategy in place expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder to ensure the UoA does not hinder the for managing ETP species, to ensure the UoA the recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Not scored Not scored Not scored Justification Not scored as there are national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. c Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is an objective basis for confidence The strategy/comprehensive strategy is based on plausible argument (e.g., general that the measures/strategy will work, based mainly based on information directly about experience, theory or comparison with on information directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species involved, and a similar fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y N N Justification All of the measures listed in scoring issue a provide a legal framework for the protection of ETP species and aim to minimise UoA-related mortality through non-retention policies and best handling and release practices. Overall, there is a plausible argument that the measures are considered likely to work and SG60 is met. However, the existing observer data are not sufficient to provide an objective basis for confidence that the measures will work, particularly for seabirds and sea turtles. SG80 is not met. d Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented strategy/comprehensive strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? N N Justification Implementation of the Good Practice Handbook is a requirement for TRL-PA membership and compliance is audited on a regular basis (at least 50% of the vessels are audited on an annual basis). Overall, the team was satisfied that fishers comply with the management measures to the extent that post-capture mortality is minimised and specimens are released as soon as is practicable. In relation to monitoring, however, although 5% monitoring is required at ICCAT level, it does not appear to be implemented in this fishery, and the existing observer data are not sufficient to provide objective evidence about implementation of the requirements. SG80 is not met. 3288R06C 169 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidepost There is a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species. of ETP species and they are implemented as ETP species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Justification The SELPAL project (Poisson et al., 2016) was designed in such a way as to respond to the recommendations of ICCAT, GFCM and the FAO on the need to increase knowledge to ensure the conservation and management of populations of sharks/rays, marine turtles and seabirds incidentally caught by tuna longlines. To do this, collaborative actions between professional fishermen and scientists were carried out over a period of 4 years, through the recording of fishing activities, tagging operations, data analysis, in situ testing of mitigation measures and the implementation of an information tool and good practices. The SELPAL study identified a need to: - Sustain and globalize the acquisition of data on bycatch: this recommendation led to the development of the Echosea software which enables all interactions with commercial and non-commercial species to be recorded. Use of this system is now obligatory in the UoA. - Adhere to the best practice guide: The observations collected within the framework of the SELPAL projects show that the mortality rates of sharks and rays brought on board are very low; this is due to the characteristics of the gear and the fishing strategy (small straight or circular hooks, rare use of light lures, mono-filament leader, reduced number of hooks set and limited set times. It is therefore recommended to adopt the release procedures presented in the SELPAL report and in the good practice guide drawn up as part of this project to ensure a high survival rate after release. The handling and release techniques in the guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf) have been developed with CEFAS, CESTMED (Mediterranean sea turtle rescue centre), SeabirdLife-France, LPO (Ligue pour la Protection des Oiseaux) amongst others and represent best practice. - Modify fishing gear to limit interactions and mortality: small straight or circular hooks used in the fishery appear to be selective in terms of fish sizes; nylon leaders (as opposed to wire leaders) are often severed by sharks which end up escaping when the line is being hauled; straight hooks detach more quickly from the jaw of rays; the use of sardines dictates the size of the hooks which are small compared to those used in other similar fisheries in the Mediterranean. The choice of bait (fish as opposed to squid) further reduces the likelihood of interactions with sea turtles. All of the above recommendations have been implemented in the UoA. Furthermore, as part of the TRL-PA brand, regular audits are commissioned by VALPEM to determine compliance with the code of conduct, gather details on gear use and bait use and make improvements where required. Finally, the UoA participates in collaborative actions with scientists to reduce accidental catches of rays, sharks and birds. The Sharkguard project was designed to test new devices for repelling rays and sharks. Tests were carried out by professional fishermen in 2019 which show 3288R06C 170 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) a certain effectiveness of the device on rays and sharks but also impacts on tuna catches. New tests are also planned for 2021. A collaboration is underway with IRD as well as part of the PARAPED project to test a depredation reduction device under development Overall, there is a regular review of ETP species interactions which supplements the data gathered through the Obsmer programme, and measures are implemented as appropriate. SG80 is met. Whether this review is biennial is unclear and remains to be seen now that the SELPAL study in particular has been completed. SG100 is not met. Appendix 8, Poisson et al. (2016), VALPEM Good Practice Handbook (http://www.thonrougedeligne.com/wp- References content/uploads/2015/04/espece.pdf), ECHOSEA (http://amop-selpal.com/images/AMOP-A5_version-4-1.pdf) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 65 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 8 3288R06C 171 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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: • Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 • 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 Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is adequate Quantitative information is available to estimate the UoA related mortality on ETP to assess the UoA related mortality and assess with a high degree of certainty the species. impact and to determine whether the UoA magnitude of UoA-related impacts, OR may be a threat to protection and recovery of mortalities and injuries and the the ETP species. consequences for the status of ETP species. If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: attributes for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y N N Justification Some quantitative information is available on UoA ETP interactions from the Obsmer observer programme and this, combined with the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016), anecdotal information gathered during site visit interviews, operational information about the fleet, including on fishing footprint (see Figure 5 and Figure 6), and population and distribution data on the ETP species concerned as well as ETP interactions in similar fisheries (see 2.3.1), provides qualitative information which enables UoA-related mortality on ETP species to be estimated. SG60 is met. However, the level of implementation of the observer programme (0.5% observed trips in 2017) is below that required through ICCAT Rec. 16-14 (5%), and the data are insufficient to evaluate the impact of the fishery to an adequate level to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of ETP species. Furthermore, for most of the ETP interactions recorded in the observer data, identification to species-level was not carried out. SG80 is not met. b Information adequacy for management strategy 3288R06C 172 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidepost Information is adequate to support measures Information is adequate to measure trends Information is adequate to support a to manage the impacts on ETP species. and support a strategy to manage impacts on comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y N N Justification Some quantitative information is available on UoA ETP interactions from the Obsmer observer programme and this, combined with the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016), anecdotal information gathered during site visit interviews, operational information about the fleet, including on fishing footprint (see Figure 5 and Figure 6) and gear specifications, and population and distribution data on the ETP species concerned as well as ETP interactions in similar fisheries (see 2.3.1), provides qualitative information which enables UoA-related mortality on ETP species to be estimated and for areas where more action is needed to be identified (through data collection or management measures). This information is therefore sufficient to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species and SG60 is therefore met. There remain significant question marks, however, as to what the actual levels of ETP species interactions are in this fishery. At 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips (for 2017), the observer coverage in this fishery is too low to enable meaningful analysis of impacts at UoA level, and to determine whether additional management action may be required. A strategy requires an element of monitoring of impacts for the species in question, and adjustment of management measures if the monitoring results suggest they are not sufficient. There is not presently enough monitoring in this fishery for this to be possible. The team therefore decided that SG80 was not met. References Poisson et al. (2016) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 9 3288R06C 173 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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(s) covered by PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce There is evidence that the UoA is highly function of the commonly encountered structure and function of the commonly unlikely to reduce structure and function of habitats to a point where there would be encountered habitats to a point where there the commonly encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justification The longline and handline gear is deployed in upper part of the water column (between ca. 4 and 20m depth) and is highly unlikely to interact with benthic features (Section 3.4.6). Gear loss is reportedly minimal in the UoA – if it does occur, lost gear may consist of monofilament and/or hooks and is only likely to continue to fish as long as bait remains on the hooks. Bait is stripped relatively quickly off the hooks and as such, the mortality rate associated to lost longlines is low (Macfadyen et al., 2009). SG100 is therefore met. b VME habitat status Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce There is evidence that the UoA is highly function of the VME habitats to a point structure and function of the VME habitats to unlikely to reduce structure and function of where there would be serious or irreversible a point where there would be serious or the VME habitats to a point where there harm. irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justification See above. SG100 is met. c Minor habitat status Guidepost There is evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of 3288R06C 174 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Justification As above. Met. References Macfadyen et al. (2009); site visit interviews OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 175 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidepost There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing the that are expected to achieve the Habitat necessary, that is expected to achieve the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on Outcome 80 level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or habitats. above. Met? Y Y N Justification Considering that this fishery is extremely unlikely to impact benthic habitats, the term ‘if necessary’ applies here and management measures should not be required. SG 60 and 80 are therefore met by default. There is, however, no strategy in place which specifically aims to manage the impacts of the fishery on habitat types (either directly or through ghost fishing), as required by MSC for a score of 100. SG100 is therefore not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g. general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on experience, theory or comparison with based on information directly about the UoA information directly about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/habitats). and/or habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Y Y Y Justification The ‘partial strategy’ is the nature of the fishery (pelagic only); there is therefore high confidence that it works, based on information directly about the gear type and deployment. SG100 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some quantitative evidence that the There is clear quantitative evidence that the measures/partial strategy is being partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). 3288R06C 176 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Met? Y Y Justification Poisson et al. (2016) provide a depth profile for the UoA which clearly demonstrates that this is a shallow-set pelagic longline fishery which is highly unlikely to interact with benthic features. SG100 is met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidepost There is qualitative evidence that the UoA There is some quantitative evidence that the There is clear quantitative evidence that the complies with its management requirements UoA complies with both its management UoA complies with both its management to protect VMEs. requirements and with protection measures requirements and with protection measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where relevant. MSC fisheries, where relevant. Met? Y Y Y Justification In the absence of interactions with VMEs (see 2.4.1), this issue is met by default. SG100 is met. References Poisson et al. (2016); site visit interviews OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 177 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts PI 2.4.3 on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidepost The types and distribution of the main The nature, distribution and vulnerability of The distribution of all habitats is known over habitats are broadly understood. the main habitats in the UoA area are known their range, with particular attention to the OR at a level of detail relevant to the scale and occurrence of vulnerable habitats. intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y N Justification Knowledge of demersal habitats is not relevant to this fishery, so SG60 and SG80 are met by default. SG100 is not met because it does not include a statement about ‘relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA’. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidepost Information is adequate to broadly Information is adequate to allow for The physical impacts of the gear on all understand the nature of the main impacts of identification of the main impacts of the UoA habitats have been quantified fully. gear use on the main habitats, including on the main habitats, and there is reliable spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. information on the spatial extent of OR interaction and on the timing and location of If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: use of the fishing gear. Qualitative information is adequate to OR estimate the consequence and spatial If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: attributes of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. 3288R06C 178 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Met? Y Y Y Justification Since the gear does not interact with habitats, the (lack of) physical impacts are clear. SG100 is met. c Monitoring Guidepost Adequate information continues to be Changes in habitat distributions over time are collected to detect any increase in risk to the measured. main habitats. Met? Y N Justification No information is required, so SG80 is met by default. SG100 is not met because such measurements are not necessary in this fishery. References Poisson et al. (2016); site visit interviews OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 179 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key There is evidence that the UoA is highly elements underlying ecosystem structure elements underlying ecosystem structure unlikely to disrupt the key elements and function to a point where there would be and function to a point where there would be underlying ecosystem structure and function a serious or irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible harm. to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justification Please see Section 3.4.7 for a detailed discussion on fishing impacts on the northwest Mediterranean ecosystem. The main ecosystem impact of the UoA is likely the removal of large predators such as bluefin tuna, pelagic stingray, swordfish and blue shark which make up much of the catch. The study carried out by Bănaru et al. (2013) concerns the Gulf of Lions directly where the majority of UoA fishing effort takes place. Similar to other studies in the northwest Mediterranean (e.g. Coll et al. (2006); Coll et al. (2019)), the authors found that small pelagic fish species, particularly sardine and anchovy, represent key link groups in term of consumption and flows between pelagic primary producers and consumers from both the pelagic and the demersal compartments, highlighting possible wasp-waist predator–prey interactions. Although fishing was considered an important pressure component in the Gulf of Lions food-web as it is responsible for a high rate of “consumption” of the fish compartment, the flows in the upper trophic levels (consisting of anglerfish, European conger, juvenile Atlantic bluefin tuna and European hake) were almost insignificant. This was confirmed by a more recent study (Van Beveren et al., 2017) that found that tuna predation is unlikely to be the main cause of major changes in the small pelagic fish populations from this area. This information, combined with the scale of the UoA (limited number of vessels, small quota allocations for bluefin tuna and swordfish), and the implementation of the TRL-PA Code of Conduct (non-retention of sharks, best handling and release for ETP species) provides evidence that the UoA 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. SG60, 80 and 100 are met. References Bănaru et al. (2013) ; Coll et al. (2006); Van Beveren et al. (2017); Coll et al. (2019) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 180 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidepost There are measures in place, if necessary There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in which take into account the potential necessary, which takes into account place which contains measures to address all impacts of the fishery on key elements of the available information and is expected to main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, ecosystem. restrain impacts of the UoA on the and at least some of these measures are in ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y N Justification The FAO code states that fisheries management should ensure the conservation not only of target species, but also sympatric non-target species (Allain et al., 2011). The intent behind the FAO code is now explicit in ICCAT measures, through Rec. 15-11 concerning the application of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, SG60 is met. The recommendation calls for inter alia: a) the consideration of the interdependence of stocks and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon target stocks; b) the consideration of the impacts of fishing, other relevant human activities, and environmental factors on target stocks, non-target species and species belonging to the same ecosystem or associated with or dependent upon target stocks in the Convention area; and c) the minimization of negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem. At EU level, both the Water Framework Directive (WFD; Directive 2000/60/EC), and the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD; Directive 2008/56/EC) outline the need for better water quality, and prescribe to achieve ‘good environmental status’, following the precautionary approach through the use of an ecosystem-based approach. The implementation of the Habitat- and Bird Directives (Council Directive 92/43/EEC and Directive 2009/147/EC) into designated Natura 2000-sites can be regarded as part of the tools to achieve the ‘good environmental status’, SG60 is met. The CFP explicitly states in Article 2: (3) “The CFP shall implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are minimised, …” The MSFD outlines the legislative framework for an ecosystem-based approach to the management of human activities which supports the sustainable use of marine goods and services, with the overarching goal of achieving ‘Good Environmental Status’ by 2020 across Europe’s marine environment. To do so, a series of detailed criteria and indicators have been produced by the Commission which are used by member states as a blueprint for the implementation of the MSFD. The MSFD requires member states to: 3288R06C 181 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) • Provide an assessment of the current state of their seas by July 2012 • Provide a set of detailed characteristics of what good environmental status means for their waters, and associated targets and indicators, by July 2012 • Establish a monitoring programme to measure progress by July 2014 • Establish a programme of measures for achieving good environmental status by 2020 The team considered that all the ICCAT recommendations listed previously under Principle 1 and Principle 2, in conjunction with EU and French national legislation, the Protocol Concerning Specially Protected Areas and Biological Diversity in the Mediterranean (and designation of SPAMIs – see Appendix 8) and the fishery-specific management implemented through the TRL-PA Code of Conduct and Good Practice Guide (https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf; e.g. on hook types, leader types, use of light sticks, use of de- hookers, line cutters and dip nets, safe handling and release practices for sea turtles, seabirds and elasmobranchs) constituted at least a partial strategy and that SG80 was therefore met. However, although the intent is clearly there, a coherent ecosystem-based fisheries management plan for the northwestern Mediterranean remains to be developed. SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g., general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on experience, theory or comparison with based on some information directly about information directly about the UoA and/or similar fisheries/ ecosystems). the UoA and/or the ecosystem involved ecosystem involved Met? Y Y N Justification Collectively, the approaches implemented at regional (ICCAT, EU), national and UoA level are working toward a common goal of maintaining ecosystem structure and function throughout the Mediterranean Sea and are encouraging sustainable exploitation of marine resources, SG60 is met. The northwest Mediterranean ecosystem structure and function is well-studied with multiple reports (e.g. Bănaru et al. (2013); Coll et al. (2006); Coll et al. (2019) and Van Beveren et al. (2017)) and data available on species, fishing impacts (Poisson et al., 2016) and functional relationships upon which to base informed management decisions. On this basis, the team considered that there is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and SG80 is met. Although some projections for individual stocks have been carried out (e.g. bluefin tuna and swordfish), management at ecosystem level has not been tested. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). 3288R06C 182 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Met? Y Y Justification The partial strategy consists of maintaining the fishery impact at a low level, through a limited number of vessels that are permitted to fish for bluefin tuna, and to minimise impacts on individual species through non-retention policies and maximizing post-capture survival through best practice handling and release practices. Although short-comings in the monitoring of discards and ETP interactions have been identified for the UoA, this performance indicator ultimately assesses ecosystem-level impacts for which modelling (e.g. Bănaru et al. (2013); Coll et al. (2019) and Van Beveren et al. (2017)) has shown that irreversible impacts are highly unlikely (see 2.5.1). There is reasonable confidence that levels of IUU are low (see PI 3.2.3). Overall, there is some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully - SG80 is met. For SG100, the objective from scoring issue a is: ‘to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem to achieve the Ecosystem Outcome 80 level of performance’. This is being achieved therefore SG100 is also met. Bănaru et al. (2013), Coll et al. (2006); Poisson et al. (2016); Coll et al. (2019) and Van Beveren et al. (2017) References https://www.opquota.com/assets/pdf/GuideIfremer_2016_web.pdf OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 183 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 Guidepost Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly elements of the ecosystem. understand the key elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justification There is ongoing work to collect detailed data on the structure of the northwest Mediterranean ecosystem, e.g. through observer programmes (Obsmer), ecosystem modelling (Coll et al., 2006, 2019; Bănaru et al., 2013; Van Beveren et al., 2017) and UoA-specific research (Poisson et al. (2016) and ECHOSEA). This information is thought to be adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, i.e. the main features of the ecosystem and their major inter-relationships. SG60 and SG80 are met. b Investigation of UoA impacts Guidepost Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main interactions between the UoA and ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from these ecosystem elements can be inferred existing information, but have not been existing information, and some have been from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y Y Justification The studies carried out by Bănaru et al. (2013), Coll et al. (2019) and Van Beveren et al. (2017) cover the Northwest (NW) Mediterranean and the Gulf of Lions where the UoA operates. Bănaru et al. (2013) examined the effects of seven different fisheries (including the UoA fishery) on structure and functioning of the Gulf of Lions marine ecosystem. Their model was composed of 40 compartments, including 1 group of seabirds, 2 groups of cetaceans, 18 groups of fish, 12 groups of invertebrates, 5 groups of primary producers, detritus and discards. This understanding was supplemented more recently with studies modelling the effects of key drivers (including fishing pressure) on the NW Mediterranean pelagic food web (Coll et al., 2019) and exploring the interactions between bluefin tuna predation and small pelagic fish populations (Van Beveren et al., 2017). On this basis, the team concludes that Main interactions between the UoA and these ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and have been investigated in detail. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. c Understanding of component functions 3288R06C 184 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidepost The main functions of the components (i.e., The impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, P1 target species, primary, secondary and primary, secondary and ETP species and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem Habitats are identified and the main are known. functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y N Justification The impacts of the UoA on each of the components are known as discussed in the preceding P1 and P2 performance indicators. Bănaru et al. (2013) examined the effects of seven different fisheries (including the UoA fishery) on structure and functioning of the Gulf of Lions marine ecosystem. Their model was composed of 40 compartments, including 1 group of seabirds, 2 groups of cetaceans, 18 groups of fish, 12 groups of invertebrates, 5 groups of primary producers, detritus and discards. Interactions between key drivers (fishing pressure, climate change, zooplankton abundance) and the NW Mediterranean pelagic food web have also been explored (Coll et al., 2019) in addition to bluefin tuna predation effects on small pelagic fish populations (Van Beveren et al., 2017) which are thought to be the key link groups in term of consumption and flows between pelagic primary producers and consumers from both the pelagic and the demersal compartments. SG80 is met. However, because of the identified issues regarding data availability on UoA impacts on the P2 components (see Primary, Secondary and ETP species performance indicators and conditions), it is not clear that all impacts have been identified. SG100 is not met. d Information relevance Guidepost Adequate information is available on the Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to impacts of the UoA on the components and allow some of the main consequences for the elements to allow the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y N Justification Despite the short-comings in the observer data (see previous Principle 2 components), information on the UoA (see scoring issue a) and its impacts on the ecosystem components and elements is adequate overall so that the main consequences for the ecosystem can be inferred. SG80 is met. However, owing to the paucity of data discussed in the preceding performance indicators, and the inability to properly estimate fleet-level impacts on some of the components, SG100 is not met. e Monitoring Guidepost Adequate data continue to be collected to Information is adequate to support the detect any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. 3288R06C 185 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Met? Y N Justification Logbook and observer data combined with self-reporting (ECHOSEA) and independent research (Poisson et al., 2016) are sufficient to detect any changes which might have ecosystem impacts; e.g. changes in rates of bycatch, SG80 is met. Since there is not something that could be formally defined as an ecosystem management strategy, SG100 is not met. References Bănaru et al. (2013), Coll et al. (2006); Poisson et al. (2016); Coll et al. (2019) and Van Beveren et al. (2017) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 186 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Appendix 1.3 Principle 3 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guidep There is an effective national legal system and a There is an effective national legal system There is an effective national legal system and ost framework for cooperation with other parties, and organised and effective cooperation binding procedures governing cooperation with where necessary, to deliver management with other parties, where necessary, to other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and deliver management outcomes consistent outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. 2 with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N Justific There are three jurisdictions of importance to this fishery: the tuna RFMO ICCAT, the EU as the Fishery’s Policy maker and France as flag state, port ation state and market state. ICCAT provides the overarching framework to deliver cooperation with all parties to deliver management outcomes for Principle 1 and 2 for the BFT- e. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT, 2007) is the formal document that establishes the international legal and administrative structure for the management of tuna and tuna-like stocks. The European Union has been a contracting party since 1997 and is an active member of its four Panels including Panel 2-Northern temperate tunas and 4-Other species. Delegates from EU member states, including France also contribute actively to all Committees and Working Groups related to Principle 1 and Principle 2 indicators relating to the BFT-e fishery. In 2016, an independent review panel noted that since 2008 “ICCAT has redressed the situation, both in terms of the status of the stock and the conduct of the (BFT-e) fishery” (ICCAT, 2016a), and therefore that ICCAT now provides an effective framework for organised and active cooperation for this fishery. The European Parliament and the Council have translated the current basis of the BFT-e Recovery Plan (Rec.17-07 later Rec.18-02) into Regulation (EU) 2019/833 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2019 laying down conservation and enforcement measures applicable in the Regulatory Area of the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organisation, amending Regulation (EU) 2016/1627 and repealing Council Regulations (EC) No 2115/2005 and (EC) No 1386/2007 and Regulation (EU) 2019/1154 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on a multiannual recovery plan for Mediterranean swordfish and amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1967/2006 and Regulation (EU) 2017/2107 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention area of the 3288R06C 187 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), which has direct effect in the legal order of all member states, France included. Following the adoption of ICCAT Rec. 18-02 setting out the details of the multi-annual management plan that will take effect in June 2019, the EU has already indicated that it is drafting a new BFT-e specific regulation (EU, 2019b), which will also be binding for all EU member States. Although the EU could take over a year in transposing the recovery/management plan, it adopts annually a Regulation fixing fishing possibilities (TACs) and other provisions (including those from ICCAT) for the following fishing season (see as examples Annex ID of Council Regulations (EU) for the TACs of 2018 and 2019 (EU, 2018a, 2019a)). The provisions adopted by ICCAT usually apply from the following fishing season through different provisions at EU and Member State level, even before its official date of entry into force at ICCAT level. The EU Common Fisheries Policy provides a framework for organized cooperation between EU member states, including France, and internationally, since 1957. Through EU cooperation, France has been actively participating in data collection, sharing and dissemination of scientific data, scientific assessment of stock status and development of management advice, for the fishery locally (e.g. Rouyer and Miller (2018)). SG60 and SG80 are met for ICCAT, Europe and France, however ICCAT recommendations are not binding to all, SG100 is not met. b Resolution of disputes Guidep The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or is The management system incorporates or is ost subject by law to a mechanism for the subject by law to a transparent mechanism subject by law to a transparent mechanism for resolution of legal disputes arising within the for the resolution of legal disputes which is the resolution of legal disputes that is appropriate system. considered to be effective in dealing with to the context of the fishery and has been tested most issues and that is appropriate to the and proven to be effective. context of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT has a tradition of making decisions by consensus and resolving disputes informally, e.g. ICCAT members discuss issues in species panels, ation approving panel reports and raising relevant issues at Commission sessions providing a full airing of concerns in an effort to avoid disputes. However, in cases where disputes cannot be settled, the ICCAT Convention provides a process of objection allowing individual Contracting Parties (CPs) to withdraw from endorsing and implementing an ICCAT recommendation (ICCAT, 2007) Convention Article VIII (2,3)). The procedure has been used infrequently (12 times between 1969 and 2015), with 9 objections raised by two ICCAT CPs with respect to their bluefin tuna allocation, SG60 is met. ICCAT’s Conservation and Management Measures Compliance Committee (COC) monitors compliance with the Convention and ICCAT recommendations, which are binding insofar as the Contracting Parties agree to implement them domestically. The COC has the potential to address disputes over implementation of ICCAT recommendations but was found to be generally ineffective by ICCAT’s Independent Review Panel (Spencer et al., 2016). ICCAT recognised the need for a more formal dispute settlement procedure, and the matter has been progressing slowly according to the Working Group on Convention Amendment (CWG). The latest CWG report has now agreed on proposals, which will need to be incorporated into the ICCAT’s Convention to be final before they can be tested and proven effective as the need arises (ICCAT, 2018e). In addition, it is worth noting that “it is, at least in theory, possible for international disputes to be resolved through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) if they cannot be resolved in more efficient ways. This recourse is most likely to be used by states which have ratified the UNFSA, in which such a provision is made. Therefore, where a fishery is not under the jurisdiction of a state which has 3288R06C 188 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) ratified UNFSA, it may be questioned how effective this option would be. For states which have ratified UNFSA, it is likely this mechanism would be transparent and effective (Medley et al., 2019, 2020).” The EU ratified the UNFSA in 1998, therefore SG80 is met. The BFT-e management system also includes dispute resolution mechanisms at EU and national levels. For matters between EU member states, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) may be used, which has been done over the years when all conciliation avenues have been exhausted and cases Regarding BFT fisheries in the Mediterranean have been brought to the ECJ by various parties. The process takes time, but it is transparent and considered to be effective. Although the fishery is managed at EU-level, some prerogatives remain with the member states, in particular the allocation of quota, especially as the BFT-e stock is recovering and the French share of the TAC has been increasing. In particular, some small-scale operators (SSF) from the Golfe du Lion who are outside Producer Organisations and wish to obtain some or more BFT quota have taken the French Ministry to the Administrative Court in 2017 (SPLMR, 2017), while proceeding through other avenues. Dispute mechanisms are transparent, and considered to be appropriate and effective, as opportunities for SSF appear to have been increased for 2019. SG80 is met. However, the Court case is still pending, SG100 is not met. c Respect for rights Guidep The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism The management system has a mechanism to ost generally respect the legal rights created to observe the legal rights created explicitly formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people or established by custom of people explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a dependent on fishing for food or livelihood dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC in a manner consistent with the objectives of manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT Resolution 15-13 deals specifically with “Criteria for Allocation of Fishing Possibilities” to CPCs and recognises priority interests of artisanal, ation subsistence, small-scale coastal fishers, coastal fishing communities, coastal states and regions dependent on fishing for the stocks, and fisheries on the High Seas, together with the economic and/or social importance of the fishery for qualifying participants whose fishing vessels have habitually participated in the fishery in the Convention area (ICCAT, 2015c). For ICCAT contracting parties, a Resolution is not binding, therefore there is no commitment at that level, only SG60 and SG80 are met. The CFP Basic Regulation (1380/2013) recognizes the importance of small-scale fisheries (recital.4). The present rules restricting access to resources within the 12 nautical mile zones of Member States are also noted “to benefit conservation by restricting fishing and also preserving traditional fishing activities on which the social and economic development of certain coastal communities is highly dependent”, and “Member States should endeavour to give preferential access to small-scale, artisanal or coastal fishermen” (recital 19). Article 17 of the CFP deals specifically with "Criteria for the allocation of fishing opportunities by Member States") and states that "When allocating the fishing opportunities available to them, as referred to in Article 16, Member States shall use transparent and objective criteria including those of an environmental, social and economic nature. The criteria to be used may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the environment, the history of compliance, the contribution to the local economy and historic catch levels.” EU, 2013b. Inside a decreasing and now increasing French share of the TAC, the allocation of fishing rights is the prerogative of the French authorities. For the EU-managed BFT, France must submit a fishing capacity and fishing plan, which then forms part of the 3288R06C 189 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) EU plan submitted to ICCAT. There are set rules of procedures governing the deliverance of AEP (European fishing authorisation), which are a key tool to control fishing capacity. AEP were introduced in 2013 and must be renewed every year. AEP are limited in numbers nationally, separately for the Atlantic and the Mediterranean, and per length of vessel and gear-type. In the case of this fishery, longline vessels less than 24m, and rod vessel less than 17m. An AEP is attributed for a specific vessel, and on the condition that the applicant is up to date with his mandatory professional membership fees (cotisations professionnelles obligatoires – CPO - article R.921-24 du code rural et de la pêche maritime). The PO also has to certify that the vessel applying for the BFT AEP has some BFT quota, SG60 is met. There are also set procedures and criteria for quota allocation, which were originally based on track records for the period 1st January 2009 to 31st August 2010. Annual quota allocations are published every year in French legislation (e.g. Arrêté JORF n°0037 8 Feb.2018 and n°0036 12 Feb. 2019, France, 2019). However, the reference years do not reflect the historical involvement of small-scale French Mediterranean fishers who used to catch bluefin tuna with local types of pelagic drift nets, the “seinche, thonaille and courantille” that were used in the 1950s and 1960s, progressively abandoned and eventually banned in the Mediterranean by EU legislation in 1998 and French legislation in 2005 (Petit, 2011). In practice, the French management system has a mechanism to observe the legal rights established by custom consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 therefore SG80 is met. However, the system of quota allocation is contested because it did not go back in time enough, which was not possible because of a lack of reliable statistics. For this fishery, all vessels in the UoA are members of the Producer Organisation (PO) SATHOAN. POs have the possibility to manage their members’ quota allocation over the year, based on a Plan de Pêche and may also facilitate transfers as allowed by the annual BFT Arrêté. For instance, in a process between SATHOAN members, the purse seiner fleet has transferred some of its quota to the SATHOAN longliners annually. There appears to be plans but details of the French administration commitment to future redistribution to benefit small-scale vessel owners are not clear, only SG80 is met. References (ICCAT, 2007, 2015c, 2016a, 2018e; Spencer et al., 2016; SPLMR, 2017; EU, 2018a, 2019a, 2019b; Medley et al., 2019, 2020) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 190 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 Guidep Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in Organisations and individuals involved in the ost management process have been identified. the management process have been management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly generally understood. responsibilities are explicitly defined and defined and well understood for all areas of well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction. Met? Y Y N Justific The ICCAT Convention defines the roles and responsibilities of the Commission, of the Secretariat and the Contracting Parties. The ICCAT Manual ation provides an organigram and explicitly describes the functions, roles and responsibilities of the various ICCAT subsidiary bodies (see section 3.5.1.2), SG60 is met. ICCAT meetings are advertised in advance and the preparatory and final reports are accessible to all. They explain clearly the role and areas of responsibilities. Contributions from stakeholders including environmental NGOs submitted to ICCAT and reports from the press demonstrate how all parties involved in the fishery interact and their roles are well understood, SG80 is met. However, the team accepts that in the wider context of all ICCAT CPCs that could catch some e-BFT incidentally as its distribution range extends, this may not extend to all areas. SG100 is not met. The SATHOAN bluefin tuna fishery French Mediterranean Bluefin tuna artisanal longline and handline fishery is part of a shared stock managed at ICCAT and European level. All French professional fishermen have to be members of a regional fisheries co-management committee (CRPMEM). There are three concerned by the fishery along the French Mediterranean coast (Occitanie, PACA and Corsica). The national Committee (Comité national des pêches maritimes et des élevages marins - CNPMEM) has a dedicated Bluefin tuna and Swordfish Commission of which SATHOAN is a member, holds regular meetings (with the central administration department (DPMA) and research institute IFREMER to prepare, analyse and discuss around ICCAT meetings. The fishery is also represented at European level, through the PO, and PO associations, the Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) through the local CRPMEMs and the PO for aspects regarding Principle 2 (non-target species, protected areas, ecosystem change etc.) It is apparent that the functions, roles and responsibilities of all those involved in management are clearly defined and are well understood in all areas. SG60, SG80 and SG100 would be met at national and European levels. A partial score is not possible here so SG100 is not met overall. b Consultation processes 3288R06C 191 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidep The management system includes consultation The management system includes The management system includes consultation ost processes that obtain relevant information consultation processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek and accept relevant from the main affected parties, including local and accept relevant information, including information, including local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system. local knowledge. The management system management system demonstrates consideration of demonstrates consideration of the the information and explains how it is used or not information obtained. used. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT has an extensive programme of data collection through vessel and port registration, electronic catch reporting and scientific observations and ation inspections agreed through recommendations, that has been agreed by all stakeholders in the fishery, SG60 is met. ICCAT Resolution 11-17 on "best available science" reinforces cooperation among CPC, ICCAT Commission and the SCRS, and the participation of scientists. Consideration of the information obtained is demonstrated in the EU (France) and other CPCs annual reports and discussions the ICCAT Panel 2, WG and biennial Commission reports, which also explain how the information is used or not for stock assessment, SG80 is met. However, explanation regarding how information is used by management or not and how different sources of information on compliance, economics and social issues are weighted, is not so clearly reported, SG100 is not met at regional level. The French management system relies on co-management through the CRPMEMs for local fisheries including those shared at Mediterranean level with the GFCM, and on the EU-registered POs to manage the French share of EU quotas for BFT-e, for SWO since 2017, and for other stocks with specific management plans, SG60 is met at EU and French levels. Each of the local institutions and the national-level CNPMEM have specific BFT committees that regularly seek and accept information, including local knowledge and regularly communicate with scientists from IFREMER and the Agence française pour la Biodiversité, all key actors know how their information are used (or not) at local, national and European levels. SG80 is met and and SG100 is met at the French and EU levels. As a partial score is not possible here, SG100 is not met overall. c Participation Guidep The consultation process provides The consultation process provides opportunity and ost opportunity for all interested and affected encouragement for all interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y Justific The ICCAT Convention (Article 11) states that the Commission may invite any appropriate international organization and any non-member Government ation that is a member of the UN or of any Specialized Agency to send observers to meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies (ICCAT, 2007). There is a Meeting Participation Fund (ICCAT Recommendation 11-26) to facilitate participation of developing ICCAT CPC countries in all ICCAT activities (training, inspections, meetings). The need to further support participation of stakeholders from developing countries was noted in the second Performance Evaluation (Spencer et al., 2016), SG80 is met. The participation of independent expert and academic researchers is also explicitly encouraged in SCRS and for the Peer Review mechanisms (see ICCAT Resolution on the best available science (ICCAT, 2018d)). ICCAT meeting dates 3288R06C 192 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) are advertised on the ICCAT website from year to year, providing an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved, including in the Scientific process. Various stakeholders also participate to Commission meetings as part of the national delegations. All meetings are opened to Observers who have to register on the website 50 days ahead of time and cover their costs and a fee to cover ICCAT’s additional expenses. The Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Observer Status at ICCAT Meetings (ICCAT, 2005) clearly state that “All non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which support the objectives of ICCAT and with a demonstrated interest in the species under the purview of ICCAT should be eligible to participate as an observer in all meetings of the organization and its subsidiary bodies, except extraordinary meetings held in executive sessions or meetings of Heads of Delegations.” Applications are accepted unless one-third of the CPCs object. Observers are not allowed to vote, but they can, upon invitation by the chair, make an oral statement during the meeting and distribute documents at meetings through the Secretariat. Considering the active participation of NGOs for the last 15 years in the SCRS and Commission meetings (through position papers and scientific contributions to the SCRS), SG100 is met at regional level. At EU level, the Mediterranean Advisory Council (MEDAC) encourages and facilitates an effective engagement of all stakeholders, SG80 is met. At French national level, the POs (PO SATHOAN for this fishery) and CRPMEMs (Occitanie, PACA and Corsica) have specific provisions for good governance including consultation and active participation. POs and the CNPMEM are informed by IFREMER scientists and consulted prior to European ministerial meetings, they are briefed by the central administration (DPMA) prior and after ICCAT Commission meetings on future implications of outcomes and generally solicited to help draft local and national management measures. SG100 is met at EU and French levels. References (ICCAT, 2005, 2007, 2018d, n.d.; Spencer et al., 2016; Medley et al., 2019, 2020) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 193 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates PI 3.1.3 the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guidep Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, Clear long-term objectives that guide Clear long-term objectives that guide decision- ost consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and decision-making, consistent with MSC making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard the precautionary approach, are implicit within fisheries standard and the precautionary and the precautionary approach, are explicit management policy. approach are explicit within management within and required by management policy. policy. Met? Y Y Y Justific The long-term objective set out in Article VIII of the ICCAT Convention (ICCAT, 2007) is to maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes that ation may be taken in the Convention area at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch. There is no mention of the precautionary approach in the Convention but Resolution 15-11 states that the “Commission should apply an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management” and Resolution 15-12 states that “when making recommendations pursuant to Article VIII of the Convention, the Commission should apply a precautionary approach, in accordance with relevant international standards.” Furthermore, Recommendation 11-13 "on the principles of decision making for ICCAT conservation and management measures", recalls that "that management decisions should be based upon scientific advice and consistent with the precautionary approach" and aim to support its application (ICCAT, 2018g), SG60 and SG80 are met. For BFT-e specifically, Recommendation 17-07 the BFT-e Recovery Plan sets explicitly the objective of “managing fishing activities by maintaining catches at or below the MSY estimate shall also be supported by a Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) maintained over or at a level of the corresponding SSBMSY, referring to the SCRS most precautionary MSY estimate.” The management objective of 17-07 and previous iterations of the rebuilding plan was to achieve BMSY with at least 60 % probability. Rec. 17-07 will be replaced by Rec. 18-02 in 2019, with a slightly different management objective: to achieve B0.1 (proxy for BMSY) by fishing ‘at or below’ F0.1; i.e. a slightly lower objective (ICCAT, 2018h) but one that still that can be considered precautionary. Although resolutions are not binding, the recommendations relating to the current management of BFT-E are presently binding to all CPCs exploiting the resource, and therefore one could conclude that the precautionary approach is required by ICCAT management policy for BFT-e, SG100 is met. The European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) sets out clear objectives ((EU, 2013a) CFP Regulation 1380/2013 Article 2): 1. To ensure that fishing and aquaculture activities are environmentally sustainable in the long-term and are managed in a way that is consistent with the objectives of achieving economic, social and employment benefits, and contributing to the availability of food supplies ; 2. To apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management, and aim to ensure that exploitation of living marine biological resources restores and maintains populations of harvested species above levels, which can produce the maximum sustainable yield. In order to reach the objective of progressively restoring and maintaining populations of fish stocks above biomass levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks ; and 3. To implement the ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management so as to ensure that negative impacts of fishing activities on the marine ecosystem are 3288R06C 194 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) minimised, and shall endeavour to ensure that aquaculture and fisheries activities avoid the degradation of the marine environment. SG60 and SG80 are met. Regarding Principle 2, the EU Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD – Dir 2008/56/EC of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy) sets out clear the objectives, including for the Western Mediterranean Sea marine sub-region, where the fishery is based. The MSFD Descriptor 3 relates specifically to the reduction of ecosystem impacts from fishing activities. The MSFD relies on EU member states to establish and implement a programme of measures devised on the basis of the precautionary principle to reach Good Environmental Status by 2020 at the latest. The objectives of the French fisheries policy are clearly set out for P1 in the Code Rural et de la Pêche Maritime (art.L2) to be at MSY (art. D922-1). For P2 in the Code de l’Environnement (in conformity with the CFP and EU marine environment protection directives, and with international obligations), to exploit fisheries sustainably (art. L219-1). For the overarching objectives of the reformed CFP and those of the French policies, SG100 is also met. References (ICCAT, 2005, 2018g, 2018h; EU, 2013a) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 195 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guidep Objectives, which are broadly consistent with Short and long-term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and long- ost achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s consistent with achieving the outcomes term objectives, which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are consistent with achieving the outcomes fishery-specific management system. explicit within the fishery-specific management expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are system. explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y N Justific The overarching objective of ICCAT is to maintain catches of species in their purview at maximum sustainable catch levels (ICCAT, 2007). For BFT-e ation specifically, Recommendation 17-07 (ICCAT, 2018g) follows on from a number of binding previous recommendations for CPCs, with vessels actively fishing for bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean to “implement a 15 year Recovery Plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean starting in 2007 and continuing through 2022, with the goal of achieving BMSY with at least 60 % probability.” Rec. 17-07 regarding the Recovery Plan (and previously Rec. 14-04) sets TAC increase over 3 years as part of the Recovery Plan, that reviewed every year, with a Management Plan due for 2018. In Rec 17-07 that came into effect in August 2018 the objective is explicit: “managing fishing activities by maintaining catches at or below the MSY estimate shall also be supported by a Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) maintained over or at a level of the corresponding SSBMSY, referring to the SCRS most precautionary MSY estimate and noting that annual increases of 20% of the TAC over three years would correspond to a moderate and gradual increase of the catch level to the most precautionary MSY estimate of the SCRS. Rec. 17-07 is to be replaced by Rec. 18-02 in June 2019, with a slightly different management objective: to achieve B0.1 (proxy for BMSY) by fishing ‘at or below’ F0.1; i.e. a slightly lower objective (ICCAT, 2018g), but one that still that can be considered precautionary, SG60 and SG80 are met. Regarding Principle 2, the Commission adopted the Resolution by ICCAT on Atlantic Sharks (Resolution 01-11), the Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Conservation of Sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT (Rec. 04-10) (ICCAT, 2018g), the Supplemental Recommendation by ICCAT concerning Sharks (Rec. 07-06), including the obligation of CPCs to annually report Task I & II data for sharks in accordance with ICCAT data reporting procedures and the Recommendation by ICCAT on the Development of Harvest Control Rules and of Management Strategy Evaluation (Rec. 15-07) for commercially exploited species and catch avoidance and survival estimation for released sharks. Catch limits have been set for Blue shark (Prionace glauca) (Rec 16-12) (ICCAT, 2018g). Similarly, for ETP species, ICCAT has developed explicit policy objectives to avoid catches and data collection binding recommendations to that effect e.g. REC 10-09 regarding sea turtles (ICCAT, 2010); 11-09 regarding seabirds (ICCAT, 2011a); there are also two (non-binding) resolutions regarding Co-operation with CITES: 93-08 and 93-09 (ICCAT, 1993a, 1993b), SG60 and SG80 are met. AT EU level, the corresponding short and long-term objectives are taken up in the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the various international Conventions that prevail in the Mediterranean Sea and to which the EU and France are party. These objectives are also explicit and 3288R06C 196 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) clearly set, to minimise all impacts in the short-term and ensure that the fishery remains sustainable in the long-term, in the fishery specific Good Practice Guide (as discussed under Principle 2). Locally, the SATHOAN Good Practice Guide has been developed for some years in close collaboration with fishers in the UoA (Poisson et al., 2015). Although voluntary and informal, local management measures are explicit and well established (in the sense of MSC FCR2.0 SA4.2), SG80 is met. However, not all objectives are “well defined and measurable for P2 species” therefore SG100 is not met. Overall, it cannot be said that all objectives are well defined and measurable for P2 species. Although objectives are well-defined and measurable for the BFT (and now SWO) caught by the fishery, this is not yet the case for non-target species, for which objectives are set to avoid interactions or mitigate their impacts, without numbers being set. SG100 is not met. References (ICCAT, 2007, 2018g; Poisson et al., 2015) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 197 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guidep There are some decision-making processes in There are established decision-making ost place that result in measures and strategies to processes that result in measures and strategies achieve the fishery-specific objectives. to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justific ICCAT’s principle objective is to maintain fish stocks at levels that will permit the maximum sustainable catch. The ICCAT Convention (art.3) requires ation decisions to be taken by a majority of Contracting Parties (CPs), each with one vote. Two thirds of the CPs constitute a quorum, but ICCAT mostly seeks consensus. The Commission receives advice from its Panels and Committees, e.g. scientific advice on issues such as stock status and catch limits comes from the SCRS. Its regular meetings are biennial, with Special meetings the other years as needed. Its main subsidiary bodies, such as the SCRS involved the scientific management advice of BFT-e have met every year, or more often for specialized Working Groups, SG60 is met. The last Performance Review (Spencer et al., 2016) noted that “The desire to manage on a consensus basis is laudable, but approaches may have to change bearing in mind there are 52 CPs now in ICCAT. In the view of the Panel, the pursuit of the consensus objective has often led to either the postponement of decisions, the change in proposals from a legally binding recommendation to a non-legally binding resolution, or continued deferral of decision-making on the adoption of measures.” As reported by the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Follow up of the Second ICCAT Performance Review (ICCAT, 2017j) work is on-going to improve this and other points of governance. Nevertheless, decision-making processes are well-established and, for the BFT-e fishery, have shown in recent years that they can result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives, SG80 is met. The European Union is an ICCAT CP. It has a mechanism in place to translate ICCAT’s recommendation (for example Rec. 17-07 for the BFT recovery Plan) as soon as adopted into a Regulation of the European Parliament and the Council (of EU Fisheries Ministers, in this case Reg (EU) 2017/2017). EU Regulations have direct effect in the member states legal order. ICCAT Recommendations on bluefin tuna are normally implemented at CP level from the following fishing season trough different legal provisions, but the transposition process of the Recovery/Management plan into EU law usually takes more than one year. The process of transposition of the currently in force management plan (Rec. 18-02) is still ongoing. The European Commission have submitted the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a multiannual management plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean repealing the previous one (Regulation (EU) 2016/1627) in November 2019 and is currently (January 2020) awaiting the decision of the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament. Once ICCAT’s management measures set in its Recommendation are translated as an EU Regulation, they become part of the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and have direct effect into the EU member states’ legal orders, with decision-making processes promptly established, at EU and at member states (in this case France) levels. 3288R06C 198 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) At local fishery level, the licensing authority (DIRM) implements the national fisheries and environmental policies that apply, reporting to the ministerial fisheries directorate DPMA. The SATHOAN producer organisation and the vessels in this UoA members of its Thon Rouge de ligne initiative have been proactive to work with the authorities at all levels (see section 3.5), SG60 and SG80 are met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guidep Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to all ost issues identified in relevant research, and other important issues identified in issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and consultation, in a transparent, timely and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of adaptive manner and take account of the wider take account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. decisions. Met? Y Y N Justific As the BFT-e stock became alarmingly over-exploited, existing decision-making processes proved ineffective for some years. Since the BFT-e Recovery ation Plan in 2013, which marked a large decrease in fishing capacity and improved monitored and complemented as needed, through ICCAT’s decision- making processes, it seems that ICCAT has responded to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring and consultation, SG60 is met. The 2016 ICCAT Performance Review concluded that progress is still needed generally regarding timeliness and transparency. This does not apply to the BFT-e, for which “major efforts were made by ICCAT and its CPCs to bring this fishery under control and that has been achieved. The stock appears to be in a significantly improved status based on SCRS evaluations. The ICCAT experience on bluefin tuna in the last 10 years is an example that, with the correct synergy between CPCs and with the ICCAT secretariat, such challenges can be addressed and overcome. As such, it is an example to other RFMOs faced with major conservation challenges.” (ICCAT, 2016a). For the Atlantic BFT-e fishery, serious and important issues are presently being addressed. SG80 is met. ICCAT is increasingly focusing on the BFT-e fisheries impacts on non-target species, but not all issues relevant to this fishery are directly addressed at this level. SG100 is not met. The French local decision-making processes for this fishery are clearly defined, informed by scientific information and advice from IFREMER scientists who are key contributors to ICCAT scientific working groups. The matter of fishing authorisation (AEP) and quota allocation for existing and possible new entrant vessels is debated within the SATHOAN PO and the various CRPMEMs (Occitanie, PACA, Corse) according to track records, compliance and other socio-economic criteria under the scrutiny of the central administration (DPMA) and in agreement with the French policy. Licences and vessel quota are awarded according to clear management rules to achieve fishery-specific objectives. For decisions relating to P2, there are established processes both at EU, Mediterranean and French levels (CNPMEM, MEDAC, GFCM, MPA networks, MSFD) for debating and setting local and national fisheries regulations for temporal and seasonal closures, gear use, protected species, SG60 and SG80 are met. However, until the Strategy de façade for the Western Mediterranean brings together P1 and P2 aspects in a comprehensive programme of measures, maybe not all issues are addressed. SG100 is not met. c Use of precautionary approach 3288R06C 199 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidep Decision-making processes use the ost precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justific ICCAT's decisions are based on the best available scientific information and science (ICCAT, 2011b), and for BFT-e, the precautionary approach is ation used by SCRS, Panel 2 and other WG as evidenced by the choice of BFT-e TAC, which is slightly more conservative (lower) than would be implied by the HCR, because ICCAT decided that increases should be incremental. This response to uncertainty, in our view, represents a precautionary approach. The scientific advice is followed by the ICCAT Commission as clearly stated in the recommendations and management measures. This is also evidenced by the choice of BFT-e TAC, which corresponds to "the most precautionary MSY estimate" (Rec 17-07 and Rec. 18-02 from 21 June 2019; (ICCAT, 2017g, 2018h), SG80 is met. The precautionary approach and use of best available information are also evident in the decisions that are made at European level and implemented at national and local levels, as evident from the national and EU annual fishing plans. SG80 is met. At national level, the precautionary principle is enshrined in French law since the Loi Barnier (2 Feb. 1995) on improved environmental protection. It was integrated in the French Constitution in 2005 and through the Charte de l’Environnement became a legal obligation for all government services in 2008. SG80 is met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guidep Some information on the fishery’s performance Information on the fishery’s performance and Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders ost and management action is generally available management action is available on request, provides comprehensive information on the on request to stakeholders. and explanations are provided for any actions or fishery’s performance and management lack of action associated with findings and actions and describes how the management relevant recommendations emerging from system responded to findings and relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and review recommendations emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justific The ICCAT website provides an easy and full access to the set of documents produced by the Commission and its subsidiary bodies in three languages ation (Spanish, English and French), SG60 is met. The preamble to ICCAT Recommendations generally describes the mandate within which ICCAT is acting, the reason(s) why management measures are necessary and elements of research or other information that provide reasons for why action is or is not being taken (see Rec 18-02). ICCAT reports the decisions taken by the Commission in its biennial reports including stock assessment, justification for existing or new management measures and CPCs annual reports, all posted on the ICCAT website. SG80 and SG100 are met. Interested parties may obtain comprehensive information on the wider small-scale French liners fishery’s performance and management actions, through the CRPMEMs, the CNPMEM and the EU Fishery Council MEDAC, which describes how the management system responded to findings and 3288R06C 200 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, SG60 and SG80 are met. However, formal reporting specifically for the UoA fishery’s performance is only available on request, because it is a subset of vessels. SG100 is not met. e Approach to disputes Guidep Although the management authority or fishery The management system or fishery is The management system or fishery acts ost may be subject to continuing court challenges, attempting to comply in a timely fashion with proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the judicial decisions arising from any legal implements judicial decisions arising from law by repeatedly violating the same law or challenges. legal challenges. regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT’s bodies (Commission, SCRS, Species Panels, WG) regularly meet and providing opportunities for discussion and airing of any possible concerns ation (see Compliance Committee – COC reports). These and the consensus favoured decision-making process effectively avoid the risk of legal challenges. None could be found, SG60 is met. In cases when disputes cannot be settled, the ICCAT Convention provides a process for Contracting Parties to object and withdraw from endorsing and implementing an ICCAT Recommendation (ICCAT Convention art. VIII). However, following the last performance Review (Spencer et al., 2016) Art. VIII of the Convention is currently redrafted to clarify dispute resolution procedures. Until then, Recommendations are not always adopted rapidly as a result. Therefore, only SG80 is met. The European and French management systems have well-established decision-making mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals and legal and other frameworks respond to judicial decisions in a timely fashion. All vessels in the UoA are members of the SATHOAN PO, which in addition to the regional committees (CRPMs) provide an additional local level of management working proactively to avoid legal disputes. Legal and administrative sanctions, when they arise may also be enforced locally, through disciplinary actions enforceable immediately. SG80 is met and SG100 at this level is met. However, for the reasons given above, SG100 overall is not met. References (Spencer et al., 2016; EU, 2017; ICCAT, 2017j, 2018g) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 201 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guidep Monitoring, control and surveillance A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been A comprehensive monitoring, control and ost mechanisms exist, and are implemented in implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an surveillance system has been implemented the fishery and there is a reasonable ability to enforce relevant management measures, in the fishery and has demonstrated a expectation that they are effective. strategies and/or rules. consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y N Justific The 2nd Performance Review found that “ICCAT does not possess sufficient mechanisms for effective at-sea monitoring of fishing operations for most ation stocks, with the exception of eastern bluefin tuna…” (ICCAT, 2017j). For the fishery, the French national Fisheries Control Centre (CNSP) coordinates the control of all French-registered fishing vessels, and through the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), establishes a risk-based inspection regime of catching activities at sea. Landings of wild-caught BFT are also tightly controlled by the French Fisheries authorities (DIRM) who delivers prenumbered individual fish tags to vessel captains on the basis of their fishing authorisation and the Producer Organisation (PO) or Fisheries authority’s confirmation of the vessel’s BFT quota allocation. The fishing trip total fish weight is first estimated on logbook and declared to the authorities upon returning to port, and confirmed for each fish weighed upon landings as it is tagged. Individual fish weight and tag numbers are indicated on the catch certificate (section 3.5.6), which accompanies the fish until its last part is sold. The authorities involved in the on-land monitoring and control system include the Gendarmerie maritime, Affaires maritimes, Customs, and the Police, who may inspect docked vessels, vehicles, and the premises of processors, fishmongers and restaurants. The SATHOAN PO is also involved in monitoring its members’ quota uptake, and reports to the DIRM and ultimately to the EU. According to the Affaires Maritimes (pers.com.), the system in place has demonstrated its effectiveness. SG60 and SG80 are met. For BFT-e overall, the system has been comprehensive for some years. However, as the stock recovers, some CPCs, such as the EU may have relaxed some rules, such as increasing the number of small ports as designated ports, that have stretched their inspection capacity and increased the risk for over-quota or un-tagged BFT-e fish being landed. This has happened in the past two years for example in Spain, Italy and Malta as revealed by a recent Interpol investigation involving Malta-based tuna farms (see main report and Hosch (2019)). Therefore, the MCS system for BFT-e in the Mediterranean cannot be seen as comprehensive at present. SG100 is not met. b Sanctions 3288R06C 202 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Guidep Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, ost and there is some evidence that they are consistently applied and thought to provide effective are consistently applied and demonstrably applied. deterrence. provide effective deterrence. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT relies on its Contracting Parties to implement effective sanctions over their flagged vessels. ICCAT can impose trade sanctions and remove, ation suspend or reduce quota allocated to non-compliant CPCs. This happened with several EU countries with purse seiner fleets and tuna-farms in the past, SG60 is met. In France, sanctions may be administrative or criminal or both (France, 2019), depending on the type and severity of non- compliance. Even though recent instances of non-compliance do not concern this UoA, sanctions consistently applied by EU member states in recent years seem to have provided effective deterrence in the French EU capture fisheries (see section 3.5.6), SG80 is met. However, they do not appear to have had a lasting deterrent effect on the tuna-farming operations and their associated vessels as demonstrated by the Tarentelo EUROPOL investigation. As a result, obligations and controls have been increased through the EFCA Joint Development Plan surveillance of tuna farm transfers and also of the recreational fishers (section 3.5.6 and EFCA (2020)). Only SG80 is met. Additional sanctions range from warning to penalties to temporary suspension (of PO membership and fishing for BFT-e) or even exclusion (SATHOAN (2019): PPC reports 2017, 2018, 2019). They may be applied by the PO, for quota overage for example, or for excessive landing of undersized fish (a tolerance with a specific quota). However, the PO tries to accommodate exceptional circumstances and no sanctions have been applied for the vessels in the fishery in the past three years (SATHOAN, 2019). For the fishery itself, SG100 would be met. However, overall SG100 is not met. c Compliance Guidep Fishers are generally thought to comply Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply There is a high degree of confidence that ost with the management system for the fishery with the management system under assessment, fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when including, when required, providing information of under assessment, including, providing required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. information of importance to the effective importance to the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT - Not applicable ation According to the PO, the vessels in the UoA demonstrate a high level of compliance by providing logbook (paper and electronic for vessels>12m), landing reports, and ICCAT daily electronic catch and sales declarations (e-BCD) for bluefin tuna, SG60 is met. The PO also cross-checks the daily landings and sales data submitted by all its members (TRQ database) systematically against the list of numbered tail tags provided to each vessel and the databases held by government, and reports any discrepancies. The fishermen and PO representatives also regularly participate in meetings with scientists and the central (through the CNPMEM) and regional (DIRM) administrations to provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery, evidence from the MCS competent authority (CNSP through DIRM, see section 3.5.6) confirmed that the the fishers comply with the management system. The SATHOAN PO also participates in and encourages research into the development of tools for additional at sea data 3288R06C 203 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) collection and voluntary research cooperation on bycatch identification (ECHOSEA), mitigation measures (SELPAL) and ecosystem research (Wendling et al., 2018) as detailed in the Principle 2 report sections, SG80 is met. Nevertheless, although France complies with ICCAT Rec. 16-14 on Observer coverage across its fleet as evidenced by EU/France annual reports to ICCAT Compliance Committee, the overall low level of scientific Observation coverage in the UoA means that certification (pending a successful outcome) would be conditional on improved data collection processes, as detailed in the rationales for PIs 2.1.3, 2.2.3 and 2.3.3. The amount and range of evidence available at the site visit was not comprehensive enough across all vessels to conclude with a high degree of confidence. SG100 is not met. d Systematic non-compliance Guidep There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. ost Met? Y Justific From the ICCAT perspective, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Presently, no amount of unreported catches have been included in ation the models used by SCRS although this assumption does not rule out the risk of IUU catches . A large number of Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) components and partners come together including a widespread application of the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, also the electronic catch reporting for BFT-e (eBCD), the EU Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) Joint Deployment plan and coordination with NEAFC and ICCAT. The EFCA, in collaboration with French MCS competent authority (CROSS-Étel) has clearly identified elevated IUU fishing risks on the stock (EFCA, 2017), which are closely monitored by a local coordination of Affaires Maritimes (ULAM, pers. comm.), Gendarmerie, Police and Customs. Even though, some risks of systematic non-compliance exist, they are not suspected for this fishery. A score of SG80 is met in the fishery and is assumed to hold for the BFT-e resource as a whole at present. A recent analysis has found that French fishermen were not suspected in the ongoing EUROPOL investigation (Hosch, 2019), which resulted in increased control provisions through the EFCA JDP (EFCA, 2020). The team agrees that presently SG80 is met. References (EFCA, 2017, 2020; ICCAT, 2017g; Wendling et al., 2018; France, 2019; Hosch, 2019; SATHOAN, 2019) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 204 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 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 Guidep There are mechanisms in place to evaluate There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key There are mechanisms in place to evaluate all ost some parts of the fishery-specific parts of the fishery-specific management system parts of the fishery-specific management management system. system. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT has mechanisms to evaluate and review all parts of the fishery specific management system through various committees, e.g. the SCRS evaluates ation scientific research, the COC monitors and evaluates compliance with the Convention and ICCAT Recommendations. ICCAT also conducts independent periodic reviews of its own performance by using external experts (Spencer et al., 2016), and external review of its BFT research programme (GYBP 2nd review see (MRAG, 2016) SG60 and SG80 are met. The management systems that apply to the fishery, the EU and French policies and specific BFT-e management measures, are regularly evaluated, SG60 is met. The MCS system performance for small-scale longliners in the Mediterranean forms the basis of EFCA’s risk and effectiveness analysis (Blomeyer and Sanz, 2017); research projects and outputs are also regularly evaluated through peer review at French, European and ICCAT levels. However, for the West Mediterranean where the fishery is taking place, the evaluations are focused on BFT, swordfish and other species with EU quota or international management plans. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive local strategy (Stratégie de façade) and programme of measures for the region is not yet finalized, and until implemented, most likely in 2022, only SG80 is met. b Internal and/or external review Guidep The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is ost subject to occasional internal review. subject to regular internal and occasional subject to regular internal and external review. external review. Met? Y Y N Justific ICCAT regularly reviews the fishery specific management system internally through different committees, SG60 is met. Its Conservation and ation Management Measures Compliance Committee (COC) monitors and evaluates compliance with the Convention and ICCAT’s Recommendations. An ad hoc Working Group (ICCAT Doc. No. GEN-001C/ 2017) reports annually (ICCAT, 2017j) on progress achieved by all components of the ICCAT structure following the last external independent Performance Review (Spencer et al., 2016). SG80 is met. The PO Production and Marketing Plan (for ex. (SATHOAN, 2019) has to be submitted annually to the French central administration (DPMA), which reviews it closely, and this also holds for the French BFT-e management system performance at a whole, which is submitted to the EU and presented 3288R06C 205 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) to ICCAT as part of the EU submission, SG60 is met. However, presently, the regular internal and external reviews concern only the target species, and swordfish since 2017), for P2-related fisheries management aspects, external reviews conducted by the Parc Marins, for example, remain occasional. SG100 is not met. References (MRAG, 2016; Spencer et al., 2016; Blomeyer and Sanz, 2017; ICCAT, 2017j; SATHOAN, 2019) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/a 3288R06C 206 CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Appendix 2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs The RBF was triggered for the assessment of pelagic stingray (P. violacea) under PI 2.2.1 (Secondary Species outcome) – see Section 3.4.4.4 for further detail. The Productivity Susceptibility rationale tables are shown below. Table 1.2.2.a. PSA Rationale Table PI number 2.2.1 Productivity Scoring element (species) Pelagic stingray Attribute Rationale Score Average age at maturity. 3.5 years (FishBase) 1 Average maximum age At least 10 years (Neer, 2008) 2 Fecundity In captivity, the species can produce up to 13 embryos twice a year 3 (Poisson et al., 2016) Average maximum size <100 cm (Hamlett, 1999) 1 Average size at maturity 37.5 – 47.8 cm disk width (males) 2 40 – 50 cm disk width (females) (Neer, 2008) Reproductive strategy Live bearer (Hamlett, 1999) 3 Trophic level ~ 4 (Hamlett, 1999) 3 Overall productivity score 2.14 Susceptibility Fishery only where the scoring There are no other Mediterranean fisheries in the MSC programme that element is scored cumulatively interact with pelagic stingray Attribute Rationale Score Areal Overlap The UoA fishery is concentrated on the plateau of the Golfe de 2 Lion, along the French Mediterranean coast and in some localities around Corsica (Figure 6). Stakeholders present at the site visit initially indicated a very small degree of overlap (<10%) between the species and the fishery, based on the species’ ubiquitous presence, with some suggesting that the species is highly migratory (as blue shark) and its population is likely to straddle the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean. A score of 1 was initially awarded. Subsequent consultation with Francois Poisson, researcher at MARBEC / IFREMER and expert in pelagic stingray interactions with the BFT/SWO longline fishery, indicated that although the species is considered ubiquitous in the Mediterranean, the population should be considered at the scale of the western Mediterranean. Furthermore, the species has a strong seasonal presence in the fishery, with a higher concentration of stingrays interacting with the fishery during the summer months (Poisson et al., 2016) accompanied by a change 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 207 in sex ratio favoured towards females (F. Poisson, pers. comm.). Therefore, although the spatial overlap between the fishery and the distribution of the species in the western Mediterranean is low (probably less than 10%), the team agreed to award a precautionary score of 2, corresponding to 10 – 30% overlap. Encounterability The depth of the shallowest hook is 4 – 6m and that of the deepest 3 hook ca. 20m (also see depth profile of the fishery in Poisson et al. (2016)). Tagging studies carried out as part of the SELPAL project (Poisson et al., 2016) indicate the pelagic stingray can tolerate temperature differences from 3 to 12°C over a 24-hour period, traversing the thermocline to depths of up to 480m. On this basis, there is low vertical overlap. During site visit interviews, this degree of overlap was initially estimated at less than 10%; however, here also subsequent consultation with F. Poisson indicated the need to consider seasonal variations in the distribution of this species, with a higher concentration of stingrays found in shallower waters during the summer months. A precautionary score of 2 was initially awarded, corresponding to 10 – 30% overlap. However, following technical oversight by MSC, the need to consider the use of bait was highlighted to the team, which further increases the likelihood of overlap with the species. The score was increased to 3. Selectivity of gear type a: frequency of deployments in which immature fish are caught: 2 Average size at maturity is between 37.5 and 50cm disk width (Neer, 2008). The majority of catches are between 35 and 90cm according to fishers and the majority of individuals caught are thought to be mature; in fact, it is generally unknown where the juveniles of the species are as they do not tend to occur in the fishery (F. Poisson, pers. comm.). On the basis of stakeholder interviews, the team concludes that the capture of individuals smaller than the size of maturity occurs rarely (at less than 5% of deployments - see PF4.4.8.4). A score of 1 is given to point a. b: the potential of the gear/fishing method to retain juveniles or, in other words the ability of the juveniles to escape or avoid that particular gear. Once hooked, it is unlikely that any individual (mature or juvenile) can escape the gear. A score of 3 is given to point b. In line with PF4.4.8.3, an overall score of 2 is calculated for selectivity. Post capture mortality Although all stingrays are systematically cut off the line (Section 2 3.4.4.4), they may be left on the line for several hours which influences survivability. Furthermore, because they are cut off the line, any line that remains attached is susceptible to fouling and may decrease individual fitness. The species overall, however, is considered robust and even has demonstrated an ability to remove the hook in captivity (although less so with circular hooks) (F. Poisson, pers. comm.). According to fishers, stingrays are also often caught with ‘piercings’ already in place which suggests high post-release survivability. According to F. Poisson, however, survivability depends to a great extent on how the animals are handled post-capture. If the stingrays are removed from the line according to best practice (as per the TRL-PA code of conduct), survival may be as high as 95%. If not, it could be as low as 40%. It 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 208 is worth noting that Poisson et al. (2016) examined post-release survival for a small sample of tagged stingrays (7 specimens) and estimated a mortality rate of 28%. The post-capture mortality rate was considered negligible, at less than 2%. Therefore, although the majority of individuals are likely to survive, there is still a high degree of uncertainty associated with post-release survival which depends to a great extent on how each individual is released. For this reason, a precautionary score of 2 was awarded. Catch (weight) only where the Not applicable N/a scoring element is scored cumulatively Overall susceptibility score 1.58 Overall PSA score 2.66 MSC PSA-derived score 82 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 209 RBF Scoring spreadsheet Only main species scored? Yes 0 Productivity Scores [1-3] Susceptibility Scores [1-3] Cumulative only Species Species Grouping Grouping only First of only Number of species each ID 'At Risk' species by in species group Scoring scoring selecting associated which this species Average age at maturity at ageAverage Average max age max Average Fecundity Average max size max Average Average size at Maturity sizeAverageat Reproductivestrategy Trophiclevel DensityDependance Total ProductivityTotal (average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post-capture mortality Post-capture Total (multiplicative)Total PSAScore Catch (tons) Catch Weighting Weighted Total Weighted Weighted PSAWeighted Score MSC PSA-derivedMSC score RiskName Category element element species group represents (N/2) Family name Scientific name Common name Species type Fishery descriptor guidepostscoringMSC 1 First Dasyatidae Pteroplatytrygon violaceaPelagic stingray (pastenague)Non-invertebrate Pelagic longline 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 2.14 2 3 2 2 1.58 2.66 82 Low ≥80 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 210 Appendix 3 Conditions Table 30. Condition 1. Performance 1.1.1.b - The stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. Indicator Score 70 Rationale Neither the stock assessment group nor the SCRS considered that biomass reference points were reliable indicators of stock status, so this Scoring Issue is evaluated in relation to F0.1 (the agreed proxy for FMSY for the VPA model), although it is impossible to avoid drawing inferences about biomass. MSC FCR2.0 GSA 2.2.4 is used as a reference here. The stock assessment (VPA base-case model, assuming that recent (low) recruitment patterns continue) estimated that Fcurrent/F0.1 = 0.34 (0.25-0.44 ~10 % and 90 % CIs). Biomass projections for the base-case model suggest that fishing at F0.1 would imply a TAC of ~40,000 t and would result in a decline in biomass, suggesting that biomass is at or above B0.1 (although this value remains unmeasured). Although under the VPA high recruitment scenario, B is estimated to be still below B0.1, TACs in the range set in recent years all result in F ‘At least an 80 score is justified (B highly likely above the PRI and at or fluctuating around BMSY) if F is likely to have been at or below FMSY for at least two generation times (or for at least four years, if greater) … while most species require about 2 generation times to recover from the PRI to BMSY when fishing is at FMSY, when F is reduced to 80 % FMSY or 60 % FMSY, the time for recovery may be halved.’ Generation time (GT) for BFT-e, calculated using MSC’s default method (Box GSA4) is 11.2 years, based on the age-at-maturity estimate published by Corriero et al. (2005) (5 years) and the age- specific rates of natural mortality used in the last stock assessments of BFT-e published by (Lauretta, 2017), extrapolating the plus 10 age group to 35 years based on the latest longevity assumptions (ICCAT, 2017e). However, due diligence from the assessment team identified a technical difference in the calculation of GT between that presented by MSC in Box GSA 4 and the source GT equation cited by MSC in Box GSA4 (Goodyear, 1995); MSC define Ea as maturity-at- age whilst in Goodyear (1995) it is fecundity-at-age. The assessment team sought clarification from MSC as to their intent and rationale for the difference in their GT calculation to that of Goodyear (1995). MSC are working on an answer to this request but one has not yet been provided. It therefore remains unclear to the assessment team for the moment as to whether the equation substitution is an error, or whether it is MSC’s intent for CABs to use this modified equation for scoring PI1.1.1b. Under the MSC method for estimating GT, a default recovery time of ~22 years (2* GT of 11.2 years) is required to satisfy GSA 2.2.4. Under the Goodyear equation, this time extends to 33.4 years (2*GT of 16.7 years). However, this default recovery time assumes a starting point of the PRI and can be halved when F is 60 %- 80 % of FMSY (GSA2.2.4, as cited above). The stock assessment report provides values and trends in F for two sets of age classes: F2.5 (ages 2-5 – younger fish) and Fplus (fish aged 10+). Both these F values have been low since ~2007-8 (Figure 9). It is, however, not clear how these values of F relate to the overall F which is used to calculate F0.1. To clarify this, the assessment team sought additional information from the ICCAT stock assessment group. BFT-e reference points are calculated using Pro2Box which calculates the reference points using an apical F, i.e. the F of the age where selectivity at age is maximum (i.e. the age-class most subject to fishing mortality). So the age at which F is calculated varies depending on the overall selectivity of each year class. Recruiting year classes considered to be uncertain can be removed from the projections and reference point calculations and replaced with a recent average (L. Kell pers. comm.). The assessment team evaluated output data files from the VPA model scenario runs. In each of the VPA scenario runs values for apical F were available in forms ‘median F’, ‘mean F’, and ‘95 % 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 211 CI for F’. The assessment team took the highest scenario output for each value (median, mean etc.) as the most precautionary and plotted it by year. This gives an estimate of Fcurrent of 0.06 (taking the most precautionary estimate of the mean/median). (Note this is a more precautionary estimate of Fcurrent than that used to estimate F/F0.1, hence why the ratio of F/F0.1 from these estimates do not align with the values given at the bottom of this table.) Taking the estimate of F0.1 provided in the 2017 SCRS report (0.107), Figure 20 suggests on that basis that apical F has been below F0.1 since 2007 (and actually since F fell dramatically in 2007 from >0.2 to <0.1, this would be true for a wide range of absolute values of F0.1). For this time period since 2007, the estimates of Fcurrent have been below 80%F0.1 (0.086), as has the upper CI from 2009, except for 2014. The median estimates has been fluctuating around ~50%F0.1 (0.054) since 2009. This analysis suggests that the timeframe requirements for halving the default recovery time from two to one generation time is met. Based on the MSC equation, one GT is estimated at 11 years, while under the Goodyear equation one GT is estimated at 16.7 years. F has been below F0.1 for 13 years, assuming that it has remained below the F0.1 level since the end of the stock assessment time series (2017 = 11 years) until the cut-off point (PCDR) for scoring this fishery (2019 = 13 years). This seems to be a reasonable assumption since the projections provided in the stock assessment suggest a minimum probability of 92% of F Figure 28. Mean (95 % Confidence Intervals) and median apical F calculated from the maximum value of each from 26 VPA scenario runs between 1968-2017. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 212 Condition Following FCR 7.11.1.2, a condition must follow the narrative form of 1.1.1b SG80. By 2025 (Year 5) the client should be able to show that the BFT-e stock is at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. Milestones Milestone Year 1: The client should evaluate how best they can support the current fishery management to ensure the stock achieves or continues to maintain a level consistent with MSY as defined by MSC, and provide evidence to the CAB of what has been agreed. Score 70. Milestone Year 2: The client should implement their plan from year 1 to support the current fishery management to ensure the stock achieves or continues to maintain a level consistent with MSY and provide evidence to the CAB of current stock status (or suitable proxy). Score 70. Milestone Year 3: The client should review their current plan and amend as required to support the current fishery management to ensure the stock achieves or continues to be consistent with MSY and provide evidence to the CAB of current stock status (or suitable proxy). Score 70. Milestone Year 4: The client should review their current plan and amend as required to support the current fishery management to ensure the stock achieves or continues to be consistent with MSY and provide evidence to the CAB of current stock status (or suitable proxy). Score 70. Milestone Year 5: The client should provide evidence to the CAB that the stock status of BFT-e is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. Score 80. Client action Year 1: plan In order to identify how they can best support current fisheries management to ensure that the stock reaches or continues to maintain a level compatible with MSY as defined by the MSC, fisheries stakeholders ensure that the item be put on the agenda of at least one special meeting with IFREMER, and discussions underway with NGOs. (WWF, Planete mer). And item put on the agenda of Bluefin tuna and swordfish national working group’s meetings with DPMA. So the first year, SATHOAN and CNPMEM will discuss with IFREMER and DPMA to ensure that national position will be to maintain resource around MSY, and key management measures of the TAC are not likely to lead to F exceeding F0.1, through ICCAT and SCRS. We will establish a plan based on the discussion and present to the CAB at the first annual surveillance. CAB will have the plan, the latest ICCAT SCRS report, and latest TAC recommendation as evidences, which will show that F remains below F0.1 and that progress towards meeting the SG80 target of 1.1.1b is being met. Year 2: In the year 2, fishery client will continue discussion with IFREMER, other research organizations and within the CNPMEM with DPMA (See Agenda and Minutes), and implement the plan established in year 1 to ensure that key management measures of the TAC are not likely to lead to F exceeding F0.1, through IFREMER, ICCAT and SCRS. We will present the CAB with an implementation report to show what activities have done, and that the F remains below F0.1 through the latest ICCAT SCRS report. The CAB will have the implementation report, the latest SCRS report and TAC as evidences, which will show that F remains below F0.1 and that progress towards meeting the SG80 target of 1.1.1b is being met. Year 3 and 4: In the year 3 and 4, fishery client will review the established plan and amend as required to ensure that key management measures of the TAC are not likely to lead to F exceeding F0.1, through IFREMER, ICCAT and SCRS. Particularly SATHOAN will continue to prepare ICCAT annual meetings, through exchanges with IFREMER, other research organizations and within the CNPMEM with DPMA (See Agenda and Minutes), to support key management measures of the TAC are not likely to lead to F exceeding F0.1 . 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 213 And SATHOAN will present the CAB with an implementation report to show what activities have done, and that the F remains below F0.1 through the latest ICCAT SCRS report. The CAB will have the implementation report, the latest SCRS report and TAC as evidences, which will show that F remains below F0.1 and that progress towards meeting the SG80 target of 1.1.1b is being met. Year 5: In year 5, fishery client will continue discussion with IFREMER, CNPMEM and DPMA to implement the plan established to ensure that key management measures of the TAC are not likely to lead to F exceeding F0.1, through IFREMER, ICCAT and SCRS. At annual surveillance, fishery client will present the CAB with an implementation report to show what activities have done. The CAB will have the implementation report, the latest SCRS report and TAC as evidences, which will show that F remains below F0.1 for the past 4 consecutive years and that progress towards meeting the SG80 target of 1.1.1b was met. Consultation SATHOAN is a member of the CNPM and in particular of its commission dedicated to bluefin tuna on condition and swordfish. This commission holds regular meetings, before and after ICCAT meetings, to analyze the available data, discuss, prepare ICCAT meetings and define common positions. It is through this commission that the OP SATHOAN can intervene in ICCAT management. The current arrangements for the preparation of ICCAT meetings and panels therefore already consist of regular meetings with the central administration department (DPMA) and research institute IFREMER to prepare, analyse and discuss around ICCAT meetings. No additional consultation needed. Table 31. Condition 2 Performance 1.2.2 - There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Indicator Score 65 Rationale Scoring issue a (SG80): 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, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. There is, however, an issue with how the HCR operates should the PRI be approached. The HCR stipulates exploitation at F0.1. This should operate such that the stock is maintained at equilibrium biomass B0.1 as explained above. This occurs because if biomass falls below B0.1, fishing effort would have to be reduced to avoid F exceeding F0.1 (and vice versa if biomass is above B0.1, as appears to be the case currently). However, this is not the same as arguing that the exploitation rate is reduced – in fact, fishing effort is reduced to keep the exploitation rate at the same level. As is clear from the recent history of the stock (see rationale for 1.1.1a) it is highly likely that this HCR will maintain the stock far away from the PRI unless there is a catastrophic and long-lasting failure of recruitment for environmental reasons (and this argument applies to any managed fish stock). There are also elements of the harvest strategy that in practice will act to reduce the exploitation rate as biomass declines; such as the MLS (the proportion of the stock above a given size declining as stock biomass declines). There is also a clear process of review and revision of the harvest strategy and the TACs as explained above, with the MSE process also underway (if behind schedule). For these reasons, the HCR can be ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the PRI is approached’ – SG60 is met. The team concludes that the HCR cannot be argued to ‘ensure’ that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. SG80 is not fully met. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 214 Scoring issue b (SG80): The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. As noted above, some of the main uncertainties have been incorporated into the HCR (i.e. via applying it to F rather than B) but some have not (e.g. choice of stock assessment model, future recruitment). SCRS have so far proposed (and ICCAT have agreed) to apply the HCR with circumspection; i.e. maintaining in 2018-02 the agreed TACs from 2017-07 rather than setting TACs based on F0.1 as implied by the HCR. This suggests that they are not confident that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties. Indeed, if at the next stock assessment the Stock Synthesis model can be developed to a point where it is equally as suitable as the VPA for providing management advice (as is the case for the western stock), conclusions as to F and TACs may be somewhat different. On this basis, it is hard to argue that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties; in our view, ICCAT are wise to use it with caution. SG80 is not met. Condition By Year 4 the client should be able to show that well-defined HCRs are in place that are able to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties, as determined through simulation modelling or other appropriate method. Milestones Year 1: The client should support the MSE process to improve the harvest strategy and provide evidence to the CAB at the surveillance of how they have done this. Score 75 Year 2: The client should support the MSE process, and work to ensure that any recommendations as to changes in the management plan arising from that process, which would make the harvest strategy more robust to uncertainty and would ensure a reduction in the exploitation rate at low biomass (e.g. by agreeing a LRP or by other means) with expectation to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, are incorporated into management. Score 75 Year 3: The client should support the MSE process, and work to ensure that any recommendations as to changes in the management plan arising from that process, which would make the harvest strategy more robust to uncertainty and would ensure a reduction in the exploitation rate at low biomass, with expectation to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, are incorporated into management. Score 75 Year 4: The client should demonstrate that the harvest strategy will ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is robust to the main uncertainties. Score 80 Client action plan Support for the scientific approach to take into account the main uncertainties in stock assessments and control rules for catch levels. Year 1: In order to identify the main uncertainties for HCRs, the fishery stakeholders make sure the item is put on the agenda of meetings with IFREMER (many exchanges are in progress between OP and IFREMER in the framework of the various projects of scientific partnerships (FISH & SHIP, PROMPT, SHARKGUARD, ..). Exchanges with different NGOs are in progress (WWF, Planete mer). Item put on the agenda of Bluefin tuna and swordfish national working group’s meetings with DPMA . Written communication to DPMA to insist on the fishermen support of the MSE process through the regular meetings of the CNPMEM Bluefin tuna and swordfish national working group. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 215 Year 2 and 3: Prepare ICCAT annual meetings, through exchanges with IFREMER, other research organizations and within the CNPMEM with DPMA (See Agenda and Minutes), to insist on the importance of the MSE process and support recommendations for management plan changes resulting from this process to be integrated and to improve the capture strategy, with expectation to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, including the reduction in the exploitation rate as the PRI is approached . Year 4: Support proposals of IFREMER and other research organizations for new HCRs robust to the main uncertainties and support proposals which lead a reduction in the exploitation rate as the PRI is approached and is expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is robust to the main uncertainties.. Consultation on SATHOAN is a member of the CNPM and in particular of its commission dedicated to condition bluefin tuna and swordfish. This commission holds regular meetings, before and after ICCAT meetings, to analyze the available data, discuss, prepare ICCAT meetings and define common positions. It is through this commission that the OP SATHOAN can intervene in ICCAT management. The current arrangements for the preparation of ICCAT meetings and panels therefore already consist of regular meetings with the central administration department (DPMA) and research institute IFREMER to prepare, analyse and discuss around ICCAT meetings. No additional consultation needed. Table 32. Condition 3 Performance 1.2.3 - Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Indicator Score 75 Rationale Scoring issue c (SG80): There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock MSC guidance GSA2.6.1: The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in scoring issue (c) relates to vessels outside or not covered by the unit of assessment. These require good information but not necessarily to the same level of accuracy or coverage as that covered by the second scoring issue. The ICCAT requirements for recording catch information (catch documentation scheme) are summarised in Section 2.3.9.1. These apply to all fisheries targeting bluefin tuna or which have bluefin quota. There is therefore good information on these removals. There are two areas of potential concern: IUU removals and the recreational fishery. WWF-Mediterranean have been compiling information on seizures of illegal bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean (which has been the key area for IUU on BFT-e for several decades) since 2015. They record IUU landings over the last 4 years (2015-2018) ranging from 35- 117 tonnes per year, from four countries – Spain, Italy, Tunisia and Algeria. 117 t of bluefin represents 0.4% of the TAC for 2018. It is likely the real quantity of IUU landings is much higher than the quantity seized. If we assume that 10% of IUU landings are seized and recorded by WWF, this means that Mediterranean IUU would account for ~4% of the TAC. (This is, however, just an order of magnitude estimate.) The team were given an overall estimate of 2500 t IUU, but neither the source nor the time period over which this occurred is clear, however, if over one year this would represent 9% of the (2018) TAC. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 216 The recreational fishery is likewise mainly from the Mediterranean, and mainly from EU countries. The stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT 2017j) indicates that recreational catches are quantified in the catch data, at least in the more recent parts of the time series (since 1990), although they may not be that accurate. It is reported in France that recreational catches are estimated to be minor (~1% of the quota) but this may not be the case throughout the Mediterranean. Overall, there is not clear evidence that unquantified removals are a major concern for the stock assessment; they are one of a range of uncertainties, and most likely not the most serious. However, it is not possible to say at this point that there is ‘good’ information on all removals from the stock – not met. Condition By Year 4 the client should be able to show evidence that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Milestones Year 1: The client should consider how to best support projects that aim to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock. (Score 75). Year 2: Working with other fisheries or organisation as relevant, the client should support projects that aim to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock. (Score 75). Year 3: Working with other fisheries or organisation as relevant, the client should support projects that aim to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock. (Score 75). Year 4: The client should provide evidence that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. (Score 80). Client action plan Support projects that aim to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock Year 1 – 3: To ensure that more surveillance is available to qualify and quantify any non-declared removals of BFT in France : - The fishery PO will send letters to the DIRM (French Monitoring, Surveillance and Control competent authority) asking for increased controls on recreational fishing and landings outside authorized ports, and to the DGCCRF (Fraud Office) to ask for more controls of points of sale in particular the restaurants (respect traceability) - The fishery PO to contribute to political lobbying to increase the means of control of undeclared (illegal and recreational) fisheries at national and European level: annual letter to the Ministry and meetings with French and European members of parliaments. To support activities to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock : - Hold discussions with the organization France Filière Pêche (of which the SATHOAN PO Director is a Trustee) and scientists (IFREMER and other research organizations) to support a project proposal that would promote better understanding of undeclared catch (IUU and recreational) with quantitative data. - Provide annual updates to the CAB on the development of measures to understand IUU quantities and progress towards its inclusion in the stock assessments. Year 4 : Summary report of progress in the knowledge of unreported quantities of fishing and taking into account illegal fishing quantities in ICCAT stock assessments. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 217 Quantitative information on IUU and recreational catch of BFT are improved enough to be included in the ICCAT stock assessment. Consultation on The current arrangements already include exchanges with DIRM about controls. Written condition requests will be more frequent. No additional consultation needed. Table 33. Condition 4 Performance 2.1.3 – Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to Indicator determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Score 60 Rationale Scoring issue a (SG80): Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. For both swordfish and blue shark, logbook data provide information on the amount of landed fish (although this should no longer be applicable to blue shark which are according to the client no longer landed by the UoA from 2018 onwards). Although all vessels are required to complete an EU logbook and 100% coverage can therefore be expected, the reality is that the collection of logbook data at national level by France. AgriMer (made available through SIOP) is partial at best. This is reportedly related to capacity issues and to technical problems. At UoA level, SATHOAN also compiles its members’ logbook data with the main aim of monitoring quota uptake. While data on bluefin tuna and swordfish are assumed to be complete, other retained species are only partially entered as only trips for which geolocation data are available contribute to the dataset (related to capacity issues at SATHOAN) – see Section 3.4.2 for more detail. All this relates to landed catch only and information on discards is only available through the IFREMER observer data, collected as part of the French national observer programme (Obsmer). For the UoA, observer coverage appears to be low, with on average 12 observed BFT trips per year between 2013 and 2017, corresponding to about 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips. Although these data combined provided the team with a good indication of which the ‘main’ primary species are, as well as what the order of magnitude of catches is, the quality of the data was concerning. Although assumptions can be made to estimate the fishery’s impact on the species concerned (see 2.1.1) and therefore SG60 is met, SG80 is not met Scoring issue c (SG80): Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main Primary species Although a good amount of information is available on landings of non-bait primary species, particularly swordfish, UoA information on discarding of both swordfish and blue shark is lacking – some information is available through the Obsmer observer programme, but observer coverage is too low to be truly representative of the fishery. Although a strategy is in place at ICCAT level for swordfish, concern was raised by the SCRS that since the establishment of minimum landing sizes, the discard levels of undersized swordfish may have increased (ICCAT-SCRS, 2016). For blue shark, since the UoA’s non-retention policy has come into effect, the only independent data source is the Obsmer data for which coverage is currently insufficient. Overall, UoA level impacts can be estimated for the species concerned, based on a combination of logbook and observer data, sufficient to support relevant management measures (SG60 is met). A meaningful strategy or partial strategy at UoA level should, however, rely on more and better quality data. SG80 is not met. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 218 Condition By Year 4, some quantitative information should be available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. The information collected should be adequate to support a partial strategy to manage these species. Milestones Year 1: Evaluate current data collection strategy and identify areas of improvement so that the information is adequate to 1) assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status and 2) support a partial strategy to manage these species. Develop improved data collection plan (Score: 60). Year 2: Demonstrate new data collection plan has been implemented. (Score: 60). Year 3: Continued data collection. (Score: 60). Year 4: Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. The information collected is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage these species. (Score: 80) Client action plan Increase available data to assess the UoA impacts on the primary species swordfish and blue shark Year 1 : 1) Improved data recording for vessels by the PO SATHOAN (hiring a part-time person to check and record all data + improved monitoring and data collection tools) Fishing activities and possible interactions: Transmission to the PO by all UoC vessels of the fishing location of each fishing trips and integration in the database: for vessels less than 12 m manual entry of the GPS point of the set longline in the logbook, for larger vessels direct transmission to the PO of the electronic logbook and VMS information. Landed catches: - Recording of every individual swordfish (mandatory since 2018, traceability system and quota monitoring similar to that for the bluefin tuna / SWO specific tags obtained from DPMA) - Entry by the PO of all data noted on the fishing logsheets (= all catches landed for all species with the weight of each catch and any other information) for all fishing trips in its database. - Produce Annual report on the data available and comparison between PO data and data entered by FranceAgriMer available via SIOP, to be discussed at CNPMEM meetings. - Formal request from PO to FranceAgriMer to validate for fishing and logbook returns, through CNPMEM. Catches that are released and not landed (Blue shark – BSH and juvenile swordfish - SWO): two tools exist (notebooks and echosea app) for all vessels to collect data systematically (=> Cf. Action plan for 2.2.3). The data will be presented in annual reports to IFREMER. 2) Improved representativeness of Obsmer data: Discussion with DPMA (and CNPMEM) to request an increase in the number of observer (OBSMER) trips on longliners in the Mediterranean Year 2-3 : 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 219 Annual meetings with IFREMER for presentation and analysis of data collected by the PO, discussion and search for improvements. Annual report Annual Impact Assessment Report from the Primary Species Fishery + continuation of the improved information collection system Year 4 : At least 3 years of quantitative information are available and adequate to assess the impacts of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. The actions above are part of a greater action plan that covers all Principle 2 conditions – see Appendix 11. Consultation on Work done in collaboration with scientists (IFREMER) and fisheries managers (DPMA) as condition part of existing work programmes and through regular meetings. Additional work carried by the PO. Table 34. Condition 5 Performance 2.2.2 – There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to Indicator maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Score 75 Rationale Scoring issue b (SG80): There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or species involved. The estimated mortality rates, robust nature of the species and best practice handling techniques combined give some plausible argument that the strategy will work. SG60 is met. There remain, however, significant question marks as to what the actual levels of interaction are with pelagic stingrays in this fishery. At 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips, the observer coverage in this fishery is too low to enable meaningful analysis of impacts at UoA level, and to determine whether additional management action may be required. The team concluded that this information gap needs to be filled before it can be determined whether there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG80 is not met. Condition By Year 4, there should be an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy in place for pelagic stingrays will work, based on some information directly about the UoA and/or this species, including seasonal and spatial catch patterns. Milestones Year 1: Evaluate current partial strategy for pelagic stingray and associated data collection protocols. Identify areas of improvement so that the information is adequate to provide an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. Develop improved data collection protocols (Score: 75). Year 2: Demonstrate new data collection plan has been implemented. (Score: 75). Year 3: Continued data collection. (Score: 75). Year 4: The information collected provides an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy in place for pelagic stingrays will work. (Score: 80) Client action plan Actions will concern two complementary directions : 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 220 1) Develop a strategy from existing measures to minimise possible mortality of captured pelagic stingray implemented by all UoC vessels Year 1: At the beginning of the season, all rays and sharks release rules are reminded to all vessel skippers in the UoC (release in survival conditions and systematic recording of all catches on Echosea App (paper or electronic). On-board verification (1 check per year on each vessel) by a PO-mandated agent. Weekly verification and recording of received data => evaluation of the recording rate and presentation summary report to vessels as a reminder of the rules. Year 2, 3 and 4 : Verification and demonstration during on-board checks (1 check per year on each ship). Annual report presented. Scientific research (post-graduate project) to devise a standardized pelagic catch per unit of effort (CPUE) indicator to follow potential impact on pelagic ray mortality. 2) Test a sharks and rays (elasmobranch) catch avoidance strategy using a new technology which is an electric pulse device to deter from fishing hooks Year 1: Test of the device in real situation on 2 UoC vessels On the basis of existing collaboration between FISHTEK Marine, ISI-Fish, SATHOAN and marine biologists at the University of Exeter with funding from the European Commission’s Eurostars and France Filière Pêche Year 2: Project report: assessment of efficiency of the device, and proposals for development with costing for implementation on larger scale Decision Year 3: If the trials are conclusive, search for funding Implementation of strategy Year 4: Implementation of the remaining avoidance strategy complemented by release strategy in survival conditions Year 2, 3 and 4 : Effect monitored and evaluated through a scientific research post-graduate project to devise a pelagic catch per unit of effort (CPUE) indicator to follow potential impact on pelagic ray mortality. The actions above are part of a greater action plan that covers all Principle 2 conditions – see Appendix 11. Consultation on This research is already ongoing: Description of the project condition https://www.isifish.fr/isi-fish-et-fisktek-marine-associes-dans-le-projet-sharkguard- laureat-du-programme-eurostars/ 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 221 Table 35. Condition 6 Performance 2.2.3 – Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate Indicator to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Score 75 Rationale Scoring issue c (SG80): Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species. The research into post-capture and post-release mortality rates of pelagic stingrays in the UoA provides some useful information on the effectiveness of the partial strategy. There remain, however, significant question marks as to what the actual levels of interaction are with pelagic stingrays in this fishery. At 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips, the observer coverage in this fishery is too low to enable meaningful analysis of impacts at UoA level, and to determine whether additional management action may be required. The team therefore decided that SG80 was not met. Condition By Year 4, the information available on interactions with pelagic stingray should be adequate to manage the UoA’s impact on this species, taking into account seasonal and spatial catch patterns. Milestones Year 1: Evaluate current partial strategy for pelagic stingray and associated data collection protocols. Identify areas of improvement so that the information is adequate to manage the UoA’s impact on this species, taking into account seasonal and spatial catch patterns. Develop improved data collection protocols (Score: 75). Year 2: Demonstrate new data collection plan has been implemented. (Score: 75). Year 3: Continued data collection. (Score: 75). Year 4: The information available on interactions with pelagic stingray is adequate to manage the UoA’s impact on this species and takes into account seasonal and spatial catch patterns. (Score: 80) Client action plan Improved data collection on interactions with pelagic stingray and estimation of potential impacts Year 1: SATHOAN-PO Data collection programme for non-landed catches: Tools put in place by the SATHOAN-PO: notebook for non-landed catches through hole- punched notecards and/or www.echosea.fr phone app to estimate all released catches, aiming to obtain detailed information on at least 80% of all UoC vessels fishing trips. - Update of TRL Code of practice rules to include mandatory record (notebook or Echosea) of all released catches of sharks and rays (initiated 2018); - Each fisher to receive an information letter and on-board kit, and annual awareness meeting; - Increased frequency of landing checks by VALPEM complemented by external controls via the Pêche durable ecolabel; - Data collection of all data from UoC vessels (Echosea ou carnet) geo-referenced or not. (Means : half-time of PO employee + correspondence and meetings with vessel captains) ; 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 222 Improvement of the representativeness of Obsmer data: Annual discussions with DPMA and CNPMEM and written requests to increase in the number of observed trips (OBSMER) on longliners in the Mediterranean; Improvement of the confidence in data collected via Echosea: Setting up of a steering committee to monitor data collected via Echosea by associating IFREMER, DPMA, CPMR, AFB (Marine Park), LPO-Birdlife, CestMed and Ailerons (Shark protection NGO) (end 2019) with annual meetings; Year 2 and 3: Annual report to Steering Committee and annual meetings with IFREMER, to present the data collected, research needs and projects. Year 4: Data are available to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. The actions above are part of a greater action plan that covers all Principle 2 conditions – see Appendix 11. Consultation on Actions, additional staff and meeting times through on-going SATHOAN-PO projects condition Through existing regular DPMA and CNPME meetings, including participation of IFREMER research staff. The Echosea Steering Committee is currently being set up, with the first meeting held on 10 March 2020. See Appendix 12 for supporting documentation. Table 36. Condition 7 Performance 2.3.1 – The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of Indicator ETP species. The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Score 75 Rationale Scoring issue b (SG80): Direct effects of the UoA are highly likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. (seabirds and sea turtles) See page 147 for rationale. Condition By Year 4, direct effects of the UoA should be highly likely to not hinder recovery of sea turtles and ETP seabirds. Milestones Year 1: Evaluate current data collection strategy and identify areas of improvement to monitor the UoA’s direct effects on ETP species, particularly sea turtles and ETP seabird species. Develop improved data collection plan (Score: 75). Year 2: Demonstrate new data collection plan has been implemented. (Score: 75). Year 3: Continued data collection. (Score: 75). Year 4: The information available on the UoA’s direct effects on ETP species, shows that the UoA is highly likely to not hinder recovery of sea turtles and ETP seabirds. (Score: 80) Client action plan Observation log notebook with punch holes and app www.echosea.fr have been set up to collect data complementary to those produced by Obsmer for turtles and birds. Some weaknesses regarding records of interactions with birds (Cf. point 2.2.2) have been rectified in the app www.echosea.fr: every record has to indicate if capture took place 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 223 (real interaction) or if it is an observation of presence at sea. In case of capture, the bird health (released alive or found dead) has to be noted. A manual has been put together and communicated to the UoA vessels (correspondence, meeting) as part of the on- going Echosea project. There is also now a requirement for fishers to call the local bird rescue centre for advice and report any injured bird caught and any tagging information. Improved information base to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the strategy: Year 1: - Creation of a steering committee for monitoring data collected via Echosea by associating IFREMER, DPMA, CPMR, AFB (Marine Park), LPO, CestMed and NGO Ailerons with annual meeting (end 2019) - First meeting of the steering committee with review of existing data collection provisions and propose improvements (registration modalities, additional mechanism to be put in place; Year 2 and 3: - Implementation of the conclusions / Continuation of the collection of information - Updated data report - Annual meeting of the steering committee: presentation / exchange of data (Score 75) Year 4: Report. Direct impacts monitored and evaluated through a scientific research post- graduate project to monitor the fishery’s potential direct impacts on marine turtles and seabirds (post graduate student project in collaboration with the Marine Park) The actions above are part of a greater action plan that covers all Principle 2 conditions – see Appendix 11. Consultation on The Echosea Steering Committee is currently being set up, with the first meeting held condition on 10 March 2020. See Appendix 12 for supporting documentation. Table 37. Condition 8 Performance 2.3.2 – The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: Indicator • meet national and international requirements; • ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species. Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species Score 65 Rationale Scoring issue a (SG80): There is a strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, including measures to minimise mortality, which is designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. Note: the following is an extract from the rationale: (…) All of these measures aim to minimise the UoA-related mortality of ETP species, and are expected to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species – SG60 is therefore met. The team considered however, that adequate monitoring is an integral part of any management strategy (also see the MSC definition for a strategy as 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 224 per the FCRv2.0). Although 5% monitoring is required at ICCAT level, it does not appear to be implemented in this fishery. The level of monitoring in the UoA with regard to ETP species was therefore found to be insufficient for SG80 to be met. Scoring issue c (SG80): There is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. All of the measures listed in scoring issue a provide a legal framework for the protection of ETP species and aim to minimise UoA-related mortality through non-retention policies and best handling and release practices. Overall, there is a plausible argument that the measures are considered likely to work and SG60 is met. However, the existing observer data are not sufficient to provide an objective basis for confidence that the measures will work, particularly for seabirds and sea turtles. SG80 is not met. Scoring issue d (SG80): There is some evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully. Implementation of the Good Practice Handbook is a requirement for TRL-PA membership and compliance is audited on a regular basis. Overall, the team was satisfied that fishers comply with the management measures to the extent that post- capture mortality is minimised and specimens are released as soon as is practicable. In relation to monitoring, however, although 5% monitoring is required at ICCAT level, it does not appear to be implemented in this fishery, and the existing observer data are not sufficient to provide objective evidence about implementation of the requirements. SG80 is not met. Condition By Year 3, there should be a strategy in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species, designed to be highly likely to achieve national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species. There should be an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work and evidence that it is being implemented successfully. Milestones Year 1: Review management in place for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP species. Identify short comings at fleet level in the implementation of relevant national and regional regulations in relation to ETP species, including observer coverage. Develop improved strategy which should have an objective basis for confidence that it will work. (Score: 65) Year 2: Implement improved strategy (Score: 65) Year 3: Demonstrate that new strategy is in place (Score: 80). Client action plan Improvement of the representativeness of Obsmer data: Annual discussions with DPMA and CNPMEM and written requests to increase in the number of observed trips (OBSMER) on longliners in the Mediterranean; Improvement of the confidence in data collected via Echosea Year 1: - Setting up of a steering committee to monitor data collected via Echosea by associating IFREMER, DPMA, CPMR, OFB (Marine Park), LPO-Birdlife, CestMed and Ailerons (Shark protection NGO) (end 2019) with annual meetings; - Updated report of available data (OP Echosea database + notebook, and Obsmer); - Telephone Survey of the rescue centers / Assessment of the calls received; - Meeting of Echosea Steering Committee with presentation of available data; - Identification of areas for improvement to minimize the impact of fishing on ETP species and evaluate the effectiveness of measures. Particularly, should seabird 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 225 interactions be considered problematic following implementation of the data collection programme under the client action plan, then it follows that best practice measures will be reviewed and implemented, including those recommended by the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP). SATHOAN has integrated the NATIONAL ACTION PLAN (PNA Puffin) of the French Biodiversity Office (OFB ex. AFB). And the PNA Puffin has validated the use of the Echosea app as a bird bycatch tracking tool. Thus, in addition to providing a better knowledge of interactions between fisheries and protected / sensitive species, the data could be used to establish management measures by integrating the available knowledge on best practices. (See Appendix 13 = Statement of conclusions of the Echosea / Obsenpêche meeting of 05/29/2020) Note the participation of French Biodiversity Office (Golfe du Lion Marine Park) and LPO- Birdlife to propose best practice measures available including those recommended by ACAP. Year 2: - Implementation of the conclusions / Continuation of the collection of information; - Updated data report ; - Annual meeting of the steering committee: presentation / exchange of data. Year 3: Assessment report of the direct impact of the UoA on sea turtles and seabirds showing that it does not hinder their recovery. The actions above are part of a greater action plan that covers all Principle 2 conditions – see Appendix 11. Consultation on The Echosea Steering Committee is currently being set up, with the first meeting held on condition 10 March 2020. See Appendix 12 for supporting documentation. Table 38. Condition 9 Performance 2.3.3 – Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts Indicator on ETP species, including: • Information for the development of the management strategy; • Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and • Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Score 60 Rationale Scoring issue a (SG80): Some quantitative information is adequate to assess the UoA related mortality and impact and to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species. Some quantitative information is available from the Obsmer observer programme and this, combined with the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016) and anecdotal information gathered during site visit interviews provides a qualitative assessment of the likely UoA- related mortality on ETP species (SG60 is met. However, the level of implementation of the observer programme (0.5% observed trips in 2017) is below that required through ICCAT Rec. 16-14 (5%), meaning the data are insufficient to evaluate the impact of the fishery to an adequate level to determine whether the UoA may be a threat to protection 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 226 and recovery of ETP species. Furthermore, for most of the ETP interactions recorded in the observer data, identification to species-level was not carried out. SG80 is not met. Scoring issue b (SG80): Information is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. Some quantitative information is available from the Obsmer observer programme and this, combined with the SELPAL study (Poisson et al., 2016) and anecdotal information gathered during site visit interviews provides a qualitative assessment of the likely UoA- related mortality on ETP species. This is sufficient to support measures to manage the impacts on ETP species and SG60 is therefore met. There remain significant question marks, however, as to what the actual levels of ETP species interactions are in this fishery. At 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips (for 2017), the observer coverage in this fishery is too low to enable meaningful analysis of impacts at UoA level, and to determine whether additional management action may be required. A strategy requires an element of monitoring of impacts for the species in question, and adjustment of management measures if the monitoring results suggest they are not sufficient. There is not presently enough monitoring in this fishery for this to be possible. The team therefore decided that SG80 was not met. Condition By Year 4, some quantitative information should be available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on ETP species. The information collected should be adequate to measure trends and to support a strategy to manage these species. Milestones Year 1: Evaluate current data collection strategy and identify areas of improvement so that the information is adequate to 1) assess the impact of the UoA on ETP so that it can be determined whether the UoA may be a threat to protection and recovery of these species and 2) measure trends and to support a strategy to manage these species. Develop improved data collection plan (Score: 60). Year 2: Demonstrate new data collection plan has been implemented. (Score: 60). Year 3: Continued data collection. (Score: 60). Year 4: Quantitative information is available and adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on ETP species and to measure trends and to support a strategy to manage them. It can be shown that the UoA is no threat to the protection and recovery of these species (Score: 80) Client action plan See Action Plan for 2.3.2 Year 1 : - Interaction with ETP species including observation, capture and release are systematically noted as specific incident and reported directly to CestMED for turtles ; - Report on all ETP data collection (PO Echosea + notebook and Obsmer) ; - Telephone enquiries with Turtle and birds rescue centres ; - SATHOAN-OP organised meetings with vessel captains and with IFREMER, LPO and CestMED, + DPMA to review data collection and propose possible improvements. Year 2 : - Implementation of the conclusions / Continuation of the collection of information; - Updated data report ; - Annual meeting of the steering committee: presentation / exchange of data. Year 3 : 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 227 Meeting of Echosea Steering Committee and report of Fishery’s impacts on ETP species and on the effectiveness of management measures (Score 80). The actions above are part of a greater action plan that covers all Principle 2 conditions – see Appendix 11. Consultation on The Echosea Steering Committee is currently being set up, with the first meeting held on condition 10 March 2020. See Appendix 12 for supporting documentation. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 228 Appendix 4 Peer Review Reports Appendix 4.1 Peer reviewer 1 General comments Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery Yes Scoring generally agreed. A few score changes are Thank you - please see our responses to your individual consistent with the MSC proposed for different scoring issues. Some of them will comments. standard, and clearly based on not change the final scoring of the PI (1.2.1 (d); 1.2.3 (a)), the evidence presented in the but some, although they won't represent a material assessment report? reduction of the final scoring of the PI, they might need a new or a more expanded condition (2.2.2 (e); 3.1.1 (c)). New references and information are also suggested to be considered for the scoring of some PI. Are the condition(s) raised Yes No comment required. appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and sub-clauses] Is the client action plan clear and Yes Condition 1: The issue could be also raised by The client has amended the action plan. sufficient to close the conditions stakeholders at the consultation meetings organized by raised? the European Commission before and during the ICCAT [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- Commission meeting. Collaboration with environmental 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] NGOs should be also considered. Is the client action plan clear and Yes Condition 2: An effort to quantify recreational and IUU The action plan includes activities to address recreational and IUU sufficient to close the conditions bluefin tuna catches at regional level would be also catches at French and European level, which the team agreed is raised? necessary (through the GFCM specific Working Group on the appropriate sphere of influence in the context of this fishery. [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- small scale and recreational fisheries or ICCAT) in order 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] to improve data for the stock assessment. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 229 Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the client action plan clear and Yes Condition 3: The PO should ensure to include size of the The client has added detail on this to the action plan for this sufficient to close the conditions caught swordfish among the data collected in order to condition, although a recommendation has now also been added raised? support strategies to improve selectivity of the species. by the team. [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Is the client action plan clear and Yes Condition 4, 6 and 8: Increase of observers coverage An increase on observer coverage is already explicitly mentioned sufficient to close the conditions should be also considered. throughout the action plan for these conditions. raised? [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Is the client action plan clear and Yes In general, all information relevant to test alternative We are not clear on what the peer reviewer means here. The sufficient to close the conditions measures to effectively avoid incidental catches of action plan already includes research activities on bycatch raised? primary and secondary species should be also collected mitigation combined with extensive data collection. [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- (size of the fish, hooks, fishing practice, etc.). 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Enhanced fisheries only: Does N/A N/A N/A the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities? Optional: General Comments on N/A Contents of the PRDR are in general very well supported Thank you - please see our responses to your individual the Peer Review Draft Report by the relevant information available. However, some comments. (including comments on the suggestions are given in the PI comments worksheet and adequacy of the background here below in order to improve the text and information if necessary) justifications. Optional: General Comments on N/A The report mentioned several times the existence of 26 Has been corrected, thank you. the Peer Review Draft Report vessels in the UoA. However, Table 2 contains only 24. (including comments on the 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 230 Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. adequacy of the background information if necessary) Optional: General Comments on N/A ICCAT provisions on the CPC Observer Programme (Rec. ICCAT provisions on the CPC Observer Programme are referred to the Peer Review Draft Report 17-07 (88) and Rec. 18-02 (83) (particularly relevant in in section 3.5.1.2 ICCAT (page 59). The lack of sufficient observer (including comments on the Principle 3) are not referred throughout the report. information is discussed and leads to conditions being placed for adequacy of the background According to the LOA of fishing vessels in Table 2, only 4 each relevant P2 information PI (PI 2.1.3, PI 2.2.3, PI 2.3.3). information if necessary) vessels could qualify for the Programme. ("Each CPC shall ensure coverage by observers, issued with an official identification document, on vessels and traps active in the bluefin tuna fishery on at least: .... 20% of its active longline vessels (over 15 m)"... Optional: General Comments on N/A In 3.2.2 (the client fishery), the CAB states that "all It is not guaranteed that all under 18m vessels subscribe to the the Peer Review Draft Report vessels are members of the Sète-based Producer TRL-PA brand. Therefore, pending the successful outcome of this (including comments on the Organisation (PO) Société Coopérative Maritime des assessment, the certificate would be published with an up-to-date adequacy of the background Pêcheurs de Sète Môle (SATHOAN) and subscribe to the vessel register. Only TRL-PA vessels would be listed and eligible to information if necessary) Thon Rouge de ligne Pêche Artisanale (TRL-PA) brand, use the certificate. This mitigates any traceability risk. which sets both environmental and product quality best practice. Note that not all SATHOAN members subscribe to this brand and these vessels are therefore not part of the UoA." However, it is relevant to say, if so, that all SATHOAN longline vessels under 18 m length subscribe to the Thon Rouge de ligne Pêche Artisanale (TRL-PA) brand and are within the UoA, since, if not the case, it could have implications on traceability. Optional: General Comments on N/A Delimitations of GFCM GSAs 7 and 8 should be The Mediterranean is different from other EU waters in that the the Peer Review Draft Report superpose to the maps of Figures 5 and 6 in order to 12nm are specific to the coastal states, and beyond is shared (including comments on the facilitate the characterization of the UoA. Some fishing between them. This fleet does not operate in Spanish waters adequacy of the background operations seem to occur in GSA 6. If so, a justification inside 12nm. Any minor activity in GSA6 would still be allocated to information if necessary) would be needed. France and subject to the same management as if operating in 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 231 Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. GSA7 and 8. However, it is clear that the UoA needs better defining. We have reworded the UoA as follows: Geographical range of the fishery: French and EU shared Western Mediterranean waters, FAO 37.1.2 Golf du Lion (GSA 7) and around Corsica FAO 37.1.3 (GSA 8) . A statement has been published on the MSC website. Optional: General Comments on N/A The multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the Has been clarified, thank you. Rec. 18-02 was still forthcoming the Peer Review Draft Report Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean was adopted in (Table 18, page 59) at the time of report writing. (including comments on the 2006 (ICCAT Rec. 06-05) and was later replaced by ICCAT adequacy of the background Rec. 08-05, 10-04,12-03, 13-07, 14-04 and 17-07. information if necessary) References to Rec. 14-04 (replaced by Rec. 17-07) should be updated. The recovery plan changed later to management plan trough Rec. 18-02 which also replaced Rec. 17-07. Optional: General Comments on N/A Some relevant data might be added in section 3.3.8 in This has been added thank you. the Peer Review Draft Report order to facilitate the understanding of the stock (including comments on the assessment (catch levels for the species was first fixed in adequacy of the background 1998 (98-05) in 32,000 t (not 34,000 t) and from 2007 information if necessary) started to be reduced to a minimum value of 12,900 t in 2010. One of the measures of the plan proven to be very effective since its adoption in 2006 was the size limit of the fish, raised from 10kg in 2004 (6,4kg in 2002) to 30kg. Optional: General Comments on N/A In Table 11, Sardine from the Adriatic, as primary main Has been amended. the Peer Review Draft Report species, should be written in red for consistency with the (including comments on the rest of the report and clarity. adequacy of the background information if necessary) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 232 Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Optional: General Comments on N/A No much reference is done to the handline vessel. Even Details have been added. the Peer Review Draft Report if small and with no impacts on the scoring, details of its (including comments on the fishing practice should be included. adequacy of the background information if necessary) Optional: General Comments on N/A Rec. 14-04 was already not active in December 2018 Remaining references to Rec. 14-04 replaced by Rec. 17-07. Rec. the Peer Review Draft Report (Table 17). Recommendations 11-13 and 11-17 are also 14-04 taken out and Rec. 11-13 and Resolution 11-17 added to (including comments on the relevant. Table 17, thank you. adequacy of the background information if necessary) Optional: General Comments on N/A Section 3.5.1.3. The EU and France are both members of Corrected, thank you. the Peer Review Draft Report the GFCM (different than in ICCAT). (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) Optional: General Comments on N/A Section 3.5.3.2 (GFCM). Articles 5 and 8 of the GFCM Reference added, thank you. the Peer Review Draft Report Agreement are crucial here (precautionary approach and (including comments on the ecosystem approach). adequacy of the background information if necessary) Optional: General Comments on N/A Section 3.5.3.3.Criteria and methodological standards Reference added, thank you. the Peer Review Draft Report for Descriptor 3 of the MSFD are laid down in the Annex (including comments on the of Commission Decision (EU) 2017/848 (fishing adequacy of the background mortality, spawning stoke biomass, age and size information if necessary) distribution…). Optional: General Comments on N/A Section 3.5.6.1. The ICCAT Statistical Document for BFT Reference added, thank you. the Peer Review Draft Report was replaced by the BFT Catch Documentation Scheme (including comments on the (Rec 07-10). 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 233 Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Review stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) explanations for their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. adequacy of the background information if necessary) Performance indicator comments PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 1.1.2 1.2.1 No (non- No (non- NA (d) The multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in The point is certainly taken about material material the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean was adopted uncertainties in the stock assessment; the score score in 2006 (ICCAT Rec. 06-05) and was later replaced by changes made from 17-07 to 18-02 are not reduction reduction ICCAT Rec. 08-05, 10-04,12-03, 13-07, 14-04 and 17- likely to be detectable in terms of stock Not accepted expected) expected) 07. Catch levels for the species was first fixed in 1998 outcomes partly for this reason. However, (no score (98-05) in 32,000 t and although maintained above looking at the slightly longer term (i.e. from change) 29,500 t before 2007 real catches of twice the TAC the start of the recovery plan process rather were acknowledged. The SCRS has estimated real than just the move from 17-01 to 18-02) it is catches on the order of 50,000 t to 61,000 t per year evident that the strategy has been i) based on the number of vessels operating in the reviewed frequently and ii) improved Mediterranean Sea and their respective catch rates significantly. The MSE process points to between the mid-1990s through 2007 (ICCAT REPORT ongoing efforts at improvement. Overall, it 2018-2019 (I)). Catches started to be reduced by ICCAT seems right that this be scored as met. from 2007 to a minimum value of 12,900 t in 2010. MCS measures have been strengthened to ensure compliance. One of the measures of the plan proven to be effective since its adoption in 2006 was the size limit of the fish, raised from 10kg in 2004 (6,4kg in 2002) to 30kg. Later, in 2014 and as a consequence of the improvement of the stock, ICCAT started to 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 234 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) increase the TAC until the "multi-annual management plan" currently in place adopted in 2018 (Rec. 18-02). This latest recommendation, as stated in the report, notably softened (target biomass and several technical measures). The level of uncertainties in the stock assessment and the still reported cases of non- compliance would advise the need of more caution in the case of this just recovered stock. Therefore, although the harvest strategy is periodically reviewed, it doesn't seem to be improved as necessary and therefore SG 100 would not be met at this scoring issue. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. ICCAT Recommendation 15-07 "on the The team reviewed the rationales with this in development of Harvest Control Rules and of mind but could not really see where it was Management Strategy" and its implications for the relevant to scoring the SGs, which all focus eastern bluefin tuna stock should be mentioned. on the current harvest strategy rather than Not accepted future improvements. The commitment for a (no score RFMO to put in place a formal harvest change) strategy is important in cases where the HCR is being scored as 'available' at SG60, but this is not the case here. However, it did seem pertinent to the argument about reviewing and improving the harvest strategy (discussion above) so it was mentioned there. 1.2.3 No (no No (no Yes (a) Although the final score of this PI will not change, A browse through the database of Not accepted score score the level of uncertainties, unreported catches and information derived from the GBYP (no score change change reported IUU activities would advise to score this immediately shows that the information change) expected) expected) scoring issue at 80 instead of 100. base is spectacular. The question of unreported catch and IUU is dealt with under SIc and the uncertainties in PI1.2.4 so they are considered in this assessment already. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 235 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) 1.2.3 No (no No (no Yes The following information can be also relevant in This has been summarised under 'removals' Accepted (no score score scoring issue issue (a): "Information available has score change) change change demonstrated that catches of bluefin tuna from the expected) expected) East Atlantic and Mediterranean were seriously under- reported between the mid-1990s through 2007. The Committee has estimated that realized catch during this period likely was on the order of 50,000 t to 61,000 t per year based on the number of vessels operating in the Mediterranean Sea and their respective catch rates. The 2017 assessment uses these estimates (1996-2007) rather than the declared catches." (ICCAT REPORT 2018-2019 (I)) 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.1.2 No (non- No (non- NA Swordfish: Although ICCAT Recs. 13-04 and 16-05 have Regarding fishing mortality levels being Accepted (no material material improved the management of Mediterranean higher than Fmsy, the matter remains that score change) score score swordfish, several aspects remains to be adjusted. (1) the removal by the UoA is still very small reduction reduction "Current quotas correspond to fishing mortality levels compared to the total catch, at 0.02% and is expected) expected) that are higher than FMSY" (F2015/Fmsy and therefore highly unlikely to hinder recovery F2015/F01 are reported to be 1,85 and 2.64 of this stock (see SA3.4.6 for guidance on respectively (ICCAT REPORT 2018-2019 (I)). (2) this). Regarding the minimum size, the peer Another issue of big concern is the catch of immature reviewer raises an important point which fish. The minimum catch size established by Rec. 16-05 was not covered in our rationale which we (100 cm) might be well below the size of maturity ("In have amended. However, because the UoA the western Mediterranean, mature females as small takes such a small portion of the catch, the as 110 cm LJFL have been observed and the estimated fact that some of these catches may be size at which 50% of the female population is mature juveniles will not have any effect on the occurs at about 140 cm. According to the growth recoverability of the stock. For this reason, curves used by the SCRS, these two sizes correspond the scoring is maintained at 80; however, a to 2 and 3.5 year-old fish, respectively. Males reach recommendation has been raised. sexual maturity at smaller sizes and mature specimens have been found at about 90 cm LJFL. Based on the fish 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 236 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) growth pattern and the assumed natural mortality rate of 0.2, the maximum yield would be obtained through instantaneous fishing at age 6, while current catches are dominated, in terms of number, by fish less than 4 years old." (ICCAT REPORT 2018-2019 (I)). According to Figure 6 of the mentioned report and Figure 13 of the stock assessment report (ICCAT-SCRS, 2016), the dominant year classes in the catch are 1.5 and 2, which, according to the previously reported information would correspond to immature fish. The SCRS Recommendations in the above mentioned report includes the following three points: - "Size and age at maturity: As there may be spatial differences between the east and west Mediterranean swordfish, the Group recommended that future work is conducted to determine region specific size and age at maturity." - "Gear selectivity: Further research on gear design and use is encouraged in order to minimize catch of juvenile swordfish and increase yield and spawning biomass per recruit from this fishery. - "Discards. Recently adopted management measures may have increased discard levels, therefore the Group noted that participating countries should improve their estimates of discards of juvenile swordfish, when applicable, and submit such information to the ICCAT Secretariat. Therefore, good practices to improve selectivity of swordfish should be also considered. 2.1.3 Yes Yes No Condition: A reference about collection of the This is now addressed through the separate Accepted (no information necessary to support a strategy to recommendation raised on 2.1.2b which will score change) improve selectivity of catches of primary species require the UoA to demonstrate that no immature swordfish are caught. The client 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 237 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) should be included. The quantification of swordfish has also amended their action plan to better caught only by the UoA should be mentioned. reflect this. 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. (d) A justification of the applicability of Clarification has been added Accepted (no scoring this issue by identifying the shark species score change) potentially caught by the UoA as secondary species is missing here. However, from the information given in PI 2.3.1 (b) blue shark, common thresher and short-fin mako are expected. 2.2.2 Yes No (no Yes Scoring agree. (e) From the given explanation it is not The pelagic stingray was identified as the Not accepted score clear if the alternative measures being tested to only main secondary species. The Selpal (no score change increment selectivity are being implemented and its study referred to in the rationale examined change) expected) effectiveness regularly reviewed. Reducing the score bycatch rates and post-release survival for of this scoring issue to 60 won't change the scoring of this species and made recommendations to PI 2.2.2 but would require completing the condition increase survival through best-practice accordingly. handling and release techniques. These recommendations were adopted in the Good Practice Guide, the use of which is mandatory under the TRL-PA brand (as audited by VALPEM). On this basis, the team considered that SG80 should be met. The scoring was not changed. 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Condition: Increase of observer coverage should be The aim for increased observer coverage is Accepted (no also mentioned (as in condition 3). mentioned throughout the Principle 2 action score change) plan which is now also summarized in Appendix 11. 2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. (a) GFCM Recommendations Has been added, thank you Accepted (no 35/2011/3 and 35/2011/4 on reducing incidental score change) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 238 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) bycatch of seabirds and sea turtles respectively in fisheries in the GFCM area of application can be also mentioned. 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. However, there have been important These have been added, thank you. Accepted (no changes in the ecosystem structure after 2008 likely score change) not covered by the cited references that should be reviewed. See Van Beveren et al., 2017 (Predator–prey interactions in the face of management regulations: changes in Mediterranean small pelagic species are not due to increased tuna predation); Coll, et al., 2018 (Who is to blame? Plausible pressures on small pelagic fish population changes in the Northwestern Mediterranean Sea); Saraux et al., 2019 (Small pelagic fish dynamics: A review of mechanisms in the Gulf of Lions); and references in the texts. EC STECF stock assessments of anchovy and sardine in the Golf of Lions should be also considered (Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) - Mediterranean Stock Assessments 2017 part I (STECF- 17-15). Both species have experimented drastic changes in the last 10 years which are not yet well understood. 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Same justification as in 2.5.1 These have been added, thank you. Accepted (no score change) 2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Same justification as in 2.5.1 These have been added, thank you. Accepted (no score change) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 239 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. (a) Although ICCAT Recommendations Precision added in section 3.5.1 and in the Accepted (no enter into force after 6 months and the EU could take scoring rationale; thank you score change) over a year in transposing the recovery/management plan, the EU adopts annually a Regulation fixing fishing possibilities (TACs) and other provisions (including those from ICCAT) for the following fishing season (see as examples ANNEX ID of COUNCIL REGULATION (EU) 2018/120 and 2019/124 for the TACs of 2018 and 2019. The provisions adopted by ICCAT usually apply from the following fishing season through different provisions at EU and Member State level, even before its official date of entry into force at ICCAT level. 3.1.1 No No NA (c) Although Recitals 4 and 19 (not articles) of the CFP PR A raises an important point, which Not accepted (material (material Basic Regulation (1380/2013) highlights the concerns the present demand from small- (no score score score importance of small-scale fisheries and promotes its scale vessel owner operators to access a change) reduction reduction preferential access, as such there are not binding. larger share of the French BFT quota. There expected to expected However, it is Article 17 of the same Regulation are legal provisions, in the CFP and the <80) to <80) ("Criteria for the allocation of fishing opportunities by French legislation to do so. We contend that Member States") that states that "When allocating the this is not the case because of recent history fishing opportunities available to them, as referred to when small-scale fishers were relying on in Article 16, Member States shall use transparent and pelagic driftnets. When these were banned, objective criteria including those of an environmental, many fishers continued using them and social and economic nature. The criteria to be used therefore did not declare their catches to may include, inter alia, the impact of fishing on the avoid prosecution. In turn they did not have environment, the history of compliance, the official historical catch records on which to contribution to the local economy and historic catch base their claim to historical rights. levels. Within the fishing opportunities allocated to Therefore, contrary to PR A's point that the them, Member States shall endeavour to provide French system does not have a mechanism incentives to fishing vessels deploying selective fishing to observe SS fishers' legal rights, a gear or using fishing techniques with reduced mechanism exists, but cannot be applied to environmental impact, such as reduced energy this specific fishery. The rationale for 3.1.1c consumption or habitat damage." The French has been complemented to clarify this point, management system does not seem to include a no score change. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 240 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) mechanism to observe this legal provision (not explicit in the "Arrêtés établissant les modalités de répartition du quota de thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) accordé à la France pour la zone « océan Atlantique à l'est de la longitude 45° O et Méditerranée" for 2018 and 2019) SG80 would not be met. This would require a condition for this specific scoring issue. 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. ICCAT Resolution 11-17 on "best Element of clarification added to the Accepted (no available science" reinforcing cooperation among CPC, rationale, thank you. score change) ICCAT Commission and the SCRS, and participation of scientists, although not binding, could be mentioned. The active participation of NGOs for the last 15 years in the SCRS and Commission meetings (trough position papers and scientific contributions to the SCRS) also supports the current score. 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Recommendation 11-13 "on the Element of clarification added to the Accepted (no principles of decision making for ICCAT conservation rationale, thank you. score change) and management measures", recalling that "that management decisions should be based upon scientific advice and consistent with the precautionary approach" and aiming to support its application (although explicitly stated only in the preamble), could be mentioned. 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. (a) ICCAT adopted Recommendations Element of clarification added to the Accepted (no on bluefin tuna are normally implemented at Member rationale, thank you. score change) State level from the following fishing season trough different legal provisions. The transposition process of the Recovery/Management plan into EU law usually takes more than one year. The process of transposition of the currently in force management plan (Rec. 18-02) is still ongoing. The European Commission have 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 241 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Review stage) comments (as included in the Public Code Comment Draft Report - PCDR) submitted the Proposal for a REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL establishing a multiannual management plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean repealing the previous one (Regulation (EU) 2016/1627) in November 2019 and is currently awaiting the decision of the Fisheries Committee of the European Parliament. 3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. RBF comments PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Code Scoring Information given at initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) 2.2.1 Yes Yes Scoring agreed Thank you, no comment required. (RBF) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 242 Appendix 4.2 Peer reviewer 2 General comments Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief explanations for in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. Is the scoring of the fishery Yes The scoring is appropriate and within the lee-way that should Thank you - please see our responses to your individual consistent with the MSC be given to independent assessors. I have made a few comments. standard, and clearly based on suggestions for consideration by the assessors as an the evidence presented in the alternative way to score some of the issues that they have assessment report? identified. Are the condition(s) raised No Broadly, the conditions are appropriate, but could be Please see our reply to your comment on Condition 2 under appropriately written to achieve improved and I would urge the assessors to reconsider PI 1.2.2 the SG80 outcome within the condition 2. Specific issues are raised where necessary on specified timeframe? each PI comment. However, an overarching problem Regarding the level of observer coverage, the need for [Reference: FCP v2.1, 7.18.1 and identified was the lack of observer coveraged. I am not sure increased observer coverage is addressed throughout P2 sub-clauses] that 5% cover as required under ICCAT Rec. 16-14 para. 4.a is scoring and condition setting. The MSC is not prescriptive achievable, but it would be valuable to address this directly. about the required observer coverage and neither is the ICCAT Rec. 16-14 para. 4.b states that alternative team. However, compliance with the ICCAT 5% coverage arrangements can be made for vessels less than 15 meters, requirement is addressed in 2.3.2d and the associated which applies to most of the UoA. However,the CPC is condition and client action plan. Again, we cannot be requested to present details of the alternative approach to prescriptive on how this coverage should be achieved. the ICCAT SCRS for evaluation. This could perhaps form one of the initial condition milestones if it has not already been done. Is the client action plan clear and Yes Broadly, the client action plans address the requirements of The client has attempted to address the peer reviewer’s sufficient to close the conditions the conditions raised. Clarity in the action plan is not helped concerns by adding a summary action plan that covers the raised? by the MSC condition template requirements. Conditions on activities planned under Principle 2 – see Appendix 11. [Reference FCR v2.0, 7.11.2- 2.2.2/2.2.3/3.2.1/3.2.2/3.2.3 are effectively a single project to 7.11.3 and sub-clauses] collect data on the fishery and thereby improve the management strategy on unwanted catch. This could be made more explicit, perhaps in a separate project plan in an appendix. In addition, the project could explicitly evaluate whether there are any differences between the longline and 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 243 Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at initial Peer Review CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included stage). Peer Reviewers should provide brief explanations for in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) their 'Yes' or 'No' answers in this table, summarising the detailed comments made in the PI and RBF tables. handline gears. The action plans would benefit from a more formal structure identifying activities, outputs and means of verification as this would probably avoid problems in future surveillance audits. These are present in most cases, but are not clearly defined. Enhanced fisheries only: Does NA the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities? Optional: General Comments on N/A Overall, a nicely written clear report. Thank you the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) Performance indicator comments PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Minor point: The justification text says "but SIa. Point taken; it is meant more as a general Accepted (no under that [high recruitment] scenario, comment rather than a technical point about where score change) recruitment is not impaired by definition". the stock is in relation to the PRI. The question of This is not really true because the VPA doesn't what constitutes the PRI under the VPA is discussed include a S-R and therefore not a PRI. The high further down in the rationale. recruitment scenario is really referring to the SIb. Yes we did, apologies. Although the rationale has productivity (R0) or recruitment deviates. since been revised and the reference has gone. Also, in 1.1.1.b, do you mean 50%F0.1 rather than F0.05? 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 244 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code 1.1.2 NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Condition 1: Bearing in mind that meeting the According to our analysis, there is sufficient time in Not accepted condition will be outside the direct control of the condition even if the MSE overruns further on its (no score the client, it is worth noting that the timetable. Currently it is predicted that the MSE change) requirement to meet 1.2.2.a only needs an should be available for use by '2021 at the earliest'; agreement to set TACs below the estimated however if the fishery is certified during 2020, 2021 F0.1 level if the stock is detected too far would only be the end of Year 1, while the condition below some BMSY proxy. This does not runs to the end of Year 4 - i.e. three further years. require an MSE which may take a very long Obviously if the timetable slips further such that there time to complete. The client might be will not be sufficient time, the client will have to encouraged to support some preliminary consider other approaches, but we think that the agreement defining a point when TAC condition and client action plan are reasonable. calculation switches from F0.1 to, say, 50%F0.1, pending completion of the MSE and subsequent work. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes For 1.2.2.c, I agree with the scoring here, but A comment has been added Accepted (no it may be useful to explain why there is a score change) condition on 1.2.3.c (if you intend to keep it), but the TAC is not compromised. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Minor point: In 1.2.2.a 2nd para., it refers to The rationale has since been amended and the term Accepted (no "fishing effort". Perhaps reference should be 'fishing effort' is no longer there. score change) kept to TAC as this is the main control. The justification is correct in relation to TAC. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 245 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code 1.2.3 Yes No (score No For 1.2.3.c, the justification points out The reviewer may well be right; however the team Not accepted increase significant errors in catch records. It is true considered all available evidence and stakeholder (no score expected) that these are always worth reducing and if input and on the basis of that, retained the condition change) no efforts were being made to do this, I would on a precautionary basis. support this score and condition. However, this has been and is being addressed, and the uncertainties reported in the justification while significant, are not the current biggest problem in the stock assessment. This is not to say that historical IUU in particular could be an explanation for the retrospective bias and model uncertainty, but this cannot now be fixed. If there was evidence that the UoA contributed to uncertain catches, this would be addressed in 1.2.3.b. I would argue that catches outside the control of the UoA have a less rigorous requirement under 1.2.3.c, and that under the catch documentation scheme they are probably adequately recorded for the stock assessment. See also PI 3.2.3. 1.2.3 Yes No (score No Condition 2: Given the above, it is very Please see response above. Bear in mind that while Not accepted increase unclear to me at what point SG80 would be we were scoring the fishery, the story about extensive (no score expected) met or how this would be measured. What IUU in EU Mediterranean fisheries was just coming to change) would be "good enough"? There is no clear light, and no information was available about the final outcome. So, while the condition is extent of this IUU catch. As investigations continue laudable, I am not sure that it is appropriate (by Europol, the European Commission and NGOs) for this UoA unless there was a clearer action estimates of the amount of this catch are emerging. to be undertaken by the management We suggest that the condition can be reconsidered authority dealing with a particular problem. when the IUU is quantified (in tonnage and in time) such that it can be taken into account in the stock assessment, and/or it can be shown that it is not 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 246 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code This could still be addressed in a sufficiently significant to be needed to be taken into recommendation. account. 1.2.4 Yes No NA For 1.2.4.c, the rationale supports SG60 as The point about measuring uncertainty in the VPA is Not accepted (material uncertainties have been identified, and I well taken, however we interpret 'stock assessment' (no score score agree SG100 is not supported because the in this context to refer to the stock assessment change) reduction assessments have not modelled uncertainty process rather than the final stock assessment model expected (e.g. as in a Bayesian model). I do not think the specifically. It is not a requirement for an MSC fishery to <80) rationale provides sufficient evidence to meet at SG80 to have a statistical stock assessment model SG80 however. A major problem with VPA is - MSC guidance is very explicit that a wide range of it doesn't really attempt to model uncertainty approaches are in principle acceptable. The approach (overfitting selectivity for example), so the used by ICCAT based on working with a range of main uncertainty is represented between different models at the same time (and considering models. This is difficult to incorporate into different scenarios within each) is arguably better in stock assessment output as demonstrated by terms of obtaining a realistic impression of the the lack of Kobe plots etc. The models are not uncertainty associated with the stock assessment comparing different scenarios or states of outcome (in the larger sense) than the approach of nature, they are simply different other RFMOs who run the same single statistical software/fitting approaches. I would model each time, even if the conclusions about therefore argue that the stock assessment as uncertainty are qualitative (imprecise, as the currently done does not take sufficient reviewer rightly says) rather than quantified (precise account of uncertainty but is relying on more maybe, but are they accurate?). precautionary decisions instead (which are imprecise). A condition requiring moving to a statistical based model would meet 1.2.4.c SG80. Finally, an overall score of 85 on 1.2.4 implies that the current stock assessment approach is adequate, whereas the output information (multiple models with significantly different results) suggests otherwise. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 247 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA Suggested recommendation: It may be worth Has been added. Accepted (no adding a recommendation to formalise score change) baiting strategy - to minimise bait use per hook (and explore ways to achieve this) and wherever possible to obtain bait from sustainable sources, included perhaps as guidance in the Good Practice Handbook. This could guard against possible future problems and encourage an improvement in the fishery. 2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA See RBF comments See our responses to the RBF comments. 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. For the condition, it would be Your recommendation has been provided to the Accepted (no useful if the size composition for a random client. score change) sample of captured rays were recorded. I understand that this might be difficult. 2.3.1 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes Although the condition 7 is adequate, the The team did aim to align these milestones; in fact, in Not accepted timing (milestones) may need to be order to ensure an outcome of 80 for 2.3.1 by Year 4, (no score reconsidered in relation to condition 8 on a strategy should be in place as required - ideally this change) 2.3.3. It would make sense if they were more aligned, with more time to meet condition 7 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 248 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code (demonstration of an effective strategy being happens before Year 4. The milestones for outcome, in place) so that the quantitative information management and information are all linked. to support this can be collected. 2.3.2 Yes Yes Yes Minor point: 2.3.2.a paragraph starting Indeed, thank you. Accepted (no "ICCAT Rec. 07-07" - Last sentence should score change) presumably state: "(which is therefore not applicable to the UoA)". 2.3.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 2.5.2 No (no Yes NA For 2.5.2, the primary concern is for UoA itself Additional detail has been added. Accepted (no score rather than the entire management system score change) change (although the system is relevant). It may be expected) worth making reference in the justification to the elements of the code of practice relevant to this PI as these are the actions the UoA actually does to minimise impact. 2.5.3 No (non- Yes NA For 2.5.3.b-d, as I understand it, the Please see our individual responses below. material justification for meeting SG100 is broadly score based only on qualitative evaluation of the 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 249 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code reduction UoA's direct impact on species, rather than expected) any indirect or secondary effects. This seems to me to be a rosy view of our understanding of ecosystem impacts. Below I try to point to specific problems with the scoring issues. 2.5.3 No (non- Yes NA For 2.5.3.b, the evidence presented supports We have provided further detail as well as some more Accepted (no material that the main impacts of the UoA are known up to date references to justify the SG100 score. The score change) score and some have been investigated. However, scoring was not changed. reduction SG100 requires that main interactions have expected) been investigated in detail, and I am not sure this is supported. Perhaps a quick list of what you think are the interactions, as opposed to the impacts, are might clarify this. 2.5.3 No (non- Yes NA For 2.5.3.c, while I can accept the main We reviewed the rationale for the scoring issue and Accepted (non- material functions of the components are known, although we do not agree with all points raised by the material score score understanding would require more in depth reviewer about what is required at SG100, it is true reduction) reduction study. For example, if information was that significant data gaps remain for the UoA. It is expected) sufficient, reference points in stock therefore not clear that all impacts have been assessments would include an explicit identified and on that basis we reduced the scoring to reference to ecosystem effects. Bluefin does 80. not even have an MSY reference point, let alone one that includes ecosystem considerations. The EwE modelling would give some indication of trophic relationships, but stops well short of a full ecosystem model. As pointed out, the impact on seabirds could be various, and would include changing behaviour in response to fishing vessels for example. These are the sort of issues which I 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 250 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code might expect to have been addressed to meet the SG100. 2.5.3 No (non- Yes NA For 2.5.3.d, the consequences for elements Here also we reviewed the rationale for this scoring Accepted (non- material would, in my opinion, require more detail. I issue and again, owing to the paucity of data and the material score score accept that the evidence can be used to inability to properly estimate fleet-level impacts on reduction) reduction evaluate the impact on broader components, some of the components, we have reduced the expected) but I don't think this is available for elements. scoring to 80. For example, if information was available on the impact of the UoA (and other factors) on the pelagic stingray, why did you have to use an RBF? I also presume the EwE model only covered particular components, perhaps teasing out a few elements? Giving a better indication of how you are interpreting these scoring guideposts might help here. 3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. 3.2.3 No (scoring Yes NA For 3.2.3.d, I agree with the score and most of Some words added in the rationale to clarify, thank Accepted (no implications the justification, but the justification may you. score change) unknown) conflict with the scoring/justification in 1.2.3.c and overall seems a bit complacent. I 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 251 PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as CAB Response Information Scoring Condition initial Peer Review stage) included in the Public Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code think that there has probably been a significant improvement in recording catches and reduction in IUU, but the main problem with IUU is it is not recorded by definition, so it is always difficult to know its extent. It may not be included in the stock assessment by ICCAT for a variety of reasons, and I am not sure I would take that as specifically evidence that it is not significant. 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. Thank you - no comment required. RBF comments PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Public CAB Response Scoring Information initial Peer Review stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code 2.2.1 Yes Yes For encounterability, the team may wish to We note that increasing the encounterability score to 3 does not affect Not accepted (RBF) consider scoring high risk (3) if the species the overall MSC score. We are, however, reluctant to apply this more (no score significantly overlaps the shallow water precautionary score as there is no evidence that suggests vertical change) gear depth range (0-20m). The appropriate overlap is higher than 30%. The team consulted with the leading expert comparison might be with bluefin, which on pelagic stingrays in this part of the Mediterranean (F. Poisson) who the gear targets and is presumably highly brought to light the seasonal distribution patterns of this species and encountered, but also moves rapidly therefore increased availability to the fishery; for this reason the scoring between depths. Just because the species was already increased from 1 to 2. In relation to Kiriby & Hobday (2007): can tolerate going to deeper water, like 1. the 0-100m depth distribution for pelagic stingray is likely an bluefin tuna, it may still predominantly underestimate of the species' true range, at least in the Mediterranean occur at the surface when fishing occurs (at (see results of tagging study in Poisson et al., 2016 for this). night). Kirkby and Hobday (2007) defined 2. the 0-100m depth range of shallow gear as defined by the authors is all shallow water tuna gear, including bait simply not applicable to this fishery, which does not go beyond 20m boats, as operating 0 to 100m, which depth (see figure below from Poisson et al. (2016) which shows the would 100% overlap with the typical range depth - and temperature - profile of the deepest point of the main line. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 252 PI RBF RBF Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in the Public CAB Response Scoring Information initial Peer Review stage) Comment Draft Report - PCDR) Code of pelagic stingray (0-100m according to Taking into account the length of the branchline, hook depth is generally Fishbase). Kirby, D.S., Hobday, A. 2007. between 5 and 10m). Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects We therefore maintain that the encounterability score of 2 is justified. of Fishing in the Western and Central No changes were made. Pacific Ocean: Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. Third Regular Session of the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC, 13–24 August 2007. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 253 Appendix 5 Stakeholder submissions Appendix 5.1 Submissions prior to PCDR publication (Pew) Date of submission: 24 October 2018 Nature of Comment Additional Information/Detail (select all that apply) Please attach additional pages if necessary. e.g. I wish to indicate that I am a Pew has been a stakeholder in Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation and management since 2008, through our work on stakeholder in this fishery. Please domestic processes in the USA and EU, as well as our involvement at the international level via ICCAT. We wish to be kept keep me informed about each stage informed of the progress of this assessment, and we intend to provide constructive input to the CAB throughout the X of the assessment process. process. Attached, we provide several scientific resources that will be valuable for the CAB to review as you begin to produce the draft assessment report. In Section 3 of this document, below, we highlight some specific points to draw to X I wish to suggest information or your attention some of the most relevant recent Atlantic bluefin science. documents important for the assessment of this fishery (you may either attach documents or provide references). I wish to suggest other individuals or organisations who should be considered stakeholders in the MSC assessment of this fishery (please provide contact information). Other (please specify) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 254 • Section 3 • Nature of Comment Additional Information/Detail (select all that apply) Please attach additional pages if necessary. I wish to request an in-person Unfortunately, my colleagues from Pew and I will not be able to attend the site visit, but we appreciate the opportunity to meeting with the site team during sign on as a stakeholder and to provide the CAB with any information that we have, regarding this fishery and the eastern their assessment visit (meetings Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna stock. In order to inform your preparation of the draft assessment report, we without the fishery client present provide comments in the attached document. may be requested at this phase of the process if desired). e.g. I wish to submit written information about the fishery and its performance against the default tree and/or RBF to the assessment team (please provide documents or references). Other (please specify) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 255 SATHOAN French Mediterranean bluefin tuna artisanal longline and handline fishery Want to ensure the team considers the following in the assessment: • The 2017 assessment did not determine the overfished status of the eastern stock due to failure to agree to a reference point. o “Given the uncertainty in estimated biomass, the Group considered it was not advisable to use the biomass-related results to evaluate the current status of the stock and recommended not to include a Kobe plot in the Executive Summary.” (Assessment report, which provides many other statements about the uncertainty about the “rate and amplitude” of the population growth estimated in the assessment.) o “However, given the uncertainties about future recruitment, estimates of biomass base reference points were unreliable.” (2017 SCRS report) o A letter published in Science points out some of the uncertainties in the eastern assessment (Collette 2018). ▪ “For example, adding just one year of data increased the model’s recommended quotas by 70% (2). Adding data from a single fishery (i.e., one abundance index) increased the estimated sustainable quotas by 126%.” (PDF attached) o An effort to validate the 2017 assessment results has uncovered numerous problems, and these findings will be released in the near future (Kell, Kitakado and Sharma, unpublished data). • When the assessment used the approach applied by the SCRS since 2010 of three different estimates of SSB0.1 based on high/medium/low recruitment, the stock was still overfished under the high recruitment scenario (SSB2016=87%SSB0.1). As mentioned above, there is considerable uncertainty about future recruitment levels, so the high, medium and recruitment levels have been treated by the SCRS as equally likely. o A very similar status (89% SSBMSY) was found using Stock Synthesis, a model that is more advanced and now widely used for tunas globally (including WBFT). • ICCAT’s current eastern bluefin measure, Recommendation 17-07, sets the eastern quota at 28,200 mt for 2018, 32,240 mt for 2019, and 36,000 mt for 2020. Projections show this management regime will lead to population decline (2017 SCRS report and following figure): 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 256 • Continued IUU fishing in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (10-15K mt per year, according to EU government scientists) o A recent high profile bust of an illegal bluefin trafficking ring in five EU member states (including France), Morocco, Tunisia and Japan estimated that this single operation traded 2500 t annually in the Mediterranean Sea, illegally. [https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/how-illegal-bluefin-tuna-market- made-over-eur-12-million-year-selling-fish-in-spain] o There are recent allegations that up to 5000 kgs of bluefin are being smuggled into Malta each week. [http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2017-12-03/local- news/5-000-kilos-of-tuna-allegedly-smuggled-to-Malta-each-week-and-exported-to-EU- states-6736182205] o Despite this overwhelming evidence of illegal activity in the fishery, and clear advice from ICCAT scientists that existing monitoring and control measures should not be weakened (2018 SCRS report, p. 107), ICCAT is slated to revise Recommendation 17-07 at its annual meeting in November 2018, and some governments are advocating for a rollback of MCS requirements. You can track proposals and revisions as they are released under the Panel 2 tab on https://www.iccat.int/com2018/. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 257 Collette 2018 Science attachment: 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 258 Team response The team contacted Mr. Galland to organize a follow-up call and discuss this submission in more detail. Due to conflicting schedules (in part caused by the ICCAT plenary), the call was eventually held on the 25th January 2019. Attendants were Grantly Galland (Pew), Shana Miller (The Ocean Foundation, fully funded by Pew), and the three auditors Jo Gascoigne, Sophie des Clers and Chrissie Sieben. The points made during the call are as follows: - Questions were asked regarding the scope of the assessment (including on the type of vessels and to what extent they can be considered ‘artisanal’; the role of VALPEM) - Discussed the site visit outcomes, particularly the information provided by Tristan Rouyer of IFREMER. - Discussed SS3 model and why this was not used as the basis for advice for the BFT-e stock. Only the VPA model was considered, which is significantly more optimistic. - Discussed general preference for VPA models in Europe compared to the more sophisticated SS in the United States. The gradual adoption of SS models in Europe is likely just a matter of time. - Discussed comments submitted above, focusing on uncertainty in the stock assessments, management decision-making and illegal activity in the Mediterranean: - Consideration that management based on F0.1 is experimental in its approach and that MSC should not be certifying these types of experimental approaches. - The political agenda of CPCs influences how advice is issued. There is concern that MSC certification would validate this flawed process. The assessment process itself is also heavily influenced by managers. - There is no precedent for breaking consensus against the advice that is issued. - Three different recruitment scenarios, one of which shows the stock to be overfished. In this context, the quotas set in 2017 are projected to result in a decline in SSB which is fine under two of the recruitment scenarios, but not one. Other, independent scientists have raised similar concerns (e.g. Collette – see attachment above). - Derogations on minimum sizes are leading to fisheries shifting to smaller sizes of BFT. - Vessels that have no BFT authorization can land up to 20% of their catch as BFT when it used to be 5%. However firstly, how do you therefore track quota uptake and secondly, these BFT are not required to be landed with an eBCD for within EU trade, which undermines traceability. This, combined with a proposal to increase fishing capacity, may lead to overcapacity and would shift the burden of management from ICCAT to national governments. The mismatch between capacity and available quota may also lead to an increase in IUU fishing. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 259 Appendix 5.2 Submissions prior to PCDR publication (WWF) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 260 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 261 Team response The team contacted Ms. Jacob and Mr. Buzzi to organize a follow-up call and discuss this submission in more detail. Due to conflicting schedules (in part caused by the ICCAT plenary), the call was eventually held on the 22nd January 2019. Attendants were Théa Jacob (WWF), and the three auditors Jo Gascoigne, Sophie des Clers and Chrissie Sieben. The points made during the call are as follows: - Ms. Jacob expressed WWF’s disappointment in the decision to increase BFT-e quota despite the uncertainties regarding stock status. WWF had commissioned several MSC pre-assessments on this stock, which all pointed to Principle 1 failing full assessment. It is considered that the level of uncertainty is too high for MSC certification. - Perception that the new management plan is weaker vis-à-vis the rebuilding plan (prolonging of fishing season, derogation on minimum sizes, inadequate controls in BFT farms) - Concerns about IUU fishing, especially in recreational fishery. Inspection rates in longline fishery are also not high enough. This is of importance as this is a high-value fishery that still has an active black market. The list of authorized landing ports has also become bigger which makes 100% quayside coverage difficult. The previous perception that given the high inspection rates on the purse seine fleet, IUU for that fleet at least should be limited, appears to have been wrong (referred to recent findings: https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/how-illegal-bluefin-tuna-market-made-over-eur-12-million-year- selling-fish-in-spain) - Concern about Principle 2 and bycatch, particularly blue shark. Suggests there is a lack of data on interactions with sea turtles and seabirds. - Commended the traceability system put in place by SATHOAN. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 262 Appendix 5.3 Submissions post PCDR publication Following publication of the PCDR, follow-up comments were received from one peer reviewer, MSC Technical Oversight and comments were submitted by WWF, Pew and ISSF, as shown below. 3382R06B CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014 263 Appendix 5.3.1 Follow-up Peer Review Comments PI PR Comment Peer Reviewer Justification (as given at Public Comment Draft CAB response to Peer Reviewer's comments (as included in CAB Code Report (PCDR) stage) the Final Draft Report) Response Code 3.1.1 No (scoring (c) CAB Response refers only to the criteria related to historical SI(c) SG80 requires that "the management system has Not implications catch levels. However, Article 17 of the CFP Basic Regulation mechanisms to observe the legal rights created explicitly or accepted unknown) 1380/2013 ("Criteria for the allocation of fishing opportunities established by customs". It does not require to discuss (no score by Member States") made explicit the need to also consider "criteria of environmental, social and economic nature". change) criteria of environmental, social and economic nature. These are explicit in French legislation (Code rural et de la Therefore, my original comment at the Initial Peer Review Stage Pêche maritime). However, they do not relate to this scoring would not be fully addressed. issue. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 264 Appendix 5.3.2 MSC Technical Oversight There is one handline vessel in the UoA which is a rod and reel vessel. The UoA includes pelagic longline, and handline and pole-line (LHP, LHM). The LHP/LHM category (as explained in Section 3.2.3) includes rod and reel. We have revised the rationale to include details of the MCS operations and how they are implemented and enforced. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 265 Although it is not clear at all that this is a requirement (Table GPF7 only lists baited pots as an example) and we believe the argument made by MSC is flawed and that a lower encounterability risk score can be demonstrated, we have revised the rationale and increased the encounterability score to 3, noting that this does not affect the overall scoring. We have revised the rationale to better take into account the guidance cited. This has resulted in an increased selectivity score of 2. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 266 The probability of the stock being above the PRI vs the stock being at a level consistent with MSY is different. The PRI is not analytically determined, but according to the observed relationship between recruitment and biomass it is at a much lower level than Bmsy (or B0.1 as a proxy in this case). So, the stock can be above this level with a high degree of certainty, while still not being at the MSY level with a high degree of certainty. The rationale has not changed. This rationale has been revised and rescored and the offending phrase has been removed. Note that following NGO comments, and in harmonisation with the Usufuku Honten Japanese longline bluefin fishery, this rationale has been revised completely. The scoring guidepost requires that there should be evidence of recovery or a demonstrably effective strategy in place. GSA3.4.6: If there is no evidence of recovery, by either evaluating stock biomass or total fishing mortality, SA3.4.6d allows an 80 score in cases where the proportion of combined catch by all relevant MSC UoAs is effectively not hindering recovery. (…) MSC allows that the UoA’s catch in proportion to the total catch of a stock may be used as a reasonable proxy of whether that UoA on its own or cumulatively with other UoAs, could be considered to be hindering recovery. The team therefore maintains that the scoring adheres to the requirements. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 267 This is not what the rationale states. The rationale explains that all stingrays are systematically discarded by being cut off the line; i.e. there is a non-retention policy with discard practices that ensure the highest rate of survival considering the difficulties in handling this species. Note that in some fisheries the stingrays are simply ‘swung’ off the line which significantly increases mortality rates. As part of the good practice guide and the TRL-PA label, fishers have to cut the individuals from the line. Bearing in mind the species’ life history (hence the reference to RBF outcome and high post-release survival when being cut off the line), the team maintains that this a partial strategy. We have added some clarification but the scoring has not changed. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 268 Appendix 5.3.3 WWF Comments Principle 1 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code PI 1.1.1a WWF continues to question the high scoring of PI 1.1.1a at SG100 given the high degree of uncertainty in the BFTE None given SG100 not met Not accepted (no stock assessment models in general and the fact that for the VPA model, the primary model used in the assessment, score change) Stock status has not been able estimate recruitment with any confidence since 2012. This is consistent with the comments of relative to MSC Technical Oversight in questioning the CAB’s scoring of PI 1.1.1a at SG100 and raising a major-grade oversight recruitment issue. The only critical guidance in the FCR section GSA2.2.3.1 on the use of proxy indicators and reference points impairment – for PRI and BMSY states that ‘where proxy reference points are used in scoring the stock biomass status, higher SG100 is not scores should be assigned where greater confidence is provided by the proxy information.’ met. Put simply, If reliable estimates of recruitment cannot be determined, let alone calculated with any probabilistic confidence level assigned how can a 95% level of certainty (i.e. high confidence) be justified in determining that recruitment is not impaired? To be clear, and consistent with our comments in the PCDR, WWF is not disputing that the stock may be likely (i.e. 70% probability at SG60), or even highly likely (i.e. 80% probability at SG80) to be above the PRI as defined in SA2.2.1 of FCR v2.0. WWF is specifically objecting to the CAB’s judgement that it is highly certain (i.e. 95% at SG100) to be above the PRI because for BFTE there is no clear evidence for the current level of recruitment. This is why the ICCAT stock assessment team presented three recruitment scenarios for the stock based on the VPA model and was not able to definitively assign a likelihood for which scenario is currently appropriate (i.e. they were not certain -- especially with 95% confidence). In deciding between highly likely (SG80) vs. high degree of certainty (SG100) for PI 1.1.1a, the assessment team used a qualitative approach to argue that the evidence is adequate to conclude with 95% confidence that BFT stocks are above the PRI. In other words, it was a essentially a judgment call. In making this judgement, the CAB is not taking major uncertainties in the ICCAT assessments into account. These include questions about: • the larval BFT index in the Mediterranean region that cannot provide evidence of strong or weak recruitment thus requiring the SCRS to provide three recruitment scenarios for the VPA assessment, • only a single year of strong recruitment in 2003 with uncertainty about recruitment levels in subsequent years, and • the impact of not including 2016 catches in the stock assessment models. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 269 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code Stock status in relation to reference points (including PRI/Blim, Bmsy, B0) and the current recovery status are not provided by ICCAT’s SCRS. Therefore, even the MSC default proxy indicators for PRI (see GSA2.2.3.1) cannot be analytically determined directly. The CAB themselves state that (page 130 FR) “the stock status cannot be determined (B0.1 is not quantified) with a high degree of certainty, with conclusions changed to a significant extent by the choice of model and recruitment scenario, and uncertainties in all the models.” WWF is not convinced by the approach taken by the CAB for PI 1.1.1a of turning the question around and evaluating whether there is greater than a 5% chance that the stock is at the PRI. While they appear to acknowledge all sources of uncertainty relative to estimating recruitment, it is arguable that this can actually be the case. In essence, the CAB has taken the high degree of uncertainty around recruitment estimates in all of the stock assessment models and ‘turned this around’ to imply a reasonable measure of certainty that the fishery meets the required SG100 level of 95% certainty that the stock is above the PRI. This points to the imprecise and weakly defined nature of the probability levels associated with MSC requirements when scoring qualitative judgements. If reliable estimates of recruitment cannot be estimated with any confidence, how can a 95% level of certainty (i.e. high confidence by a scientific standard) be justified in determining that recruitment is not impaired. The VPA model used for stock assessment incorporates three recruitment scenarios and the SCRS is not able to definitively state which scenario correctly characterizes the current state of the stock, therefore all three recruitment scenarios are presented in the 2017 stock assessment. The results of the VPA model are summarized in the Report of the 2017 ICCAT Bluefin Stock Assessment Meeting: “Nonetheless concern remains owing to the high degree of inconsistency observed in retrospective estimates of recruitment, suggesting that there are conflicting signals in the data as to the absolute magnitude of recent recruitment.” Ultimately , the CAB’s judgement that the EBFT stock is above the PRI with a high degree of certainty (i.e. 95%) is based on CUP’s “qualitative perceptions of probability and risk” which are highly dependent on a visual interpretation of Figures 39 & 40 in the Final Report that show in recruitment (R) over time next to SSB. However an examination of the figures shows that there is a high degree of recruitment variability, both for the VPA base case model in Figure 39 and for a comparison of the four different assessment models in Figure 40. Both of the plots show a high degree of variability in R in recent years, meaning that the level of recruitment in recent years cannot be reliably estimated. It is also important to note that it is inappropriate to judge PRI relative to SSB since B0.1 can't be estimated. WWF maintains position that 95% level of certainty is not justified the stock is above the PRI. To be clear as stated above and in our PCDR comments we do not dispute that available evidence indicates that the BFTE stock is likely to be above the PRI. However given the profound level of uncertainty in the models and the inability to accurately estimate recruitment accurately in recent years with any of the models, we do not believe that the CAB is able to justify a score at SG 100 for the BFTE stock. WWF stands by our original conclusion that the 95% degree of certainty determined by the assessment team that 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 270 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code the stock is above the PRI is overestimated and cannot be accurately extrapolated based on the available data and models. Therefore, a score of for PI 1.1.1a 100 is not justified. CAB response This question (as well as the others on P1 raised below) has been rehearsed before at enormous length with WWF, in relation to the Usufuku Honten bluefin fishery, where WWF provided the same comments. The disagreement between the CAB and WWF as to how this SI should be scored was finally tested via an objection, which went to adjudication. The adjudication found in favour of the CAB – i.e. that the score of 100 is appropriate. To be consistent across fisheries on the same stock (as required by MSC), we maintain the same scoring here. For information, we summarise the main points of the CAB response to WWF below. A table is provided at the end of this response which summarises the conclusions of each stock assessment model tried, in relation to stock status relative to the PRI. For further detail, the reader is referred to the documentation associated with the Usufuku Honten fishery assessment and objection: see https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/usufuku-honten-northeast-atlantic-longline-bluefin-tuna-fishery/@@view • In the Usufuku Honten fishery, WWF initially raised no objection to the scoring of 100 here, only to change its position at objection. • MSC TO questions whether the uncertainty raised in scoring SG100 for 1.1.1b should not be extended to SG100a – but their logic is flawed, since there is no reason why the probability associated with the stock being at the level of BMSY and the PRI should be the same. • It is unclear why WWF have chosen to highlight the issues in their list of bullet points, since these are not really the most significant. For that reason they are not mentioned explicitly in the rationale, but in general we have tried to explain clearly the various sources of uncertainty in the stock assessment, and we believe we have been clear and objective. (More information on each of the three issues raised by WWF is provided in relation to the Usufuku Honten objection – see link above.) • MSC explicitly permit this SI to be scored either based on quantitative evaluations of probability or on qualitative assessments of uncertainty – see SA2.2.1. • Basic arithmetic tells you that if there are only two possibilities (i.e. B>PRI and B • The PRI is not a value of R, it is a value of B. R is always variable. Finally, given the amended scoring for 1.1.1b as not meeting SG80 in this Final Report (see 1.1.1b rationale), the question as to whether 1.1.1a is met at SG100 is no longer relevant as clause 7.10.5.3 is not met and it has no bearing on the scoring for this PI. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 271 Table 39. A summary of the information available to evaluate (quantitatively or qualitatively as per SA 2.2.1.3) the stock status relative to the PRI and the level of confidence associated with it. (Note: The reference points are sometimes referred to in terms of biomass (B) and sometimes in terms of spawner biomass (SB) – in practice it is SB which is used throughout so these terms are interchangeable here; we use the terms used in the relevant ICCAT reports.) Model Can we estimate a If yes, what is the estimate of What does the model tell us Is it reasonable to reject the hypothesis that biomass reference point biomass relative to the proxy about recruitment directly? recruitment is impaired, with 95% confidence or which is a proxy for the PRI? and with what confidence, qualitative equivalent? PRI, following within this model? GSA2.2.3.1? VPA, low B0.1 can be estimated if The base case and all sensitivities The base case VPA model Across all three recruitment scenarios and recruitment some assumption about are above B0.1, so within this estimates recruitment and extensive sensitivity runs to quantify uncertainty scenario recruitment is made (low model confidence is very high biomass. These estimates (see Figure 50 in stock assessment report) there vs medium vs high; recent that B>PRI proxy (see stock suggest that recruitment was were no estimates of biomass below the PRI proxy. = low); B0.1 is Bmsy proxy assessment report Figure 50) highest at a biomass level lower All three scenarios put F lower than F0.1 either in and 50%Bmsy is PRI proxy than currently (1990-2005), 2015 (low, medium) or by 2018 (high). All runs VPA, medium The base case and all sensitivities hence the biomass at this lower (including sensitivities, bootstraps and jackknifes) recruitment are above 50%B0.1 although not level was above the point of associate a lower biomass with high recruitment. scenario all above B0.1; within these recruitment impairment. models confidence is high that VPA, high B>PRI proxy (see stock recruitment assessment report Figure 50) scenario SS3 SBmsy can be estimated if For 2018, SB is projected to be Same conclusion as VPA model. The analysis of SB/SBmsy is probably uncertain an assumption about 85%SBmsy across all projection because no attempt is made to consider different recruitment is made; in scenarios (TAC 10k-35k t); i.e. recruitment scenarios (as for the VPA) and the this case a poorly- 1.7*PRI proxy; confidence method used to input recruitment into the model determined SR intervals are not given is highly uncertain. The direct information about relationship; 50%SBmsy is past recruitment is probably more robust and is PRI proxy the same as for the VPA. ASAP Not with the information n/a Same conclusion as VPA model The direct information about past recruitment is provided (see Figure 40) the same as for the VPA. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 272 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code SCAL Not with the information n/a Nothing particular can be Not considered further. provided inferred; model estimates very high SB and different trends from the other three and should probably be discounted PI 1.1.1b As indicated above different stock assessment models were tried during the last stock assessment for the Eastern Carruthers, SG80 not met Accepted Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna stock in 2017. The experts took model virtual population analyses (VPAs) T.R., and (material score Stock status as the basis for management advice but they noted that the results of a second model (Stock Synthesis 3 - SS3) Agnew, D.J. reduction to <80) in relation to should be ‘taken into account’ for the advice. The main issues for the use of the VPA model are: i) that the model 2016. Using achievement is unstable (the results are strongly influenced by the final year of data); and ii) that one of the key assumptions of simulation to of MSY a VPA , that catch-at-age is known exactly, is not met. In the VPA model F0.1 is used as a proxy for FMSY. However, determine this value can be higher or lower than FMSY depending on the stock recruitment relationship, which cannot be standard determined. Trends suggest that SSB is increasing but the current ratio of spawning biomass SSBcurrent/SSBMSY requirements cannot be determined due to uncertainties about future recruitment. In particular, the VPA projection with high for recovery recruitment suggests that SB has not yet reach B0.1 (which is the value used as proxy for BMSY). Moreover, when rates of fish the VPA model is run with mixing between the eastern and western stocks, the estimates of spawning biomass stocks. were very different and the trends for the eastern stock suggested that, while the SSB has increased rapidly in Marine Policy recent years, it is not as dramatic as estimated by the runs with no mixing or using the tagging data, and is still 73:146-153. below the levels estimated for the 1970s. The statistical catch-at-length models, such as SS3 and SCAL, also showed very different results particularly for the absolute value of biomass. The SS3 model, the only model which estimates B/BMSY, estimated SB2018 at ~85 % of SBMSY. MSC FCR 2.0 guidance clause GSA2.2.2. explains the meaning of “fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY” and it gives a series of examples for consideration. In the first example (80 score), a 90%MSY figure is given as a hypothetical level that may be appropriate for species types with average levels of fluctuations. It also notes that “teams should further keep in mind that the rationale should demonstrate fluctuation around a level ‘consistent with BSMY’, not a level consistent with 90%BMSY”. As stated above, the SS3 model used by the ICCAT, estimates SB2018 at ~85 % of SBMSY, which is below the 90%MSY reference given by the MSC as a level which could be considered as “fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY”. According to the MSC FCR 2.0 (Box GSA1, page 382), the MSC intends the precautionary approach (defined as “The precautionary approach shall be interpreted to mean being cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate […] (The UN Fish Stocks Agreement, 1995)”), to be applied implicitly throughout the Certification Requirements. The assessment team also indicates in the assessment report that the different conclusions of different stock assessment models and the uncertainties in the VPA model, will be considered as part of the team’s 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 273 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code evaluation as requested by the stakeholders for this fishery. However, in the justification of 1.1.1b, the team only selects the model (and inside this model, the recruitment scenarios) that are more convenient for its objectives, without considering any other model and abstaining from applying the “precautionary approach”. In its rationale, the team quickly indicates that there are concerns about the validity of the MSY estimate for the SS3 model but they forget to consider that there are also many concerns about the validity of the VPA model and its projections. As explained, both the VPA model with high recruitment scenario and the SS3 model indicate that the B0.1 (a proxy for BMSY in the VPA model) and BMSY levels (for the SS3 model) have not been reached. In our PCDR comments for the Usufuku Honten BFTE fishery that is also currently in assessment WWF assessors were initially impressed by the exercise carried out by the CUP assessment team to justify the recovery time for scoring under PI 1.1.1b based on GFCR 2.2.4. However upon further analysis at the time of the final report WWF became concerned that there was an apparent inconsistency between the generation time calculated by CUP based on Box GSA4 and the values for GT we found in the literature. This initial analysis of GT for BFTE formed the basis of the second scoring WWF error lodged by WWF against the final determination that the Usufuku Honten fishery under the MSC standard by CUP. In regards to the assessment of the SATHOAN fishery it is obvious that both CUP and WWF are cognizant of the importance of the outcome of the Usufuku Honten objection to the outcome of the P1 assessment for the SATHOAN fishery assessment due to the MSC requirements for harmonization of P1 assessments. Therefore WWF will only address the importance of this issue briefly in our comments on PI 1.1.1b for this assessment underscoring the fundamental importance of these issues for scoring. The conceptual linkage between generation time and recoverability is a fundamental concept in the context of the MSC requirements. This is evidenced by the FCR v2.0 Principle 1 requirements for scoring the Stock status (PI 1.1.1) when management of a stock is based on proxies for fishing mortality (e.g. FMSY or F0.1) under GFCR 2.2.4 as well as the Stock rebuilding (PI 1.1.2). it is also made clear in a peer reviewed article in the journal Marine Policy co- authored by David Agnew, the previous MSC Standard director at the time that the guidance at GSA2.2.4 and Box GSA4 were added in 2014 following the last MSC Standard Review. Carruthers and Agnew conclude: “Regarding the first question, our results show that in the absence of any exploitation the soonest most stocks can recover is one generation time, but that achieving recovery within two generation times is achievable with sufficiently low, but non-zero, fishing mortality” Here we must emphasise that there is not an absence of fishing mortality on the BFTE stock. In scoring PI 1.1.1b at SG80 in the Final Report, CUP is essentially concluding based on the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements that the BFTE stock has recovered and is at or fluctuating around MSY. Regardless of the circumstances prior to the Usufuku Honten objection, it cannot be disputed that both WWF and CUP have provided clear and sufficient evidence that a GT of 11 years calculated using the MSC equations in Box GSA4 is not consistent with the original Goodyear equation which is cited in Box GSA4, and from which the MSC version of the 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 274 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code Goodyear equation derived. At present the MSC is unwilling or unable to provide any additional clarity to resolve this question so it is a difficult situation for CUP in scoring this PI for the SATHOAN assessment. WWF believes that there is more than sufficient evidence and reason for CUP to re-score PI 1.1.1b at SG 60 because the stock has not been fished at less than FMSY for more than 1 generation time, and thus requiring the CAB to score PI 1.1.2 of the MSC FCR for stock rebuilding. It must also be mentioned that WWF also still find inappropriate that there is not any reference in the scoring of PI 1.1.1b using GFCR 2.2.4 to the past and most importantly current unreported catch which still reaches a considerable amount, as proven by the recent Interpol operations in illegal tuna trade in Spain and Malta and the images taken by fishermen and fisheries observers of the increasing number of discarded BFT adults in 2018 and 2019 in the Balearic fishing grounds (https://www.diariodeibiza.es/pitiuses-balears/2018/06/22/denuncian-pesca- ilegal-atun-rojo/997029.html and https://www.diariodeibiza.es/pitiuses-balears/2019/07/31/pescadores- denuncian-fondo-marino-ibiza/1083124.html ). Therefore, for the above reasons WWF submits that the conclusion reached by the team is no longer justified. We consider that based on the different model results and the fundamental problems that have been documented and have yet to be resolved with the calculation of GT, that it cannot be reasonably concluded that the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna stock is “at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY” according to the MSC definition and that this S.I. does not meet SG80. This is a crucial issue, it means that the global score for P.I 1.1.1 (stock status) does not reach SG80 and 1.1.2 (stock rebuilding) needs to be scored. CAB response This SI has been rescored to be consistent with the revised GT as calculated from Goodyear. SG80 is now scored as not met. PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code P.I. 1.1.2 The rebuilding timeframe for the stock must be the shorter of 20 years or 2 times its generation time based on the None given None given Not accepted (no Stock requirements of PI 1.1.2a. A multi-annual recovery plan was implemented in 2006 by ICCAT with the objective of score change) Rebuilding recovering the stock to BMSY with greater than 50% probability. Fisheries indicators evidence that the rebuilding strategies implemented are rebuilding the stock, although there are still some uncertainties in regard to future recruitment levels. Since 2008, there has been a rapid decrease in F10+, which is related to the drastic reduction of TAC. The ratio of Fcur/FMSY is estimated at 0.34, thus, overfishing is not occurring. In the latest meeting of the ICCAT Commission in November 2017, it was agreed that according the last SCRS scientific advice and even if 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 275 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code uncertainties remain in assessment results, annual catches up to 30,000 t have higher than 60% probability of maintaining F below F0.1 throughout 2022. However, there is no evidence that the rebuilding strategy is robust enough and with the uncertainties in the stock assessment, it cannot be considered that the recovery plan is rebuilding the stock. CAB response The WWF comment sets out very clearly the evidence that the rebuilding plan is rebuilding the stock (i.e. fisheries indicators, decrease in F, no overfishing, probability that F Uncertainties in the stock assessment are acknowledged throughout the report, but, as noted in the scoring for 1.1.1, all the models tried by the stock assessment group showed the stock to be rebuilding. It is problematic that biomass reference points cannot be estimated, but for this reason the rebuilding strategy / management plan is set out in terms of F, and MSC explicitly provide for stock status and rebuilding to be scored using F, as the CAB and WWF have previously discussed for PI 1.1.1 and in the context of the Usufuku Honten assessment. PI 1.2.1 – Harvest Strategy Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 1.2.1a The multi-annual recovery plan implemented in 2006 by ICCAT included a series of management measures, such None given SG100 not met Not accepted (no Harvest as TACs, area and seasonal closures, minimum legal size, etc. The multiple amendments made to the recovery plan score change) strategy since 2006 have resulted in increasingly tighter controls of the actual catches. Combined with lower quotas, fishing design mortality rates have been reduced and SSB has increased substantially. ICCAT has recently moved from a rebuilding plan, to a multi-annual management plan which came into force in 2019 (Rec. 2018-02). However, the TAC for the Eastern and Mediterranean tuna stock has been recently increased by ICCAT basing on projections made by an unsophisticated stock assessment methods (VPA) with many uncertainties, and against the demands from scientists and NGOs to adopt a more precautionary approach. Projections made for the current TAC set by ICCAT for this stock (28,200 mt for 2018, 32,240 mt for 2019, and 36,000 mt for 2020) show that this management regime will lead to population decline in following years. For 2020 quotas for bluefin in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (BFTE) have been set to the highest value ever by ICCAT , however there is no well-defined harvest strategy for this stock, nor one is currently planned for 2021. There is no well-defined or pre-agreed process in place, to set the TAC for BFTE. The decision making process in ICCAT for this stock is therefore sensitive to political negotiation. The CAB correctly states that the 36,000 t quota 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 276 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code for 2020 is loosely based on an approximation of F0.1 estimated from a highly uncertain stock assessment. However we cannot agree to the conclusion that the current management system is responsive to the state of the stock. Several important abundance indices went down in 2018, but the quota still increased for 2020 to the level agreed in 2017. WWF has objected to the scoring of PI 1.2.1a for the Usufuku Honten fishery assessment and the same concerns apply to the SATHOAN assessment: a) The HCR does not ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached b) the management plan does not include a specific provision allowing ICCAT to suspend the fishery from one year to the next c) Strictly speaking, the stock status is unknown. The 2017 BFT stock assessment Stock status in relation to reference points and the current recovery status are not provided by ICCAT’s SCRS. There are major uncertainties in the assessments, including questions about a) the larval BFT index in the Mediterranean, b) only a single year of strong recruitment, and c) the impact of not including 2016 catches. d) ICCAT’s model for the eastern bluefin stock’s assessment is unreliable because small tweaks to the input data result in substantial differences in quota advice Collette (2017) e) There are no pre-agreed management actions to be taken by the fisheries managers (ICCAT itself), and the simple review of the plan is not sufficient to conclude that the system is responsive to the state of the stock. f) A Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) is not yet conducted Another critical point that the CAB did not consider is the lack of agreement on how the monitoring data will be used in the stock assessment, another critical feature of a harvest strategy, as defined by the MSC standards. Due to these issues WWF believes the harvest strategy is not responsive to the state of the stock and is not designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 and therefore that requirements for 1.2.1a at SG100 are not met. CAB response As for 1.1.1a, this question has been rehearsed before at enormous length with WWF as well as Pew, in relation to the Usufuku Honten bluefin fishery, where the same comments were provided. The disagreement between the CAB and WWF and Pew as to how this SI should be scored was finally tested via an objection, which went to adjudication. The adjudication found in favour of the CAB – i.e. that the scoring is appropriate. To be consistent across fisheries on the same stock (as required by MSC), we maintain the same scoring here. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 277 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code Again, for convenience we provide here a summary of the response to the issues raised in this comment, in turn. For full details, the reader is referred to the documentation associated with the objection on the Usufuku Honten fishery at the link provided under 1.1.1a above. • The TAC is slightly more conservative (lower) than would be implied by the HCR, because ICCAT decided that increases should be incremental. This is a good response to uncertainty, in our view, rather than evidence that the HCR does not exist. • Regarding the stock assessment approach, various models were tried and they are discussed in the report, along with the reasons provided to the assessment team as to why the SS3 model was not ultimately used to provide advice. NB: A more sophisticated model does not necessarily give a better answer, and in the case of the SS3 model even a cursory look at the SR relationship used to estimate MSY reference points will show that they should be regarded with extreme caution. • If the model estimates that B>B0.1, and the TAC is set to give F=F0.1, then biomass will decline; i.e. population decline is shown only for scenarios where B is already >B0.1 • Tristan Rouyer (stock assessment scientist) emphasised to the assessment team that current TACs are not comparable to previous TACs because the size structure of the fishery has changed significantly. So, the statement that the TAC ‘is the highest value ever’ is scientifically meaningless. • The harvest strategy is based on TACs being set following a stock assessment every three years, not based on informal review of indices between times. • Regarding WWF’s list: a) See scoring for 1.2.2.a b) This is not a MSC requirement and is part of the management of very few fisheries, given the socio-economic carnage that results c) See discussion under 1.1.1a d) True, although this is improved in the amended version e) There is extensive evidence that management has been responsive to the state of the stock over more than a decade f) MSE is not a MSC requirement • Re monitoring data: the harvest strategy is clear that the stock assessment is used to estimate F0.1 which is then used to set the TACs. Managers telling scientists what data to use in the stock assessment seems highly inappropriate. 1.2.1b As stated above, the ICCAT has recently moved from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan, which None given SG80 not met Not accepted (no Harvest came into force in 2019 (Rec. 2018-02). The SG80 criteria states that the: "The harvest strategy may not have been score change) strategy fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives”. The MSC further explains that to consider that evaluation the strategy is working, it needs to be in place for sufficient time to show results. The TAC set for the BFTE stock has been recently increased by ICCAT and projections made for the current quotas show that this management regime will lead to population decline in following years. Moreover, the new management plan, just implemented, does not include a specific provision allowing ICCAT to suspend the fishery if necessary. It is true as the assessment team states that a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process is underway at ICCAT for BFTE and that the management plan can be modified based on the outcome of the MSE, but this MSE has not been finalized, nor 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 278 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code have Candidate Management Procedures been presented to the ICCAT Commission yet and it should not be taken into account for the scoring of PI 1.2.1b. We consider that the current multi-annual management plan has some measures have been relaxed as indicated by the assessment team in the report. This includes many changes with respect to the previous rebuilding plan (e.g.: extended fishing seasons, additional derogations from the minimum size, provisions for quota exchange and small amounts of carry-over, increase of by-catch rates, etc.). The management plan has not been implemented long enough to consider that it is achieving its objectives, nor the objectives of the recovery plan were never confirmed to be achieved Therefore, this S.I. does not meet SG80. CAB response As for 1.2.1a, this question has been rehearsed before at enormous length with WWF as well as Pew, in relation to the Usufuku Honten bluefin fishery, where the same comments were provided. The disagreement between the CAB and WWF and Pew as to how this SI should be scored was finally tested via an objection, which went to adjudication. The adjudication found in favour of the CAB – i.e. that the scoring is appropriate. To be consistent across fisheries on the same stock (as required by MSC), we maintain the same scoring here. Again, for convenience we provide here a summary of the response to the issues raised in this comment, in turn. For full details, the reader is referred to the documentation associated with the objection on the Usufuku Honten fishery at the link provided under 1.1.1a above. • The harvest strategy considered here covers 18-02 and previous Recs, which form a continuous strategic approach which has been in place for more than a decade and have demonstrably rebuilt the stock. • Population decline is shown for scenarios where B is already >B0.1. • A provision to suspend the fishery from one year to the next is not a MSC requirement, nor is an MSE. 1.2.1d Again, the MSE process is underway at ICCAT for BFTE, but it has not been finalized and adopted by the Commission None given SG100 not met Not accepted (no Harvest yet and it should not be taken into account for the scoring. It is noted that “The harvest strategy is periodically score change) strategy reviewed”, but it is unclear if it has been “improved as necessary” as decreases in fishing pressure have occurred review due to external pressures and have not been based on “a measured HS approach”. Therefore SG100 is not met for this S.I. CAB response The scoring is not dependent on the MSE, but a peer reviewer in the Usufuku Honten fishery noted it should be mentioned; hence it is mentioned. We disagree that decreases in fishing pressure have occurred due to external pressures rather than management – WWF provides no evidence for this. PI 1.2.2 – Harvest Control Rules and Tools 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 279 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 1.2.2a HCRs Under Rec. 17-07 (rebuilding plan) of the e-BFT stock, if the SCRS detected a serious threat of fishery collapse, the None given SG60 not met Not accepted (no design and Commission would suspend all the fisheries for the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin in the following score change) application year. If this occurred, then the CPCs are required to intensify research so that SCRS can conduct further analysis and present recommendations on conservation and management measures necessary to resume the fisheries. However, in the new multi-annual management plan, which came into force in 2019 (Rec. 2018-02), this provision was not included. The management objective of 17-07 was to achieve BMSY with at least 60 % probability. However, the management objective of 18-02 is less ambitious: to achieve B0.1 (proxy for BMSY) by fishing ‘at or below’ F0.1. While a constant F0.1 strategy should keep the stock fluctuating around B0.1 over the long term, the exploitation rate (F0.1) is not reduced as the PRI is approached. HCRs are defined by the MSC as “a set of pre- agreed rules or actions used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status”. Further “HCRs “should be regarded as ‘well-defined’ in the sense required to achieve an 80 score when they exist in some written form that has been agreed by the management agency, ideally with stakeholders, and clearly state what actions will be taken at what specific trigger reference point levels”. Paragraph 114 of the Rec 18-02, indicates: “When as a result of a scientific evaluation the goal of maintaining the biomass around B0.1 (to be achieved by fishing at or less than F0.1) is not achieved and the objectives of this plan are in danger, the SCRS shall propose a new advice on TAC for the following year”. However, it does not seem a well-defined HCRs as defined by the MSC. Moreover, in paragraph 1 (objectives) of the same regulation ICCAT indicates “This objective shall be revisited and modified, if necessary, once Management Strategy Evaluation has made sufficient progress, when alternative management objectives can be considered, and Reference Points, Harvest Control rules and/or Management procedures can be adopted”. So ICCAT recognizes that no well-defined HCRs are currently adopted. WWF therefore maintains our view that held across these assessments that SG 80 is not met for PI 1.2.2a. Moreover, MSC CRv2.0 regards “generally understood” HCRs in “cases where they can be shown to have been applied in some way in the past, but have not been explicitly defined or agreed”. Historically, the decline of the bluefin tuna population to low levels of biomass does not clearly demonstrate that HCRs were effectively applied. Further to this, MSC CRv2.0 lays out two conditions for acceptance of HCR being “available” sufficient to justify scoring at the SG60 level (MSC 2014). 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”. 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”. Under both conditions the stock has already fallen below BMSY and has not yet reached this level (for a recent period of time). Therefore SG60 is not met for this S.I. and it is considered that the fishery should fail under the MSC standard. CAB response This question has been rehearsed before at enormous length with WWF as well as Pew, in relation to the Usufuku Honten bluefin fishery, where the same comments were provided. The disagreement between the CAB and WWF and Pew as to how this SI should be scored was finally tested via an objection, which went to adjudication. The 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 280 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code adjudication found in favour of the CAB – i.e. that the scoring is appropriate. To be consistent across fisheries on the same stock (as required by MSC), we maintain the same scoring here. Again, for convenience we provide here a summary of the response to the issues raised in this comment, in turn. For full details, the reader is referred to the documentation associated with the objection on the Usufuku Honten fishery at the link provided under 1.1.1a above. • A provision to suspend a fishery from one year to the next is not an MSC requirement for a HCR. It is not a usual management tool. • Regarding F0.1, B0.1 and the PRI, we agree and the rationale states this clearly. • The 80 score is not achieved. • The decline of bluefin to low levels shows that HCRs were not applied at that time, however, since ~2007 (i.e. for more than a decade) the biomass has been recovering. It is not reasonable to score the fishery based on a harvest strategy that stopped back in 2007. • We are not arguing that the HCR is ‘available’ – we are arguing that it is ‘in place’ but (on balance) not well defined. This is clear in the rationale. 1.2.2b HCRs None given None given Not accepted (no robustness to As stated above for PI 1.2.2b, ICCAT does not have HCRs in place for the BFTE fishery. score change) uncertainty CAB response Neither SG80 nor SG100 are scored as met. It is unclear what the intent of this comment is. 1.2.2c HCRs The assessment team indicates in the justification of this S.I. that “The stock assessment assumes that there are no None given SG80 not met Not accepted (no evaluation unreported catches which may not in fact be the case (see Principle 3.2.3), but overall monitoring, reporting and score change) enforcement measures are strict relative to most fisheries”. This statement is debatable as the unreported catch is still high as proven by the recent Interpol operations in illegal tuna trade in Spain and Malta and in the level of tuna discarded by purse seines in the Balearic fishing grounds and seems to be increasing due to the increasing biomass. Moreover, some of the assessment models and recruitment scenarios used by the ICCAT in the 2017 assessment indicated that the stock was below BMSY. Therefore, no clear available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs (if HCRs were in place, which is not the case). Therefore, SG80 is not met. CAB response The issue of IUU fishing is considered under 1.2.3c as well as under 3.2.3. The statement that monitoring, reporting and enforcement is strict relative to most fisheries is, in our view, reasonable – the IUU was discovered and those involved are being prosecuted. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 281 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code Regarding stock status and the SS3 model, see the preceding discussion under 1.1.1. In our view, the MSY reference points estimated by this model are not at all robust, for reasons clearly explained in the report. The evidence (set out in 1.1.1) clearly shows that the required exploitation rate (F 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 1.2.3.a Range The status of the bluefin tuna stock is updated every two years. In 2017, ICCAT’s SCRS assessed the eastern Atlantic None given SG100 not met Not accepted (no of bluefin stock, applying many revisions of the historical data sets. Sufficient relevant information related to the stock score change) information structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance and catches are available to support the harvest strategy. However, the stock assessment is subject to considerable uncertainties among the most important: the scarcity of CPUE data and to high levels of misreporting. As indicated above, misreported catch levels are thought to have diminished in recent years, although unreported catch still reaches a considerable amount, as proven by the recent Interpol operations in illegal tuna trade in Spain and Malta and in the level of tuna discarded by purse seines in the Balearic fishing grounds. Moreover, the increase in biomass of the stock is expected to increase the amount of IUU fishing. Therefore, although sufficient information on stock is available, it cannot be considered that there is good information on all removals from the stock and SG100 is not met. The statement used by the team to justify the level of information on removals “it is not fool proof but is better than exists in most tuna fisheries” might be true, but only because tuna fisheries elsewhere are extremely poorly monitored and it does not meet the quality standards of a MSC report. CAB response Note that this SI is asking about the range of information available – the uncertainties in the information are considered under SIb The stock assessment uses 7 CPUE indices, which cannot reasonably be considered a scarcity. See Section 3.3.10. There is no evidence for high levels of misreporting currently, although there is some, as discussed (the quantity uncovered by Interpol is not significant as a proportion of the TAC). Past IUU catches are estimated by ICCAT scientists using various techniques, including market analysis – see Section 3.3.10. This is acknowledged as an uncertainty. 1.2.3.b Again, as stated above, although it seems that misreported catch levels have decreased in recent years, unreported None given SG80 not met Not accepted (no Monitoring catch still reaches a considerable amount. Monitoring coverage and accuracy of removals by the commercial fleet score change) do not seem to be high as the team states in its justification. Recreational catch is also unknown and the increase in biomass of the stock is expected to increase the amount of IUU fishing by both sectors. Therefore, SG80 is not met for this S.I. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 282 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code CAB response Based on the information provided in the report regarding IUU catch, although it is concerning the quantities are not significant in relation to the stock or the HCR. If WWF has information that is not considered in the report, we would be glad to have it. (Note that we cannot score based on predictions about future IUU.) SG80 only requires that information is sufficient to apply the harvest strategy – this is the case since F/F0.1 can be estimated. SG100, which requires a high degree of certainty, is not met. 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response references change code 1.2.4a As stated by the assessment team, the VPA model is an unsophisticated stock assessment approach with many None given SG80 not met Not accepted (no Appropriateness uncertainties. In the 2017 assessment, the group in charge of the assessment considered that given the score change) of assessment uncertainty in estimated biomass, it was not advisable to use the biomass-related results to evaluate the current to stock under status of the stock and recommended not to include a Kobe plot in the assessment report. Many other consideration statements about the uncertainty of this model were done by the assessment group. It seems that a series of issues (poor size sampling, uncertain indices of abundance, IUU catches, etc) have retarded the use of the SS3 model for assessing the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean tuna stock (as it is already being done for the western stock). Therefore, it seems that the assessment model currently used for advice does not seem to be the most appropriate for the e-BFT, and we consider that SG80 is not met for this S.I. CAB response If the SS3 model could not be applied, it is not suitable for the stock, presumably. In fact, based on the information presented in the stock assessment report, the appropriateness of the SS3 model could be questioned; specifically regarding its attempt to estimate MSY-based reference points based on a Beverton-Holt SR relationship which manifestly does not apply. VPA is not a complex statistical model, but it is used in assessments of a great many fish stocks – it is the standard method used by ICES for assessment of most demersal fisheries in NW Europe. It is not reasonable to say that just because it is a VPA, it is not suitable. 1.2.4b In 2017, a wide range of estimation models, including revised configurations of the VPA method, statistical catch- None given SG80 not met Not accepted (no Assessment at-length, statistical catch-at-age and other integrated assessment models were applied to the Eastern Atlantic score change) approach and Mediterranean tuna. Finally, the VPA was considered by the SCRS as the most suitable method to assess the state of the stock and it was used as the basis of management advice to the ICCAT. Substantial revisions to historical fishery data, new fishery-independent series of relative abundance, and new information on life history were also applied to the assessment. Nevertheless, the group expressed considerable concern over the reliability 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 283 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response references change code of the VPA is method given its assumption that catch-at-age is known exactly when in fact the size composition of many eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets is poorly characterized for a number of years. Estimates of biomass base reference points are also unreliable given the uncertainties about future recruitment. The SCRS considered that any additional improvements to the historical data are likely to be rather modest in scope and elected to focus on fishing-mortality based reference points that do not require knowledge of long-term recruitment potential but can be implemented in a manner that will lead to rebuilding. Therefore, it is considered that only generic reference points are in place and SG80 is not met for this S.I. CAB response SG80 does not require that the reference points be biomass reference points, and MSC specifically allows for scoring using F-based reference points (or other proxies) please see SA2.2.3 and guidance. The F0.1 reference point used in the assessment is specified for the BFT-e stock. It has been evaluated to be a suitable proxy for FMSY for this stock (Rademeyer and Butterworth, 2018) and is estimated in relation to this stock. All of which meet the requirements of SG80 for this SI. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 284 Principle 2 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code PI 2.1.1 a: Blue While the ICCAT assessment for blue shark conducted in by the SCRS in 2015 states that the population ICCAT 2015. Report of the 2015 None given Not accepted shark of the NE Atlantic is not overfished and is not suffering overfishing, due to a number of issues (e.g. a ICCAT blue shark stock (no score lack of historical data, bycatch not reported properly, etc..), ICCAT also states that "the level of assessment session (Oceanário change) Summary: uncertainty in data inputs and assumptions was high and the possibility of the stock being overfished de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal - July WWF and overfishing occurring could not be ruled out" (ICCAT 2015). 27 to 31, 2015). Blue Shark questions Stock Assessement Session – whether the It is important highlight that in the PCDR, the CAB (based on current ICCAT stock delineations) is Lisbon 2015. Available at: CAB’s considering the NE Atlantic and Mediterranean population as a single stock. As a result, the IUCN status https://www.iccat.int/Docume rationale of critically endangered for the Mediterranean is not properly addressed under the SATHOAN nts/SCRS/DetRep/BSH_SA_ENG demonstrates assessment and the best available scientific information is not properly considered. Leone et al (2017) .PDF that Blue evaluated the genetic differentiation and phylogeography of Mediterranean-North Eastern Atlantic shark should blue shark populations and found weak but significant differences in Mediterranean and adjacent NE be considered Atlantic populations: “The weak, but significant, differences in Mediterranean and adjacent North- as a single eastern Atlantic blue sharks revealed a complex phylogeographic structure, which appears to reject Sims, D., Fowler, S.L., Ferretti, F. stock for the assumption of panmixia across the study area, but also supports a certain degree of population & Stevens, J. 2016. Prionace scoring the connectivity across the Strait of Gibraltar, despite the lack of evidence of migratory movements glauca. The IUCN Red List of SG80 observed by tagging data. Analyses of spatial genetic structure in relation to sex-ratio and size could Threatened Species 2016: requirements indicate some level of sex/stage biased migratory behaviour”. So, while the genetic differentiation is e.T39381A16553182. for PI 2.1.1a. weak (but significant) and much more work in this regard is needed, it is not completely accurate to Downloaded on 09 May 2020. consider the results of the ICCAT assessment for NE Atlantic blue shark as the same than in the Available at: Mediterranean or, at least, this should be treated carefully and not literally. Specially if we consider https://www.iucnredlist.org/sp that the last IUCN assessment for this species in the Mediterranean (Sims et al. 2016) lists it as Critically ecies/39381/16553182#extern Endangered due a population decrease of 78-90% in the past 30 years (three generations) and mostly al-data due to overfishing (mainly as bycatch but more recently it has also been targeted and increasingly retained as valued bycatch). Leone et al. (2017), Genetic Also, Leone et al (2017) following their study and others, argued that: “Conversely, a prevalent differentiation and occurrence of immature juveniles is reported in the Mediterranean Sea (Megalofonou, Damalas & De phylogeography of Metrio, 2009; Kohler et al., 2002).” […] “Most of the BS caught in the Mediterranean (99% and 98% Mediterranean-North Eastern for males and females, respectively) are immature, indicating that the Mediterranean BS stock consists Atlantic blue shark (Prionace primarily of small immature BS of both sexes, with a sex-ratio skewed toward females or males, glauca, L. 1758) using depending on different geographical areas (Kohler et al., 2002; Megalofonou, Damalas & De Metrio, mitochondrial DNA: panmixia or 2009). A high number of pregnant females was observed in the Adriatic, North Ionian Sea and Ligurian complex stock structure? PeerJ Sea, suggesting potential nursery grounds for BS (Megalofonou, Damalas & De Metrio, 2009; F 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 285 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Garibaldi, pers. comm., 2017). On the other hand, the adjacent South-Eastern North Atlantic BS was 5:e4112; DOI prevalently composed by primarily mature individuals of both sexes with male-based sex ratio.“ 10.7717/peerj.4112. Available at: Taking the this information into account, it seems less than precautionary to consider both populations https://peerj.com/articles/411 (NE Atlantic and Mediterranean) as the same unit, with the same risk or to be threatened at the same 2/ level by the CAB. It seems clear that the Mediterranean population (or subpopulation) is facing a much bigger population decrease, higher risk of immature capture (which will not allow the recovery of the population) due mostly to bycatch (most of it unreported) but also with an increasing targeted catch of the species or increase of landings as valuable bycatch in a population already weakened by the 90% population decline over three generations (plus the uncertainties of the ICCAT’s stock assessment). For all of this could be a good initiative to have a more conservative or precautionary approach and treat the Mediterranean population (or subpopulation) as ETP species, to increase the protective and conservative measures to apply in fisheries management. CAB response First and foremost, IUCN status is not considered a criterion for designation of ETP species shark species according to the MSC FCR2.0 please review the criteria of clause SA3.1.5. The IUCN assessment of blue shark (Rigby et al., 2019) notes the declining trend in the northwest Mediterranean recorded by Ferretti et al. (2008), as follows: Further to the above stock assessment trend analyses, steep declines have occurred in the Mediterranean Sea. Ferretti et al. (2008) compiled nine time-series of abundance indices from commercial and recreational fishery landings, scientific surveys, and sighting records, to reconstruct long-term population trends of large sharks in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. The Blue Shark showed an average instantaneous rate of decline in abundance of -0.06 (time range 56 years) and biomass of -0.13 (time range 49 years), which equates to an estimated decline of 96.5–99.8% in abundance and biomass since the early 19th century (Ferretti et al. 2008). In the previous ten years, a partial increase in artisanal catches has been observed in the northwestern Mediterranean Sea. While this is clearly a worrying trend, this 12-year old study says very little about current stock status, or the likely UoA impact of the fishery on the blue shark stock, ignoring any measures that have been put in place at the UoA level (such as a ban on wire leaders, shark targeting, non-retention and best practice handling and release techniques). Assessments indeed must be based on best available scientific evidence. The team based their assessment on the most recent blue shark reference point-based stock assessment adopted by the RFMO responsible for monitoring and managing of blue shark catches in the Mediterranean: ICCAT. The team are aware of the difficulties surrounding stock identity for this species, particularly between the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic; however, at present there is no clear, conclusive evidence that there are two separate stocks. This is confirmed by the Leone et al (2017) study cited by WWF which concludes (extract from WWF submission, emphasis added by team): The weak, but significant, differences in Mediterranean and adjacent North-eastern Atlantic blue sharks revealed a complex phylogeographic structure, which appears to reject the assumption of panmixia across the study area, but also supports a certain degree of population connectivity across the Strait of Gibraltar, despite the lack of evidence of migratory movements observed by tagging data. Blue sharks are capable of long-distance migrations (Vandeperre et al. 2014 in Bailleul et al. (2018)) and sperm storage as well as delayed fecundation (Carrera-Fernández et al. 2010 in Bailleul et al. (2018)), all of which likely contributes to the lack of any apparent strong barrier to gene flow among distant ocean basins (Bailleul et al., 2018). 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 286 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Ver횤ssimo et al. (2017) sampled the least mobile component of blue shark populations, i.e. young-of-year and small juveniles (<2 year; N = 348 individuals), at three reported nursery areas, namely, western Iberia, Azores, and South Africa, and found temporally stable genetic homogeneity among the three Atlantic nurseries at both nuclear and mitochondrial markers, suggesting basin-wide panmixia. The authors further state that genetic homogeneity at the maternally inherited mitochondrial level indicates that adult female blue sharks may give birth in nursery areas other than their natal ones, even if located in opposite hemispheres. Thus, there is no evidence of female philopatry to discrete Atlantic nursery areas in P. glauca. The authors do caution that ocean-wide genetic stocks (i.e. where allele frequencies are similar among distant locations) can be maintained at the rate of only a few long-distance migrants per generation and thus does not preclude the existence of several demographic stocks relevant to stock assessment and management. Similar conclusions were made more recently by Bailleul et al. (2018) who found evidence of widespread genetic homogeneity of blue shark in samples across the Mediterranean, Atlantic and Pacific, reflecting large-scale panmixia, i.e. random mating at the worldwide scale, or a departure from random mating too recent to have left a signature on the genome, depending on the population size(s). Here also, however, the authors caution that the scenario of widespread genetic interdependence does not equate to demographic unity. E.g. tag studies would support the existence of two blue shark stocks in the North and South Atlantic, consistent with the different periods of reproduction that may suggest a phase difference among populations inhabiting distinct hemispheres. Similarly, despite the apparent homogeneity of the Mediterranean and Atlantic groups of specimens, no or very rare shark movements were detected between the Atlantic and Mediterranean basins using conventional tagging. This result may be due to the low statistical power and representativeness of tags on a limited number of specimens but also could reflect a real demographic independence not revealed in the genetic estimates of differentiation (Bailleul et al. (2018) and references therein). Overall, none of the aforementioned studies have resolved the matter of blue shark stock structure between the North Atlantic and Mediterranean and research into this is ongoing, as is research into stock structure for numerous other species, including tuna stocks some of which are MSC certified. (e.g. Western and Central Pacific yellowfin and bigeye - Grewe et al. (2016) and WCPFC (2018)). The uncertainty in stock structure has been acknowledged by the ICCAT Working Group on Sharks in their 2015 stock assessment and dedicated research is ongoing; as such it is not the CAB’s nor the team’s place to second-guess this or to jump to conclusions. The uncertainty has instead been considered in scoring, in that SG100 is not met for this species. As for SG80, we maintain that the UoA meets this scoring guidepost on the basis of the following: - North Atlantic blue shark stock status: ICCAT assesses this stock to be on right side of its MSY-based reference points (B2013/BMSY=1.50 to 1.96; F2013/FMSY=0.04 to 0.50). Even considering the uncertainty, there is a high likelihood that the stock is above the PRI (see Figures 5 and 6 in ICCAT-SCRS (2015)). - Blue shark survival: In the SELPAL study, Poisson et al. (2016) estimated mortality rates of blue shark upon hauling at 6%, and post-release mortality below 25%, based on electronic tagging data for a sample of blue sharks released as part of the study (Poisson et al., 2016). Relatively low at-vessel and post-release mortality rates have also been reported in other longline fisheries, e.g. Campana et al. (2016) and Campana et al. (2009). Campana et al. (2009) consider trauma associated with hooking the major source of post-release mortality, with short soak times enhancing blue shark survival (the soak time in the UoA is short, typically not exceeding two hours although it may be up to 6 hours, which is significantly shorter than the soak times reported by Campana et al. (2009) at an average of 20 – 22 hours). - Although there is a non-retention policy in place at UoA level, France has a TAC of 152 tonnes for this species, compared to a total of 39,102 (next to Ireland, this is the lowest of all EU countries, with Spain the highest at 27,062 tonnes).Ignoring the non-retention policy in place, any hypothetical blue shark landings would be dwarfed by those made by other EU countries. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 287 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code We therefore maintain the scoring of blue shark at SG80; however, we have expanded the background and rationale to better reflect the uncertainties and arguments supporting the SG80 score. PI 2.1.1 a: The CAB uses the most recent ICCAT stock assessment for North Atlantic blue shark (2015) to SCRS (2018). Report of the SG80 not met Not accepted demonstrate that the population is not overfished and not suffering overfishing. However, the CAB Standing Committee on (no score Summary: scoring for this PI does not appropriately acknowledge the high levels of uncertainty that the authors Research and Statistics (SCRS). change) WWF of the assessment have emphasised. According to ICCAT (2015): "the level of uncertainty in data inputs (Madrid, Spain, 1 to 5 October questions and assumptions was high and the possibility of the stock being overfished and overfishing occurring 2018). Available Online at: whether the could not be ruled out." https://bit.ly/2lxDnaP CAB’s rationale Other important summary statements in the ICES WGEF Report of the Working Group on demonstrates Elasmobranchs include: that Blue SCRS 2018: Report Of The shark meets • In 2015, prior to their most recent stock assessment, ICCAT nominal catch statistics of blue Standing Committee On the SG80 shark (by stock, flag and gear) were reviewed. No major updates were made to the historical catch Research And Statistics (SCRS) requirements series, and only recent years of official catches were updated. Before 1997, there is a lack of official (Madrid, Spain, 1 to 5 October for PI 2.1.1a. catches statistics for some of the main fishing nations operating in the stock area. No change in 2016. 2018). • In 2015, ICCAT considered that the status of the North Atlantic stock is unlikely to be either https://www.iccat.int/Docume overfished or subject to overfishing. However, due to the level of uncertainty in the assessment results nts/Meetings/Docs/2018/REPO no specific management recommendations were provided (ICCAT, 2015). RTS/2018_SCRS_REP_ENG.pdf • It is difficult to accurately quantify landings of blue shark in the North Atlantic. Data are incomplete, and the generic reporting of shark catches has resulted in underestimations. Landing data from different sources (ICCAT, FAO and national statistics) can vary. ICES WGEF 2017: Report of the Working Group on • ICCAT uses F/FMSY and B/BMSY as reference points for stock status of this stock. These Elasmobranchs (2017), 31 May- reference points are relative metrics rather than absolute values. The absolute values of BMSY and 7 June 2017, Lisbon, Portugal. FMSY depend on model assumptions and results and are not presented by ICCAT for advisory purposes. ICES CM 2017/ACOM:16. 1018 pp. Available at: • In conclusion, ICCAT 2015 states: “However, the level of uncertainty in data inputs and http://ices.dk/sites/pub/Public assumptions was were high and the possibility of the stock being overfished and overfishing occurring ation%20Reports/Expert%20Gr could not be ruled out.” oup%20Report/acom/2017/W These statements are important in relation to the second part of the SG80 requirements for 2.1.1a as GEF/01%20WGEF- to whether there is a demonstrably effective strategy in place, it is important to point out that although Report%20of%20the%20Worki ICCAT’s SCRS (2018) provided recommended catch limits to allow the recovery of the species, those ng%20Group%20on%20Elasmo limits were being surpassed in the first years (2016-2017) of the recovery period. ICCAT 2018 states: branch%20Fishes.pdf “whilst the overall catch limit for blue shark in the North Atlantic was 39,102 t, preliminary catches were 44,067 in 2016 and 39,675 t in 2017” (SCRS 2018). These data for 2016-2017 also do not include 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 288 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code estimates of IUU and underreported blue shark catch, so it is likely that the actual catch was probably even higher. CAB response Please see our response above as to why we believe SG80 is still met at the UoA level. Regarding the uncertainty in the data, while reported and estimated catches for blue shark are still generally subject to higher levels of uncertainty than the major tuna stocks, they have been considered sufficiently complete for the purpose of quantitative stock assessment: For the North Atlantic stock eight indices of abundance were used, generally showing flat or increasing trends, and uncertainty in data inputs and model configuration was explored through sensitivity analysis (SRCS 2019). Yes, the results were sensitive to structural assumptions of the models; however, it is important to bear in mind that 2.1.1a requires teams to consider whether a stock is above the PRI (point of recruitment impairment) not MSY. While there are clear uncertainties about whether or not this stock is above MSY (see Figures 5 and 6 in ICCAT-SCRS (2015)) – although based on the scenarios and models explored, ICCAT-SCRS (2015) consider the status of the North Atlantic stock unlikely to be overfished nor subject to overfishing. The probability that the stock is below any MSY-derived proxy accepted by MSC for the PRI (0.5BMSY or 0.75BMSY – see GSA2.2.3.1) is less than 5% (see Tables 6 and 7 in ICCAT- SCRS (2015)). Arguably, this means that the requirements for SG100 are in theory met, especially considering there have been no increases in F since 2013 when F was below FMSY. However, we took account of the uncertainties on stock structure and the fact that this assessment is now due an update and therefore considered only SG80 to be met. For the sake of clarity regarding WWF’s comment: In 2015, ICCAT considered that the status of the North Atlantic stock is unlikely to be either overfished or subject to overfishing. However, due to the level of uncertainty in the assessment results no specific management recommendations were provided (ICCAT, 2015): the stock assessment in fact concluded the following: “(…) due to the level of uncertainty, the Group could not reach a consensus on a specific management recommendation. Some participants expressed the opinion that fishing mortality should not be increased while others thought this was not necessary”. It would appear therefore that the debate centred around whether fishing mortality should be permitted to be increased or not, and not that there was a call for more restrictive measures such as catch reduction. We add that on a precautionary basis, and in response to requests by the EU, ICCAT has now put in place a blue shark TAC with quota allocation mechanism (Rec. 2019/07), which aims to ensure the total catch does not exceed the average of the total reported catch during the period 2011-2015. Finally, in relation to the second part of SG80, this is only triggered if the first part of SG80 is not met, which we argue is not the case here. However, for argument’s sake, for the second part of SG80, the team shall recognise “evidence of recovery” or a “demonstrably effective strategy” as being in place such that all MSC UoAs do not collectively hinder recovery of the species using any or a combination of the following as rationale (SA3.4.6): a. Direct evidence from time series estimates of stock status. b. Indirect evidence from time series of indicators or proxies of stock status indicative of the state of the whole stock. c. Indicators, proxies or absolute estimates of exploitation rate that show that fishing mortality experienced by the stock is lower than FMSY. d. Direct evidence that the proportion of combined catch by all MSC UoAs relative to the total catch of the stock does not hinder recovery. We argue that the generally flat or increasing trend in the eight indices of abundance for North Atlantic blue shark (see ICCAT-SCRS (2015)) meet the requirements for item b. The fact that overfishing is not considered to be occurring further meet the requirements of item c. We further add that the effectiveness and implementation of any 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 289 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code strategy relevant to this PI should be scored at the UoA level, not the stock. Therefore, although there may be concerns that the overall catch limit was exceeded in 2016 and 2017, this has no bearing on the UoA where the vast majority of blue sharks are being released with best practice handling maximising post-release survival. 2.1.1 – Primary species management Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code PI 2.1.2 a – The ICCAT assessment (2016) concludes that the population is overfished and suffering overfishing, References for this point: SG60 or SG80 Not accepted Mediterranea recruitment has declined in the last 15 years and recent recruitment is lower than expected. In addition (no score n Swordfish: there is considerable uncertainty regarding the possible levels of future recruitment. In section 3.4.4.1 ICCAT-SCRS, 2016. Report Of change) of the PCDR (p. 44) provides a list of the measures implemented in the ICCAT Mediterranean swordfish The 2016 Mediterranean Summary: The recovery plan implemented under Recommendation 16-05. The plan includes: “A minimum landing size Swordfish Stock Assessment minimum of 100 cm LJFL or weighing less than 11,4 kg of round weight or 10,2 kg of gilled and gutted weight Meeting. ICCAT-SCRS. landing size applies. However, vessels which have incidentally captured small fish below the minimum size may land (Casablanca, Morocco, 11-16 restrictions the fish, under the condition that this incidental catch shall not exceed 5 % by weight or/and number of July 2016). Available at: are not set at pieces per landing of the total swordfish catch of the said vessels.” https://www.iccat.int/Docume a level that nts/Meetings/Docs/2016_SWO can be WWF would like to note that according the report on reproductive biology of the swordfish published by _MED_SA_REPORT_ENG.pdf expected to the SCRS (2019), females mature at 170 cm (males at 95 cm), which means that a high percentage of the not hinder caught individuals could be immature. This has the potential to negatively impacting recruitment and SCRS (2019): Abid N., Laglaoui rebuilding of thereby impact the potential for recovery of the population. WWF questions whether a strategy that A., Arakrak A. and Bakkali M. the includes measures which by definition may hinder the rebuilding of the species concerned can be 2019. New information on the Mediterranea considered a strategy at SG100, or even SG80, given the requirement that if the species is below the PRI, reproductive biology of n Swordfish the UoA has measures in place that are expected to ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery and swordfish in the Strait of stock. rebuilding. WWF concludes that PI should be rescored at SG80 or less. Gibraltar. SCRS/P/2019/004. Presented at Report Of The 2019 Iccat Intersessional Meeting Of The Swordfish Species Group (Madrid, Spain, 25-28 February 2019). Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Docume nts/Meetings/Docs/2019/REPO RTS/2019_SWO_ENG.pdf 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 290 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code ICCAT REC 16-05: Recommendation By ICCAT Replacing the Recommendation [13-04] And Establishing A Multi-Annual Recovery Plan For Mediterranean Swordfish Available at: https://www.iccat.int/en/Inspe ction.html CAB response The issue of the minimum landing size, and the associated risk of juvenile swordfish being landed by the UoA was considered in detail under scoring issue b of this PI ; i.e. whether there is an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. (The team concluded that although there is risk that immature individuals are being landed by the UoA, the fact that some of these catches may be juveniles will not have any effect on the recoverability of the stock at the scale of the UoA (i.e. the UoA SWO catch accounts for 2.8% of the total SWO catch for that stock). This provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, at least at the UoA level. SG80 is met. SG100 was not considered met due to the level of uncertainty in the projections, and a recommendation was raised in relation to the minimum size and the likelihood of juvenile catches by the UoA. Scoring issue a therefore only asks whether a strategy is in place, not whether this strategy is working (scoring issue b) or is being implemented (scoring issue c). In MSC terms, a “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. In the case of Mediterranean swordfish, management consists of a 15-year recovery plan (ICCAT Rec. 16-05), with the goal of achieving BMSY with at least 60% probability, through the following measures (summarised here; see Section 3.4.4.1 for detail): • A TAC which is being gradually reduced until a mutually agreed TAC allocation is adopted, and which applies to recreational fisheries as well; • A capacity limitation for the duration of the recovery plan; • Closed season from 1 October to 30 November each year; • Only entire specimens of swordfish may be landed; • A minimum landing size applies; • Gear restrictions for longline fisheries targeting swordfish; • Control measures designed for increased monitoring of the swordfish fishery; and 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 291 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code • Continuous provision of scientific information. In addition, regular stock assessments are conducted – the most recent one in 2016. All these measures combined, together with the measures at UoA level for swordfish specifically (if no AEP, boats are permitted to land only one swordfish per fishing day and the total amount landed is deducted from the swordfish bycatch quota) mean the requirements for a strategy are met. On this basis scoring has not been amended. PI 2.1.2 c – The scoring rationale for PI 2.1.2c for blue shark states: “For blue shark, the UoA’s non-retention policy None given SG80 not met Accepted (no Management is audited on a regular basis by VALPEM (i.e. the organization in charge of the TRL-PA brand). This is score change) strategy therefore a 1st party audit and combined with the observer data provides some evidence that the implementati strategy is being implemented successfully.” However on p. 18 of the PCDR the assessment team states: on - Blue "Compliance with the code is verified internally at VALPEM although reduced staff availability means that shark: vessel inspections are limited." In combination with the low level of observer coverage acknowledged by CUP, it is not clear that SG80 is met for this scoring issue. Better documentation of the VALPEM audit Summary: capacity is required to substantiate this score. Validation of the UoA non- retention policy for blue shark is not well documented. CAB response Additional evidence was provided by the client to better support the SG80 score. The evidence presented in the rationale includes data stemming from the Echosea app as well as SIOP landings. We maintain that SG80 is met. 2.2.2 – Secondary species management Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code PI 2.2.2 a – WWF is concerned about mortality rates for pelagic stingrays and this should be clarified in the Final None given None given Not accepted Management Report to confirm the CAB’s scoring for this secondary species. It is also important to note that while it (no score strategy in is not an issue as pelagic stingrays are already listed as a main species, the MSC defines low post-capture change) place – pelagic mortality at GSA3.4.3:Teams should interpret very low post capture mortality as no less than a 90% stingray survival rate. This should be proven by scientific evidence, independent observer coverage, tagging 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 292 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Summary: studies or similar information. Also, while species is listed as least concern by the IUCN, there are Post capture potential localised effects for the Gulf of Lion ecosystem from the removal of pelagic stingrays. This mortality should also be discussed under the ecosystem PI 2.5.1. should be documented According to Battez (2018) pelagic stingray represents de 54% of catches in nº (14% in volume), with a and direct mortality rate (negligible at 2%) and mortality rate after reléase of 28%. The results presented in characterised Section 5.2.2 of the SELPAL report appear to corroborate the estimate of Battez (2018). However, in line with according to Poisson (2019), in his study about French longline bluefin tuna fishery bycatch programme the MSC states for blue shark and pelagic stingray that: “At-vessel mortality and post-release survival rates are requirements also investigated for these two species. The preliminary results seem to indicate that at-vessel mortality and guidance. are very high for both species (>95%).” The high discrepancy between these numbers is not explained by the CAB in the Final Report. According to Baum et al (2016): “The species is taken as bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries around the world. It is caught frequently by tuna and swordfish longliners and mostly discarded. Post-discard survival rates are thought to be low in some areas because the fish are often discarded with serious mouth and jaw damage.” According to Baéz et al (2016): “Thus, studies have shown how the geospatial overlap between this species habitat and important longline fishing grounds has resulted in large by-catch numbers with unknown effects to the population and ecosystem structure (Domingo et al., 2005; De Siqueira and De Sant’Anna, 2007)” […] and “Despite the high levels of indirect exploitation as by-catch in longline fisheries, pelagic stingrays are listed as 'Least Concern' (LC) under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) (Baum et al., 2009). However, removing large quantities of these organisms from the pelagic realm has inevitable ecological consequences.” CAB response The GSA3.4.3 guidance cited by WWF here is not relevant. This applies to situations where it can be demonstrated that individuals are released alive and where they therefore do not contribute to the definition of ‘main’ (SA3.4.3). This is clearly not the case here where pelagic stingrays were considered a ‘main’ species. The removal of pelagic stingrays has already been considered in the scoring of 2.5.1: at the scale of the UoA, and considering the relatively low-risk PSA RBF outcome, as well as the likely wasp-waisted ecosystem structure, any localised depletion is highly unlikely to lead to irreversible ecosystem effects (again, this question must be considered at the UoA level). It is unclear which Poisson (2019) article WWF are referring to. An online search did not immediately reveal the relevant reference and it is not listed here. We approached M. Poisson for information but received no reply. However, the fact remains that this assessment is based on sampling carried out by independent experts in the UoA fishery through the SELPAL study and which is therefore appropriate to take into account here. Regarding the Baum et al. (2016) statement, again we are not sure which reference this is as it is not listed here. However, this is a highly generalistic statement with the mouth and jaw damage resulting from the practice of ‘swinging’ the stingrays off the line. This ignores the measures that have been put in place at the UoA level, where the stingrays are systematically cut free. The SELPAL study findings were based on independent sampling carried out in the French bluefin longline fishery and showed that haulback mortality is low, with subsequent post-release mortality estimated at 28%. It is unclear how WWF intends this comment to be addressed in 2.2.2a which asks (at SG80) whether a partial strategy is in place that is expected to (…) ensure that the UoA does not hinder recovery 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 293 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code of the secondary species concerned. The non-retention policy, combined with best-practice handling techniques means that a partial strategy is in place. Note that SG100 is scored as not met. The rationale has not been changed. 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code PI 2.3.1 b – PI 2.3.1 a – Direct effects: Seabirds UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. 2013. SG60 not met Accepted (no Direct effects: Seabirds in the Gulf of Lions score change) Seabirds Summary: The seabird scoring element may not meet the SG60scoring guidepost shelf and slope area. By Carboneras, C. Edited by Summary: The As a preliminary matter, WWF requests that the CAB please confirm the primary reference used to score the seabird scoring element for the ETP species performance indicators. At the beginning of Cebrian, D., RAC/SPA, Tunis. seabird 26pp. scoring section 3.4.5.2 Seabirds in the PCDR narrative, CUP states: “Unless otherwise indicated, the element may information in this section was taken from Garcia (2013).” Garcia (2013) is listed in the References https://www.cbd.int/doc/meeti not meet the section (p.92) as: “Garcia, S., 2013. SEABIRDS IN THE GULF OF LIONS SHELF AND SLOPE AREA.” WWF ngs/mar/ebsaws-2014- SG60scoring did an online search for this reference and some of the links that came up pointed to the following 03/other/ebsaws-2014-03- guidepost report: “UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA. 2013. Seabirds in the Gulf of Lions shelf and slope area. By Carboneras, submission-rac-spa-sr-09- C. Edited by Cebrian, D., RAC/SPA, Tunis. 26pp.” WWF requests that CUP please confirm that this is the en.pdf appropriate reference for the information in Table 14 which summarizes “information on presence, likelihood of interaction with pelagic longlines and protection status on the main bird species in the Dias, M., Granadeiro, J. and UoA area. Unless otherwise indicated, the information in this table is from Garcia (2013) and references Catry, P. 2012. Working the day cited therein.” If the Carboneras report is the correct reference, the erroneous reference it makes or the night shift? Foraging sense as such, given that “© S. Garcia” is the copyright for the cover photo on the report. schedules of Cory’s shearwaters vary according to marine The Carboneras report is indeed a comprehensive report on seabirds in the Gulf of Lions and the CAB habitat. Marine Ecology has pulled important and useful information from the report to use in the narrative section of the Progress Series. 467: 245-252. PCDR. The CAB focuses on the species most vulnerable to bycatch in longline fisheries: Yelkouan DOI10.3354/meps09966 shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan), Balearic Shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), Cory’s shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) and Mediterranean storm petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus melitensis). In this https://www.researchgate.net/ comment WWF will focus on Cory’s shearwater to illustrate our concern that additional research may publication/258437759_Workin be required to determine whether the CAB’s conclusion that the seabird scoring element under PI g_the_day_or_the_night_shift_ 2.3.1a Direct impacts on ETP species may need to be re-evaluated by the assessment team as to Foraging_schedules_of_Cory's_ whether it passes at the SG60 level. shearwaters_vary_according_t o_marine_habitat 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 294 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code The CAB provides the following summary information in Table 14 for Cory’s shearwater regarding Péron C, Grémillet D (2013) interactions with pelagic longlines: Tracking through Life Stages: Adult, Immature and Juvenile • In the Mediterranean, bycatch is the main cause of population declines for this species Autumn Migration in a Long- (Cortés et al., 2018). The species regularly attends trawlers and longlining vessels, and is the species Lived Seabird. PLoS ONE 8(8): suffering the heaviest mortality toll. e72713. • Several studies indicate that this is the species suffering the heaviest mortality from bycatch https://doi.org/10.1371/journal in longline fisheries, both demersal and pelagic (Belda & Sánchez 2001, Cooper et al. 2003, Laneri et al. .pone.0072713 2010, Igual et al. 2009, García-Barcelona et al. 2010 – all cited in Garcia (2013)). • Annual declines of 4-6 % have been recorded putting some Mediterranean populations in serious danger of extinction (Carboneras 2004 – cited in Garcia (2013)).” The following information from the section on Cory’s shearwater in the Carboneras report is also relevant in addition to what was summarized by CUP: • In the Mediterranean, Cory’s shearwater feeds on medium-sized to small fish (regularly, sardine and anchovy), alone or in association with tuna and cetaceans. • It is present in the Mediterranean between March and October. • In the NW Mediterranean, the size of the populations is (or has become) much smaller, with 1000-1300 bp in France (Issa 2008) and probably less than 4000 bp in Spain, as the population in Minorca (Balearic Is.) is much smaller than previously thought (Carboneras et al. 2010). Present population size around the Gulf of Lions area must represent a significant reduction compared to former times due to continuing threats on land (alien predation) and at sea (mortality through bycatch). • The recent confirmation that the whole Mediterranean population might be larger than previous estimates due to improved survey methodologies at the Mediterranean stronghold in Zembra, Tunisia (Defos du Rau & Bourgeois in press), only means that extinction is further away in time, but equally inevitable if the current rates of decline are maintained. The following figure shows data on the foraging distribution of Cory’s shearwater in the Gulf of Lions and around Corsica (copied from Carboneras 2013 showing data from Péron & Grémillet (2013). 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 295 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code The next figure shows the distribution of the SATHOAN fleet copied from Figures 5 & 6 from the PCDR (p. 21). 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 296 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code The spatial overlap between the SATHOAN fleet and the foraging distribution is striking. However it remains to be determined whether there is temporal overlap between the fleet and the foraging 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 297 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code distribution of Cory’s shearwaters on a seasonal and diel basis. In the description of the SATHOAN fleet on page 21 of the PCDR the fishing season is described as running from when the bluefin tuna approach coastal waters in March/April, peaking in August/September and ending in November/December. The plot above shows Cory’s shearwater adult foraging distribution during July-August, implying a direct overlap with the peak of the fishing season. As for diel and vertical (i.e. depth) overlap, the fishery is described as consisting of “a 8 – 9nm long monofilament nylon main line, with branch lines placed at regular intervals, carrying between 500 to 1,500 baited hooks (Poisson et al., 2016). Hook depth varies from ca. 6 to 20m, although this depends on the lunar cycle with deeper lines set during the full moon. The soak time is short, typically not exceeding two hours although it may be up to 6 hours. The line is deployed at nightfall […].” Dias et al. (2012) found that: Individual Cory’s shearwaters were mainly diurnal when wintering in warmer and shallower waters of the Benguela, Agulhas and Brazilian Currents, and comparatively more nocturnal in colder and deeper waters of the Central South Atlantic and the Northwest Atlantic. This would imply a potentially direct spatial and temporal overlap between SATHOAN vessels and foraging shearwaters in Mediterranean regions such as the Gulf of Lion. Given the potential illustrated for a direct conflict between the fleet and an ETP seabird, and the clear potential for hindering the recovery of the French breeding population in the Gulf of Lions (or even driving it to extinction), a careful evaluation is required in order to appropriately score the ETP species PI 2.3.1 for Direct effects. First it must be acknowledged that CUP has already scored the combined seabird scoring element as designated by CUP at the SG60 level on a precautionary basis. WWF would assume this would entail strict data collection requirements to determine whether a conflict exists and how it potentially could be mitigated. However the MSC requirements for condition setting do not operate on such a strict basis. In summary for Cory’s shearwater WWF submits that given the relative paucity of observer data and incomplete logbook information on ETP species interactions, which is inadequate to demonstrate the level interaction between at least one of the species of threatened seabirds identified by the CAB and the SATHOAN fleet. Therefore it cannot be said that the fishery is unlikely to be hindering recovery of either the population of Corey's shearwaters on the Mediterranean coast of France, or even the North- western Mediterranean breeding population. The condition set for PI 2.3.1a gives little assurance that independent and accurate data will be collected soon and operate on the underlying assumption that there is not an issue to be dealt with. The best available science seems to indicate otherwise. The potential impact of a continued decline over the five year certification period cannot be ignored. Regarding the other species listed in Table 4 of the PCDR, a very similar situation occurs with Yelkouan shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan). As we have seen previously, according to the CAB, the SATHOAN fleet fishing season is described as running from March/April, peaking in August/September and ending in 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 298 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code November/December. But also knowing that, according to Carboneras (2013) in the study for the UNEP-MAP-RAC/SPA, on Seabirds in the Gulf of Lions shelf and slope area, the presence of the Yelkouan shearwater in the Gulf of Lions occurs between October and July, with a peak in February- June, when an estimated 10,000 birds use the area for feeding during the breeding season (Bourgeois & Vidal, 2004). It seems clear that the peak of the Yelkouan shearwater presence shows a temporary overlap with part of the SATHOAN’s fleet fishing season. Also, the fact that the Yelkouan shearwater feeds by surface-seizing and underwater pursuit, mainly on small pelagic fish such as sardines (family Clupeidae) and anchovies (family Engraulidae), and besides that mainly occupies coastal waters, it is also demonstrated that some degree of foraging takes place away from the coast too, which also shows a spatial overlap with the fishery (Carboneras 2013), as SATHOAN fleet behaviour is fishing around 6- 20 meters depth (according to the CAB). The species is protected and listed in the France red list of Endangered Species under the category of Vulnerable and in other international conventions. Also it is important to point that this is a strictly endemic species in the Mediterranean (Carboneras, 2013), and the French breeding population is relatively small, with an estimated 1350-1650 breeding pairs in 2006 (1100-1500 bp on Îles d’Hyères, plus 40-50 bp on islands off Marseille (Issa 2008), so the area presumably serves as foraging ground for birds from more distant colonies (Carboneras, 2013). With this is mind, it is important to highlight that, in this case, a more careful evaluation would also be desirable. In relation with the Balearic shearwater (Puffinus mauretanicus), according to Carboneras (2013), this species are present in the Mediterranean between September and June; most birds leave the Mediterranean and ‘summer’ in the Atlantic Ocean (Galicia, Bay of Biscay, Brittany). Breeding birds from the Balearics forage off the continental coast of Spain, regularly reaching the S waters of the Gulf of Lions. Smaller numbers venture further N to forage off the coast of Bouches du Rhône and the PACA region of France. This shows an overlap with the fishery coinciding with the peak of SATHOAN’s fishing season in September. Despite the fact that not all of the breeding population of Balearic Islands goes far north for feeding purposes, it seems to be also true that, in areas where the continental shelf extends further offshore, as in the Ebro delta or in the Gulf of Lions, that they also frequent shallow waters away from the coast (Carboneras 2013). This increases the risk of being caught in fisheries interactions. Puffinus mauretanicus is highly gregarious,and may concentrate by the hundreds or thousands in favourable areas and such ephemeral concentrations are of conservation importance (Carboneras 2013). It is also true, that the level of interaction with SATHOAN fishery could be low, as the data seems to show that Balearic shearwater individuals might resort to feeding astern of longline vessels on the days/hours when trawlers are not so easily available (Laneri et al. 2010 – cited in Garcia (2013)) and the UoA sets their longlines around nightfall when most trawlers will have stopped fishing (according to CAB in Table 14), but this does not necessarily mean that there is no interaction at all. Taking into 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 299 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code account that this species is considered Critically Endangered in the Mediterranean by the IUCN (Carboneras 2013) it would be worthy of a more careful evaluation. The presence of trained observers on board could be helpful in the near future, as there could be also identification issues and this species could be confused with the Yelkouan shearwater (both species were considered to be the same until this was recently changed). In summary, WWF submits that the appropriate way forward under the requirements of the FCR, is for the CAB to consider dividing the at-risk species of seabirds listed in Table 4 into separate scoring elements and then conduct a rigorous analysis of the potential that the recovery of other at-risk seabird species that may also be hindered. In its due diligence, CUP should conduct an appropriate analysis before the release of the Final Report. Fortunately the available scientific information exists to do this, given that records of set and retrieval times should be easily available for the SATHOAN fleet and detailed foraging information from satellite tracking studies is available for at least Cory's shearwaters, if not other at-risk seabird species. This should be available in the literature or from previously conducted tracking projects and other studies. This should be done for the fishery have the potential to receive a passing score at SG60 for ETP seabird species which are clearly a risk. Until this is done WWF cannot agree to a passing score at SG60 for PI 2.3.1. CAB response Regarding the reference cited: apologies, this should be the full reference as cited by WWF – the CAB uses referencing software which used the BibTex reference generated by Google Scholar and which was wrong in this case. This has been corrected. The reference is now listed as: UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA, 2013. Seabirds in the Gulf of Lions Shelf and Slope Area. By Carboneras, C. Ed. RAC/SPA, Tunis. 26pp. United Nations Environment Programme - Mediterranean Action Plan - Regional Activity Centre For Specially Protected Areas. It is very important to consider the scoring of this SI at the scale of the UoA. I.e. is there more than 30% probability (Table SA9) that the UoA by itself will hinder recovery of the ETP bird species considered? WWF makes valid arguments about the likelihood for significant spatial and temporal overlap between the species listed and the fishery. This is not contested by the team and this was already considered as a demonstrated risk in scoring. In relation to Balearic shearwater we point out that WWF seems to have misread the argument. The report states the following (Table 14): In the Mediterranean, bycatch is the main cause of population declines for this species (Cortés et al., 2018). Individuals might resort to feeding astern of longline vessels on the days/hours when trawlers are not so easily available (Laneri et al. 2010 – cited in UNEP_MAP_RAC/SPA (2013)). This would increase their risk of mortality, which is higher in longline fisheries. (note that the UoA sets their longlines around nightfall when most trawlers will have stopped fishing). This statement implies that bycatch is a real risk, especially considering the fishery operates when trawlers are not easily available. Because the risk of the fishery to the ETP species is demonstrated (through spatial and temporal overlap, based on what is known about the species and the fishery), this becomes a question of likely magnitude of impact. I.e. how likely is the UoA alone to hinder recovery of the ETP bird species considered. To answer this question in more detail, as requested by WWF, we have broken our rationale down by species. This has resulted in a complete redrafting of the scoring rationale for ETP bird species which is not repeated here. We invite WWF to consider the new rationale with additional arguments that – in the team’s opinion – continue to support the SG60 score. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 300 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Regarding WWF’s comment on the condition setting for this PI: it is unclear what is being asked for here. The ETP species outcome condition explicitly refers to seabirds – given that there are conditions on outcome (2.3.1), management (2.3.2) and information (2.3.3), the amount of work needed to lift these conditions will be considerable, as is evidenced by the Client’s action plan. There is no assumption anywhere in this report that “there is not an issue to be dealt with”. The collected data will be considered annually by the surveillance audit team (should this fishery become certified) and any further implications on scoring of ETP bird species will be considered at that stage. We maintain that the condition setting for this PI is in keeping with MSC procedure. PI 2.3.1 b – WWF notes that the sea turtle ETP scoring element is scored at SG60 requiring a condition be set for Paolo Casale. 2011. Sea turtle SG60 not met Accepted (no Direct effects: improvement. However we believe that a more in-depth review of proxy data from other regions of by-catch in the Mediterranean. score change) Sea turtles the Mediterranean is required to definitively establish that the SG60 scoring level is met for the sea FISH and FISHERIES, 2011, 12, turtle scoring element under PI 2.3.1 Direct effects, given the lack of data for the SATHOAN fishery 299–316. Available at: Summary: The (both fishery dependent and independent) and low level of scrutiny of proxy studies from other areas https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com sea turtle such that even a passing score at SG60 can be called into question. /doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467- scoring 2979.2010.00394.x rationale For example, Casale (2011): has published a comprehensive review of sea turtle bycatch in the requires a Mediterranean. Table 1 shows that the annual bycatch for longlines in France is low (around 10 per Tomás J, Gozalbes P, Raga JA, careful review year). However WWF notes that this may be mostly due the movements of sea turtles following the Godley BJ (2008) Bycatch of of proxy Mediterranean currents, thus in the Western Mediterranean, bycatch of sea turtles is probably a more loggerhead sea turtles: insights studies from important issue in the central and south western Mediterranean (e.g. Alboran Sea, Balearic Islands, from 14 years of stranding data. around the etc). Endang Species Res 5:161-169. Mediterranea https://doi.org/10.3354/esr001 n to verify that In another study, Tomás et al. (2008) conducted an analysis on stranded sea turtles as a result of 16. Available at: the SG60 longline interactions in Valencia (eastern Spain). The results show that stranded Loggerhead turtles https://www.int- scoring were mainly juveniles and stranding’s were far more frequent in summer months (69.6% June to res.com/articles/esr2008/5/n0 guidepost is September). The authors believe that “[…] interaction with longline fisheries was by far the main cause 05p161.pdf met. of observed stranding (>28% of all cases, 43.5% of 393 turtles with likely mortality cause identified). Turtles showing signs of interaction with longlines were, on average, larger than turtles stranded due Imed jribi, Khaled Echwikhi, to other causes and were more frequent in summer months, when longline fishing effort off the coast Mohamed Nejmeddine bradai was highest.” and Abderrhmen Bouain. 2008. Incidental capture of sea turtles Jribi et al (2008) compared bycatch between drifting and demersal longlines in Tunisiain response to by longlines in the Gulf of Gabès increasing concern about the impact of by-catch on marine turtle species. Results showed that for (South Tunisia): A comparative loggerhead turtles there are important interactions with both types of longlines. Catch rates were study between bottom and estimated to be 0.823 per 1000 hooks for surface longline and 0.278 per 1000 hooks for bottom surface longlines. Scientia longline. Direct mortalities were estimated to be 0% (n=33 captures) and 12.5% (n=24 captures), for Marina 72(2) June 2008, 337- surface and bottom longlines respectively. 342, Barcelona (Spain) ISSN: Deflorio et al 2005 studied sea turtle catch rates from swordfish and albacore longline fishing activities 0214-8358. Available at: observed in Italian waters off the Ionian Sea during 1999 and 2000. The results show that “A total of http://scientiamarina.revistas.c 200 sea turtles were caught (198 loggerhead turtles and 2 green turtles), comprising 0.5–15.7% of the 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 301 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code total catch in number of individuals. The estimates of the sea turtles caught by the total fishing effort sic.es/index.php/scientiamarina of both longlines in the whole study area were 1084 specimens in 1999 (95% Cl=667–1502) and 4447 /article/view/830/871 specimens in 2000 (95% Cl=3189–5705). Although all sea turtles were released alive, nearly half of them had hooks that could not be removed and remained deeply embedded in the digestive tract.” Michele Deflorio, Aida Aprea, Aldo Corriero, Nicoletta Based on our survey of the literature WWF believes that there is a risk of direct impacts to sea turtles Santamaria & Gregorio De that needs to be addressed for the SATHOAN fishery. These issues need to be more clearly addressed Metrio. 2005. Incidental in the PCDR including in the scoring rationale for ETP species PIs. This will help to more accurately captures of sea turtles by determine whether the SG60 scoring is justified and also aid in the setting of appropriate conditions swordfish and albacore and provisions in the client action plan if the fishery is certified. Based on the current scoring rationale longlines in the Ionian sea. WWF is concerned that SG60 is not met. Fisheries Science volume 71, pages1010–1018(2005). Available at: https://link.springer.com/articl e/10.1111/j.1444- 2906.2005.01058.x CAB response At WWF’s request, we have added detail to the rationale to further support the SG60 score. As for birds, the new rationale is not repeated here but we invite WWF to consider the additional arguments presented. Regarding the Casale (2011) study, we note that this study groups all Mediterranean pelagic longlines together, without consideration of differences in gear design (e.g. longline length, hook depth, hook type, hook size) or other operational characteristics such as target species, day vs nighttime setting, bait type, etc.; all of which may influence sea turtle bycatch rates. We further note that sea turtle interaction rates for the French pelagic longline fishery are estimated by Casale (2011) at 10 per annum (the vast majority of interactions and mortalities in this country stemming from the set net fishery). The Tomás et al. (2008) study considered sea turtle strandings data in the Valencian community, along the Spanish eastern coast and outside, to the south of the UoA fishing area. Pelagic longlines were considered the cause of strandings and/or mortality when branch lines and/or hooks were found upon examination. Here also, this study does not differentiate between the different types of pelagic longlines that exist in the western Mediterranean (which will pose different bycatch risk levels to sea turtles). Furthermore, the Spanish pelagic longline fishery is by far larger than the fishery under assessment and differs in gear and target species make-up as well as intensity (see for example Biton-PorSmoguer and LLoret (2018) and de Urbina et al. (2019)). As for the Deflorio et al. (2005) study, as explained by WWF, this study examined turtle catch rates from swordfish and albacore longline fishing activities observed in Italian waters off the Ionian Sea during 1999 and 2000. Again, the team does not consider this study to be suitable to determine risk levels or quantify likely interaction levels in the UoA fishery which 1) targets different species and 2) operates in a different, and more high-risk area (according to Casale (2011)). The risk of direct impacts to sea turtles has already been identified by the team and has been taken into account in scoring. At the request of WWF, additional detail has been added to the rationale; however, the team’s overall determination remains that the risk of the UoA by itself hindering recovery of the three sea turtle species discussed is sufficiently low for SG60 to be met. This assessment takes into account the 1) low interaction levels reported in the UoA observer data, 2) the anecdotal information gained 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 302 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code during the site visit and from the Selpal study (Poisson et al., 2016), 3) the species’ ecology within the Mediterranean including for the green turtle and loggerhead turtle, their more widespread distribution including to the east of the basin, and 4) peer reviewed literature (e.g. Casale (2011)) which suggests that interactions in the French pelagic longline fishery are significantly lower than other nations’ longline fisheries or other gear types (including bottom trawl and set nets) with the Western Mediterranean considered more low-risk than for example the Alboran/Balearic area, the central Mediterranean and the Ionian. PI 2.3.1 c – In the scoring rationale for PI 2.3.1c the CAB proposes that there are three potential indirect effects on ERIC GILMAN, NIGEL SG100 not Accepted Indirect marine mammals: Noise disturbance, change in foraging behaviour and reduced food availability. The BROTHERS, GEOFF MCPHERSON met (non-material effects: CAB states: “It is known that marine mammals have changed their foraging behaviour in response to AND PAUL DALZELL. 2006. A score Marine the availability of fish on longlines –aside from the risk of bycatch (considered under direct impacts review of cetacean interactions reduction) Mammals above), it has been shown in other fisheries (e.g. orcas in toothfish fisheries) that the impact on the with longline gear. J. CETACEAN mammals themselves is positive.” No citation is provided. In contrast to the other ETP species RES. MANAGE. 8(2):215–223, Summary: groupings the CAB reaches the conclusion: “The low observer coverage is less problematic for marine 2006. Available at: Feeding mammals however which have been shown to benefit from depredating longlines. SG100 is met for https://www.bmis- marine marine mammals.” This conclusion is based on the rather absurd proposition that the MSC Standard bycatch.org/system/files/zoter mammals and FCR v2.0 can be interpreted to reward a fishery with a higher score due to marine mammal o_attachments/library_1/MSE4 from longlines depredation on longline gear deployed by the fishery. DCRZ - GILMAN (i.e. cetacean_longline_JCRM_repri depredation) In the first place, this rationale is based on the partitioning of deleterious effects such as hooking, nt_lowres.pdf is a poor entanglement or the use of lethal deterrent devices into direct effects under PI 2.3.1b. However this is justification not an error by the CAB under the FCR v2.0. In contrast, while depredation on fishing gear may indeed for meeting be shown to benefit individual marine mammals or even kin-based groups (i.e. pods) which can pass the SG100 on this learned behaviour to conspecifics and offspring, the overall population level effects are more scoring likely to be negative in the long-term. This is summarised well by Gilman et al. (2006): “There are a guidepost. number of possible ecological effects of the adapted foraging behaviour on cetaceans but their precise nature and level of effects are unclear. For example, in some cases cetaceans may feed on species of fish taken from longline gear that are not a normal component of their diet; this may result in their consuming a smaller number of their usual prey species. Depredation may also lead to a change in distribution if the longline fishing grounds are not in their usual feeding grounds.” In short, setting the precedent of rewarding fisheries that are subject to depredation by marine mammals or other species with higher performance indicator scores is a place the CAB, as well as the MSC should tread very carefully. SG100 should not be met. CAB response We have amended the score to SG100 not met. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 303 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code PI 2.3.2 e – It is not clear from the Final Report whether the reviews of measures to minimise unwanted catch of Mitigation best practice for None Accepted (no Review of seabirds reference ACAP best practice guidance. See guidance at GSA3.5.3.1. This should be included pelagic longline fisheries can be score change) alternative somehow in the conditions set for PI 2.3.2 and included in the final version of the Client Action Plan. found measures to herehttps://acap.aq/en/resour minimize ces/bycatch- mortality of mitigation/mitigation-advice ETP species Summary: Future reviews of measures to minimise unwanted catch of seabirds should reference ACAP guidance. CAB response Indeed, under the TRL-PA brand, there is a mechanism to review the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of seabird species. Should seabird interactions be considered problematic following implementation of the data collection programme under the client action plan, then it follows that best practice measures will be reviewed and implemented, including those recommended by ACAP. The CAB cannot make any recommendations on best practices that should be implemented in the fishery; however WWF’s comment was passed on to the client who incorporated it into their client action plan. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 304 Principle 3 PI 3.1.1 - Legal and/or customary framework Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 3.1.1 - Legal WWF would like to point out that ICCAT recommendations would not be binding to contracting parties to ICCAT Regulation (EU) 60 Not accepted (no and/or that object. 2016/1627 of score change) customary the European framework Any effective fisheries management framework relies on binding measures and should be concerned with the Parliament and whole stock over its entire area of distribution. ICCAT does not present an effective framework for cooperation of the Council PI 3.1.1 SI a - or management as long as parties can decide whether they object to a certain recommendation or resolution. of Compatibility Therefore WWF believes that SG 80 is not met for SIa on this basis. 14September of laws or 2016 on a standards Furthermore, the overall framework of the CFP requires the exploitation rate to be set at the maximum sustainable rate by 2015 where possible or (progressively and incrementally) by 2020 at the latest. Recital 7 to multiannual with effective recovery plan management the CFP Regulation states that: Achieving those exploitation rates by a later date should be allowed only if achieving them by 2015 would seriously jeopardise the social and economic sustainability of the fishing fleets for bluefin tuna involved. The Advice given by the Scientific committee on TACs for the BFT-e stock gives probabilities of F Lastly, the EU has no executive power regarding enforcement of the above mentioned regulations. It says (Article 16 – By-catches, (5.)) “If the quota allocated to the Member State of the fishing vessel or trap concerned has already been exhausted, the catching of any bluefin tuna shall not be permitted and the Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure its release. […] The processing and commercialization of dead bluefin tuna shall be prohibited and all catches shall be recorded.” and (Article 22, Fishing authorisations for vessels, (2.)) “The flag Member State shall withdraw the fishing authorisation for bluefin tuna and may require the vessel to proceed immediately to a port designated by it when the individual quota is deemed to be exhausted.” 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 305 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code The CAB has failed to explain how the member state (France) ensures that the above cited regulations are enforced, e.g. which legislative instrument exists to ensure a) quota overshoots are detected at sea (to ensure the respective vessel immediately returns to port) b) which necessary measures exist to ensure the release of BFT caught after the quota has been exhausted. It is questionable whether SG 60 is met on a national level. Based on the above reasons, WWF believes that SG 80 is not met for SIa of PI 3.1.1. CAB response Scoring Issue SIa concerns “an effective national legal system and a framework for cooperation with other parties”. For the ICCAT regional RFMO-level, the absence of systematically binding procedures for means SG100 is not met, but SG80 requires an organized and effective cooperation, which shall at least deliver the intent of UNFSA Article 10 paragraphs, which is considered to be met for the BFE-e fishery. At EU level, this is in place for the collaboration within ICCAT, with EU member states (including France) and internationally. For the ICCAT regional level, SG80 is met. The rationale has been clarified. The score has not been changed. Scores for the Harvest Strategy and HCR are established under Principle 1, component 1.2. The EU “executive power regarding enforcement” and the French legislative instruments regarding quota overshooting are mentioned in the report section 3.5.6 and are scored by PI3.2.3, not this one. PI 3.1.2 - Consultation, roles and responsibilities Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code PI 3.1.2 SI a P.A.H. 80 Accepted (non- Medley, J. material score Scoring Issue a - Roles and responsibilities: Score should Gascoigne reduction) be aligned Score should be aligned with the Usufuku Honten Score (SG 80 met). See response from CAB: and J. Akroyd. with the 2019. An Usufuku “In their analysis for this scoring issue, Medley et al (2019) also stress that “Although roles within ICCAT and among Evaluation of Honten Score its CPCs are well defined, these are not necessarily well understood by entities within nations. This would have to the (SG 80 met). be evaluated for each fishery.” For the fishery specifically, we argue that in Japan and port states (EU-Spain and Sustainability Cape Verde), all entities involved have explicitly defined and well understood functions, roles and responsibilities of Global for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Therefore, for SI3.1.2 (a) SG80 is met. The team accepts that in the Tuna Stocks wider context of all ICCAT CPCs that could catch some e-BFT incidentally as its distribution range extends, this may Relative to not extend to all areas. Only SG80 is met.” WWF concurs with the conclusions of Medley et al (2019). SG100 is not Marine met for PI 3.1.2 SI a. Stewardship Council Criteria 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 306 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code (Version 6). ISSF Technical Report 2019- 02. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA CAB response The rationale has been updated so that scores and rationales for the ICCAT jurisdiction have been harmonized with the Usufuku Honten fishery. PI 3.1.2 SI b Scoring Issue b - Consultation processes None given 80 Accepted (non- material score The CAB failed The CAB failed to justify the higher score (SG 100) for the Sathoan compared to the Usufuku Honten UoA (SG80 reduction) to justify the met). SG 100 requires that “the management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains higher score how it is used or not used” while the justification says “[...] have specific BFT committees that regularly seek and (SG 100) for accept information, including local knowledge and regularly communicate with scientists from IFREMER and the the Sathoan Agence française pour la Biodiversité, all key actors know how their information are used (or not) at local, national compared to and European levels”. It is a considerable difference if the rules and procedures as to how local knowledge is the Usufuku incorporated into the management process is written down and formalized in a certain way or if the actors “do Honten UoA know what happens with their input”. SG 100 is not met. CAB response The rationale has been updated so that scores and rationales for the ICCAT jurisdiction have been harmonized with the Usufuku Honten fishery. PI 3.1.2 SI None given SG100 not met Not accepted (no c3.1.2 - score change) Scoring Issue c - Participation Consultation, roles and The participatory processes provided by ICCAT have been scored as not meeting SG 100 in the Usufuku Honten responsibilities fishery. The CAB failed to explain how ICCAT has improved on this scoring issue compared to the Usufuku Honten report. SG 100 not met. PI 3.1.2 SI c - Participation 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 307 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code CAB response In effect, for the Usufuku Honten fishery, SG100 is not met for Japan, but would be met for ICCAT (although this should have been indicated more clearly, apologies). The rationale and score have been left unchanged for this SI. PI 3.1.3 - Long term objectives Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 3.1.3 - Long The Ususfuku Honten fishery report states “At ICCAT level, the precautionary approach is not yet required by Regulation (EU) 60 Accepted no term management policy, therefore only SG80 is met”. This contradicts with the score presented in the Sathoan PCDR 2016/1627 of score change) objectives (SG 100 met). As such, the score should be aligned to SG 100 not met for the SATHOAN fishery unless there is a the European specific reason and rationale presented as to why these scores should be different between two overlapping Parliament and PI 3.2.1 SI a - fisheries. of the Council Fishery- of specific Further, the CAB states that “The European Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) sets out clear objectives ((EU, 2013a) 14September objectives CFP Regulation 1380/2013 Article 2): […] the maximum sustainable yield exploitation rate shall be achieved by 2016 on a 2015 where possible and, on a progressive, incremental basis at the latest by 2020 for all stocks [...]” multiannual Here, the same comment applies as stated above for PI 3.1.1 scoring issue a (restated for MSC tracking purposes): recovery plan for bluefin tuna Recital 7 to the CFP Regulation states that: Achieving those exploitation rates by a later date should be allowed in the eastern only if achieving them by 2015 would seriously jeopardise the social and economic sustainability of the fishing Atlantic and the fleets involved. The Advice given by the Scientific committee on TACs for the BFT-e stock gives probabilities of Mediterranean, F Therefore WWF believes that SG 80 is not met for PI 3.2.3 SI b. (WWF notes that the format of the MSC template does not allow for inputing a score of 60 as would be correct when a scoring issue does not meet the SG80 scoring guidepost). 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 308 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code CAB response Scores and rationales for the ICCAT jurisdiction have been harmonized with the Usufuku Honten fishery. For SIa “Although resolutions are not binding, the recommendations relating to the current management of BFT-E are presently binding to all CPCs exploiting the resource, and therefore one could conclude that the precautionary approach is required by ICCAT management policy for BFT-e, SG60, SG80 and SG100 would be met”. The score has not changed. Comments regarding PI 3.2.3 SI b is examined in the corresponding section below. PI 3.2.1 - Fishery-specific objectives Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response summary references score change code 3.2.1 - WWF submitted comments on PI 3.2.1 SI a in our Usufuku Honten PCDR comments. We believe that this Jones, H., Gascoigne, 60 Not accepted (no Fishery- previous comment for the Usufuku Honten PCDR was not adequately addressed by the CAB and that same J., des Clers, S., score change) specific comment is applicable for the SATHOAN fishery. Therefore we reiterate our previous comments below and Tamura, Y. 2019. objectives request that the CAB provide a detailed response with detailed references for any changes to the narrative Marine Stewardship or rationale of the Final Report should the SATHOAN fishery be recommended for MSC certification: Council (MSC) Final PI 3.2.1 SI a - Report Usufuku Fishery- “Not all ICCAT’s main stocks are managed with explicit short- and long-term objectives, as for instance is Honten Northeast specific the case of skipjack, for which no TACs are set (ISSF 2019). Atlantic longline objectives For some of the stocks managed with explicit short- and long-term objectives, objectives are not being bluefin tuna fishery. accomplished (e.g. see comments on BFT-w under PI 2.1.1). Control Union UK Ltd. For P2 stocks, including major bycatch components such as blue shark Prionace glauca and other vulnerable species, ICCAT has issued resolutions and recommendations aimed to decrease their bycatch, but it is ISSF (2019). Status of debatable whether these meet the requirements for SG80: unless all conservation-related resolutions and the world fisheries for recommendations are made binding to all CPs, so that they can be deemed consistent with achieving the tuna. Mar. 2019. ISSF outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, SG80 is not met since it requires that “Short and long- Technical Report term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, 2019-07. International are explicit within the fishery-specific management system.” Seafood Sustainability In their review of tuna RFMOs’ performance regarding the ecosystem approach, Juan-Jordá et al (2018) Foundation, found that “The failure of delaying mitigation measures for vulnerable and threatened species, as well as Washington, D.C., indicators to track the impacts of fisheries, as key elements of EBFM is continuing the deterioration of USA. Online: threatened bycatch species of sharks, seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals (Curtis et al., 2015).” These https://bit.ly/2kk0J3s, authors also found that “ecosystem information is not used yet to provide management advice or used to assist in decision-making to account for the impact of fisheries on the structure and functioning of marine 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 309 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response summary references score change code ecosystems. At this stage, the ecosystem models developed could have the potential to be used at least for Juan‐Jordá, M. J., strategic advice by providing accessory information as context to inform decisions, for example to evaluate Murua, H., and rank the performance of broad fisheries management strategies such as time/area closures or quota Arrizabalaga, H., and fishing regulations (Collie et al., 2016)”. Juan-Jordá et al 2018 found that “Finally, management Dulvy, N. K., & measures have not been adopted to explicitly account for food web and multispecies interactions and Restrepo, V. (2018). maintain the structure and functioning of marine food webs, or have been linked to any pre-established Report card on ecosystem model, and associated indicators and operational objectives in any tRFMO. None of the tRFMOs ecosystem‐based have a mechanism to accommodate multispecies and food web interactions and ecosystem modelling into fisheries management their current management or into the potential development of new management measures (e.g. in tuna regional multispecies harvest control rules and time-area closures).” The authors concluded that “As a high priority, fisheries management we consider the development of an EBFM plan in each tRFMO as mechanism to link EBFM objectives to the organizations. Fish implementation of EBFM principles and elements in their current fisheries management structure, as well and fisheries, 19(2), as prescribe how fisheries will be managed from an ecosystem perspective”. 321-339. Online: https://bit.ly/2kv7CyS, The PCDR however assigns SG80 stating that “Catch limits have been set for Blue shark (Prionace glauca) (Rec 16-12) (ICCAT 2016a). Similarly, for ETP species, ICCAT has developed explicit policy objectives to avoid catches and data collection binding recommendations to that effect (...); there are also two (non-binding) resolutions regarding Co-operation with CITES: 93-08 and 93-09 (...), but it cannot be said that objectives SCRS (2018). Report of are well defined and measurable for P2 species. Only SG80 is met”. the Standing Committee on SG80 is not met: the conclusions from Juan-Jordá et al 2018 put in doubt ICCAT’s current capacity to Research and implement the ecosystem approach, and also, specifically, its capacity to implement measures aimed to Statistics (SCRS). decrease bycatch impact on vulnerable species. Moreover, it has been already presented in 2.1.1 that (Madrid, Spain, 1 to 5 preliminary landing data for blue shark have already exceeded ICCAT’s own recommended level (SCRS October 2018). 2018), thus evidencing its incapacity to ensure compliance with the measures aimed to limit impact on Online: vulnerable species.” https://bit.ly/2lxDnaP CUP responded in the Usufuku Honten Final Report (p. 397) by stating “Focusing on the audited fishery (targeted temperate BFT-e stock - Principle 1) and associated species such as Blue Shark (Principle 2), short and long-term objectives are explicit within the ICCAT management system. Some text has been added to background sections 3.5.4 and 3.5.5 and to scoring rationale for PI 3.2.1. SI a to clarify how specific ICCAT policies relate to long- and short-term objectives for achieving outcomes consistent with P2. In this PI, the fact that some objectives may not be required and therefore more likely to be effective is only scored for SG100.” The CAB gave the response code “Not accepted (no score change)”. In the opinion of WWF, this was an inadequate response for dismissing a stakeholder comment and did not even make the effort to identify the text that had been added to justify dismissing a detailed stakeholder comment. In the SATHOAN PCDR, the CAB states “It cannot be said that objectives are well defined and measurable for P2 species. Although objectives are well-defined and measurable for the BFT (and now SWO) caught by 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 310 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response summary references score change code the fishery, this is not yet the case for non-target species, for which objectives are set to avoid interactions of mitigate their impacts, without numbers being set. Only SG80 is met.” The citations provide documentary evidence to question whether the measures currently applied to P2 species are “consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2” and can be considered as “explicit” within the fishery-specific management system. Therefore WWF believes that SG80 is not met for P2 species. CAB Regarding Principle 1, the short- and long-term objectives scored in this PI relate to the fishery’s target species and stock only (the BFT-e). Similarly regarding Principle 2 response impacts, the short and long-term objectives relate to this small-scale fishery specifically, and not to all ICCAT managed fisheries. For ICCAT-managed species caught in the fishery (BFT-e, SWO and BSH), short and long-term objectives are taken up in the EU Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) and the various international Conventions, which prevail in the Mediterranean Sea and to which the EU and France are party. These objectives are also explicit and clearly set, to minimise all impacts in the short-term and ensure that the fishery remains sustainable in the long-term, in the fishery specific Good Practice Guide (as discussed under Principle 2). Locally for the fishery specifically, the SATHOAN Good Practice Guide has been developed for some years in close collaboration with fishers in the UoA (Poisson et al, 2015). Although voluntary and informal, the additional local management measures are explicit and well established (in the sense of MSC FCR2.0 SA4.2), SG80 is met. However, not all objectives are “well defined and measurable for P2 species” therefore SG100 is not met. The rationale has been clarified, with no score change. PI 3.2.2 - Decision-making processes Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 3.2.2 - None given None given Accepted (no Decision- score change) making processes The CAB has not explained how the regulations at the EU level are efficiently transferred to the level of national PI 3.2.2 SI a - legislation. Decision- making processes 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 311 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code CAB response This has been corrected in the report (section 3.5.1.5) and included in the rationale. 3.2.2 - The scoring rationale for PI 3.2.2 SI a states: ICCAT, 2017. SG80 not met Not accepted (no Decision- Report of the score change) making “the pursuit of the consensus objective has often led to either the postponement of decisions, the change in Ad Hoc processes proposals from a legally binding recommendation to a non-legally binding resolution, or continued deferral of Working decision-making on the adoption of measures.” Group on the PI 3.2.2 SI b - follow up of Responsive- As reported by the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Follow up of the Second ICCAT Performance Review (ICCAT, 2017) work is on-going to improve this and other points of governance. the 2nd ness of ICCAT decision- This does not fit with the SG80 requirement that “decision-making processes respond to serious issues identified Performance making (...), in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner”. The statement that “Work is on-going to improve this and Review, processes other points of governance” does not by any means provide a measurable, already implemented improvement. Madrid 27-28 SG80 is not met, unless the CAB can clearly show which improvements have been made by ICCAT as required by June 2017. the Performance Review. ICCAT. CAB response This performance indicator refers to the fishery-specific management system, therefore it is assessed specifically at the BFT-e stock management by ICCAT for this fishery. The IICAT Performance Review report cited by WWF repeatedly notes the “commitment devoted to eastern bluefin tuna by ICCAT” as a model for the management of other stocks (ICCAT, 2017i), which confirms that SG80 is met at ICCAT level. This is also the case for the EU and French levels. The rationale has been complemented, with no score change. 3.2.2 - The most recent report from the BFT stock assessment meeting (ICCAT 2017) states: ICCAT, SG80 not met Not accepted (no Decision- 2017b. score change) making “Of these, only the VPA was considered sufficiently advanced at the conclusion of the meeting to be considered as Report of the processes the primary basis for management advice for the eastern stock.” 2017 Atlantic Nevertheless, the Group expressed considerable concern over the reliability of the VPA given its assumption that Bluefin tuna PI 3.2.2 SI b - stock Responsive- catch-at-age is known exactly when in fact the size composition of many eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets is poorly characterized for a number of years before the implementation of stereo video camera in 2014. assessment ness of session. decision- Accordingly, the Group recommended considering the four other models (SS, ASAP, SCAL, and SAM) when developing the scientific advice at the September Species Group meeting. […] As these recruitments form much of ICCAT, BFT making STOCK processes the basis for the very high estimates of current SSB, the results from the VPA should continue to be interpreted with caution. ASSESSMENT SESSION – If the high recruitment scenario is correct, the stock could still be overfished. If future catches are maintained near Madrid, Spain the 2017 TAC (23, 655 t), the stock is projected to have a greater than 60% chance of recovering by 2018 (and remaining so through 2025) under all three recruitment scenarios (Table 10). Current estimates also indicate that 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 312 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code the rebuilding could be achieved by 2022 with catch limits up to 30,000 t with higher 60% probabilities for the 3 20-28 July, recruitment scenarios (Figure 52). 2017. Stock Synthesis Results of the Stock Synthesis deterministic projections are shown in Figure 53 and compared to reference levels of 40% B0, and SSBMSY as derived from the models. Model projections with catch levels are shown in Table 11 and observed SSB levels are shown in Table 12. The results suggest the stock will not be rebuilt by 2022 unless the catch limit is less than 20,000 t.” In summary, it is said that the VPA results (recovery is possible with catches up to 30000t) are slightly more reliable than the Stock Synthesis results (recovers is possible with catches up to 20000t). The scientific group recommended to consider the results of more than one model when developing the advice. However, the current TAC is set on the upper limit which would still allow for a recovery of the stock until 2022 with a probability of more than 60%. This is by no means a precautionary approach, based on best knowledge available. SG 80 is not met. CAB response We note that the uncertainty around model predictions for the stock status and the Harvest Strategy effectiveness and Harvest Control Rules in place are scored through Principle 1 performance indicators. In addition, scoring of the use of the precautionary approach is examined for the next scoring issue (SIc). Finally, the scores and rationales for the ICCAT jurisdiction are harmonized with the Usufuku Honten fishery, resulting in no score change for the regional level. 3.2.2 - The most recent report from the BFT stock assessment meeting (ICCAT 2017) states: ICCAT, SG80 not met Not accepted (no Decision- 2017b. score change) making “Of these, only the VPA was considered sufficiently advanced at the conclusion of the meeting to be considered as Report of the processes the primary basis for management advice for the eastern stock.” 2017 Atlantic Nevertheless, the Group expressed considerable concern over the reliability of the VPA given its assumption that Bluefin tuna PI 3.2.2 SI c stock Use of catch-at-age is known exactly when in fact the size composition of many eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean fleets is poorly characterized for a number of years before the implementation of stereo video camera in 2014. assessment precautionary session. approach Accordingly, the Group recommended considering the four other models (SS, ASAP, SCAL, and SAM) when developing the scientific advice at the September Species Group meeting. […] As these recruitments form much of ICCAT, BFT the basis for the very high estimates of current SSB, the results from the VPA should continue to be interpreted Stock with caution. Assessment Session – If the high recruitment scenario is correct, the stock could still be overfished. If future catches are maintained near Madrid, Spain the 2017 TAC (23, 655 t), the stock is projected to have a greater than 60% chance of recovering by 2018 (and 20-28 July, remaining so through 2025) under all three recruitment scenarios (Table 10). Current estimates also indicate that 2017. the rebuilding could be achieved by 2022 with catch limits up to 30,000 t with higher 60% probabilities for the 3 recruitment scenarios (Figure 52). 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 313 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code Stock Synthesis Results of the Stock Synthesis deterministic projections are shown in Figure 53 and compared to reference levels of 40% B0, and SSBMSY as derived from the models. Model projections with catch levels are shown in Table 11 and observed SSB levels are shown in Table 12. The results suggest the stock will not be rebuilt by 2022 unless the catch limit is less than 20,000 t.” In summary, it is said that the VPA results (recovery is possible with catches up to 30000t) are slightly more reliable than the Stock Synthesis results (recovers is possible with catches up to 20000t). The scientific group recommended to consider the results of more than one model when developing the advice. However, the current TAC is set on the upper limit which would still allow for a recovery of the stock until 2022 with a probability of more than 60%. This is by no means a precautionary approach, based on best knowledge available. SG 80 is not met. ICCAT, 2017b. Report of the 2017 Atlantic Bluefin tuna stock assessment session. ICCAT, BFT Stock Assessment Session – Madrid, Spain 20-28 July, 2017. CAB response The rationale and score for the ICCAT jurisdiction have been harmonized with the Usufuku Honten fishery. In particular for this Scoring Issue, it is noted that the choice of BFT-e TAC is slightly more conservative (lower) than would be implied by the HCR, because ICCAT decided that increases should be incremental. This response to uncertainty, in our view, represents a precautionary approach. The BFT-e TAC corresponds to "the most precautionary MSY estimate" (ICCAT Rec. 18-02 from 21 June 2019). The rationale is complemented, and the score for the regional level is not changed. PI 3.2.3 - Compliance and enforcement Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response references score change code 3.2.3 - In the scoring rationale for PI 3.2.3 a the assessment team states: None given SG80 not met Accepted (no Compliance and score change) enforcement “Another cause for concern is the growing risk of IUU fishing that accompanies the widening spatial distribution range and abundance of BFT-e in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. As the stock is recovering, it is resulting in an increasing risk of IUU fishing activities from recreational fishers and from PI 3.2.3 SI a MCS unlicensed fishing operators (EFCA, 2017). For the Mediterranean alone, a compilation of IUU BFT-e implementation catches seized by surveillance authorities in Italy, Spain and Tunisia and Algeria in 2017 and 2018 by WWF-Mediterranean shows that present surveillance and control programs (at sea, in port, transport, supply chain, restaurants), and the high levels of sanctions applied (fines, destruction, licence revocation) do not appear to enough of a deterrent (WWF Mediterranean team, pers. Com.).” 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 314 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response references score change code SG 80 requires “A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.” Based on the information given in the PCDR, it cannot be said that the MCS system “has demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures”. SG 80 not met. CAB response The report text (section 3.5.6) and the rationale have been developed to reference an updated analysis of Operation Tarentelo (Hosh, 2019), which concerned cage farm transfer operations, and did not involve French vessels or French ports as previously reported in the Press, and include additional French measures. The score has not been changed. 3.2.3 - Regulation (EU) 60 Accepted (no Compliance and 2016/1627 of the score change) enforcement European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2016 PI 3.2.3 SI b - on a multiannual Sanctions recovery plan for bluefin tuna in the The CAB fails to explain which sanctions are laid down in the national legislation when e.g. a vessel which eastern Atlantic and exceeded the allocated quota does not return immediately to port. In the relevant EU regulations, no the Mediterranean, sanctions are defined in neither Regulation (EU) 2016/1627 nor Regulation (EU) 2017/2107 for non- and repealing Council compliance of member states or infringements of vessels flagged by member states. According to the Regulation (EC) No justification in the PCDR, sanctions “may be applied by the PO, for quota overage for example, or for 302/2009, Article 16 – excessive landing of undersized fish (a tolerance with a specific quota). However, the PO tries to By-catches, (5.) accommodate exceptional circumstances and no sanctions have been applied for the vessels in the fishery in the past three years”. It can be concluded that Sanctions to deal with non-compliance are not consistently applied (“accommodate exceptional circumstances”) and are not likely to provide effective deterrence. Regulation (Eu) 2017/2107 of the SG 80 is not met for PI 3.2.3 b. European Parliament and of the Council of 15 November 2017 laying down management, conservation and control measures applicable in the Convention area of 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 315 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response references score change code the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), and amending Council Regulations (EC) No 1936/2001, (EC) No 1984/2003 and (EC) No 520/2007 CAB response The report text (section 3.5.6) and the rationale have been complemented to indicate the sanction types (administrative and criminal) to justify the score of SG80, which has not been changed. In addition, the vessels in the fishery are mostly small day boats that have no sleeping accommodation and have to return to port in the morning. The PO system is indeed trying to accommodate small quota overshoot by individual vessels if they were to happen, which is very rare because vessels are not allowed to fish for BFT-e if they do not have quota left or if they have reached the 20% limit of small individuals caught (France, 2019). However, the PO cannot overshoot the quota it is mandated to manage by the French government and therefore this is not a compliance issue. 3.2.3 - Carmen Battez. SG100 not met Accepted (non- Compliance and The score of this PI relies on the level of application. The CAB argues that the score is based on the UoA Support for eco- material score enforcement only, not considering the overall performance on ICCAT level. However, even at the level of the UoA certification of the reduction) compliance with relevant regulations seems incomplete at best. For example: Mediterranean • The observer’s coverage is very low (around 0,5%) and is very far from ICCAT Recommendation artisanal fishery line PI 3.2.3 SI c - bluefin tuna: Compliance (16-14), which establishes a minimum of 5%. While it could be true that the boats are very small and there is not much place for observers, part of this coverage could be covered by REM systems but also improved monitoring increasing the presence of observers on board. of bycatch and project acceptance by • The assessment team recognizes that the logbook data is not accurate. This data is fed by SIOP professionals. Life data (incomplete for this assessment in one side and non reliable -market, fish buyers,…-) and the Sciences [q-bio]. SATHOAN members’ logbook while seemingly accurate regarding tuna and swordfish, for other retained 2018. dumas- species only part of the trips contribute to the dataset. 01952442 • While it is true that they are trying to implement new systems to collect data, as the creation of a phone app called ECHOSEA or submitting data in paper, it is not clear if this new system is already in place (in the PCDR different problems are pointed out with the implementation of the ECHOSEA app (i.e. Poisson, F., L., M., B., different versions, even the creation of a webpage) and with which level of accuracy. The data is provided B., B., W., D., C., C., S., M., M., P., C., G., G., 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 316 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response references score change code by the fishers without any other control or review and with the low observer coverage this can’t be D., B., S., A.-H., 2016. double checked. Rapport de fin de projet. Projet • For discards and ETP species the data is compiled from observer data which has low coverage SELPAL.125p. AMOP. levels and is not completely accurate and useful (i.e. catch data are only presented in numbers and not weight) and also from the SELPAL Project (data from 2015-2017). According to Battez (2018) the UoA has 24 boats and, in 2015 just 7 boats reported and in 2017 there were 17 (so the data is also incomplete for the whole UoA). While WWF finds the efforts of SATHOAN to improve on data collection to support improved monitoring on the whole commendable, it is not clear how this scoring issue meets the SG100 level which requires a “a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery.” On this basis WWF believes that only SG80 is met for PI 3.2.3c (i.e. some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery). SG100 not met. CAB response It is important to note that scientific observers have no surveillance or enforcement capacity in the French system. ICCAT recommendation 16-14 stipulates a 5% Observation coverage for pelagic longline fisheries (in fishing days, number of sets, or trips) vessels >15m by CPC (EU), which is then applied in each member state, here France, across the Mediterranean and Atlantic Ocean. The vessels in the UoA are small (with only 4 vessels >15m but <18m) in this fishery, and the placing of on-board Observers has been a logistical challenge. As consequence, the fishery has deployed other complementary means including self-reporting and close cooperation with scientists through a number of projects. Nevertheless, although France complies with ICCAT Rec. 16-14 on Observer coverage across its fleet as evidenced by EU/France annual reports to ICCAT Compliance Committee, the overall low level of scientific Observation coverage in the UoA means that certification would be conditional on improved data collection processes, as detailed in the rationales for PIs 2.1.3, 2.2.3 and 2.3.3. The logbook accuracy has been mentioned, but essentially in relation to bycatch species that are released alive, which is being investigated through research. The MCS system for BFT-e is comprehensive and there has been no suggestion from the enforcement agency (DDTM) during the site visit that the fishery presented MCS risks. The audit team was shown evidence that the paper and telephone app were used, not a comprehensive range and therefore the high degree of confidence was not justified. The score has been reduced from SG100 to SG80 to reflect WWF’s comments and concern. 3.2.3 - In the report narrative Section 3.5.6 the assessment team states (p. 74): Europol (2018). How SG80 not met Accepted (no Compliance and the illegal bluefin score change) enforcement “Another cause for concern is the growing risk of IUU fishing that accompanies the widening spatial tuna market made distribution range and abundance of BFT-e in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. As the stock is over Eur 12 million a recovering, it is resulting in an increasing risk of IUU fishing activities from recreational fishers and from year selling fish in PI 3.2.3 SI d unlicensed fishing operators (EFCA, 2017). For the Mediterranean alone, a compilation of IUU BFT-e Spain. Online: Systematic non- catches seized by surveillance authorities in Italy, Spain and Tunisia and Algeria in 2017 and 2018 by https://bit.ly/2QSYj6i; compliance WWF-Mediterranean shows that present surveillance and control programs (at sea, in port, transport, 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 317 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested CAB response references score change code supply chain, restaurants), and the high levels of sanctions applied (fines, destruction, licence revocation) do not appear to enough of a deterrent (WWF Mediterranean team, pers. Com.).” FIS (2019). Malta The recent international operation Tarantelo is direct proof that substantial and systematic non- fisheries director compliance still exists within the BTF-e fishery: as reported by Europol (2018), the network was estimated suspended for alleged to have been trading about 2,500 t of illegal bluefin each year. If we compare this illegal catch to the total illegal tuna trade. TACs set for the BFT-e fishery in 2016 (19,296t), 2017 (23,155t) and 2018 (28,000t), it represents Online: respectively 13%, 10.7% and 8.9% of the TAC for those years. If we compare this amount with the specific https://bit.ly/2Zf8gPu TACs allotted to the EU, the IUU tuna catch was equivalent to 20% of the entire EU TAC for 2016 (12,813 t). Given the information above, it seems that systematic non-compliance cannot be ruled out, which would threaten the overall sustainability of the fishery, even if the single UoA is not involved. The stock assessment group did not include IUU catches in the models as not even the official catches for 2016 were available (from the stock assessment: “For the East bluefin tuna, there were no preliminary reports available, therefore the Working Group agreed using the TAC allocation for 2016 (19,296 t) for projections.” SG80 is not met for PI 3.2.3 scoring issue d. CAB response Elements have been added to clarify the report section 3.5.6, including from a recent analysis of the Tarentelo Operation (Hosh, 2019), which did not implicate French fishing vessels or French ports, but resulted in increased control provisions through the EFCA JDP to the rationale for SIa in order to address this concern. The rationale for this SId has also been modified to make reference to Hosh (2019) and EFCA (2020). SG80 is met. General comments General Comment 1: On the designation of blue shark as ETP based on the Barcelona Convention and CMS The blue shark (Prionace glauca) is listed in Barcelona Convention in the Annex III and in CMS in the Appendix II. The IUCN lists blue sharks as Critically Endangered in the Mediterranean Sea. In the SATHOAN MSC fishery assessment blue sharks are listed as a secondary main species based on SA3.1.5.2b in FCR v2.0. For the Barcelona Convention, the SPA/BD Protocol has three annexes: the Common criteria for the choice of protected marine and coastal areas that could be included in the SPAMI list (Annex I), the List of endangered and threatened species (Annex II), and the List of species whose exploitation is regulated (Annex III). Parties signing the protocol must ensure the maximum protection is possible and the recovery of species listed in Annex II and that the exploitation of species listed in Annex III are regulated. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 318 The Barcelona Convention is not a binding treaty, so it means that their measures have to be put in place for the General Fisheries Commission of the Mediterranean (GFCM), for which resolutions or recommendations are binding. According to this criterion, the GFCM provides full protection just for the species listed in the annex II of the Barcelona Convention through Recommendation GFCM/42/2018/2 (the old Recommendation - GFCM/36/2012/3 was amended by the new one) on fisheries management measures for the conservation of sharks and rays in the GFCM area of application. However, for the species listed in the Annex III it only says that the exploitation of the species in the Annex III needs to be regulated. In the case of the CMS, for Appendix II-listed species, CMS acts as a framework convention – it does not provide any specific protection to them, but requires that Parties conclude global or regional agreements on specified species. Which is exactly what GFCM does in the Mediterranean. This situation would be very different if blue sharks were listed in the Barcelona Convention in Annex II and CMS Appendix I, respectively. In this case there would be a strong argument to consider blue shark as an ETP, but in the current circumstances it is difficult to argue that, having both conventions as a base, because the conventions are not considering the species as the equivalent of an ETP species as defined by the MSC. WWF considers that blue sharks should be considered as an ETP in the Mediterranean. In our opinion all shark species in the Annex III of Barcelona Convention that are evaluated as Critically Endangered (CR) or Endangered (EN) should be included in the Annex II and be promoted as protected by the GFCM/42/2018/2. This issue points to a seemingly intractable problem, in that we cannot ask a CAB to do what the binding regulation by GFCM is not doing itself. Until the appropriate Annexes above are changed for these species to include them in the Rec. GFCM/42/2018/2 as protected, or the MSC are changed such that species such as blue shark are considered as ETP. In summary, it seems inappropriate for a species such as blue shark that is considered as critically endangered by the IUCN to not be listed as an ETP species in an MSC assessment. WWF realizes that ETP designation is an important topic in the current MSC Standard Review and that changes may be forthcoming. However at present while CAB’s are constrained by the current requirements of SA3.1.5.2b in FCR v2.0 which specify binding national or international agreements, WWF believes that appropriate precautionary scoring is required by CAB’s to ensure that the protection of species in this situation is acknowledged in assessments such as SATHOAN. CAB response: As WWF points out, neither the Barcelona convention or the CMS and associated Memorandum of Sharks are legally binding. This assessment was carried out in accordance with the FCR2.0 which makes it very clear that ETP status can only be based on national legislation or binding international agreements (which therefore also excludes IUCN red list status, except for out of scope species). Under the FCR2.0, there are therefore no grounds on which to base ETP designation for blue sharks. We add that this species is being commercially landed in the Mediterranean by other fisheries outside France (and therefore outside the UoA). We have explained in the scoring for primary species (WWF incorrectly state we have assessed it as secondary) that the UoA fishery treats this species in effect as ETP (in that no specimens can be retained, best practice handling and release techniques must be adopted, self-reporting is in place and research into at-vessel and post-release survival was conducted under the Selpal project). Overall, this led to an outcome score of 80 (2.1.1); however, the team concluded on a precautionary basis that a better evidence base was required to fully quantify discards in the fishery, hence the condition on 2.1.3. We therefore believe that we have abided by MSC procedure, while also adopting precautionary scoring where appropriate. To echo WWF’s comments, the requirements on ETP species designation are currently being revised by the MSC as part of their Fishery Standard Review. Until any changes come into force (at the moment, it is uncertain what these will be), CABs must follow the MSC requirements as they apply to the fishery under assessment (in this case, the FCR2.0). General Comment 2: Client Action Plan and measures to reduce unwanted catch 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 319 The client action plan (CAP) presented by SATHOAN is one of the more detailed and ambitious plans that WWF has seen from an MSC candidate fishery. The following comments are intended to be constructive and evaluated as practical feedback, especially regarding measures to reduce unwanted catch and overcome the current deficit of observer coverage (i.e. the need for statistically relevant, independent and verifiable catch data). Given that we generally view the scoring of the P2 Information PI’s and associated conditions by CUP as appropriate as currently set forth in the PCDR we are providing these general comments so that they can be referred to without the need for repetition in the comments provided below where appropriate. The UoA states that there are some mitigation measures in place such as the Good Practices Guide, the Sharkguard device that uses magnetic fields to deter sharks and minimize unwanted catch and the ECHOSEA app for entering data on unwanted catch and discards. WWF sees these as positive steps forward to meet the MSC requirements for measures to reduce unwanted catch and for data collection on bycatch of P2 species. Best practices guides are always a good tool to implement measures for better handling of bycatch intended to reduce unwanted catch and post-capture mortality. Although these measures are mandatory for the SATHOAN UoA, effective implementation also depends on the good will of the fishermen and must be also independently evaluated for effectiveness and uptake by the fleet based on adequate observer coverage or remote electronic monitoring (REM), given that actual implementation is often difficult to verify. In short, for a well monitored fishery that meets the requirements of management bodies and the MSC FCR, it is critical to verify fishery dependent data (logbooks, etc.) with fishery independent data (i.e. observers or REM) so that your data is accepted as accurate. But we realize that SATHOAN already understands these issues well. WWF notes that on page 18 of the PCDR it is stated that “Compliance with the code is verified internally at VALPEM although reduced staff availability means that vessel inspections are limited.” The implications of this reduced level of auditing should be addressed by the CAB in the appropriate scoring issues under P2 performance indicators, and how this relates to the VALPEM system of 1st party auditing procedures. Additional information from the client fishery on how SATHOAN plans to address this issue would be helpful in the client action plan. Also due to the unfortunate circumstances of the current global pandemic observer coverage in many of the worlds fisheries is being scaled back or put on hold all together. It is up to SATHOAN as to whether this should be addressed up front in the CAP or at a late date as the situation progresses, but it will likely be an issue that may need contingency planning. Regarding the Sharkguard device, in the presentation at the Mediterranean Shark and Ray Conservation Meeting, November 2019, Palma de Mallorca (Wendling et al. 2019) entitled “Anticipating risks of shark and ray bycatch in the French Mediterranean bluefin tuna fisheries” SATHOAN representatives presented information on at-sea trials with this device. In this document states a huge success due to reduction of catches of pelagic stingray and blue shark, with 66% and 100% of reduction respectively. The 100% reduction in the catch of pelagic stingrays is particularly striking, especially as this is a major issue for this fishery. However the results also indicate that there was a 42% of reduction in bluefin tuna catches. In practice, this indicates that the device may be unlikely to be deployed on a widespread basis by the fleet, as the fishermen are unlikely to use a device that reduces their catches of the target species. WWF acknowledges that work is ongoing to address this issue on the part of SATHOAN and collaborators. It would also be useful to present information presented regarding the price of the device, who pays for it, the effort required to install it in every line with hook, etc. From WWF’s experience working with fishermen and with trials of mitigation measures and devices, fishermen will be reluctant to install devices that complicate and increase the time required for gear preparation and deployment, increase costs and reduce catch. This being said, WWF supports further development of this technology by SATHOAN as a potential measure to reduce unwanted catch in bluefin tuna and other longline fisheries. WWF recognises that carrying observers on small boats is an issue, even more so in the current times. In the current CAP we realize that there is a commitment to request additional observer coverage to meet both ICCAT requirements of 5% coverage, and MSC requirements for adequate data to support the management strategy. In this regard 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 320 WWF strongly encourages SATHOAN to also explore REM as an alternative (and you probably are already although this is not explicit in the CAP). In our experience in the many global fisheries that are now at 100% coverage acceptance quickly spreads throughout the fleet once a successful pilot project is completed. Client response: SATHOAN takes note of these remarks and suggestions, and recalls that WWF is invited to participate in the steering committee in order to propose with the stakeholders means of improving the situation. Concerning the means of control, these are by definition finite. But we seem to have shown that if they are limited they are not limiting. Thus the controls increase from year to year and adapt as required. See the additional documentation provided in Appendix 14. All means for improving the efficiency of control, including the REM, are being studied. The action plan has been modified to precise the annual review and updating of the control plan. Regarding the Sharkguard device, 2019 was first year of experimentation with a prototype which was big and visible. Improvements are underway to make the device smaller and easier to use. So a new prototype will therefore be tested in 2021. And we work so with IRD on another system (PARADEP). General Comment 3: Principle 3 Harmonised Fishery Assessment WWF notes that in Section 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment that the SATHOAN fishery overlaps with one other bluefin tuna fishery: the Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic longline bluefin tuna fishery. Both fishery assessments are managed by CU UK and that “As both assessments took place quasi simultaneously, harmonization was a continuous process.” The CAB also states that there are no other Mediterranean tuna fisheries in the MSC programme requiring further harmonization. While WWF also notes that FCR v2.0 GPB3 Harmonisation of Assessment Outcomes and Conditions (p. 306) states “In the case of Principle 3, harmonisation could be necessary for the PIs in the Fisheries Specific Management System Component (3.2.1-3.2.4). This may be the case, for example, where two UoAs include different vessels, but both groups operate in the same fleet, under the same national management. For the Governance and Policy component (PIs 3.1.1-3.1.3), MSC accepts that it may be impractical to attempt full harmonisation, due to the large number of fisheries that may be managed under the relevant policy framework, and the differences in application between them.” Given that, as the CAB has indicated, there are only two overlapping fisheries for the Eastern North Atlantic and Mediterranean and that both of these assessments were conducted ‘quasi-simultaneously’ by the same CAB, it is reasonable to expect that it is practical and appropriate for CUP to harmonise the scoring of the Usufuku Honten and SATHOAN fisheries under P3 (even for the Governance and Policy component PIs 3.1.1-3.1.3 and where this is not the case CUP should provide a detailed rationale to justify any differences in scoring between the two fisheries. CAB response: Indeed, thank you. Section 4.1 of the report has been updated to reflect this, and in the scoring tables for all Principle 3 Performance Indicators rationales have been checked and clarified as necessary to ensure that scores were harmonised for the Scoring Issues elements that relate to the common RFMO management measures. This concerned both components 3.1 and 3.2 as per the MSC Guidance to the FCRv2.0. As a result this fishery’s score for PI3.1.2 and PI3.2.3 have been reduced, and for PI 3.1.3 has been increased, all other PI scores remain the same with respect to the ICCAT jurisdiction. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 321 Appendix 5.3.4 Pew Comments Principle 1 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code There is not a A) SG100 is not met since there is not a high degree of certainty (95th percentile) of the stock being above the PRI, None given a: SG100 or a: Not accepted "high degree considering the inherent uncertainties in the BFT-e stock assessment process. There are major uncertainties in the SG60 not met (no score change) of certainty" most recent assessment (2017), including questions about (a) the larval BFT index in the Mediterranean, (b) the huge that the stock impact of adding a single year of data, namely from 2015, (c) the huge impact of adding a single index (e.g., the b: SG80 not met b: Accepted is above the Moroccan-Portuguese trap index increased the catch recommendation by 126%), and (d) the failure of the (material score PRI, nor has assessment to account for IUU fishing levels, even for quantified IUU. Stock status in relation to reference points reduction to <80) the SCRS (including PRI, Bmsy, B0) and the current recovery status are not provided by ICCAT’s SCRS. Therefore, even the MSC determined default proxy indicators for PRI (see GSA2.2.3.1) cannot be analytically determined directly. The CAB itself repeatedly that the stock states that stock status cannot be determined and B0.1 cannot even be quantified. Stock status cannot be has recovered determined by the SCRS, let alone with a "high degree of certainty." Furthermore, given the fact that B0.1 cannot be to the point estimated, it is debatable whether it can be considered an appropriate reference point. In addition, the CAB points that it is out the need for at least an 'implicit' limit reference point under GSA 2.2.3, but there is no justification for the vague "fluctuating proposal of the CAB on this matter. A score of 100 is not justified and even SG60, which requires a 70% likelihood, is around a level generous. consistent with MSY." B) SG80 is not met. The CAB bases its decision that the stock is "at or arriving at a level consistent with MSY" based on i) information from the 2017 assessment saying that Fcurrent is 34% of F0.1, ii) a generation time of 11 years, and thus a recovery time of 22 years, and iii) MSC Guidance under GSA 2.2.4 that "when F is reduced to 80 % FMSY or 60 % FMSY, the time for recovery may be halved" (i.e., to 11 years). However, the 2017 assessment defined Fcurrent as 2012-14 levels. At that time, the EBFT quota was 12,900t -13,500 t. The 2020 quota is 36,000 t. "Fcurrent" is not actually current and therefore cannot be used as an indicator of potential recovery to Bmsy. There is no documentation that recent F is "reduced to 80% Fmsy or 60%Fmsy." What we do know is that the 2017 assessment could not determine whether the stock had recovered since the stock was still below Bmsy under one of the 3 recruitment scenarios considered. Furthermore, MSC's default method for estimating generation time should not be used for calculating generation time of a data-rich species like Atlantic bluefin tuna. Using the proper Goodyear equation, accounting for fecundity, gives a generation time of 16.7 years. As the CAB asserts, F did not drop below F0.1 until 2007, so with a 17-year generation time, F has not been below Fmsy for 1 generation, and therefore clearly not for two. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 322 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code CAB response SIa. The scoring of SIa has been tested via an objection process with WWF Italy, in relation to the Usufuku Honten bluefin fishery, where WWF provided the same comments as those provided by Pew here. The objection adjudication found in favour of the CAB – i.e. that the score of 100 is appropriate. In any case, however, now that 1.1.1b does not meet 80, 1.1.1a SG100 is not required to be evaluated. For the convenience of the reader, we summarise the main points of the CAB response to the objection below, in relation to Pew’s comment. A table is provided in the response to WWF in this report which summarises the conclusions of each stock assessment model tried, in relation to stock status relative to the PRI. For further detail, the reader is referred to the documentation associated with the Usufuku Honten fishery assessment and objection: see https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/usufuku-honten- northeast-atlantic-longline-bluefin-tuna-fishery/@@view • MSC TO questions whether the uncertainty raised in scoring SG100 for 1.1.1b should not be extended to SG100a – but their logic is flawed, since there is no reason why the probability associated with the stock being at the level of Bmsy and the PRI should be the same. • We have tried in the report background and rationale to explain clearly the various sources of uncertainty in the stock assessment, and we believe we have been clear and objective. (More information on each of the four issues raised by Pew (a-d) is provided in relation to the Usufuku Honten objection – see link above.) • MSC explicitly permit this SI to be scored either based on quantitative evaluations of probability or on qualitative assessments of uncertainty – see SA2.2.1. They also explicitly permit scoring to be on the basis of F rather than B, according to what type of reference points are available. • An ‘implicit’ reference point is necessarily vague, but the logic that (under all models) recruitment was high at the lowest level of biomass observed in the time series is clear in terms of scoring stock status relative to the PRI, and this type of reference point (Bloss) is commonly used as a proxy for the PRI (e.g. by ICES). SIb. SIb has been rescored based on the Goodyear GT, and SG80 is now scored as not met. PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code This PI should None given None given Accepted (score Based on scoring changes to 1.1.1 as noted above, this PI is applicable and should be evaluated by the CAB. be scored. increased) CAB response It has been evaluated and is now included. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 323 PI 1.2.1 – Harvest Strategy Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code The CAB’s A) SG60 is not met, let alone SG100. SG60 and above require that a harvest strategy be in place. As noted by the CAB None given a: SG100 not Not accepted (no analysis of PI in the PCDR, “the MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest met score change) 1.2.1 is control rules, and management actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE.’” There fundamentally is no harvest control rule, defined by MSC as “a set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions used for determining b: SG80 not mer flawed, as a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to reference points,” in place d: SG100 not there is an for Atlantic bluefin tuna. While 2020 management is set, including a quota for bluefin in the eastern Atlantic and met assumption Mediterranean Sea (EBFT), there has never been a harvest strategy for EBFT, nor is there one presently or one for that the 2021 and beyond. Indeed, this is why ICCAT is investing heavily in an MSE process, including by developing management management objectives (see ICCAT Res. 18-03) and candidate management procedures designed to achieve those currently in objectives. place at ICCAT meets even The process for setting the total allowable catch for EBFT is neither well-defined nor pre-agreed, but rather is based the broadest on political negotiation. While the CAB is correct that the 36,000 t quota for 2020 is loosely based on an definition of a approximation of F0.1 estimated from a highly uncertain stock assessment, the CAB erred when it concluded that harvest the current management system is responsive to the state of the stock. For example, several important abundance strategy. It indices went down in 2018, but the quota still increased for 2020. Similarly, there is no agreement as to how the does not. 2020 updated stock assessment will inform TAC setting for 2021. Instead, that TAC will be set by political negotiation at the November 2020 annual meeting, and there is no certainty that adopted quota decisions will follow scientific advice. The CAB also failed to consider that there is no agreement about how the monitoring data will be used in the stock assessment, another critical feature of a harvest strategy as defined by the MSC standards. B) SG80 is not met. ICCAT has recently moved from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan, which came into force in 2019 (Rec. 2018-02). The SG80 criteria states that: "The harvest strategy may not have been fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives”. The MSC further explains that to consider that the strategy is working, it needs to be in place for sufficient time to show results. The 2020 TAC is the highest in history, nearly 3 times higher than it was just 6 years ago, and projections made for the current quotas show that this management regime will lead to population decline in coming years. Moreover, the new management plan, just implemented, does not include a specific provision allowing ICCAT to suspend the fishery if necessary. The current management plan, which includes many changes to ease restrictions compared to the previous rebuilding plan (for example, as indicated by the assessment team in the report, some measures have been relaxed, e.g.: longer open seasons, additional derogations from the minimum size, provisions for quota exchange and small amounts of carry- over, etc.), has not been implemented long enough to consider that it is achieving its objectives. Furthermore, there is no HCR in place that ensures that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. GSA2.4.1 states that testing and evaluation in Scoring Issue (b) at the Harvest Strategy level should consider the full interactions between different components of the harvest strategy, including the HCRs, use of information and the assessment of stock 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 324 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code status, which is highly uncertain, as detailed above. It should also be noted that the objectives of the recovery plan were never confirmed as achieved. Because of the aforementioned shortcomings of the stock assessment and lack of a harvest strategy including HCRs, no evidence exists that it is achieving its objectives. D) SG100 is not met. We agree with the Peer Reviewer 1 that based on uncertainty in the stock assessment and continued IUU, the informal harvest strategy, while periodically reviewed, does not seem to be 'improved as necessary’. Even the PCDR acknowledges that there is a question "whether it has been improved." CAB response The scoring of this PI has been tested via an objection process with Pew [and WWF], in relation to the Usufuku Honten bluefin fishery, where the comments they provided were the same as those provided here. For the convenience of the reader, we summarise the main points of the CAB response to the objection below. For further detail, the reader is referred to the documentation associated with the Usufuku Honten fishery assessment and objection: see https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/usufuku-honten-northeast-atlantic-longline-bluefin-tuna- fishery/@@view • There is a harvest strategy according to the definition that MSC provides – this is clearly set out in the rationale. According to the scoring of 1.2.2a, there is a generally understood HCR – this was agreed by Pew at the negotiation part of the objection for Usufuku Honten – see documentation in the link above. MSE is not a required element of a harvest strategy. • The TAC is slightly more conservative (lower) than would be implied by the HCR, because ICCAT decided that increases should be incremental. This is a good response to uncertainty, in our view, rather than evidence that the HCR does not exist. • There is a clear process for TAC setting for 2020 based on 18-02, i.e. the (maximum) TAC should be consistent with F not greater than F0.1, as estimated by the new stock assessment. If ICCAT deviates from this harvest strategy (e.g. by setting the TAC such that F>F0.1) the CAB will have to reconsider the scoring at the first opportunity after this happens. • Regarding the stock assessment approach, various models were tried and they are discussed in the report, along with the reasons provided to the assessment team as to why the SS3 model was not ultimately used to provide advice. NB A more sophisticated model does not necessarily give a better answer, and in the case of the SS3 model even a cursory look at the SR relationship used to estimate MSY reference points will show that they should be regarded with extreme caution. • If the model estimates that B>B0.1, and the TAC is set to give F=F0.1, then biomass will decline. • Tristan Rouyer (stock assessment scientist) emphasised to the assessment team that current TACs are not comparable to previous TACs because the size structure of the fishery has changed significantly. Therefore, the statement that the TAC ‘is the highest value ever’ is scientifically meaningless. • The harvest strategy is based on TACs being set following a stock assessment every three years, not based on informal review of indices between times. • Re monitoring data: the harvest strategy is clear that the stock assessment is used to estimate F0.1 which is then used to set the TACs. Managers telling scientists what data to use in the stock assessment seems highly inappropriate. • Re PR1, see response in the relevant PR table. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 325 PI 1.2.2 – Harvest Control Rules and Tools Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code By ICCAT’s A) The CAB incorrectly concludes that an HCR is in place. There is certainly no pre-agreed plan that is “expected to None given None given Not accepted (no definition or reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached.” F0.1 is not a trigger reference score change) MSC’s, there point for EBFT management. By the MSC’s definition, an HCR is “a set of well-defined pre-agreed rules or actions is no HCR in used for determining a management action in response to changes in indicators of stock status with respect to place, reference points.” ICCAT’s management system for east Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin does not include any meaning pre-agreed rules or management actions to be taken in response to changes in the stock status, nor agreement as to SG60 is not how to calculate indicators of stock status. The target of the new management plan, B0.1, can’t even be calculated. met and the fishery must The current management measure (Recommendation 19-04) only directs the SCRS to adjust its advice based on the fail. stock status and does not require future managers to adopt TACs, or take any other management action, in line with the adjusted advice. The system relies on hope that the future managers will be reactive to the SCRS advice, and therefore does not include pre-agreed requirements for management action. As stated above, an HCR must require such management action, and there is an abundance of evidence that ICCAT is not likely to take the steps that the scientists suggest, should those steps call for a decrease in fishing. In fact, over the course of its history, ICCAT has followed the advice of its scientists only 39% of the time (Galland et al. 2018). Furthermore, ICCAT itself recognizes that HCRs are not in place for this fishery, as laid out in Paragraph 1 of the management measure that was considered by the CAB (ICCAT Recommendation 18-02). That is why ICCAT is in its sixth year of MSE to develop a proper HCR. CAB response The rationale has been revised to be based on a ‘generally-understood’ HCR rather than one in place. This results from an agreement with Pew at the negotiation stage of the objection for Usufuku Honten – see details in link given above. Note this change had already been incorporated into the PCDR of this fishery prior to publication. 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response references change code Three scores B) SG80 is not met. There is no biomass-based reference point for EBFT stock status. Although B0.1 is an implicit None given b: SG80 not met Not accepted (no should be target as the CAB points out, it cannot be estimated, as SG80 requires. Since EBFT does have F0.1 as a reference score change) c: SG60 not met lowered due to point, SG60 is met. the uncertainty e: SG100 not C) We agree with Peer Reviewer 2 that 1.2.4c should be lowered to SG60 due to the assessment's inability to in the SCRS met stock account for its significant uncertainty (see 1.1.1a comments above). This is evidenced by the fact that the 2017 assessment and SCRS Executive Summary does not present Kobe plots, despite the fact that ICCAT requires them. Furthermore, 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 326 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response references change code lack of external the "Management recommendations" section of that same Executive Summary cautions managers that "some peer review. important sources of uncertainties...currently remain unquantified." E) SG100 is not met. While the CAB is correct that many scientists participate in ICCAT’s BFT assessments, no recent assessments have been peer-reviewed by an independent body. The SCRS Bluefin Tuna Working Group cannot be considered as an independent review body since it is the body guiding the assessment and directing the analysts who are themselves a part of the working group. In contrast, the SCRS’s 2017 Atlantic bigeye assessment was conducted in the same manner by a working group, but they hired an independent peer reviewer. To our knowledge, the 2017 BFT assessment methodology has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature. In no way is SG100 met since it requires the assessment to be both "internally and externally peer reviewed." CAB response B. MSC specifically allow for management via F-based reference points rather than biomass reference points, and as Pew knows this is a common approach in many fisheries. F0.1 is an appropriate reference point for this stock, and can be and is estimated. C. The point about measuring uncertainty in the VPA is well taken, however we interpret 'stock assessment' in this context to refer to the stock assessment process rather than the final stock assessment model specifically. It is not a requirement for an MSC fishery at SG80 to have a statistical stock assessment model - MSC guidance is very explicit that a wide range of approaches are in principle acceptable. The approach used by ICCAT based on working with a range of different models at the same time (and considering different scenarios within each) is arguably better in terms of obtaining a realistic impression of the uncertainty associated with the stock assessment outcome (in the larger sense) than the approach of other RFMOs who run the same single statistical model each time, even if the conclusions about uncertainty are qualitative (imprecise, as the reviewer rightly says) rather than quantified (precise maybe, but are they accurate?). E. This was our initial scoring, however, the PR for Usufuku Honten informed us that we were wrong – listing the external PR in place. In response to this, we changed the scoring, and subsequently have had no disagreement throughout the rest of the comment and objection process for UH, including from MSC. There is no MSC requirement that states that formal publication of the stock assessment in a peer reviewed journal is a necessary element for this to be met. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 327 Principle 2 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Mediterranea a) The CAB states that recruitment of Mediterranean swordfish has been declining for the last 15 years, None given None given Accepted (no n swordfish while also concluding that the stock is likely above the PRI. With a substantial proportion of the catch score change) recruitment is including immature individuals, the possibility that recruitment has been impaired is significant. This a significant conclusion is further supported by the fact that some ICCAT Parties (including the EU) have been unable concern and to catch their quotas for this stock in recent years, and that the 2016 stock assessment determined the CAB's that the SSB was only 12% of the SSB capable of supporting MSY. A stock size this small is below the scoring PRI for many stocks where that point is known. At SG80, the CAB made the correct decision to score requires more the second part of the SG, and we recommend that the same practice is undertaken at SG60 and that justification. the conclusion that the stock is likely to be above the PRI be removed. As this fishery would be the only MSC certified fishery that interacts with Mediterranean swordfish, we would not dispute the CAB's conclusion that if SG60 is met, then SG80 is also met. However, given the extremely low observer coverage (1 out of 40 trips is observed), it is difficult or impossible to know how much Mediterranean swordfish is landed by the UoA, above or below the minimum size limit, so the impact on recruitment is generally unknown. As such, the decision to score the second part of SG80 (or 60) as met requires more justification. CAB response We have amended the rationale to state that the second part of the scoring guidepost is now triggered at the SG60 level as well. The team already took into account the uncertainty in UoA catches by 1) basing their assessment on the SATHOAN data (which also includes swordfish targeting vessels rather than just the bluefin targeting vessels that have signed up to the TRL-PA brand), 2) doubling the estimated landed catch to account for discards. Even applying these precautionary estimates leads to an annual estimate of 200t swordfish, or 2.4% of the total ICCAT catch. We note that in accordance with MSC guidance, a fishery (or combination of fisheries) is considered likely to be influential (in the sense that it may hinder recovery) when its catches contribute more than 30% of the total catch of that stock (GSA3.4.6). Our assessment, even when allowing for a precautionary buffer, suggests that the UoA’s contribution to the total catch of the Mediterranean swordfish stock is well below this level. This justifies an 80 score. The rationale has not been amended in this regard. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 328 2.1.2 – Primary species management Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Management a) SWO – neither SG100, nor SG80, are met. The CAB has concluded that the measures in place in ICCAT 2016 SCRS Plenary Report SG80 not met Not accepted of Rec 16-05 constitute a strategy for this stock, in part because of the stated management objective of (no score Mediterranea achieving Bmsy in 15 years, with 60% probability. The CAB has given ICCAT too much credit for the change) n swordifsh inclusion of this management objective in its measure, as the measure itself has almost no chance of and blue shark achieving the objective. It is important to recognize that the SCRS scientists have not tested how any is insufficient additional measures, beyond the setting of TACs, are likely to impact the potential success rate of the to have rebuilding plan and in fact concluded that similar measures in place in the past were insufficient to received the recover the stock. The TAC chosen in Rec 16-05 is above that associated with Fmsy (i.e., overfishing scores that was allowed to continue) and that will still be the case at the end of the very slight, gradual reductions the CAB through 2022. In fact, the TAC chosen in Rec 16-05 allowed for an increase in catch from the preceding assigned here, years, despite the dismal results of the 2016 stock assessment, where the scientists concluded with and the 100% probability that the stock was overfished and experiencing overfishing and determined that the extremely low SSB was a mere 12% of the SSB capable of supporting MSY. These concerns, in combination, should observer have been considered in concluding that the measure adopted by ICCAT in 2016 does not constitute a coverage calls "strategy," by MSC's definition. SG100 is not met. Furthermore, as there has been no analysis by into question scientists, to date, to determine how any of ICCAT's additional measures (closed seasons, size limits, any of the gear restrictions, etc.) impact the likelihood of successfully achieving the management objective, there information is no "understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome." As such, SG80 is also not met. that is produced for this PI. CAB response Scoring issue a only asks whether a strategy is in place, not whether this strategy is working (scoring issue b) or is being implemented (scoring issue c). In MSC terms, a “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome, and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification of fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts. In the case of Mediterranean swordfish, management consists of a 15-year recovery plan (ICCAT Rec. 16-05), with the goal of achieving BMSY with at least 60% probability, through the following measures (summarised here; see Section 3.4.4.1 for detail): • A TAC which is being gradually reduced until a mutually agreed TAC allocation is adopted, and which applies to recreational fisheries as well; • A capacity limitation for the duration of the recovery plan; • Closed season from 1 October to 30 November each year; 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 329 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code • Only entire specimens of swordfish may be landed; • A minimum landing size applies; • Gear restrictions for longline fisheries targeting swordfish; • Control measures designed for increased monitoring of the swordfish fishery; and • Continuous provision of scientific information. In addition, regular stock assessments are conducted – the most recent one in 2016. All these measures combined, together with the measures at UoA level for swordfish specifically (if no AEP, boats are permitted to land only one swordfish per fishing day and the total amount landed is deducted from the swordfish bycatch quota) mean the requirements for a strategy are met. The fact that no dedicated analysis (such as MSE) has been conducted on some of the measures does not mean there is no understanding of they will work to achieve the outcome of restricting catches and helping the stock to recover. This type of formal analysis is not a requirement for a strategy to be considered in place. Furthermore, for swordfish, France has put in place the current Arrêté du 26 mars 2020 définissant les mesures de contrôle de la pêcherie de l’espadon (Xiphias gladius) dans le cadre du plan pluriannuel de rétablissement du stock d’espadon dans la Méditerranée, which corresponds to a clear strategy. The scoring has not changed. As per the revised rationale for 2.1.2a this measure requires all swordfish landed to carry a tag with unique reference number whether targeted or bycatch, and this has been incorporated into the OP’s management system for monitoring swordfish landings. See above a) BSH - (See 2.3.1 for another issue related to blue shark.) The CAB has concluded that the UoA's 2016 SCRS Plenary Report SG100 not Not accepted commitment to release all blue sharks that are caught in combination with the ICCAT Recommendation met (no score 16-12 reach MSC's definition of a "strategy." However, observer coverage is extremely low for this change) UoA and the CAB recognizes incompleteness of logbooks to the extent that it was mentioned more than once. In previous assessments, the same CAB has concluded that logbook and observer coverage concerns regarding north Atlantic blue shark meant that SG100 was not met. That should be the case here as well, and the score for this stock should be reduced from 100. CAB response We disagree that P2 harmonisation with the Usufuku Honten fishery is required. Although they are both longline fisheries, they are very different in operational make-up and operate in completely different areas. For blue shark, the strategy consists of a regional catch limit, with additional measures in place at the UoA level consisting of a non-retention policy and implementation of best-practice handling and release techniques (all part of the TRL-PA label). Compliance with the ICCAT catch limit is ascertained through the non-retention policy, which in turn is verified through the combination of logbook and observer data and the wider MCS system which closely monitors all landings by these vessels. The issues surrounding the information sources are already addressed in scoring issue b and c of this PI, as well as under PI 2.1.3 (Information) where a condition is raised. The scoring has not changed. See above c) BSH - we recommend that the CAB remove reference to observer data when determining that there Not given Not given Accepted (no is "some evidence" that the management is being successfully implemented. Observer coverage of score change) 0.5% is so low that it may not be able to provide any useful information for science or compliance. SCRS 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 330 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code scientists have consistently recommended that ICCAT fisheries have at least 20% observer coverage in order to assess bycatch rates. CAB response Additional evidence was provided by the client to better support the SG80 score. The evidence presented in the rationale includes data stemming from the Echosea app as well as SIOP landings. We maintain that SG80 is met. See above d) BSH - the CAB has correctly determined that SG100 cannot be met as a result of the extremely low None given SG80 not met Not accepted observer coverage for this UoA, but the conclusion that SG80 is met is not supported by the (no score accompanying justification. Observer coverage of 0.5% does not offer confidence that it is highly likely change) (greater than 80% probability) that finning is not occurring. In the absence of better observer coverage and with some issues associated with logbook entry, SG80 is also not met. CAB response ICCAT recommendation 04-10 requires CPCs to take necessary measure to ensure fishers utilize entire catches of sharks and ensure that fins do not exceed 5 % of the weight of sharks. It also requires that fins are not transhipped. In addition a European regulation prohibits the practice of “shark finning” and forbids any removal of fins of sharks on board vessels (EU, 2013) by EU-registered vessels, a practice of Spanish and Portuguese vessels through derogations by then, including in the Mediterranean. The stricter provisions were strongly supported in France where there has never been a market for shark fins (see FR Sénat, 2011). The landing of blue sharks by SATHOAN vessels in the fishery caught with bluefin tuna has to be declared to the national fisheries control Centre (CNSP) prior to arrival in a BFT registered port (although note that there is a non-retention policy for the UoA). Finally, the French MCS provisions regarding BFT stipulate that, when brought on board, any bluefin tuna has to be stored in a separate tank from all other species caught (France, 2018). All fish would be controlled by the MCS authorities, and the sharks’ body integrity would also be controlled at auctions when sold. On the basis of the policies in place and the absence of reports or concerns from the MCS competent authorities, the team considers that SG60 and SG80 are met but not SG100 on the basis over the low level of at sea observer coverage. Regulation (EU) No 605/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 amending Council Regulation (EC) No 1185/2003 on the removal of fins of sharks on board vessels. FR Sénat, 2011. Proposition de règlement du Parlement européen et du Conseil modifiant le règlement (CE) n° 1185/2003 du Conseil relatif à l'enlèvement des nageoires de requin à bord des navires COM (2011) 798 final du 21/11/2011. Examen dans le cadre de l'article 88-4 de la Constitution. Texte déposé au Sénat le 01/12/2011 Examen : 20/01/2012 (commission des affaires européennes), https://www.senat.fr/ue/pac/E6865.html France, 2018. Arrêté du 24/04/18 définissant les mesures de contrôle de la pêcherie de thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) dans le cadre du plan pluriannuel de reconstitution des stocks de thon rouge dans l’Atlantique Est et la Méditerranée. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000036863083&dateTexte=20190514 See above e) BSH - In a previous assessment, the same CAB has concluded that concerns related to accuracy of None given SG80 not met Not accepted reporting and cross-checking of data meant that SG 80 was not met. Given the similar concerns stated (no score change) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 331 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code here with respect to logbook data, reporting, and extremely low observer coverage, that should be the case here as well, and the score for this stock should be reduced from 80. CAB response This scoring issue is UoA-specific and it is clear that the Sathoan fishery has been proactive in reviewing bycatch issues and addressing these through management action– we suggest that Pew read through the Poisson et al. (2016) report which explores blue shark bycatch in the UoA fishery, including at-vessel mortality as well as post-release mortality. Furthermore, the UoA fishery is currently engaged in a project which aims to reduce shark bycatch (see Sharkguard mentioned in the Client Action Plan but which is already ongoing). The Echosea project will further aid with collecting data on discarded species including blue shark. We agree that our rationale did not make this sufficiently clear so we have added detail; however, the scoring has not changed. 2.2.3 – Secondary species outcome Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code None given We recommend that you remove reference to the pelagic stingray's spine as evidence that the stock is None given None given Not accepted well managed. Many marine species of value have features that are potentially harmful or fatal. (no score change) CAB response It is not cited as evidence that the stock is well managed. The tail spine of the species is purely mentioned to illustrate why none are retained and the difficulties in safely releasing pelagic stingrays without bringing injury to the crew; hence why the good practice guide requires fishers to cut them off the line. The rationale was not changed. 2.2.2 – Secondary species management Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code None given General) As above, recommend removing reference to spines as evidence that the stock is well None given SG80 not met Not accepted managed. (no score change) a) We have some concerns that cutting off each pelagic stingray at the side of the boat constitutes both a "measure" and a "partial strategy" and suggest that the CAB provide more justification for why SG80 is met. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 332 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code c) we recommend that the CAB remove reference to observer data when determining that there is "some evidence" that the management is being successfully implemented. Observer coverage of 0.5% is so low that it may not be able to provide any useful information for science or compliance. SCRS scientists have consistently recommended that ICCAT fisheries have at least 20% observer coverage in order to assess bycatch rates. d) the CAB has correctly determined that SG100 cannot be met as a result of the extremely low observer coverage for this UoA, but the conclusion that SG80 is met is not supported by the accompanying justification. Observer coverage of 0.5% does not offer confidence that it is highly likely (greater than 80% probability) that finning is not occurring. In the absence of better observer coverage and with some issues associated with logbook entry, SG80 is also not met. CAB response General) It is not cited as evidence that the stock is well managed and this is not what this PI is about. The tail spine of the species is purely mentioned to illustrate the difficulties in safely releasing pelagic stingrays without brining injury to the crew; hence why the good practice guide requires fishers to cut them off the line. The rationale was not changed. a) Poisson et al. (2016) showed that post-release mortality is relatively low when the stingrays are cut off the line. Given the difficulties in safely handling this species, the practice of cutting the individuals off the line is considered best practice (other than trying not to catch the stingrays in the first place, which the client fishery is exploring as well – see activities mentioned under the client action plan including Sharkguard). We maintain that the non-retention policy with associated best practice release techniques (based on scientific evidence gathered in the UoA fishery by Poisson et al. (2016))) constitutes a partial strategy. c) We agree that the observer coverage in this fishery is too low to be statistically meaningful; however, the observer data should not be ignored either. If all observer records show that pelagic stingrays are systematically discarded, this, together with knowledge about the species itself (i.e. it is an unwanted catch), then this constitutes some evidence. We add that pelagic stingrays are absent from the SIOP data as well (which means they are not being landed), which is further evidence of non-retention. We have added this to the rationale. d) The landing of all species caught with bluefin tuna has to be declared to the national fisheries control Centre (CNSP) prior to arrival in a BFT registered port. Importantly, the French MCS provisions regarding BFT stipulate that, when brought on board, all fish other than bluefin tuna have to be stored in a separate tank (France, 2018). These would be controlled by the MCS authorities and the auctions when sold. On the basis of these policies and the absence of reports or concerns from the MCS competent authorities, the team considers that SG60 and SG80 are met. France, 2018. Arrêté du 24/04/18 définissant les mesures de contrôle de la pêcherie de thon rouge (Thunnus thynnus) dans le cadre du plan pluriannuel de reconstitution des stocks de thon rouge dans l’Atlantique Est et la Méditerranée. https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000036863083&dateTexte=20190514 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 333 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Concerns General) Regarding the blue shark, the CAB has correctly identified that ICCAT considers there to be None given General) none General) Not regarding the only two stocks in the Atlantic (north and south). However, there are tagging and genetic studies that given accepted (no lack of imply that this conclusion (by ICCAT) is not correct. There is also the conclusion by the IUCN Shark score change) consideration Specialist Group that Mediterranean blue sharks should be considered separately and that they are c) SG100 not of blue sharks critically endangered, a result of steep population declines in recent years. This has led to their full met for c) Accepted as ETP and protection in the waters of some Mediterranean countries. For the purposes of this assessment, the marine (non-material contradictory CAB should at least either i) consider how inclusion of blue shark under 2.3 on ETP species would impact mammals score statements on the potential certification of this fishery or ii) provide further justification for including it under 2.1 reduction) depradation beyond simply stating that ICCAT manages the stock as a single unit in the north Atlantic and the Med. are discussed. c) The CAB concludes here that depredation is likely a net positive for marine mammals and therefore the low observer coverage is not an issue for marine mammals and that SG100 is met. However, under SI2.3.1b, the CAB also says that depredation is considered to be a rare occurrence. These two statements are contradictory. Furthermore, even if marine mammals do benefit from depredating longlines, this does not mitigate concerns over the extremely low observer coverage. Just the opposite, it implies that interactions may be more common than assumed under SI2.3.1b, and the lack of sufficient observer coverage would be even more concerning. SG100 is not met for marine mammals. CAB response General) WWF made similar comments about the stock structure of the Mediterranean/North Atlantic blue shark, and about the potential need to consider the Mediterranean component as ETP. We invite Pew to read through our response to WWF’s comment; these in summary are: - None of the studies of the tagging and genetic studies have resolved the matter of blue shark stock structure between the North Atlantic and Mediterranean and research into this is ongoing. The uncertainty in stock structure has been acknowledged by the ICCAT Working Group on Sharks in their 2015 stock assessment and dedicated research is ongoing; as such it is not the CAB’s nor the team’s place to second-guess this but to evaluate the stock structure as it is currently managed by the relevant authority. The uncertainty has instead been considered in scoring for 2.1.1a, in that SG100 is not met for this species. - We have added detail on the issues surrounding stock structure for this species in the background of the report. - IUCN status is not considered a criterion for designation of ETP species shark species according to the MSC FCR2.0. It is not the team’s role to explore how a species might perform if designated under a different P2 component. The fact is that blue sharks are currently not protected in Mediterranean waters under any legally binding instrument, and they are therefore not considered ETP under FCR2.0. c) A similar comment was made by WWF and we have amended the scoring as a result. This is now scored as SG100 not met. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 334 2.3.3 – ETP species information Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB response summary score change code Scores Both SI2.3.3a and b require more justification to have claimed that observer coverage of 0.5% is None given None given Accepted (no assigned here adequate to make an accurate estimate/conclusion about the UoA's impact on ETP species. score change) require more justification, a result of the extremely low observer coverage. CAB response The scoring of this PI is not solely based on the observer coverage in the UoA but instead relies on triangulation of multiple information sources, including UoA observer data, anecdotal information, the SELPAL study by Poisson et al. (2016), the operational information about the fleet, including on fishing footprint and gear specifications, population and distribution data on the ETP species concerned, and ETP interactions in similar fisheries (see 2.3.1). This is in line with GSA3.6.3. We have made this clearer in the rationale but the scoring has not changed. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 335 Principle 3 PI 3.2.2 - Decision-making processes Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code The CAB Galland et al. SG80 not met Not accepted (no should c) SG80 is not met. While ICCAT decisions are intended to follow the best available science as provided by ICCAT's 2018 Marine score change) recognized SCRS, the managers at the Commission level do not always follow that advice. In fact, ICCAT generally follows the Policy 87: that ICCAT advice of the SCRS less than 40% of the time (Galland et al. 2018). There should be some recognition here that 250-254 does not while ICCAT maintains that it follows the precautionary approach via the best available SCRS science that this always follow science is only one of the factors that the managers consider when setting TACs and drafting management the advice of measures for bluefin and other stocks. Therefore, SG80 is not met. its scientists. CAB response According to the supplementary material from the publication quoted (Galland et al. 2018), the 40% rate refers to ICCAT’s SCRS reports between 1970 and 2016 and to all ICCAT-managed stocks. The ICCAT management of BFT-e has markedly improved since 2010 and with the adoption of recovery plans. Source: (PEW, 2017) In summary, Pew’s analysis shows that for BFT-e, ICCAT followed scientific advice every year from 2008-2015. In the final year of the analysis (2016) Pew considered that advice was not followed, but a review of the SCRS advice (ICCAT, 2016c) and the actions taken suggest that the Commission did not act in a less precautionary way than the advice. (The advice suggested that the TACs should not be increased – which they were not; and that the Commission could consider moving into a new phase of the recovery plan – which was subsequently done one year later, following the stock assessment in 2017; meanwhile the recovery plan was slightly more precautionary than the 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 336 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code subsequent multi-annual management plan.) In general, therefore, we do not see that Pew’s analysis provides a strong justification for their comments above, in relation to BFT-e. The rationale for SIc has been clarified to refer to the choice of BFT-e TAC that corresponds to "the most precautionary MSY estimate" (Rec 17-07), but the score has not been changed. Pew. 2017. Following the science is critical for Atlantic fish stocks - An infographic from the PEW Charitable Trusts. PEW Charitable Trusts. https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/data-visualizations/2017/following-the-science-is-critical-for-atlantic-fish-stocks Conditions Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code Condition 1 Revise condition to: "By Year 4 the client should be able to show that well-defined HCRs are in place that are able None given None given Accepted (no to ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, is expected to keep the stock fluctuating score change) around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, and is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties." Annual milestones should be updated accordingly. CAB response The condition has been revised, as have been the milestones and the client action plan. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 337 General comments Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 1 Section 3.3.3 (p. 24) and Section 3.3.8 (p. 30) should be updated to reflect ICCAT's current EBFT measure, Rec. None given None given Not accepted (no 19-04. score change) CAB Rec. 19-04 did not come into force until June 2020, which is well past the deadline for input to the PCDR. In the absence of material changes resulting from this new response Recommendation, any changes will be discussed at surveillance (pending a successful outcome of this evaluation). 2 2020, European None given Not accepted (no Union, EASTERN score change) ATLANTIC AND Section 3.3.6 (p. 28): the PCDR asserts that the larger percent difference in TAC change compared to the percent MEDITERRANEAN difference in projected abundance is evidence that the TAC level is not very influential. This is an incorrect BLUEFIN TUNA statement since the tonnage related to abundance is an order of magnitude higher than the tonnage related FISHING, to the TAC, so using percentage to compare the two is misleading and in no way diminishes the impact of the FARMING, TAC on future abundance. INSPECTION AND CAPACITY MANAGEMENT PLAN CAB This would be true if the team had been comparing tonnage of TAC vs tonnage of abundance, but the point of comparing the relative proportions is to take account of the response difference in absolute magnitude. The percentages given are TAC/TAC and biomass/biomass. 3 Table 7 (p. 32) should be updated to better reflect the dramatic increases in fishing capacity allowed under Rec. None given None given Not accepted (no 18-02 and 19-04. For example, the EU's authorized number of longline vessels <24 m has almost doubled in the score change) last 3 years. The current table focuses only on farming capacity. CAB As noted above, Rec. 19-04 is not included in the analysis. response Table 7 was extremely difficult to put together. We recall that in one of our calls, Pew congratulated us on having created it. If Pew would like to be more specific about which part of Rec. 18-02 is missing from Table 7 in relation to fishing vessel capacity, we will certainly consider adding it. Please note that it is not a comparison of actual changes in fishing capacity over the last few years – it is merely a comparison of the management requirements in Recs 17-07 vs 18-02. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 338 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code 4 Section 3.3.9 (p. 33) dramatically underrepresents ICCAT's MSE efforts on EBFT and should be updated for None given None given Accepted (no accuracy. ICCAT's first MSE meeting was in December 2014 (Core Modelling Group meeting), not 2018 as the score change) PCDR asserts, and the original timeline set adoption for a fully specified harvest strategy in 2017. This would have been EBFT's first harvest strategy with an associated harvest control rule. Section 3.3.9 correctly.states that harvest strategy adoption has been pushed back to 2021. CAB response A mention has been added of the first meeting being in Dec 2014 (note it was nowhere stated that the 2018 meeting was the first meeting). 5 None given None given Accepted (no Tables 17 & 18 (p. 57-59) should be updated with 2019 measures, which are now in force. score change) CAB response Table 18 complemented to retain the format that was Peer Reviewed. 6 Section 3.5.3.1 (p. 68) should be updated to reflect the conceptual management objectives agreed by ICCAT in None given None given Accepted (no Resolution 18-03. score change) CAB response Done. 7 Section 3.5.7 (p. 76): ICCAT's two performance reviews to date were in 2008 and 2016. There is no agreement None given None given Accepted (no to independently evaluate ICCAT every 5 years as the PCDR asserts. score change) CAB Corrected, thank you. response 8 Section 3.4.4.1 (p. 45): The total ICCAT TAC for Med SWO was 10,185 in 2018 for all Parties. If the EU set its None given None given Accepted (no own quota at that same level, then it would have been out of compliance with the ICCAT measure. score change) CAB response Has been corrected, apologies. 9 None given None given Accepted (no p. 236: Ms. Shana Miller works for The Ocean Foundation, not Ocean Outcomes. score change) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 339 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code CAB response Again, apologies – we’re not sure how that happened. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 340 Appendix 5.3.5 ISSF Comments Principle 1 PI 1.1.1 – Stock status Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code It is not SCRS 2019 65 Accepted certain the 1.1.1(b) - Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY (material score stock is It is not certain that it is already fluctuating around BMSY (or B0.1, the proxy used by SCRS). The assessment team reduction to <80) already conducted an analysis from which they conclude that the timeframe requirements for halving the default recovery fluctuating time from two to one generation time (i.e. from 22 years to 11 years) is met. ISSF notes that the last year of data around BMSY. in the stock assessment (the “terminal year”) was 2015 and therefore it can not be stated with certainty that the SI(b) meets fishing mortality has been below F0.1 recently. It is evident that ICCAT has moved from a rebuilding plan to a SG60 but not general management plan, but it has not necessarily done so in a way that is consistent with SG80 for this PI. SG80. CAB response From 2007-2015 (terminal year of stock assessment), F was fluctuating around 50%F0.1 (see 1.1.1b). We accept that we do not have quantitative estimates of F from 2016 onwards, but although the TAC has increased incrementally, by no stretch of the imagination has it increased to the point of doubling F. Even if there were a catastrophe such as a recruitment collapse (for which there is no evidence - rather the reverse; see 1.1.1b) it would take more years than 2016-19 for this to impact the fishery, since due to the MLS the exploitation rate for fish age <10 is very low. We see no mechanism which would allow F to increase to this extent since 2015, except if the stock assessment itself were completely wrong. However, for other reasons (lack of clarity about how MSC intend us to estimate Generation Time) 1.1.1b has been reviewed and revised and is now scored as SG80 not met. Principle 3 PI 3.1.1 - Legal and/or customary framework Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code The Medley et al. 75 Not accepted (no independent The independent report by Medley et al. (2020) indicates that the fishery would only meet SG60 for SI 3.1.1.b (2020) score change) report by (Resolution of disputes) and that, as a result, the overall PI score would not meet SG80 at the regional level. Medley et al. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 341 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code (2020) 3.1.1.b: “ There are three mechanisms for dealing with legal disputes at the international level. Firstly, disputes can indicates that be dealt with at the annual meetings of the CPCs through consultation and conciliation. Secondly, technical disputes the fishery might be resolved by an appropriately composed expert or technical panel. Thirdly, disputes that remain would only unresolved might be resolved through either the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or the International Tribunal meet SG60 for the Law of the Sea. The first two mechanisms are arguably the main overall purpose of ICCAT. for SI 3.1.1.b (Resolution of ICCAT has no formal dispute resolution procedure within the convention. The need and mechanism for the disputes) and establishment of a formal dispute resolution is under on-going discussion by the Working Group on the Future of that, as a ICCAT and subsequently by the Working Group on Convention Amendment. The Working Groups discussed the result, the need to amend the ICCAT Convention text, and the existence of models for dispute resolution schemes in overall PI international texts that are already in force. In meetings through 2016 and 2017, the WG on Convention score would Amendment could not agree on dispute resolution language for the Convention. Spencer et al. also pointed out not meet the lack of a formal dispute resolution program. SG80 at the ICCAT (the Commission) is not subject to any court challenges as of 2017. There is no evidence that other entities regional level. flout the law, with the notable exception of particular fishing companies and fishing vessels, which are listed on the IUU fishing list. CPCs have avoided resorting to using international law to settle disputes. By resolving disputes through ICCAT meetings (being members of ICCAT and agreeing to abide by ICCAT provisions), the CPCs have pro- actively avoided legal disputes. 52 ICCAT contracting parties (in 2017, as published on website 20th Nov 2017), who along with observers and co- operating non-contracting parties, have representatives at ICCAT meetings. In accordance with the Convention, the Commission holds a regular meeting every other year and a special meeting in alternate years. The Commission can, on the basis of scientific evidence and of other relevant information, adopt recommendations and resolutions with the objective of maintaining ICCAT stocks around MSY. Negotiations on these occur both at technical and political levels. This system is transparent in that it makes sure that all members are fully informed of the issues under consideration and are able to participate in informed discussion. ICCAT requires that final decisions and the adoption of management recommendations may be made only in plenary at the annual meeting. However, disputes resolved in this way would still not necessarily be entirely transparent in the sense that how a resolution is reached may not be fully reported. However, independent observers, including NGO and IGOs, are present at such meetings and would observe any resolutions and justifications that are presented. Objections can be lodged against recommendations, eventually allowing any party to “opt out”. This could, at least in the short term, prevent timely dispute resolution due to the lack of an effective arbitration procedure. Objections have been used to prevent recommendations being fully implemented. Within the context of an international system, the dispute cannot override a nation’s sovereign rights, but nevertheless a better dispute mechanism could 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 342 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code be provided through providing formal arbitration and conciliation procedures to remove the necessity for objections over conservation issues. Perhaps not surprisingly, any provisions within ICCAT would not deal with disputes including Non-contracting Parties. It is capable of exercising sanction, however, as demonstrated by the sanctions levied against St Vincent & Grenadines. This should encourage all participants in the fishery to make use of the dispute resolution procedures that ICCAT offers. It is, at least in theory, possible for international disputes to be resolved through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) if they cannot be resolved in more efficient ways. This has been used by CPCs in other RFMOs (e.g. WCPFC: ITLOS Cases Nos 3 & 4 between New Zealand, Australia and Japan), but so far no cases have taken place among ICCAT members over issues relevant to tuna conservation. This recourse is most likely to be used by states which have ratified the UNFSA, in which such a provision is made. Therefore, where a fishery is not under the jurisdiction of a state which has ratified UNFSA, it may be questioned how effective this option would be. For states which have ratified UNFSA, it is likely this mechanism would be transparent and effective, meeting SG80. However, it has not been tested and proven effective yet, and therefore could not meet SG100. Non-Contracting Parties can apply to become Co-operating Non-contracting Parties, which implement the measures and requirements set by ICCAT, even if not becoming a full Contracting Party. There are explicit and transparent decision-making and dispute resolution mechanisms defined and in place, meeting SG60. However, the system cannot be considered fully effective with the current objections procedure, which does not represent “best practice”. The objectives can and have affected fisheries attempting to implement conservation measures, which prevents the fishery meeting SG80. Neither have the other dispute resolution procedures in existence been tested or proven to be effective. There are no outstanding disputes among members for the fisheries considered here, but no disputes have been referred to ICJ/ITLOS (checked 22 Nov 2017). The effectiveness of the other informal ICCAT mechanisms is unclear, and it seems likely many disputes are in abeyance rather than resolved. This may prevent these fisheries meeting SG100 even if the objections mechanism was improved.” CAB response Focusing on the resolution of possible international disputes, we note that the EU ratified the UNFSA in 1998. We quote Medley et al (2020) (as section quoted above) who conclude that “It is, at least in theory, possible for international disputes to be resolved through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) if they cannot be resolved in more efficient ways. This has been used by CPCs in other RFMOs (e.g. WCPFC: ITLOS Cases Nos 3 & 4 between New Zealand, Australia and Japan), but so far no cases have taken place among ICCAT members over issues relevant to tuna conservation. This recourse is most likely to be used by states which have ratified the UNFSA, in which such a provision is made. Therefore, where a fishery is not under the jurisdiction of a state which has ratified UNFSA, it may be questioned how effective this option would be. For states which have ratified UNFSA, it is likely this mechanism would be transparent and effective, meeting SG80.” 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 343 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code We have added this quote and reference in the scoring table. SG80 is met for SI(b). PI 3.1.2 - Consultation, roles and responsibilities Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response references change code The The independent report by Medley et al. (2019) indicates that the fishery would only meet SG60 for SI 3.1.2.a Medley et al. 75 3.1.2a Accepted independent (Roles and responsibilities) and SG80 for SI 3.1.2.b (Consultation processes) and that, as a result, the overall PI (2020) (non-material report by score would not meet SG80 at the regional level.: score reduction) Medley et al. (2019) 3.1.2.a: "ICCAT is itself an organization set up to define roles and responsibilities for its contracting parties and 3.1.2b Accepted indicates that co-operating non-contracting parties. These functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined. Among (non-material the fishery ICCAT’s responsibilities is to ensure that CPCs understand their areas of responsibility and interaction. ICCAT is score reduction) would only responsible for the coordination of research by member countries focused on the effects of fishing on stock meet SG60 for abundance, collection and analysis of information relative to current conditions and trends on the fishery SI 3.1.2.a (Roles resource in the area, and undertakes work in the compilation of data for other fish species caught incidentally, and such as sharks, that are not investigated by another international fishery organization. responsibilities) The performance of the Secretariat is sound and well regarded as both efficient and effective by CPCs. The CPCs and SG80 for SI themselves vary in their ability to perform their role, but the roles and responsibilities are nevertheless explicitly 3.1.2.b defined at least at the national level for key areas. Key areas include providing catch and monitoring data to the (Consultation ICCAT Secretariat, taking part in various meetings sharing information and making decisions, meeting the processes) and requirements for conservation and other recommendations for ICCAT and applying appropriate levels of control that, as a result, and surveillance. the overall PI score would With respect to implementing management controls, providing monitoring data and scientific research, tasks are not meet SG80 allocated, coordinated and monitored through ICCAT and its annual meetings. This system broadly works. at the regional Organizations and individuals involved in the management process in those cases limited to Contracting Parties level. will be well-defined for key areas. Roles and responsibilities are not well defined or well understood in many areas, however. ICCAT has had a number of problems with flag states that have not applied appropriate controls to their vessels, CPCs not submitting timely data and not in the correct form, and so on. Some problems in providing basic data on vessels and catches are likely due to a lack of understanding of requirements which appear to be complex. While these problems are not all in key areas in the sense that they do not prevent ICCAT completing many of its tasks, they nevertheless undermine its overall effectiveness and increase risks for fishery sustainability. The establishing of a capacity building fund (Rec. 13-19), a meeting participation fund (Rec. 14-14) and other programs could help. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 344 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response references change code For example, ICCAT has recently released video tutorials for the completion of some of its data submission forms, and is working on similar videos for the remaining forms. These could help address this problem. Hence the fisheries do not meet SG80 and SG100. Although roles within ICCAT and among its CPCs are well defined, these are not necessarily well understood by entities within nations. This would have to be evaluated for each fishery. Furthermore, while responsibilities might be understood, it does not follow that those responsibilities are met, as in the case of Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna. However, this problem, where it occurs, may be picked up under other performance indicators.” 3.1.2.b: "ICCAT has a procedure for regularly obtaining data, and monitoring data and catches from fishing activity in particular. Member countries have the responsibility to provide data required by ICCAT. ICCAT holds a plenary meeting every two years, and the ICCAT specialised working groups (comprised of scientists from the contracting parties) hold annual technical meetings. Data from the contracting parties and input from the specialist working groups provide the basis for ICCAT’s advice. . “Local knowledge” at the international level is assumed to refer to national information and experience. However, the Second Independent Review of ICCAT (Spencer et al. 2016) recommended a better balance of scientists with knowledge of the fishery and modelling expertise be sent to the assessment meetings of the SCRS and that ICCAT develops specific mechanisms to ensure that more scientists with knowledge of the fisheries participate in stock assessment meetings and are directly involved in assessment teams. Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Observer Status at ICCAT Meetings (Ref. 05-12) set the stage for NGO and parties’ participation as observers at ICCAT meetings. Both the 1st and 2nd Independent Reviews (Hurry et al. 2008; Spencer et al. 2016) recommended improvements to allowing NGO participation; however Spencer et al. noted that considerable improvements have been made: The ICCAT website contains a wealth of information and seems in general updated, even though its user friendliness could be improved. The ICCAT Secretariat is currently considering ways to re-structure the website. Access to ICCAT’s statistical databases is provided on ICCAT’s website, subject to the ICCAT Rules and Procedures on Data Confidentiality. ICCAT has in practice been reasonably transparent because the documents of the Annual ICCAT Meeting and many other ICCAT meetings are publicly available. Nevertheless, for some other meetings - including scientific meetings - only the meeting agenda and logistics information are publicly available while access to documents is password-protected. Commission Circulars are only available to CPCs by means of a password-protected part of the ICCAT Website, which is very common practice among RFMOs. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The scientific reports state exactly what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information which is rejected. This is best practice and meets SG100. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. Although much of this information can be inferred from various sources, it is not necessarily clear how different sources of information are weighted. This includes information on compliance, economics and social issues Therefore, these fisheries do not meet SG100 because the management system cannot demonstrate in all cases consideration of all the information or explain how it uses information in decisions." 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 345 Input summary Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response references change code CAB response 3.1.2a. In their analysis for this scoring issue, Medley et al (2020) stress that “Although roles within ICCAT and among its CPCs are well defined, these are not necessarily well understood by entities within nations. This would have to be evaluated for each fishery.” For the e-BFT fishery specifically, we argue that in France and the EU, all entities involved have explicitly defined and well understood functions, roles and responsibilities for key areas of responsibility and interaction. Therefore, for SI3.1.2 (a) SG80 is met at national level. . The team accepts that in the wider context of all ICCAT CPCs that could catch some e-BFT incidentally as its distribution range extends, this may not extend to all areas. Only SG80 is met. Score changed from SG100 to SG80, and text added to scoring table. 3.1.2b. The scoring rationale has been clarified and score changed from SG100 to SG80. PI 3.1.3 - Long term objectives Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code The The independent report by Medley et al. (2020) indicates that the fishery would only meet SG80 for this PI at the Medley et al. 80 Accepted (non- independent regional level: (2020) material score report by reduction) Medley et al. 3.1.3.a: "The ICCAT Basic Texts provide clear, long-term objectives that guide decision making under Principle 1. (2020) The long-term objectives for each stock are clear enough that the science-based advice and management of these indicates that stocks can be evaluated. the fishery The original ICCAT Convention had no explicit provision regarding the precautionary approach or ecosystem-based would only management which forms part of the MSC Principles and Criteria, although there was evidence that these meet SG80 principles were being applied in fisheries management, albeit implicitly. for this PI at the regional Evidence of applying the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based management include bycatch reduction level. programs, monitoring of ecosystem indicators and precautionary management measures. The ecosystem approach is not explicit, but underpins the reason for many ICCAT activities. ICCAT has undertaken the collection of data on bycatch, including seabirds and sharks, research on biological and physical oceanography. In addition, ICCAT has banned the use of high-seas driftnets and shark finning, encouraged the live release of billfish and juvenile bluefin tuna and encouraged the use of circle hooks to reduce sea turtle mortalities, all of which imply the precautionary and ecosystem approaches to management. ICCAT has also formed a committee on Ecosystem Monitoring. However, being implicit has allowed considerable leeway to some CPCs who do not appear to take some of these aspects of management seriously. At its 2015 meeting, ICCAT adopted Resolution 2015-12 which states that the Commission should apply a precautionary approach, in accordance with relevant international standards. The formulation of the resolution is entirely consistent with the UN Fish Stock Agreement and with the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 346 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code Resolution 15-11 states that the Commission should apply an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. The formulation of the resolution is consistent with international texts. These Resolutions deal explicitly with Principle 1 and Principle 2 of the MSC Principles and Criteria. However, Resolutions are not mandatory, so the precautionary approach is not required by management policy. This meets the SG80, but only partially meets the SG100." CAB response Score changed from SG100 to SG80, and text added to scoring table. PI 3.2.3 - Compliance and enforcement Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code The The independent report by Medley et al. (2020) indicates that the fishery would only meet SG60 for SI 3.2.3.b Medley et al. 75 Not accepted (no independent (Sanctions) and that, as a result, the overall PI score would not meet SG80 at the regional level: (2020) score change) report by Medley et al. 3.2.3.b: “Conservation measures, including annual landings quotas are set by ICCAT, but enforcement is carried out (2020) by the national authorities. Although flag states are supposed to control the activities of their vessels, it is indicates that recognized that there are weaknesses and CPCs are given authority to check and apply controls to such vessels. A the fishery register of vessels that flout ICCAT conservation measures is maintained and shared with other RFMOs. These would only vessels should be restricted in their fishing opportunities once they are recognized in this way. meet SG60 The most serious sanctions that can be applied collectively by the members of an RFMO are blacklisting of member for SI 3.2.3.b vessels and quota reductions. These have been applied to a limited extent in ICCAT. (Sanctions) and that, as a The blacklisting of non-member vessels (IUU lists) has become a widespread practice among all RFMOs including result, the ICCAT. ICCAT has also introduced a system for blacklisting vessels flying the flags of members that have been overall PI engaged in IUU fishing, although this has not been effective. Only CCAMLR has used this system to any extent and score would therefore represents best practice in this regard. not meet SG80 at the An example of a sanction on a non-Contracting Party is the quota limit applied to Chinese Taipei for activities in the regional level. bigeye tuna fishery. The sanction consisted in cutting the 2006 quota of bigeye tuna from what could have been 16 500t to 4 600t. In addition, ICCAT stipulated Chinese Taipei vessels must have a maximum of 15 vessels targeting bigeye reduced from approximately 100 vessels in 2005. Punitive measures are also applied to discourage flouting agreements. If an ICCAT member nation exceeds its catch limit for two consecutive management periods, ICCAT will recommend appropriate measures including, but not 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 347 Input Input detail Evidence or Suggested score CAB response summary references change code limited to, reduction in the catch limit equal to 125% of the overage, and if necessary, trade measures. Such measures have been applied to the EU for example. Also, ICCAT has adopted framework provisions enabling trade restrictive measures to be taken against individual States if necessary, but only when other actions either have proved to be unsuccessful or would not be effective, and after due process. Although also available to other RFMOs, ICCAT is the only RFMO to have used trade- restrictive measures against an individual State. It currently has import bans in place against Bolivia and Georgia, neither of which is a member of ICCAT. On the whole, sanctions appear to be applied among countries consistent with their involvement in ICCAT. The most serious sanctions have been applied to countries and fishing entities which are not members of ICCAT. Sanctions applied to CPCs have generally been weak. Sanctions are not fully effective as a deterrent. At the extreme end, Mediterranean bluefin tuna conservation agreements appear constantly to be in difficulty, and, although bluefin is outside the scope of this report, some vessels appear to believe that they can flout the same basic management system which is applied to all fisheries. There are constant problems with other fisheries (see ICCAT Compliance Tables), presumably because the perpetrators feel they have a reasonable chance of not suffering sanctions or that sanctions are too weak. However, many issues of non-compliance in relation to providing data and information may also be due to limits on technical capacity in the responsible management authorities, particularly developing countries. It is noticeable that in responding to each State’s compliance issues, the Compliance Committee intends to write to each State requesting improvements in data provided. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance certainly exist and there is evidence that they are applied, meeting SG60. However, evidence suggests that they are not an effective deterrent, which does not meet SG80. Given that individual assessments are dealing with the fishery-specific enforcement and compliance system here, however, it may be that individual fisheries can score higher based on national enforcement systems.” CAB response 3.2.3b: It is the team’s analysis that evidence on the fishery-specific enforcement and compliance system has demonstrated its effectiveness and SG80 is met. Text has been added to clarify the rationale as a result of an MSC Technical Oversight notice. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 348 Client Action Plan Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB summary score change response code Client ISSF supports the condition established in the PCDR towards implementation by ICCAT of robust '- None given Accepted (no Action Plan Harvest Control Rules for East Atlantic bluefin tuna. As regards the Client Action Plan to meet this https://www.wcpfc.int/node/44923 score change) condition, ISSF acknowledges all advocacy activities described and would like to suggest additional specific actions for the Client to consider: 1) Publicly support the high-level appeals for RFMOs developed by global NGOs that are - https://iss-foundation.org/what- participants in the NGO Tuna Forum (noting that SATHOAN did not sign onto the Forum’s global RFMO we-do/influence/position- appeal letter in 2019 that was sent directly to RFMOs;(https://www.wcpfc.int/node/44923)). statements For 2020, global appeals letters will no longer be sent to each RFMO. Instead, the Forum's high-level appeals, along with all the logos of current and new company signatories, will be a living public statement of support available on the NGO Tuna Forum's website. In 2020, companies will have the opportunity to engage in other direct RFMO advocacy tactics to demonstrate market support for specific tuna sustainability asks at each RFMO. NGO participants in the NGO Tuna Forum will be reaching out to market partners with these opportunities in the coming months. SATHOAN should publicly support the high-level appeals for RFMOs developed by the global NGO Tuna Forum. In order to attach its logo to the living statement of support, contact Ms. Dana Pruchnicki ([email protected]) 2) Advocate for accelerated progress on the adoption and implementation of robust Harvest Control Rules through the ICCAT both individually, and in collaboration with other fisheries targeting Atlantic bluefin tuna that are also seeking MSC certification; 3) Publicly support ISSF Position Statements that contain detailed asks on Harvest Control Rules for all ICCAT tuna species to future ICCAT Regular Sessions of the Commission and document that support (e.g. by submitting a letter or some other communication citing the Position Statement); and 4) Have meetings with relevant ICCAT delegations where SATHOAN has business interests to advocate for the adoption of Harvest Strategies. Client OP SATHOAN is committed to publicly supporting the high-level appeals for RFMOs developed by the global NGO Tuna Forum. response (SATHOAN logo is sent to [email protected] to be joint to the statement of support ) SATHOAN agrees to carry out proposed actions 2 to 4. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 349 Input Input detail Evidence or references Suggested CAB summary score change response code But SATHOAN PO does not have an observer seat in ICCAT and simply operates under the banner of the EU. However, the PO is strengthening its links with the NGOs WWF and PEW and in this context has planned a meeting in 2020 to improve things. Letter of ISSF notes that according to the Client Action Plan, IFREMER and DPMA will play an important role in Final Report of the Solomon Islands None given Accepted (no support meeting the milestones of the conditions set. However, the PCDR contains no clear commitment from longline albacore and yellowfin tuna score change) IFREMER or DPMA themselves. In PCDRs from other tuna fisheries that have obtained MSC fishery certification in recent years, the evidence of government support and involvement presented consisted of a letter from the national fisheries agency or ministry of fisheries stating their conformity and commitment to the milestones and actions described in the Client’s Action Plan (see for example the Final Report of the Solomon Islands longline albacore and yellowfin tuna fishery (P.279)). Client Proof of the commitments of IFREMER and decentralized State services is provided by response 1) the attendance sheet at the first meeting of the steering committee (signed by the representatives of IFREMER - J. Bourjea and DIRM - Jean-Luc DESFORGES); 2) the minutes of the meeting specifying the action plan and stakeholder involvement signed by the representatives at the meeting. (Cf document signed by the parties) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 350 Appendix 6 Surveillance Frequency The surveillance level for this fishery is set at the default level (Level 6), requiring 4 annual on-site audits. Surveillance Level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level 6 On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance audit audit audit audit & re- certification site visit 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 351 Appendix 7 Objections Process No objections were received. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 352 Appendix 8 Specially Protected Areas of Mediterranean Importance (SPAMIs) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 353 Appendix 9 ICCAT Bluefin Tuna Catch Document (BCD) 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 354 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 355 Appendix 10 List of designated BFT landing ports in France and Spain Extracted from https://www.iccat.int/en/ports.asp on 22 October 2020. Port Country Port Code Authorized From Authorized To BFT Authorized BFT Authorized Port Country Port Code From To Agde EU.France FRAGD 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Antibes EU.France FRANT 04-01-19 03-01-20 Arcachon EU.France FRARC 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Bastia EU.France FRBIA 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Bayonne EU.France FRBAY 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Bonifacio EU.France FRBON 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Brest EU.France FRBES 04-01-19 03-01-20 Cagnes sur mer EU.France FRCME 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Calvi EU.France FRCLY 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Carnon EU.France FRNPG 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Carry-le-Rouet EU.France FRRYR 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Centuri EU.France FRCN5 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Cherbourg EU.France FRCER 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Cogolin EU.France FRCQK 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Concarneau EU.France FRCOC 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Douarnenez EU.France FRDRZ 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Frontignan plage EU.France FRFRO 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Galéria EU.France FRGLA 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Granville EU.France FRGFR 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Grau-du-Roi EU.France FRLGR 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Gruissan EU.France FRWGE 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Hyères EU.France FRHYR 04-01-20 3/31/2021 La Cotinière EU.France FRLC5 04-01-20 3/31/2021 La Rochelle EU.France FRLRH 04-01-20 3/31/2021 La Turballe EU.France FRTBE 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Le Conquet EU.France FRLCQ 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Le Guilvinec EU.France FRGVC 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Le Lavandou EU.France FRVNO 04-01-20 3/31/2021 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 356 Port Country Port Code Authorized From Authorized To Les Sables d’Olonne EU.France FRLSO 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Les Saintes-Maries-de-la- mer EU.France FRMM8 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Leucate EU.France FRUTE 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Lorient EU.France FRLRT 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Marseille EU.France FRMRS 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Martigues EU.France FRMTU 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Menton EU.France FRETN 04-01-20 03-01-21 Palavas-les-flots EU.France FRPAF 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Port de Bouc EU.France FRPDB 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Port de Tizzano EU.France FRTIZ 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Port-Saint-Louis-du-Rhône EU.France FRPSL 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Port-Vendres EU.France FRPOV 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Port-la-Nouvelle EU.France FRNOU 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Porto-Vecchio EU.France FRPVO 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Quiberon EU.France FRQUI 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Roscoff EU.France FRRCF 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Royan EU.France FRRYN 04-01-20 Saint Jean Cap Ferra EU.France FRJCP 01-01-20 3/31/2021 Saint-Cyprien EU.France FRS2C 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Saint-Florent EU.France FRZFB 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Saint-Jean-de-Luz EU.France FRZJZ 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Saint-Raphaël EU.France FRSRL 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Saint-quay-portrieux EU.France FRSQ2 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Sanary EU.France FRYNR 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Santa Maria Poghju EU.France FRSMP 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Sari-Solenzara EU.France FRSOZ 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Sète EU.France FRSET 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Théoule sur mer EU.France FRTS2 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Toulon EU.France FRTLN 04-01-20 3/31/2021 Vallauris Golfe du Juan EU.France FRVGJ 04-01-20 3/31/2021 le Barcarès EU.France FRBE6 04-01-20 3/31/2021 A CORUÑA EU.España ESLCG 05-04-20 12/31/2020 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 357 Port Country Port Code Authorized From Authorized To ADRA EU.España ESADR 04-06-20 12/31/2020 AGAETE EU.España ESAGA 2/20/2020 03-01-21 ALCUDIA EU.España ESALD 03-01-20 03-01-21 ALGECIRAS EU.España ESALG 03-01-20 03-01-21 ALICANTE EU.España ESALC 03-01-20 03-01-21 AMETLLA DE MAR EU.España ESKLL 03-01-20 03-01-21 ANDRATX EU.España ESAND 04-06-20 12/31/2020 ARENYS DE MAR EU.España ESARN 03-01-20 03-01-21 ARGUINEGUIN EU.España ESARI 2/20/2020 03-01-21 ARRECIFE DE LANZAROTE EU.España ESACE 2/20/2020 03-01-21 AVILES EU.España ESAVS 05-04-20 12/31/2020 AZOHIA EU.España ESAZH 03-01-20 03-01-21 BARBATE EU.España ESBDF 03-01-20 03-01-21 BENICARLO EU.España ESBNI 04-06-20 12/31/2020 BERMEO EU.España ESBRM 03-01-20 03-01-21 BLANES EU.España ESBLA 03-01-20 03-01-21 BURELA EU.España ESBRL 05-04-20 12/31/2020 CADIZ EU.España ESCAD 03-01-20 03-01-21 CALA BONA EU.España ESCAB 04-06-20 12/31/2020 CALA RATJADA EU.España ESCEM 03-01-20 03-01-21 CALETA DE VELEZ EU.España ESVMG 04-06-20 12/31/2020 CALPE EU.España ESCLP 04-06-20 12/31/2020 CAMBRILS EU.España ESCBL 04-06-20 12/31/2020 CARBONERAS EU.España ESCRS 03-01-20 03-01-21 CARTAGENA EU.España ESCAR 03-01-20 03-01-21 CASTELLON EU.España ESCAS 03-01-20 03-01-21 CELEIRO EU.España ESCIO 05-04-20 12/31/2020 CIUTADELA EU.España ESQIU 04-06-20 12/31/2020 COLINDRES EU.España ESCOD 03-01-20 03-01-21 COLONIA DE SANT JORDI EU.España ESCSB 04-06-20 12/31/2020 CONIL EU.España ESZEA 03-01-20 03-01-21 CORRALEJO EU.España ESQFU 2/20/2020 03-01-21 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 358 Port Country Port Code Authorized From Authorized To CULLERA EU.España ESERA 04-06-20 12/31/2020 ESTEPONA EU.España ESEPN 04-06-20 12/31/2020 FORMENTERA EU.España ESFNI 04-06-20 12/31/2020 FORNELLS EU.España ESFRN 04-06-20 12/31/2020 GANDIA EU.España ESGAN 04-06-20 12/31/2020 GIJON EU.España ESGIJ 03-01-20 03-01-21 GRAN TARAJAL EU.España ESGTL 2/20/2020 03-01-21 GUETARIA EU.España ESGET 03-01-20 03-01-21 HONDARRIBIA EU.España ESEWE 03-01-20 03-01-21 IBIZA EU.España ESIBZ 04-06-20 12/31/2020 JAVEA EU.España ESJAV 03-01-20 03-01-21 L'ESCALA EU.España ESGLE 04-06-20 12/31/2020 LA RESTINGA EU.España ESLAF 2/20/2020 03-01-21 LAREDO EU.España ESLDO 03-01-19 03-01-21 LAS CASAS DE ALCANAR EU.España ESCDK 04-06-20 12/31/2020 LAS PALMAS EU.España ESLPX 03-01-20 03-01-21 LLANÇA EU.España ESLLC 03-01-20 03-01-21 LOS CRISTIANOS EU.España ESLCR 2/20/2020 03-01-21 MAHON EU.España ESMAH 04-06-20 12/31/2020 MAZARRON EU.España ESMZO 04-06-20 12/31/2020 MOGAN EU.España ESZIH 2/20/2020 03-01-21 MORRO JABLE EU.España ESMHR 2/20/2020 03-01-21 MOTRIL EU.España ESMOT 04-06-20 12/31/2020 ONDARROA EU.España ESOND 03-01-20 03-01-21 PALAMOS EU.España ESPAL 04-06-20 12/31/2020 PALMA DE MALLORCA EU.España ESPMI 03-01-20 03-01-21 PASAJES EU.España ESPAS 03-01-20 03-01-21 PEÑISCOLA EU.España ESPNL 04-06-20 12/31/2020 PLAYA DE SAN JUAN EU.España ESPSJ 2/20/2020 03-01-21 PLAYA SANTIAGO EU.España ESPPS 2/20/2020 03-01-21 POLLENÇA EU.España ESPSA 04-06-20 12/31/2020 PORT DE LA SELVA EU.España ESQAJ 04-06-20 12/31/2020 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 359 Port Country Port Code Authorized From Authorized To PORTO COLOM EU.España ESPRD 04-06-20 12/31/2020 PUERTO DEL ROSARIO EU.España ESFUE 2/20/2020 03-01-21 ROQUETAS DE MAR EU.España ESRQM 03-01-20 03-01-21 ROSES EU.España ESROS 04-06-20 12/31/2020 SAN ANTONI DE PORTMANY EU.España ESSAA 04-06-20 12/31/2020 SAN PEDRO DEL PINATAR EU.España ESPPI 03-01-20 03-01-21 SAN VICENTE DE LA BARQUERA EU.España ESSVB 05-04-20 12/31/2020 SANT CARLES DE LA RAPITA EU.España ESSCR 03-01-20 03-01-21 SANT FELIU DE GUIXOLS EU.España ESSFU 03-01-20 03-01-21 SANTA CRUZ DE TENERIFE EU.España ESSCT 03-01-20 03-01-21 SANTA POLA EU.España ESSPO 04-06-20 12/31/2020 SANTANDER EU.España ESSDR 05-04-20 12/31/2020 SANTANYI EU.España ESSNY 04-06-20 12/31/2020 SANTOÑA EU.España ESSNN 03-01-20 03-01-21 SOLLER EU.España ESSOL 04-06-20 12/31/2020 TALIARTE EU.España ESTAN 2/20/2020 03-01-21 TARIFA EU.España ESTRF 03-01-20 03-01-21 TARRAGONA EU.España ESTAR 03-01-20 03-01-21 TAZACORTE EU.España ESTAZ 2/20/2020 03-01-21 TORREDEMBARRA EU.España ESTRR 04-06-20 12/31/2020 TORREVIEJA EU.España ESTOR 03-01-20 03-01-21 VIGO EU.España ESVGO 03-01-20 03-01-21 VILANOVA I LA GELTRÚ EU.España ESVLG 03-01-20 03-01-21 VILLAJOYOSA EU.España ESVJY 04-06-20 12/31/2020 VINAROZ EU.España ESVZR 03-01-20 03-01-21 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 360 Appendix 11 Principle 2 Client Action Plan Action plan to increase qualitative and quantitative information to manage and assess the impact of the UoA on other species which are not landed (and specially sharks, pelagic stingrays, sea turtles and ETP seabirds) Key data sources on interactions with non-target species are logbook for the landed catches, and data collected as part of the French national observer programme (Obsmer) for the unlanded catches. However : 1) The quality and completeness of the logbook data recorded by France Agri Mer are discussed because of the loss of information during data entry and lack of data verification. 2) Observer coverage appears to be low for the UoA, corresponding to about 0.5% of the overall effort in terms of trips. So an action plan is implemented by OP SATHOAN to increase the quality and quantitative information to manage and assess the impact of the UoA on other species. Fishing activities and possible interactions: Since 2019: Transmission to the PO by all UoC vessels of the fishing location of each fishing trips and integration in the database: for vessels less than 12 m manual entry of the GPS point of the set longline in the logbook, for larger vessels direct transmission to the PO of the electronic logbook and VMS information. Landed catches: Since 2019 - Recording of every individual swordfish (mandatory since 2018, traceability system and quota monitoring similar to that for the bluefin tuna / SWO specific tags obtained from DPMA) - Entry by the PO of all data noted on the fishing logsheets (= all catches landed for all species with the weight of each catch and any other information are recorded by the vessel) for all fishing trips in PO’s database. - Produce Annual report on the data available and comparison between PO data and data entered by FranceAgriMer available via SIOP, to be discussed at CNPMEM meetings. - Formal request from PO to FranceAgriMer to validate for fishing and logbook returns, through CNPMEM. Catches that are released and not landed (Blue shark – BSH and juvenile swordfish – SWO, Pelagic stingrays, ETP species): 3) Assure implementation of the strategy in place for managing unwanted catches and recording data on impact Since 2019, each year: At the beginning of the season, all release and information rules are reminded to all vessel skippers in the UoC (release in survival conditions and systematic recording of all catches on Echosea App (paper or electronic). During the season : On-board verification (1 check per year on each vessel) by a PO-mandated agent Verification report and corrective action if necessary Weekly verification and recording of received data from Echosea and notebooks Assessment of the recording and presentation summary report to vessels as a reminder of the rules. Recording by PO agent of received data 4) Improved monitoring and data collection tools and assess the impact of the UoA on other species which are not landed Year 1 Carrying out an inventory of available data to assess the impact of the fishery Setting up of a steering committee to monitor data collected via Echosea by associating IFREMER, DPMA, CPMR, AFB (Marine Park), LPO-Birdlife, CestMed and Ailerons (Shark protection NGO) with annual meetings; Report of available data to evaluate interactions by species (sharks, rays, turtles, birds, …) Action plan Implementation of the conclusions Verification and demonstration during on-board checks (1 check per year on each ship) Verification reports Continuation of the collection of information 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 361 Updated data base First annual meeting of the steering committee with review of existing data collection provisions and propose improvements (registration modalities, additional mechanism to be put in place); Meeting minutes Action plan Year 2: Implementation of the conclusions Verification and demonstration during on-board checks (1 check per year on each ship) Verification reports Continuation of the collection of information Updated data base Preparation of annual data reports by species Annual meeting of the steering committee: presentation / exchange of data Updated data report Updated action plan Review of means of monitoring compliance with good practices by ships Year 3: Implementation of the conclusions Updated Good practices and reports Updated monitoring plan Verification and demonstration during on-board checks (1 check per year on each ship) Verification reports Continuation of the collection of information Updated data base Preparation by PO of annual reports Annual report of controls Annual data report by species Direct impacts monitored and evaluated through a scientific research post-graduate project to monitor the fishery’s potential direct impacts on marine turtles and seabirds (post graduate student project in collaboration with the Marine Park) Assessment report of the direct impact of the UoA on sea turtles and seabirds Annual meeting of the steering committee: presentation / exchange of data Updated data report organized by species Updated action plan Review of means of monitoring compliance with good practices by ships Assessment report of the direct impact of the UoA on sea turtles and seabirds showing that it does not hinder their recovery. Report of Fishery’s impacts on ETP species and on the effectiveness of management measures Year 4: Implementation of the conclusions Updated Good practices and reports Updated monitoring plan Verification and demonstration during on-board checks (1 check per year on each ship) Verification reports Continuation of the collection of information Updated data base Scientific research (post-graduate project) to devise a standardized pelagic catch per unit of effort (CPUE) indicator to follow potential impact on pelagic ray mortality. Data are available to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Preparation of annual reports Annual report of controls Annual data report to evaluate interactions by species 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 362 Annual meeting of the steering committee: presentation / exchange of data Updated data report organized by species Updated action plan Review of means of monitoring compliance with good practices by ships Report of Fishery’s impacts on ETP species and on the effectiveness of management measures Assessment report of the direct impact of the UoA on sea turtles and seabirds showing that it does not hinder their recovery. Reviewed proposal rules to manage the UoA’s impact on stingray and nd takes into account seasonal and spatial catch patterns Implementation of the conclusions 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 363 Appendix 12 Echosea Steering Committee 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 364 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 365 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 366 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 367 Note: Thierry Micol attended remotely. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 368 Appendix 13 Echosea/Obsenpêche meeting 19 May 2020 Relevé de conclusions échanges Echosea/Obsenpêche 19 mai 2020 Structures participantes : CNPMEM, OP Sathoan, OFB (service Usages et gestion de la biodiversité, Délégation de façade Atlantique – animation PNA puffins, Délégation de façade Manche mer du Nord, PNM Golfe du Lion, PNM estuaire de la Gironde et mer des pertuis, PNM du Bassin d’Arcachon, PNM Iroise, PNM estuaires picards et mer d’Opale). Une réunion d’échanges a été organisée le 19 mai concernant les deux applications développées Obsenpêche (adaptation d’Obsenmer) en Atlantique et Echosea en Méditerranéepermettant aux marins pêcheurs professionnels de déclarer leurs captures accidentelles d’espèces protégées ainsi que leurs observations de présence de ces espèces. Il s’agissait d’envisager des mutualisations entre ces outils, d’analyser les difficultés et éventuels points forts de chaque outil et d’échanger sur leur mise en œuvre et l’animation. Cet échange se plaçait également dans la perspective des actions à mener dans le cadre du Plan national d’action du puffins des Baléares en cours d’élaboration et a bénéficié du retour d’expériences du programme Sturio concernant l’esturgeon européen animé par le CNPMEM. Plusieurs points ont été discutés en lien avec l’utilisation des deux outils : - L’utilisation des données (avec le lien potentiel avec l’analyse de risque pêche Natura 2000 et la possibilité que les données collectées conduisent à des mesures), - Comment inciter les pêcheurs à participer / contribuer ? - Quelle fiabilité des données (déclarative) ? Sur ces différents points, on peut noter que pour Echosea, l’utilisation de l’application permettant un suivi des captures accidentelles d’espèces protégées est motivée par la certification « thon rouge de ligne », puis l’écolabel français « pêche durable », la valorisation est donc une motivation pour les patrons. Sur la fiabilité les participants ont convenu qu’il ne fallait pas surinvestir ces outils concernant les déclarations de captures accidentelles mais qu’il convenait de croiser toutes les sources de données disponibles. Sur l’utilisation des données, la confiance est fondamentale, il apparait donc nécessaire d’être très clair sur les possibles utilisations in fine des données collectées. • Obsenpêche : Objectifs : constituer un réseau de pêcheurs sentinelles dans le Golfe de Gascogne qui collecte de l’information sur les observations de mammifères marins autour des navires de pêche et/ou les captures accidentelles de manière fine. L’objectif est d’apporter de la connaissance sur la répartition des mammifères marins, de mieux comprendre le phénomène de captures accidentelles particulièrement de dauphins communs dans le Golfe de Gascogne et le cas échéant d’utiliser l’informations pour envisager une gestion spatio-temporelle en temps réel de l’activité de pêche. Le projet est réalisé en partenariat entre le GECC (Obsenmer), le CNPMEM (administrateur du programme Obsenpêche) et l'OFB (qui finance l’adaptation d’Obsenmer). FFP a financé en 2020 l’animation du dispositif auprès du CNPMEM. L’application s’est appuyée sur l’application Obsenmer qui vise la collecte de données naturaliste en sciences participatives ou en mode expert pour les suivis dans les aires marines protégées. - 20 navires inscrits (mi-mai), puis 24 navires fin juillet, - Les patrons n’ont utilisé à ce stade que l’outil de déclaration des observations, - L’application demande du temps initialement pour renseigner tous les engins du navire et cela ne peut se faire que sur un ordinateur et pas directement sur l’application. Cela prend 5 à 10 min pour renseigner 3-4 types de filets différents, 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 369 - Un lien avec les OP de rattachement des navires est important à réaliser car cela permettra de croiser les déclarations (observations ou captures) avec l’activité des navires partenaires, - La position GPS est enregistrée automatiquement, elle peut aussi être renseignée ultérieurement, - L’utilisation en temps réel n’est aujourd’hui pas possible sauf si du wifi est disponible à bord ou pour les navires très côtiers (à portée du réseau GSM). Concernant l’utilisation des données, le CNPMEM est administrateur et peut définir qui a accès à la donnée. Le patron qui déclare reste le propriétaire de ses données. Le patron qui s’engage dansla démarche doit accepter les conditions d’utilisation qui sont les suivantes – case à cocher oui/non : « Les données brutes non anonymes d’un professionnel ne seront accessibles qu’à l’administrateur du programme (CNPMEM) ainsi qu’aux structures professionnelles auxquelles il est rattaché (CRPMEM, OP le cas échéant). Seules des données anonymes pourront être transmises à des instituts scientifiques et techniques associés au projet ObsenPêche, notamment l’Observatoire Pelagis. L’anonymisation de ces données sera réalisée par l’administrateur du programme (CNPMEM). Seules des données agrégées et ne permettant pas l’identification individuelle des navires pourront faire l’objet de communications externes au projet. Les modalités d’agrégation et de diffusion seront définies par le comité de pilotage du projet comprenant le CNPMEM, les CRPMEM de Bretagne, des Pays de Loire et de Nouvelle-Aquitaine, les OP Les Pêcheurs de Bretagne, OP Vendée, FROM Sud-Ouest et Pêcheurs d’Aquitaine, l’AGLIA, l’OFB, le GECC, la DPMA et l’Observatoire Pelagis. » Un bilan sera réalisé fin juillet 2020. Le recrutement des patrons a été réalisé lors des enquêtes réalisées dans le cadre du projet FEAMP LICADO. 60 patrons ont été enquêtés et 20 se sont montrés intéressés, puis 2 autres patrons sont ensuite venus rejoindre le projet via les comités. Une fiche d’informations et une affiche ont diffusés auprès des OP et comités. Le chargé de mission a souligné la forte animation nécessaire pour maintenir une implication des professionnels. • Echosea L’application a été développée par l’AMOP en lien avec l’OP Sathoan qui continue l’animation et avec l’appui de l’IFREMER dans le cadre des projets SELPAL et Raipast entre 2014 et 2016. Initialement un carnet à poinçon avait été mis à disposition des patrons. Puis une application a été développée pour faciliter la saisie. Depuis 2018-2019, l’application est disponible en ligne et peuvent être renseignés un compte naturaliste et un compte pêcheur. Grâce à un autre projet, les fiches « espèces » ont été améliorées et des cartes satellites météo (windy.com) ont été mises à disposition des pêcheurs participants dans l’application. Cette information est accessible pour les comptes « pêcheurs » et les comptes « naturalistes ». Les informations sur les captures ne sont partagées qu’entre les comptes « pêcheurs ». Objectif = réduire les captures accidentelles/accessoires en proposant des cartes d’évitement aux professionnels. Des informations sur le type d’espèces et les quantités capturées (densité) sont fournies. - Une 50 aine de pêcheurs participent (adhérents à l’OP Sathoan et l’Op du Sud). - Les informations sont disponibles 7 jours glissants dans l’appli. - Les engins de pêche ne sont pas définis dans l’application => cela pourrait être une évolution pour suivre les captures par engins/métiers. Actuellement les OP peuvent recouper la déclaration avec les fiches de pêche et log book après coup si nécessaire, mais actuellement cela cible les navires ciblant le thon rouge à la ligne et la palangre. - L’application n’a pas été proposée aux espagnols, mais pourrait l’être (attente de consolidation). - L’application est obligatoire pour l’écolabel « pêche durable » depuis janvier 2020. - Une animation importante sur toute l’année est nécessaire. - Des espèces peuvent être ajoutées au besoin, elle peut être utilisée par tous les petits métiers. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 370 • Discussion/réflexion sur la poursuite et éventuelle extension de ces programmes : L’AMOP souhaiterait améliorer les questions de gestion des données / confidentialité en se rapprochant du modèle développé pour Obsenpêche avec le CNPMEM. Concernant les échanges de données, notamment sur la zone méditerranéenne entre Obsenmer et Echosea, Obsenmer/Obsenpêche repose sur une base de données en ligne post grey. Des webservices / flux peuvent être mise en ligne. Un travail est en cours entre le GECC et l’OFB (base de données mammifères marins) pour mettre en place ces flux => un retour d’expériences pourra être fait pour envisager les échanges possibles entre Obsenmer et Echosea. Une réunion dédiée avec la délégation de façade Méditerranée de l’OFB (Anne Salvado, géomaticienne), le GECC et l’OP Sathoan pour Echosea pourra être organisé après l’été. Par ailleurs, une réflexion commune sur la mutualisation des données naturalistes pourrait être réalisée à cette occasion. Concernant le développement de ces outils sur les oiseaux marins, la problème de la reconnaissance des espèces se posent. Echosea permet de charger des photos pour vérifier l’espèce capturée/observée. Pour Obsenpêche également des photos peuvent être jointes aux observations => L’outil photos sera essentiel pour les oiseaux pour valider les espèces. Pour Obsenpêche, un programme « puffins des Baléares » comme le programme Obsenpêche sur les mammifères marins peut être créé sur le même modèle. Il conviendra de compléter les fiches « engins » avec les engins à risques pour cette espèce => un travail de création des formulaires « engins » est à réaliser pour envisager un programme « puffin des Baléares » dans Obsenpêche. Pour Echosea, aucune fiche engins n’a été créée jusqu’à présent, à faire pour faciliter l’analyse des capture et mieux qualifier les interactions. Les fiches « espèces » oiseaux (puffins baléares et yelkouan) sont disponibles sur Echosea. L’animation sera le point clé de la réussite des programmes en cours et de leur possible extension. Pour le puffin, le PNA prévoit de s’appuyer sur des sites pilotes, l’animation pourrait donc peut-être confiée au niveau local à un de ces sites, l’outil pourrait être testé à l’échelle d’un site uniquement. Une mutualisation en Atlantique entre Obsenpêche mammifères marins et puffins devra être envisagée => à rediscuter. Le PNA puffins des Baléares s’appuiera donc sur les outils Obsenpêche en Atlantique et Echosea en Méditerranée. Le projet sturio présenté par le CNPMEM a montré l’importance du travail d’animation qui est mené à la fois au niveau local (sur le secteur de plus forte présence de l’espèce) et au niveau national. Pour chaque déclaration, le pêcheur est contacté par téléphone, une lettre lui est adressée et un cadeau symbolique (casquette ou autre) lui est adressé. Environ 90% des esturgeons capturés repartent vivants à l’eau d’où l’intérêt de la relâche. A chaque contact avec les pêcheurs, les bonnes pratiques de relâché sont rappelées et les pêcheurs sont valorisés dans leur action de déclaration/relâché. Une réunion locale avec les pêcheurs estuariens de la Gironde est organisée et les résultats du programme sont présentés. Le programme existe depuis environ 15 ans, un programme avec des actions de sensibilisation via les Comité Consultatifs ont été organisés au niveau européen. Concernant l’animation, cela a constitué environ 1 temps sur 2-3 ans (2006-2008), puis actuellement cela représente environ 35% d’un temps plein à l’année. En 2018, 110 déclarations étaient recensées. La sensibilisation/information doit être maintenue dans le temps, les automatismes ne déclarations ne sont jamais acquis. Marie Lecomte (animatrice sturio CNPMEM) se renseignera sur le nombre de pêcheurs participants aux réunions de restitutions locales (et si la participation se maintient dans le temps) et comment l’animation est réalisée localement. 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 371 Concernant la sensibilisation des pêcheurs de loisirs, c’est l’association Migado qui s’en charge. Pour conclure, les participants se sont entendus sur : - Le besoin d’être clair sur le fait que ces données peuvent à termes servir à des mesures de gestion en plus de permettre une meilleure connaissance des interactions pêcheries/espèces protégées/sensibles, - L’importance de valoriser, récompenser la participation des pêcheurs. En ce sens, les écolabels sont des motivations importantes, - Le PNA puffins des Baléares s’appuiera sur Echosea et Obsenpêche, une fiche actions sera proposée fin juin/juillet puis des échanges avec chaque structure seront organisés par l’équipe en charge du PNA (Délégation de façade Atlantique OFB, DREAL Bretagne, Biotope). - Un bilan d’Obsenpêche sera réalisé dans le courant de l’été et il sera transmis aux participants à la réunion. - Une réunion sur les échanges/flux de données sera organisée entre le GECC, la Sathoan/AMOP avec l’appui de l’OFB (retour d’expériences du travail de la délégation de façade Méditerranéenne avec le GECC). 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 372 Appendix 14 Evolution of bycatch management Sathoan 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 373 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 374 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 375 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 376 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 377 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 378 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 379 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 380 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 381 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 382 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 383 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 384 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 385 3288R06C CU MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) 386