Solomon Islands Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna Purse Seine and Pole-And-Line Fishery MSC Fishery Assessment Report

SCS Global Services Report

Solomon Islands Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna Purse Seine and Pole-and-line Fishery MSC Fishery Assessment Report

Announcement Comment Draft Report

Client Contact Authors Amanda Hamilton Alexander (Sandy) Morison—Team

Lead and Principle 1 Shelby Oliver—Principle 2 and Project 15 Fishery Port Road, Jurong, Manager Singapore 619735 Andy Bodsworth—Principle 3 [email protected]

29 May 2020

1 Table of Contents

Solomon Islands Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna 1 Purse Seine and Pole-and-line Fishery 1 MSC Fishery Assessment Report 1 1 Table of Contents 2 Table of Figures 4 2 Glossary 6 3 Executive Summary 8 4 Report Details 10 4.1 Authorship and peer review details 10 1.2 Version details 14

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview 15 5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification 15 5.2 Assessment results overview 19

6 Traceability and eligibility 21 6.1 Eligibility date 21 6.2 Traceability within the fishery 21 6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody 23 6.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 24

7 Scoring 25 7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores 25 7.2 7.2 Overview of the Fishery 27 7.3 Principle 1 33 7.4 Principle 2 96 7.5 Principle 3 92

8 Appendices 159 8.1 Assessment information 159 8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques 160 8.3 Peer Review reports 163 8.4 Stakeholder input 164 8.5 Conditions 165 8.6 Client Action Plan 169 8.7 Surveillance 169 8.8 Harmonized fishery assessments 171 8.9 Objection Procedure 175 SCS Global Services Report

8.10 Vessel list 176 8.11 Solomon Island Baitfish PSA 178

9 References 1 10 Template information and copyright 5

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 3 of 175 Table of Figures Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s) ...... 8 Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions ...... 14 Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) & Unit of Certification (UoC)...... 17 Table 6. Traceability within the fishery ...... 22 Table 7. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores..... 25 Table 8. Final Principle Scores ...... 26 Table 9. Skipjack tuna: Description of the updated structural sensitivity grid used to characterize uncertainty in the assessment (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 37 Table 10. Skipjack tuna: Summary of reference points over the various models in the structural uncertainty grid. Fmult is the multiplier of recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality required to attain MSY, Frecent is the average fishing mortality of recent years (2014-2017), SBrecent is the average spawning potential of recent years (2015-2018) and SBlatest is the spawning potential in 2018 (from WCPFC-SC 2019)...... 37 Table 11. Work plan agreed in 2017 for Skipjack Tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06...... 44 Table 12. Catch for skipjack tuna by gear type for UoA vessels, catch for the WCPFC Statistical Area and the UoAs’ total catch as a % of the total WCPFC Statistical Area catch (2013-2018) (Data for WCPFC and for Pole and Line from SPC-OFP 2019; data for the UoA for purse seine from SPC.)...... 45 Table 13. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 46 Table 14. Yellowfin tuna: Summary of reference points over the 48 models in the structural uncertainty grid retained for management advice using divisors of 20 and 50 for the weighting on the size composition data. Note that SBrecent/SBF=0 is calculated where SBrecent is the mean SB over 2012-2015 instead of 2011-2014 (used in the stock assessment report), at the request of the Scientific Committee (from WCPFC-SC 2017)...... 55 Table 15. Work plan from WCPFC14 (2017) for Yellowfin Tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06. Bold items are the six elements that are referred to in CMM 2014-06 (a. Objectives, b. Reference Points, c. Acceptable Levels of Risk, d. Monitoring, e. Harvest Control Rules and f. MSE). Items in brackets are related to harvest strategy development, are part of the plan, but are not one of these six elements...... 60 Table 16. Catch for yellowfin tuna by gear type for UoA vessels, catch for the WCPFC Statistical Area and the UoAs’ total catch as a % of the total WCPFC Statistical Area catch (2013-2018) (Data for WCPFC and for Pole and Line from SPC-OFP 2019; data for the UoA for purse seine from SPC)...... 61 Table 17. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data ...... 61 Table 18. Catch Summary for Tri Marine purse-seine fishery from all sets from 2013 to 2019 (Data from SPC). Catch volumes of ETP species were excluded...... 99 Table 19 Catch Summary for Tri Marine purse-seine fishery by set type from 2013 to 2019 (Data from SPC). Only species that represent greater than 0.01% of catch from that set type are shown. ETP catches were excluded...... 1 Table 20. Number of individuals classified as ETP species recorded as caught by UoA purse seine vessels (2013-19). The percentage of individuals recorded as released alive are included (averaged across all set types). Individuals were assumed dead if fate was recorded as unknown. Status for turtles, sharks and rays and mammals are CITES Appendix A species listed (App 1 or App 2) and/or protected by WCPFC Conservation Management Measures (CMMs). FS=freeschool...... 1 Table 21 Bait catch and tuna catch (Yellowfin and Skipjack) for all vessels in the Solomon Islands pole-and-line fishery, 2011 to 2014 (source: NFD)...... 2 Table 22 Bait use for the Solomon Island’s pole-and-line fishery in 2019, reported in pole-and-line vessel logbooks...... 3 Table 23 Retained species in the Solomon Island baitfish fishery (source FFA)...... 4 Table 24 Scoring elements for purse-seine fishery and pole-and-line. Note that for purse seine, species designation is evaluated from catch contribution across all set types combined. See Table 15 & Table 17. Pole-and-line evaluations include non-target and bait use. No species are RBF...... 5 Table 25. Membership of WCPFC and FFA, signatories to UNFSA for PNA Parties...... 106 Table 26. WCPFC binding conservation management measures (CMM) and Resolutions of particular relevance to the Unit of Assessment...... 107 SCS Global Services Report

Table 27: legal and policy framework for Solomon Islands tuna fisheries (source: adapted from McClean et al. 2019)...... 109 Table 28: Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan objectives and actions (TMDP 2015)...... 117 Table 29: Solomon Islands tuna fishery management zones, licence types and management approaches (Source: adapted from MRAG, 2016)...... 118 Table 31. Summary of previous assessment conditions ...... 160 Table 34. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.2 Table 4) ..... 162 Table 36. Summary of conditions open at time of reassessment announcement ...... 165 Table 42. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization...... 171 Table 43. Overlapping fisheries ...... 173 Table 44. Harmonization for scoring/scoring differences against the Solomon Islands certified fisheries...... 174 Table 47: Vessel list for the UoA ...... 176 Table 48. List of NFD vessels by gear type, showing area and years of operations...... 177

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 5 of 175 2 Glossary AW Archipelagic Waters CAB Conformity Assessment Body CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMM Conservation and Management Measure EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected species FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FCM Fisheries Certification Methodology FFA Forum Fisheries Agency FSM Federated States of Micronesia FSMA Federated States of Microneisa Agreement HCR Harvest Control Rule HS Harvest Strategy ITQ Individual Transferable Quota Kg Kilogram Lb. Pound, equivalent to roughly 2.2 kg LOA Length Over-All MFMR Ministry for Fisheries and Marine Resources MGA Main group archipelago MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NFD National Fisheries Development (the client) nm nautical mile OFL Over-Fishing Level PAE Party Allowed Effort PI Performance Indicator PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement SC Scientific Committee SCS SCS Global Services SI Scoring Issue SPC Secretariat to the Pacific Community SSB Spawning Stock Biomass t and mt metric ton TAC Total Allowable Catch UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VDS Vessel Day Scheme WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean SCS Global Services Report

WWF World Wildlife Fund

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 7 of 175 3 Executive Summary

This report presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the Yellowfin Tuna (Thunnus albacares) and Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) fishery, harvested by purse seine and pole-and-line fishing gear in the Main Group Archipelago (MGA) and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Solomon Islands, considered to be a six Units of Assessment (UoAs). Within the report, the Units of Assessment will collectively be referred to more simply as the fishery. The assessment was conducted, and the findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC-accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements V2.2 (released March 25). The fishery was assessed against the Default Assessment Tree, version 2.01.

Table 1. Unit of Certification(s) and Unit of Assessment(s)

Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.a) (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.b) (FCP V2.2 7.5.2.c) WCPO Yellowfin tuna Vessels flagged to the Solomon Islands Thunnus albacare owned by National Fisheries Purse seine1 all set types Developments Ltd (NFD) a subsidiary of Tri Marine International Pte. Ltd. WCPO Skipjack tuna Pole-and-line operating exclusively in the Main Katsuwonus pelamis Group Archipelagic waters or Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ).

Fishery Operations Overview

Assessment Overview

The team selected to undertake the assessment includes three team members that collectively meet the requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are:

• Mr. Alexander Morison, Team Leader, Principle 1 Expert • Ms. Shelby Oliver, Principle 2 Expert • Mr. Andy Bodsworth, Principle 3 Expert

1 All purse seine set types (free school, anchored FAD, drifting FAD) are assessed here. This adheres to FCP v2.2 UoA requirements, as ‘the MSC no longer allows the UoA nor UoC to be defined by a subset of activities undertaken with the stock(s)/gear(s) combination.’ (FCP v2.2 G7.5) SCS Global Services Report

Summary of Findings

In this report, we provide detailed rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80).

In Principle 1, two of the PIs (1.2.1 and 1.2.2) received scores under 80 for all UoAs. These conditions are rooted in a lack of clear harvest control rules linked to the status of the yellowfin and skipjack stocks. Scores under Principle 1 are harmonized with several overlapping MSC-certified fisheries targeting yellowfin and albacore in WCPFC waters. For a detailed description of the harmonization process and outcomes, see Background Section 8.8.

For Principle 2, the purse seine fishery is expected to receive scores under 80 for ETP outcome and management due to deficiencies in the evidence of effective management of interactions with whales. A condition was also placed on 2.4.2 as no quantitative information was provided to the assessment team in regards to the number of anchored FADs in the Solomon Islands. Note that while the fishery makes sets on drifting FADs, the assessment team was informed that they do not deploy the FADs, rather, the purse- seine UoA will opportunistically fish on FADs that were deployed by vessels from outside the Solomon Islands EEZ.

In Principle 3, PI’s 3.2.2d (accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process), and 3.2.3 a (MCS implementation at the domestic level) received scores under SG80. Only the purse seine UoA received below SG80 for 3.2.3 regarding absence of evidence for enforcement of FAD related measures. For 3.2.2d, at the Solomon Islands’ domestic level, there is less consistent transparency in some areas in comparison to processes at the regional (WCPFC) level. Specifically, for the primary MFMR higher level consultative body, the FAC, there is little recent evidence of transparent decision making. For 3.2.3a, while the fishery does not deploy drifting FADs, they will fish on FADs that drift in from other areas. Purse-seine license conditions in the Solomon Islands do not permit vessels to set upon FADs that were not deployed by the company/vessel. Further information will be gathered at the visit to better understand this issue.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 9 of 175 4 Report Details

4.1 Authorship and peer review details

Audit Team

Alexander “Sandy” Morison –Morison Aquatic Sciences--Team Lead & P1

Mr. Morison is a consultant specializing in fisheries and aquatic sciences. He has over 30 years experience in fishery science and assessment at state, national and international levels and has held senior research positions for state and national organizations in Australia. He is currently chair of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) and has been engaged in the Kobe process for harmonisation of measures across the tuna RFMOs.

Mr Morison has considerable experience with issues of tuna and other pelagic species through various positions in addition to his current role with CCSBT. He was Australia’s representative on the Science Working Group during the establishment of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation and was the inaugural chair of the Jack Mackerel Working Group during that time. He has also chaired Australia’s East Coast Tuna and Billfish Resource Assessment Group.

Mr. Morison has participated as part of a team undertaking MSC pre-assessments for several fisheries and is also trained as a lead auditor for MSC assessments. • Heard Island and MacDonald Islands Mackerel Icefish: Reassessments and surveillance audits (Principle 1). • Heard Island and MacDonald Islands Patagonian toothfish: First assessment, reassessment and surveillance audits (Principle 1). • Lakes and Coorong Fishery (South Australia): Reassessments and surveillance audits (Principle 1). • Macquarie Island Patagonian toothfish fishery: First assessment, reassessment and surveillance audits (Principle 1). • Kyoto Danish Seine Fishery: Reassessment (Principle 1). • Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Surveillance audits and reassessment. (Principle 1) • PNA Western and Central Pacific unassociated purse seine fishery (skipjack tuna): Surveillance audits (Principle 1). • PNA Western and Central Pacific unassociated purse seine fishery (yellowfin tuna): Expedited assessment (Principle 1). • Northeastern Tropical Pacific purse seine yellowfin & skipjack tuna: first assessment (Principle 2). • Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna: first assessment (Team leader, Principle 1 and Principle 2). • Peel-Harvey Inlet, blue swimmer crab and sea mullet fisheries (Principle 1). • Western Australia deep sea crab fishery (Principle 1). • Australian pearl oyster fishery (Principle 1). SCS Global Services Report

Mr. Morison was the facilitator for an assessment of the ecological risks from Queensland’s East Coast Trawl Fishery that looked at the full range of ecological components. He was senior author of the report that synthesised background information and the results of an expert workshop, and was co-author of the summary and technical reports that described the results of the project. He was subsequently engaged to assist with an assessment of this fishery’s vulnerability to climate change.

Sandy is also contracted by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to chair the South East Fisheries Resource Assessment Group and the Shark Fisheries Resource Assessment Group, is the Scientific Representative on the South East Fishery Management Advisory Committee, and is a member of the South East Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group. He has also been the scientific representative on other Resource Assessment Groups. Sandy has experience with the assessment of invertebrate, chondrichthyan and teleost fisheries including commercial and recreational fisheries in freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and fisheries operating in tropical, temperate and polar environments.

He has particular expertise with fish age and growth and has been involved in the development and implementation of harvest strategies for several fisheries. He has over 20 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals (8 as senior author), 8 book chapters, and over 100 project reports, technical reports, client reports and papers in workshop and conference proceedings.

For more details visit: www.morisonaqsci.com.au

The proposed team leader meets the MSC Team leader qualifications in that: ✓ Relevant degree and/or equivalent experience in the fisheries sector related to tasks under responsibility of a team leader (Evidence: published over 20 scientific publications and Sandy is also contracted by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to chair the South East Fisheries Resource Assessment Group and the Shark Fisheries Resource Assessment Group, and the Tropical Rock Lobster Working Group. This includes being chair of the current and previous assessment groups that have been responsible for the assessments of Australia’s orange roughy fisheries. He is also the Scientific Representative on the South East Fishery Management Advisory Committee, and is a member of the South East Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group. He has also been the scientific representative on other Resource Assessment Groups) ✓ Completed of the latest MSC training modules applicable to this assessment (V2.1 Team Leader MSC modules) within the past five years (February 7 2019) ✓ Has passed new online training modules on modifications to the MSC Fisheries Standard before undertaking assessments using these modifications such as enhanced bivalves, salmon and other modifications that may be developed in the future. (April 27, 2020) ✓ Has undertaken 2 MSC fishery assessments or surveillance site visits in the last 5 years (Solomon Islands Longline Full Assessment 2019, Tri Marine WCPO Surveillance Year 2 2018) ✓ Has demonstrated experience in applying different types of interviewing and facilitation techniques, as verified by SCS records and previous audit reports and ASI audits.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 11 of 175 ✓ Is competent in the MSC Standard and current Certification Requirements, auditing techniques, and communication and stakeholder facilitation techniques, as verified by his many years as a auditor and successful witnesses of ASI ✓ Has affirmed he holds no conflict of interest

Shelby Oliver, Technical Specialist – SCS Global Services, Responsible for Principle 2 (onsite) Shelby Oliver has a Master of Environmental Science and Management degree from the Bren School at the University of California Santa Barbara. She specialized in coastal marine resources management with a focus on coastal and environmental policy, aquaculture, and natural resource economics. In addition, she holds a minor in strategic science communication. She has been involved with research projects assessing global patterns of shark and ray bycatch, marine resource management issues, aquaculture feed trails, and an economic assessment of seaweed aquaculture. Her bycatch research was published in a scientific journal. Shelby has completed the necessary MSC Fishery training, is a qualified MSC team lead and is a qualified Lead MSC CoC auditor.

Shelby Oliver experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2): ✓ With a relevant degree (Master of Environmental Science and Management) or over 5 years of research experience in management or research experience in marine conservation biology, fisheries, natural resources or environmental management position. ✓ Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Leader within the last 5 years (May 3rd, 2019). V2.2 module was completed April 20, 2020. ✓ Has passed new online training modules on modifications to the MSC Fisheries Standard before undertaking assessments using these modifications such as enhanced bivalves, salmon and other modifications that may be developed in the future. (May 3rd, 2019) ✓ Affirms they have no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment

Mr. Andy Bodsworth—Cobalt Marine Resource Management Pty Ltd—Principle 3 Expert

Mr. Andy Bodsworth has extensive fisheries management experience; principally with the Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA) managing tropical, sub-tropical and temperate commercial fisheries across a wide range of gear types. More recently he has worked as Principal Consultant and CEO of sustainable fisheries consulting firm Cobalt Marine Resource Management Pty Ltd. Andy holds a Graduate Certificate in Environmental Management from the University of Queensland, with a focus on fisheries policy, economics and management.

Since 1999, Andy has worked extensively with small and large fishing businesses, federal and state government agencies, environmental NGO’s, and other stakeholders to develop, implement and review best practice fisheries management and marine conservation policies and strategies. He has managed SCS Global Services Report purse seine and mid-water trawl fisheries for schooling small pelagic species, including skipjack tuna; and purse seine and pelagic longline fisheries for tropical and temperate tuna and billfish species subject to international management agreements and treaties. He has also worked extensively with Regional Fisheries Management Organisation’s (RFMO’s) in Australia’s area of interest.

As program manager for Australia’s larger northern fisheries, including traditional fisheries in Torres Strait managed under treaty with Papua New Guinea, he has worked closely with traditional inhabitant fishers over many years to enable sustainable fishing businesses in these remote areas.

Mr. Bodsworth’s principal expertise lies in the evaluation of fisheries management performance against contemporary sustainability guidelines. He was the fisheries management representative on a multi- disciplinary team that developed Australia’s initial Harvest Strategy Policy Framework and supporting operational guidelines. He also has extensive experience with development of fishery specific harvest strategies to improve economic, environmental and social performance for large and small commercial fisheries. He has a particular interest and expertise in ESD based risk assessment and using this to guide development of fishery improvement strategies.

Andy has managed several larger scale projects to formally evaluate ESD performance for higher value commercial fisheries, as well as high profile marine conservation and recovery strategies such as Australia’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA Sharks). He has worked extensively with Australian government fisheries and environment agencies, fishing industry peak bodies and businesses, and conservation NGO’s such as WWF Australia over many years.

Andy Bodsworth experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Member as described in PC2 (FCP v2.2): ✓ With relevant degree Graduate degree in Environmental Management from University of Queensland and over 5-years work experience with fisheries management consulting ✓ Has passed the MSC compulsory training modules for Team Members within the last 5 years (June 6, 2019) ✓ Affirms he has no conflict of interest in conducting this assessment.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 13 of 175 Peer Reviewers Peer reviewer information to be completed at the Public Comment Draft Report Stage.

1.2 Version details

Table 2. Fisheries program documents versions

Document Version number

MSC Fisheries Certification Process Version 2.2

MSC Fisheries Standard Version 2.01

MSC General Certification Requirements Version 2.3

MSC Reporting Template Version 1.2

SCS Global Services Report

5 Unit(s) of Assessment and Certification and results overview

5.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Unit(s) of Certification

5.1.1 Unit(s) of Assessment & Unit(s) of Certification

There are a total of four Units of Assessment (UoAs) covered under this assessment. The UoA is identical to the UoC, and no other eligible fishers have been identified. The UoAs are described below.

Target species: The Solomon Islands purse seine and pole-and-line fishery target Western and Central Pacific (1) Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and (2) Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares).

Method of Capture: (3) Purse seine, including all set types2, and (4) pole-and-line

Geographical range: The Main Group Archipelago (MGA) and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Solomon Islands.

Client Group: Tri Marine International Pte. Ltd., on behalf of National Fisheries Developments, Ltd. (NFD). Only NFD vessels will be eligible.

This assessment includes two Units of Assessment (UoAs): Skipjack and Yellowfin share the same fleet, gear type/operations, and management system, and only differ in regards to the Principle 1 target stock. For this reason both Principle 2 is scored jointly for the two UoA, and P1 species of UoA1 and UoA2 are not scored a second time as primary species. A target species that are certified under Principle 1 and has obtained an overall score >80 for P1, will have already be assessed under a higher standard of performance than those for main retained/primary under Principle 2, thus it is expected to obtain a score >80 for the relevant Principal Indicators under P2. If in a subsequent assessment one of the target P1 target species fails and is no longer considered as certified, it will then be scored under Principle 2.

Purse seine and pole and line operations are scored as separate Units of Assessment in P2, but scored jointly in P3.

This fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCP v2.2 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it

• Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by the dispute. (FCP 7.4.2.1, 7.4.2.2, 7.4.3, 7.4.5) • The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCP 7.4.5.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn.

2 All purse seine set types (free school, anchored FAD, drifting FAD) are assessed here. This adheres to FCP v2.2 UoA requirements, as ‘the MSC no longer allows the UoA nor UoC to be defined by a subset of activities undertaken with the stock(s)/gear(s) combination.’ (FCP v2.2 G7.5)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 15 of 175 • Is not an enhanced fishery, is not based on an introduced species and does not represent an inseparable or practically inseparable species (FCP 7.5.1, 7.5.2, 7.5.8-13) • Does not overlap with another MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.5.14), • And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.4) The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.5.1-7.7.7).

SCS Global Services Report

Table 3. Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) & Unit of Certification (UoC).

UoA & UoC 1 Description

Species Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

Stock Western and Central Pacific Ocean

Fishing gear type(s) and, (1) Purse seine gear, all set types (i.e. free school, anchored FAD, drifting FAD) if relevant, vessel (2) Pole-and-line vessels type(s) Tri Marine International Pte. Ltd., on behalf of National Fisheries Developments, Ltd. Client group (NFD). Only NFD vessels will be eligible.

Other eligible fishers None identified. The UoA is identical to the UoC.

The Main Group Archipelago (MGA) and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Solomon Islands.

Geographical area & Tuna fisheries within the UoC operate within a governance and policy framework management under management by the Solomon Islands Government, Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Vessels are flagged to the Solomon Islands.

UoA & UoC 2 Description

Species Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

Stock Western and Central Pacific Ocean

Other eligible fishers None identified. The UoA is identical to the UoC.

The Main Group Archipelago (MGA) and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Solomon Islands.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 17 of 175 5.1.2 Unit(s) of Certification

Unit of Certification and Unit of Assessment is the same. See Table 3.

5.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries or Introduced Fisheries

There is no evidence of enhancement or of introduced species in this fishery. SCS Global Services Report

5.2 Assessment results overview

5.2.1 Determination, formal conclusion and agreement

The determination of the fishery is drafted at the final report and completed at the PCR.

5.2.2 Principle level scores To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 19 of 175 5.2.3 Summary of conditions To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

5.2.4 Recommendations To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage. SCS Global Services Report

6 Traceability and eligibility

6.1 Eligibility date

Vessels in the UoA will continue to operate under the existing certificate. Eligibility date is anticipated to be set as the certification date.

6.2 Traceability within the fishery

The purse-seine and pole-and-line vessels in the UoA are listed in Table 44. These vessels are all flagged to the Solomon Islands and owned by NFD. These vessels operate exclusively in the Solomon Islands EEZ and MGA waters, and do not go to high seas areas. The pole-and-line vessels are unable to access these regions due to their small size. Purse-seine vessels within the UoA are currently only authorized to fish within MGA or EEZ waters.

Chain of custody extends up to the point of landing for both the purse seine or pole-and-line vessel at Noro, Solomon Islands. Description of Tracking, Tracing and Segregation Systems

The following traceability evaluation is for the UoC/UoA covering purse-seine and pole-and-line vessels targeting yellowfin and skipjack operating in the Solomon Islands MGA or EEZ area. The recertification of this fishery has resulted in a significant change in traceability from the initial assessment for purse-seine vessels. Previously, only anchored FADs and free-school sets were included; now, all set types (including drifting FADs) are included. The concern of mixing of catch between set types from a traceability perspective has been erased.

Below we’ve listed the main stages of the supply chain within the purse-seine and pole-and-line fishery and the relevant tracking, tracing and segregation systems at each step: Purse-seine vessels 1. Capture of product: There is 100% observer coverage for all purse-seine fishing activity undertaken in the WCPFC. Upon identifying a tuna school, the fishing master will initiate the release of the skiff which will circle the net around the school. The set may be made on free-school or FAD associated tuna. Once the purse-seine has been pulled, catch is brailed onto the deck where it is sorted and placed in the designated well. The observer will record the set type/location/time and sample the catch brought aboard and classify the species/quantity. The vessel’s official FFA/SPC logbook will also record this information, along with the designated well. 2. On-board processing: No on-board processing occurs. Catch is placed in designated wells. 3. Product unloading/change of ownership: All product is offloaded in the Solomon Islands, in Noro. MFMR has mandatory port inspections for all vessels. The agency can also use the vessel logbook location data to identify whether any fishing activity occurred outside of the MGA/EEZ and cross- reference this with VMS data. Catch is then offloaded directly to processing plant/cold storage or into a carrier vessel. Chain of custody ends at the point of offload from the vessel and subsequent processing plants/carrier vessels will require a Chain of Custody certificate, where their procedures will be evaluated by a CoC auditor.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 21 of 175 Pole-and-line vessels 4. Capture of product: Vessel activity occurs predominately in the MGA, with some limited activity in the EEZ. The vessel locates the tuna school, and begins fishing operations. Fish are brought on board and stored in brine holds. No onboard processing occurs. Pole-and-line vessels are required to complete logbooks for every trip. There has been observer coverage for pole-and-line vessels in the past years, approaching 28% in 2018 (MFMR, 2019). Pole-and-line vessels are required to have VMS tracking units. 5. Product unloading/change of ownership: As with purse-seiners, pole-and-line vessels offload either to processing plants or cold storage in Noro, Solomon Islands. MFMR conducts port inspections of the catch. Upon arrival at processing plants/cold storage, the catch is sorted by species and placed into bins. It is at this time where any non-MSC species (e.g. albacore) would be identified and put in a separate bin. The fishery certificate extends up to the point of first landing. Subsequent processing plants/carrier vessels will require a Chain of Custody certificate, where their procedures will be evaluated by a CoC auditor

Table 6. Traceability within the fishery

Factor Description

Will the fishery use gears that are not part of the Unit of No gears that are not included in the UoA will be Certification (UoC)? used by either the pole-and-line or the purse-seine

fishery. As all set types are included in the purse- If Yes, please describe: seine UoA, there is no requirement for segregation - If this may occur on the same trip, on the same by well, as all catches occurring within the vessels, or during the same season; Solomon Islands EEZ and MGA are MSC eligible. - How any risks are mitigated. The pole-and-line vessels fish predominately in the MGA, with some limited activity in the EEZ. Given their small size, no high seas activity will occur.

The purse-seine vessels eligible within the UoA are currently only licensed to fish in Solomon Islands MGA or EEZ. None are authorized to fish in the WCPFC high seas areas. Thus, currently, there is no risk of vessels operating outside of the UoC geographic area (either within the same/or Will vessels in the UoC also fish outside the UoC geographic between trips). area? This is ensured through the 100% observer

coverage monitoring (and requirement of

submission of official SPC/FFA logsheet) that records date, time, and location of all fishing sets/vessel activity. The designated well for the catch is also indicated on the logsheet, as well as any movement of catch between wells during the trip. Geographic information can be verified using VMS tracking by MFMR port inspectors that are present at all offloads. Transshipment must occur in port.

SCS Global Services Report

Should the geographic authorization of the purse- seine vessel change such that high seas fishing is allowed and mixed trips may occur, the systems described above (e.g. logsheet with location) should be sufficient to determine that wells containing MSC-eligible catch (i.e. Solomon Islands EEZ or MGA) can be segregated from high-seas catch.

Do the fishery client members ever handle certified and non- Non-target species such as Bigeye may be caught certified products during any of the activities covered by the and landed by the fishery. The processing fishery certificate? This refers to both at-sea activities and plant/cold storage will sort the catch by species on-land activities. and separate them into bins. This process will be evaluated under the chain of custody certificate, as the fishery certificate only extends up to the If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated. point of landing. Transhipment is not allowed at sea for purse-seine vessels (CMM 2009-06).

In addition, the Solomon Islands purse-seine and pole-and-line license terms state that: ‘the Master and crew of fishing vessel shall; a) only tranship fish to a carrier vessel licensed by Solomon Islands, and only at an authorised or Does transshipment occur within the fishery? designated transhipment port; and b) only land fish at an authorised or designated port. When If Yes, please describe: conducting transhipment, the vessel Masters of - If transshipment takes place at-sea, in port, or both; the offloading and receiving vessels shall complete - If the transshipment vessel may handle product from a Transhipment Declaration and an Outward outside the UoC; Clearance form and submit to Director of Fisheries - How any risks are mitigated. before port departure. The Master of fishing vessel; a) shall provide 48 hours notice of a request to tranship fish and obtain transhipment authorisation: b) must have the Port Entry Application Form before entering Solomon Islands waters for transhiprnent purposes: c) give 24 hour notice of request to depart port.’

Are there any other risks of mixing or substitution between certified and non-certified fish? None identified.

If Yes, please describe how any risks are mitigated.

6.3 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody

The team has concluded and determined that the product originating from the UoC will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel. Chain of Custody begins once the fish is offloaded from the vessel. Separate Chain of Custody will be required for

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 23 of 175 the first receivers of the fish, including processing plants or carrier vessels. Any vessels receiving product via transshipment will require their own CoC certificate.

To ensure that certified products are sourced from MSC-eligible source, the CoC auditor will need to solicit the following documentation from purse-seine vessels:

• Fishing logbook for each set throughout the trip to verify that product came from sets taking place in Solomon Island’s EEZ and AW

Eligible landing points include:

• Noro, Solomon Islands

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

No IPI stocks have been identified.

SCS Global Services Report

7 Scoring

7.1 Summary of Performance Indicator level scores Table 7. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores.

Draft Draft Principle Component Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score Score YFT SKJ 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 >80 >80 Outcome 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 60-79 60-79 One Harvest control rules & 1.2.2 0.25 60-79 60-79 Management tools 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 >80 >80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 >80 >80 PS PL 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 >80 Primary 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 >80 >80 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 >80 >80 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 >80 Secondary 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 >80 >80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 >80 >80 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 60-79 >80 Two ETP species 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 60-79 >80 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 >80 >80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 >80 >80 Habitats 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 60-79 >80 2.4.3 Information 0.333 >80 >80 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 60-79 >80 Ecosystem 2.5.2 Management 0.333 >80 >80 2.5.3 Information 0.333 >80 >80 Legal &/or customary 3.1.1 0.333 >80 >80 framework Governance Consultation, roles & and policy 3.1.2 0.333 60-79 60-79 responsibilities 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 >80 >80 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 >80 >80 Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 60-79 60-79 specific management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 60-79 >80 Monitoring & management system 3.2.4 0.25 >80 >80 performance evaluation

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 25 of 175 Table 8. Final Principle Scores

Purse seine Pole-and-line

Principle SKJ YFT SKJ YFT Principle 1 – Target Species >80 >80 >80 >80 Principle 2 – Ecosystem >80 >80 >80 >80 Principle 3 – Management System >80 >80 >80 >80

SCS Global Services Report

7.2 7.2 Overview of the Fishery 7.2.1 Location and History of the Fishery

The purse-seine and pole-and-line fishery operate in the Solomon Islands, in the waters of either the Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ) or Main Group Archipelago (MGA). There are three levels of jurisdiction in the fishery, including the Solomon Islands national authority, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and Parties of the Nauru Agreement (PNA). The WCPFC has jurisdiction in the EEZ and international waters of the WCPO, but not over designated archipelagic waters. A number of nations in the region have associated agreements to provide control over the fishery through the Parties of the Nauru Agreement (PNA). PNA coordinates management for conservation and economic purposes for its members, including Solomon Islands. The Solomon Islands Government established the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) to manage the fisheries of the country.

Purse-seine, pole-and-line, and pelagic longline gears are used to target tuna within Solomon Islands waters. The prominence of these gears regarding contribution to the total catch within the Solomon Islands waters has shifted over time (WCPFC, 2018). Purse-seine contribute the most to the annual catches of the Solomon Islands National Fleet, followed by longline, and then pole-and-line over the last 15 years (MFMR 2019). The majority of the national fleet’s catches come from the Solomon Islands MGA or EEZ.

Figure 1. Solomon islands EEZ, showing archipelagic waters. Archipelagic waters are shown inside purple lines. Yellow borders around the Archipelagic waters and pale outline around the Main Group Archipelago indicate Territorial Seas. The Solomon Islands EEZ consists of the turquoise and dark blue region. Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan 2015.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 27 of 175 7.2.2 Purse-seine

Purse seine fishing involves enclosing a school of fish, in this case skipjack and yellowfin tuna, with a curtain of netting. The top of the net is mounted on a float line and the bottom on a lead line which usually consists of a steel chain with steel rings, known as “purse rings”. The purse line which runs through the purse rings is made of steel and allows the pursing of the net. Once the fish are encircled by the net, the bottom of the net is closed underneath, which stops the fish from escaping. The net is then partially hauled, concentrating the fish near the boat and allowing them to be brought on board by being ‘brailed out’ (scooped out by a smaller net).

Although specifications can vary, nets are typically made of nylon mesh around 1,500 meters long and 200 meters in depth. Mesh size ranges from 90 mm in the center (bunt), and 200 mm in the wings. The net lengths are divided into separate panels, which can be replaced when the nets are damaged. The first sets of the day usually commence at day break/sunrise and are usually completed at around 9 or 10 am. Depending on opportunities, there may be up to 3 sets in a day. Trip lengths for this fleet are generally 1- 2 weeks (Hamilton, pers comm).

Purse seine’s target tuna using two distinct fishing strategies—free schools and FADs. The WCPFC defines FADs as “any object or group of objects, of any size, that has or has not been deployed, that is living or non-living, including but not limited to buoys, floats, netting, webbing, plastics, bamboo, logs and whale sharks floating on or near the surface of the water that fish may associate with” (CMM 2008-01). FADs can consist of both anchored and drifting FADs. The purse-seine fishery sets on both FAD and free schools of tuna and all set types are included in the assessment and the UoA.

In free school sets, visible schools of tuna are encircled with the seine, the net is pursed and catch brought on board the fishing vessel. With anchored FADs, a floating FAD is anchored to the substrate and after enough time, animals in the vicinity of the FAD are encircled with the net, the net pursed, and the catch brought on board the fishing vessel. An illustration of one type of anchored FAD is seen in Figure 2. With drifting FADs, FADs are deployed from the fishing vessel and allowed to drift. After a sufficient time, tuna in the vicinity of the FAD are encircled with the net, the net pursed, and the catch brought on board the fishing vessel. The fishing vessels within this UoA do not deploy drifting FADs, however, they conduct fishing activity from FADs that enter their fishing area released within the WCPF Convention Area. They do deploy anchored FADs. Sets are also made on natural floating objects, such as floating logs. SCS Global Services Report

Figure 2. Traditional anchored FAD design from the Pacific (from MRAG 2009).

The purse seine fishery catches predominantly skipjack tuna with significant bycatches of yellowfin and bigeye tuna. This fishery was developed by US Treaty vessels and Solomon Islands vessels in the 1980s, which were joined by vessels from other Distant Water Fishing Nations (DWFN) from the 1990s. Management was initially by way of licenses but is now under the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) (TMDP, 2015). Purse seine catches in the Solomon Islands have been steadily increasing, with Skipjack catches exceeding Yellowfin’s, with a sharp increase in Skipjack catches for the national fleet since 2015 (Figure 3). There are currently 9 purse seine vessels in the Solomon Islands national fleet, and 5 are included in the UoA (8.10 Vessel List). Purse seine catches and efforts for the national fleet is concentrated toward the northwestern portion of the Solomon Islands, with some effort in 2018 distributed in the middle/northern area of the Solomon Islands (MFMR 2019).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 29 of 175

Figure 3. Historical annual catch for purse seiners under national fleets by primary species for the WCPFC Convention area from 1984 – 2018. (Figure from MFMR Annual Report, 2019)

7.2.3 Pole-and-line

In pole-and-line operations, the fishermen usually fish mainly from the bow of the vessel. The vessels first collect live bait and then release bait while fishing to stimulate tuna feeding activity. Then, fishermen position themselves toward the rear part of the vessel, and using artificial lures attached to long poles, the crew will heave (i.e. ‘pole’) fish aboard as they strike the hooks. The method is highly labor intensive with a crew of over 35 on each vessel.

Pole-and-line fishing has been carried out in Solomon Islands since 1971; at one time, the Solomon Islands supported one of the largest pole-and-line fleets in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), catching an average of 25,000 MT of Skipjack per annum from 1981 to 1998 (MFMR 2019). A precipitous decline in pole-and-line effort occurred, due to the lower efficiency of pole-and-line gear compared to purse seine or longline, and from ethnic tensions in the late 1990s/early 2000s (TMDP 2015). NFD has re-established a small pole-and-line fleet. Pole-and-line vessels in the Solomon Islands are significantly smaller than purse seiners, at 51-200 MT. As with purse seine effort, the pole-and-line fishery operates predominately in the northwestern portion of the Solomon Islands. The domestic fishery takes place exclusively inside the MGA, and a VDS limit of 400 vessel days, weighted at 0.25 of an MGA purse seine vessel day has been set for this fishery (TMDP 2015).

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 4. Historical annual catch for pole-and-line under national fleet by primary species for the WCPFC Convention area from 1981 – 2018. (Figure from MFMR Annual Report, 2019)

7.2.3.1 Baitfish fishery

Bait is a key component in pole-and-line fisheries. Baitfish are captured either by the pole-and-line vessels themselves or purchased from other baitfish fishermen. Bait fishing gear in the Solomon Islands consists of bagans and bouke-ami, lift netting that captures live bait for holding in retention pens for transfer to pole-and-line vessels as necessary (MRAG 2014). Baitfish may be retained for several days. A bagan is an anchored, floating platform commonly used in Indonesia for catching small pelagic fish. The platform consists of a series of walkways around the perimeter of the platform on which lights are mounted. The bagan is operated at night and the lights serve to attract the baitfish to the area beneath it. Once sufficient baitfish have been attracted, a fine mesh (4mm square mesh) lift net is lowered beneath the floating platform. When sufficient quantities of baitfish have gathered above the net, the lights are gradually extinguished until one central light remains to aggregate the fish over the net. The net is then lifted, trapping the fish within ready for harvesting (Sokimi and Beverly, 2010). Bouke-ami is a stick-held lift net that is operated directly from the pole-and-line boats. Baitfish are aggregated around the boat using underwater and surface lights. The fine-meshed net (4mm square mesh) attached to outrigger is deployed over the starboard side of the vessel. The bottom of the net remains connected the connected by a series of ropes that are used to haul the net. Once the outrigger is fully extended and the net has had time to fully extend, the brightness of the lights is gradually diminished (to aggregate the schools of baitfish) until there is only one light that is centred inside the frame of the outrigger. Once the baitfish have aggregated over the net, the ropes are hauled and the baitfish will be surrounded by the net. The outrigger is then drawn carefully to the side of the vessel bringing the net and baitfish closer to the side of the vessel. This process is done carefully so that there is always sufficient water in the bag of the net to increase the survival of the required live-bait.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 31 of 175 Bagan and bouke-ami bait fishing occurs in waters of 20m depth or greater and away from coral reefs. Bagans are anchored in deep water away from reefs. Anchoring of bagans takes place over loose substrate following sounding of the underlying benthic substrate. Areas with strong currents, high exposure to prevailing winds and the physical structure of the reef environment in the baitground are not suitable to bagan fishing.

7.2.4 ISSF membership

Tri Marine helped found and is a member of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). ISSF is a non-profit organization that seeks to improve the sustainability of global tuna stocks by developing and implementing verifiable, science-based practices, commitments and international management measures that result in fishery’s being either MSC certified (with no conditions) and with the goal of becoming the industry standard for vessel owners, traders, processors and marketers.3 ISSF frequently advocates for policies at the RFMO level. As a member, Tri Marine is subject to 3rd party audits where compliance with ISSF’s Conservation Measures and Commitments are verified. An example of measures include establishing and publishing a policy prohibiting shark finning, purchasing product exclusively from vessels that use non-entangling FADs, and demonstrate ability to trace products from can code or sales invoice to vessel and trip. Reports are publicly available at ISSF’s website.4 Tri Marine was in full compliance with all ISSF requirements in their 2020 audit (ISSF, 2020).

3 https://iss-foundation.org/who-we-are/about/ 4 https://iss-foundation.org/what-we-do/verification/participating-company-audit-reports/ SCS Global Services Report

7.3 Principle 1

7.3.1 Principle 1 background: Skipjack tuna

7.3.1.1 Skipjack tuna - Life History Information

Taxonomic classification

Class: Actinopterigii Order: Perciformes Family: Scombridae Genus: Katsuwonus Species: pelamis Biology

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

Skipjack tuna form both free schools and schools associated with FADs or other floating objects. Depth distribution ranges from the surface to about 260 m during the day, but is limited to near surface waters at night. Growth and Natural Mortality

Skipjack are the smallest of the major commercial tuna species, generally not exceeding 20 kg. Monthly observer sampling of the catch indicates that, when fished as surface schooling adults, they are typically caught at 30 – 70 cm and 2-5 kg in size (Williams and Terawasi 2015).

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

Estimates of natural mortality rate have been obtained using a size-structured tag attrition model (Hampton 2000), which indicated that natural mortality was substantially larger for small Skipjack (21-30 cm FL, M=0.8 mo-1) compared to larger Skipjack (51–70 cm FL, M=0.12-0.15 mo-1). The longest period at liberty for a tagged Skipjack was 4.5 years.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 33 of 175 Reproduction and Recruitment

Skipjack tuna reach maturity at about 40 cm fork length (FL) and within their first year. They spawn in batches throughout the year in equatorial waters, and from spring to early fall in subtropical waters, with the spawning season becoming shorter as distance from the equator increases. Fecundity increases with size but is highly variable, the number of eggs per season in females of 41 to 87 cm fork length ranging between 80 000 and 2 million. Skipjack tuna have a generation time of 2 years (Berger et al. 2013).

Distribution and Stock Structure

Skipjack are found mainly in the tropical areas of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. Their geographic limits are 55-60° N and 45-50° S, with the greatest abundance seen in equatorial waters, being roughly limited to a 20°C surface isotherm (Hoyle et al., 2011). In the western Pacific, warm, pole ward-flowing currents near northern Japan and southern Australia seasonally extend their distribution to 40°N and 40°S (Rice et al. 2014).

Skipjack in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are considered to comprise one stock for assessment and management purposes. A substantial amount of information on Skipjack movement is available from tagging programs, which have documented some large-scale movement within the Pacific (Figure 5). In general, Skipjack movement is highly variable (Sibert et al., 1999) but is thought to be influenced by large- scale oceanographic variability (Lehodey et al. 1997). Skipjack tuna are also classified as a ‘highly migratory species’ and are listed as such in Annex I of UNCLOS. Analyses of the tagging data have, however, indicated that the median lifetime displacement of Skipjack ranges from 420 to 470 nautical miles (Sibert and Hampton 2003). Other studies (Hoyle et al. 2011, Lehody et al. 2011) also indicate that mixing rates appear to be fairly restricted, particularly between the equatorial and sub-tropical/temperate North Pacific.

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 5. Plot of tag recaptures greater than 1,000 nautical miles from the point of release by the program of release for those tags that were released within the assessment region. (From Vincent et al. 2019).

7.3.1.2 Skipjack - Status of stocks

Stock assessments for Skipjack Tuna are undertaken by the Oceanic Fisheries Program (OFP) of the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) as the scientific advisory body for the WCPFC. It uses MULTIFAN-CL which is an integrated statistical modelling framework that with a large degree of flexibility as to which model components are fixed or estimated (including biological parameters, fishery characteristics and variances).

Draft results of assessments are submitted to the meeting of the WCPFC’s Scientific Committee (SC) for discussion and review by members, after which it is revised and a final report presented to the WCPFC plenary, usually held in December.

The assessment reports contain descriptions of structural assumptions, model parameterization and priors. These have been progressively developed over the years and the latest report generally only contains details of changes to these assumptions which may be more fully described in earlier versions. Stock assessments for Skipjack Tuna have been conducted regularly since 2000 with the most recent one being in 2019 (Vincent et al. 2019). The assessment model uses MULTIFAN-CL and is based mainly on catch and effort data for various fleets, size data and tagging data. This assessment followed the previously agreed approach but also addressed several flagged improvements. The SC considered this assessment and agreed to use an 8-region model to describe the stock status of Skipjack Tuna (Figure 6) because it considered that it better captures the biology of Skipjack Tuna than the existing 5 region structure. Stock

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 35 of 175 status was determined over an uncertainty grid of 54 models with assumed weightings as illustrated in Error! Reference source not found..

The spatial structure used in the assessment model is shown inFigure 6. Time series of total annual catch (1000’s mt) by fishing gear for all regions is shown inFigure 7. The overall spawning potential summed across region for the diagnostic model is shown inFigure 8. The estimated annual average juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model is shown in Error! Reference source not found.. The median and 80th percent quantile trajectories of fishing depletion for models in the weighted structural uncertainty grid is shown inFigure 10, where it can be seen that the median has been below the target since 2009. The Majuro plot (Figure 11) shows the recent fishing mortality and spawning potential relative to the unfished spawning potential for all models in the structural uncertainty grid for (i) spawning potential in the recent time period (2015–2018), and (ii) spawning potential in the latest time period (2018). The Kobe plot (Figure 12) shows the recent fishing mortality and spawning potential relative to spawning potential at MSY for all models in the structural uncertainty grid for (i) spawning potential in the recent time period (2015–2018) and (ii) spawning potential in the latest time period (2018).

The SC noted that the median level of spawning potential depletion from the uncertainty grid was SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.44 with a probable range of 0.37 to 0.53 (80% probability interval). There were no individual models where SBrecent/SBF=0 < 0.2, which indicated that the probability that recent spawning biomass was below the LRP was zero.

The SC also noted that the grid median Frecent/FMSY was 0.45, with a range of 0.34 to 0.60 (80% probability interval) and that no values of Frecent/FMSY in the grid exceed 1. Therefore, there was a zero probability that the recent fishing mortality exceeds FMSY.

The SC noted that the largest uncertainty in the structural uncertainty grid was due to the assumed tag mixing period. In addition, it acknowledged that further study is warranted to investigate the uncertainty surrounding the appropriate mixing period for the tagging data.

The SC acknowledged that the spatial extent of the Japanese pole-and-line fishery has decreased over the time period and that the future use of this standardized CPUE index within future stock assessments is uncertain.

Therefore, the SC acknowledged that further study of alternative indices of abundance is warranted, such as investigation of standardizing the purse seine fishery and evaluation of the feasibility of conducting fishery independent surveys.

SCS Global Services Report

Table 9. Skipjack tuna: Description of the updated structural sensitivity grid used to characterize uncertainty in the assessment (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Table 10. Skipjack tuna: Summary of reference points over the various models in the structural uncertainty grid. Fmult is the multiplier of recent (2014-2017) fishing mortality required to attain MSY, Frecent is the average fishing mortality of recent years (2014-2017), SBrecent is the average spawning potential of recent years (2015-2018) and SBlatest is the spawning potential in 2018 (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 37 of 175

Figure 6. Skipjack tuna: Eight region spatial structure used in the 2019 stock assessment model (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Figure 7. Skipjack tuna: Time series of total annual catch (1000's mt) by fishing gear over the full assessment period (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 8. Skipjack tuna: Estimated temporal overall spawning potential summed across regions from the diagnostic model, where the shaded region is ± 2 standard deviations (i.e., 95% CI) (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Figure 9. Skipjack tuna: Estimated annual average juvenile and adult fishing mortality for the diagnostic model (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 39 of 175

Figure 10. Skipjack tuna: Plot showing the trajectories of spawning potential depletion for the model runs included in the structural uncertainty grid weighted by the values given in Table SKJ-01. Red horizontal line indicates the agreed limit reference point, the green horizontal line indicates the interim target reference point (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

Figure 11. Skipjack tuna: Majuro plot for the recent (2015-2018, left) and latest (2018, right) spawning potential summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid with weighting. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning potential depletion and fishing mortality, and marginal distributions of each are presented. Vertical green line denotes the interim TRP. Brown triangle indicates the median of the estimates. The size of the circle relates to the weight of that particular model run (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 12. Skipjack tuna: Kobe plot for the recent (2015-2018, left) and latest (2018, right) spawning potential summarizing the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning potential depletion and fishing mortality and marginal distributions of each are presented. Brown triangle indicates the median of the estimates. The size of the circle relates to the weight of that particular model run (from WCPFC-SC 2019).

7.3.1.3 Skipjack - Fishing and Management

There are three distinct levels of management for the UoA which are described more fully under Principle 3: management by the WCPFC, management by the PNA (noting that the vast majority of the catch of both Skipjack and Yellowfin are taken from PNA waters), and management by the Solomon Islands. This section provides some background to the first two of these levels of management. Management by the Solomon Islands is described in Principle 3 background.

WCPFC management

Skipjack tuna were not included in the earlier tuna specific Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) passed by the WCPFC because there were no concerns about the status of the species. They were first included in CMM 2012-01 and have been included in all later iterations of this CMM of which CMM 2018-01 is the most recent. It deals with Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bigeye tuna and specifies effort limits for purse seine vessels, including for the Solomon Islands under the Parties to the Nauru Agreement’s (PNA) Vessel Day Scheme (VDS). There are additional effort and catch measures for both purse seines and longline fleets including measures to constrain the FAD-based purse seine fishery, capacity limits, data provision requirements, and monitoring and control provisions.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 41 of 175 The PNA Vessel Day Scheme

The objective of the VDS is “To support collaboration between Parties to enable them to maximize their net economic returns from the sustainable use of tuna resources by purse seine vessels” (PNA 2016). It was established in 2006 under the Palau Arrangement (PNA 2016) and became operational on 1 December 2007, initially limiting effort levels of PNA countries to 2004 levels. In brief, fishing days are allocated to each PNA country and can be traded amongst the eight countries in a single licensing year under conditions designed to ensure that the Total Allowable Effort (TAE) is not exceeded.

The VDS applies to purse seine fishing within the EEZs of PNA countries, where the majority of purse seine fishery takes place within the WCPFC Convention Area. Furthermore, the Third Arrangement Implementing the Nauru Agreement prescribed closures to purse seine fishing by vessels licensed to fish in PNA waters of areas of the high seas from 1 January 2011 that were surrounded by the EEZs of PNA countries (from 10°N to 20°S latitude and 170°E to 150°W longitude, equating to an area of 4,555,000 sq. km) (PNA 2010, Banks et al. 2011). This scheme (described in detail in Banks et al. 2011) established a limit on the total number of fishing days that could be fished in PNA members’ EEZs, with a system of tradable fishing days allocated to each of the PNA Parties as Party Allowable Effort (PAE). The VDS was established to replace the existing limit of 205 purse seine vessels set under the Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Purse Seine Fishery. This Arrangement was established in response to concerns over the status of Yellowfin and bigeye tuna and a desire to reduce purse seine fishing effort in the WCPO (Dunn et al. 2006, Banks et al. 2011). The VDS was also designed to conserve the target stocks and enhance the value of the purse seine fishery by creating greater competition for access as new foreign fishing partners not currently allocated licences under the 205 limit could enter the fishery.

Since 2008, the VDS has been an important element of the WCPFC purse seine measures to conserve Bigeye (CMM 2008-001). Currently, the scheme has aimed to limit the catch to 2010 levels by restricting effort of vessels within the scheme to less than 2010 levels (the reduction being intended to allow for increasing fishing efficiency). CMM 2016-01 reiterated the requirement (initially contained in CMM 2011- 01 and subsequently carried over in subsequent measures) that Coastal States within the Convention Area that are PNA members shall restrict the level of purse seine effort in their EEZs to 2010 levels through the PNA Vessel Days Scheme; and that WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) shall support the ongoing development and strengthening of the PNA VDS including implementation and compliance with the requirements of the VDS as appropriate. Catches from vessels outside the scheme have not been similarly constrained. Article 12 of the Palau Arrangement (PNA 2016) states that the Total Allowable Effort will be set having regard to: i) The best available scientific, economic, management and other relevant advice and information; ii) the provisions of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean; iii) the objectives of the Management Scheme; and iv) any submission on this issue from any party, individual or organisation.

SCS Global Services Report

A brief analysis of most of the relevant scientific, economic and management information and advice on which the TAE is based is included in a Working Paper to the annual meeting of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement which is available on the PNA website (PNA 2017). This paper also contains sections concerning WCPFC considerations and MSC considerations, with the stated intention of “clearly recording the link between the TAE and the relevant WCPFC measure and the scientific advice”.

Nevertheless, the basis of total number of fishing days allowed, and particularly its relationship to the scientific advice about stock status of Skipjack Tuna (the most economically important species caught by purse seine accounting for about 70% of the total catch (PNA 2015)) is not articulated in the form of a formal harvest control rule. Although the minutes of the PNA meetings at which the recommendations in the TAE Working Papers are discussed and the actual TAEs are set are not publicly available, extracts of the meeting record of these discussions for 2015, 2016 and 2017 which were provided to the assessment team show that the recommendations of the VDS Technical and Scientific Committee have been adopted in each of these years, and without discussion in two of these three years.

There have previously been concerns expressed about a lack of clarity and openness in PNA decision- making with respect to the establishment and operation of the VDS Total Allowable Effort, particularly with respect to links to the requirements of WCPFC CMMs and the scientific advice (Banks et al. 2011). Despite being given copies of PNA meeting minutes, we consider that a lack of clarity about the links between the scientific advice, VDS effort allocations, and CMM provisions persists. Also a concern from a stock sustainability perspective are concerns over how the VDS will deal with evidence of effort creep from increasing size of fishing vessels and increases in the number of sets per fishing day and tonnage caught per fishing day (Pilling et al. 2017c). More discussion on the VDS is provided in Section 7.5.1.

7.3.1.4 Skipjack - Harvest strategy

The WCPFC has progressed through a stepwise process for implementing the components of a harvest strategy (‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include a Management Plan (MP) or an MP (implicit) and be tested by Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)’, MSCI Vocabulary v1.1).

Establishing a limit reference point (LRP) has involved initially agreeing to a hierarchical approach to identify LRPs for key target species (2011), adopting specific LRPs for Skipjack Tuna (2012), and agreeing to the time period over which the LRP would be calculated (2013). SC9 (noting the results in SC9-MI-WP- 02) recommended that the time window (from start year t1 to end year t2) to be used for defining the

LRP of 20% of unfished Spawning Biomass (SBF=0,t1-t2) satisfy the following criteria: a) have a length of 10 years; b) be based on the years t1=ylast-10 to t2=ylast-1 where ylast is the last year used in the assessment; and c) the approach used for calculating the unfished biomass levels be based on scaled estimates of recruitment according to the stock recruitment relationship.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 43 of 175 For a target reference point (TRP), WCPFC’s CMM 2014-01 (WCPFC 2014) reiterated the general objective (contained in previous CMMs) that its management measures aim to ensure that stocks are maintained at a minimum, at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield. This was also expressed in the specific objective that the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for Skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than the Fishing Mortality (F) at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) FMSY, i.e. F/FMSY ≤ 1. A series of Management Objectives Workshops were held and there is now an interim target reference point for Skipjack Tuna following the adoption of CMM 2015-06 which specified that

“The target reference point for the WCPO Skipjack Tuna stock shall initially be 50 per cent of the estimated recent average spawning biomass in the absence of fishing, (SB F=0, t1-t2 ).”

The harvest strategy for Skipjack Tuna is more advanced than for the other main species of tropical tunas. Nevertheless, the workplan that WCPFC adopted in 2017 for Skipjack Tuna (Table 11) indicates that there are still important decisions to be made concerning harvest control rules. This workplan was again modified in 2018 and 2019 but, in response to a Variation Request from all CABs, the 2017 version of the Workplan has been agreed as the fixed timeline for all conditions concerning adoption all elements of harvest strategies for WCPFC tuna stocks. The later updates to the Workplan are therefore not considered further here. More information on this Variation Request is provided in the report section on Harmonized Fishery Assessments.

Table 11. Work plan agreed in 2017 for Skipjack Tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014- 06.

Year Activity 2017 • Develop harvest control rules (e). • Management strategy evaluation (f). o SC provide advice on candidate harvest control rules based on agreed reference points. o Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. 2018 • Develop harvest control rules (e). • Management strategy evaluation (f). o SC provide advice on performance of candidate harvest control rules. o TCC* consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. o Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules.

2019 • Develop harvest control rules (e). • Management strategy evaluation (f). o SC provide advice on performance of candidate harvest control rules. o TCC consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. SCS Global Services Report

o Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. [“TRP shall be reviewed by the Commission no later than 2019” –CMM 2015-06] 2020 • Develop harvest control rules (e). • Management strategy evaluation (f). o SC provide advice on performance of candidate harvest control rules. o TCC* consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. o Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. Adopt a Harvest Control Rule * TCC = Technical and Compliance Committee

The VDS system operates alongside WCPFC measures. At the 22nd Annual PNA Meeting in April 2017, the PNA countries agreed to confirm the provisional 2015 TAE of 44,625 days. In addition, a TAE of 44,890 days was adopted for 2016 and set as the provisional PNA TAE for 2017. Purse seine fishing effort (based on logsheet days) have been reported as 36,365 days and 40,349 days for 2015 and 2016 respectively (Clark 2017). In addition, non-PNA member Tokelau joined the VDS in 2015 and was allocated a TAE of 985 days for 2015 and 991 days for 2016 (i.e. a total VDS TAE of 45,610 days for 2015 and 45,881 days for 2016) (PNA 2016a).

For more information on the VDS, see section 7.1

7.3.1.5 Skipjack - Catch profiles and Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

The annual purse seine and pole-and-line catch of skipjack by gear type for the UoA vessels is shown in Table 12 for 2015 to 2018.

Table 12. Catch for skipjack tuna by gear type for UoA vessels, catch for the WCPFC Statistical Area and the UoAs’ total catch as a % of the total WCPFC Statistical Area catch (2013-2018) (Data for WCPFC and for Pole and Line from SPC-OFP 2019; data for the UoA for purse seine from SPC.).

Year UoA Purse UoA Pole UoA Total WCPFC (t) UoA catch seine (t) and Line (t) / WCPFC catch (t) total (%)

2015 5861 662 6523 1,846,182 0.35% 2016 8132 594 8726 1,797,108 0.36% 2017 9782 783 10565 1,627,901 0.41% 2018 9384 946 10330 1,842,147 0.37%

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 45 of 175

7.3.1.6 Skipjack - Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

There are no TACs in place for the fishery but the total catch data for the two most recent complete fishing years are provided in Table 13.

Table 13. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

TAC Year N/A N/A

UoA share of TAC Year N/A N/A

UoA share of total TAC Year N/A N/A

Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2018 MT recent) 10,330 Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2017 MT most recent) 10,565

SCS Global Services Report

7.3.2 Principle 1 background: Yellowfin tuna

7.3.2.1 Yellowfin - Life History Information

Taxonomic classification

Class: Actinopterigii Order: Perciformes Family: Scombridae Genus: Thunnus Species: albacares

Biology

Yellowfin tuna feed on other fish, crustaceans and squid. Their trophic level has been estimated at 4.4 +/- 0.4 SE. They are not a low trophic level species.

Behaviour

Yellowfin tuna is a large, schooling tuna, common in surface waters of tropical and sub-equatorial oceans (Molony 2008). Tagging with acoustic transmitters or ultrasonic tags has shown Yellowfin spend a majority of their time in the upper mixed layer of the ocean (less than 100 m) and typically in temperatures above 17–18°C (Molony 2008). Growth and Natural Mortality Growth in length for Yellowfin Tuna is estimated to continue throughout their life (Figure 13). The estimated mean length of the final age‐class is 153.4 cm but the maximum fork length is over 200 cm.

Natural mortality is estimated to vary with age and sex. The generally increasing proportion of males in the catch with the increasing size is assumed to be due to an increase in the natural mortality of females, associated with sexual maturity and the onset of reproduction. The assessment model used fixed externally‐estimated values for natural mortality‐at‐age but also examined the sensitivity to estimating this during the model fitting process.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 47 of 175

Figure 13. Yellowfin tuna: estimated growth for the diagnostic case model. The blue line represents the estimated mean fork length (cm) at-age and the blue region represents the length-at-age within one standard deviation of the mean, for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Reproduction and Recruitment

Yellowfin tuna start to mature at 5 years of age but when information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction are included, the reproductive output is found to peak between 10 and 15 years of age (Figure 14). Spawning occurs throughout the year in the core areas of distribution with peaks observed in the northern and southern summer months respectively. Individuals may spawn every few days over the spawning period. Larval distribution in equatorial waters is transoceanic year round, but there are seasonal changes in larval density in subtropical waters. SCS Global Services Report

Figure 14. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (from Davies et al. 2014).

Distribution and Stock Structure

Yellowfin tuna are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical seas. The thermal boundaries of occurrence are roughly 18° and 31°C.

Although the distribution of Yellowfin tuna in the Pacific is nearly continuous, lack of evidence for long- ranging east-west or north-south migrations of adults suggests there is little exchange between Yellowfin tuna from the eastern and the central Pacific, nor between those from the western and the central Pacific (Figure 6). This suggests the existence of subpopulations and although early publications have suggested limited variation within the Pacific (Ward et al. 1994), recent studies with improved techniques have suggested a finer scale genetic stock structure (Aguila et al. 2015; Grewe et al. 2015; Grewe et al. 2016) that is not considered within the current stock assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Nevertheless, for the purpose of WCPFC Yellowfin stock assessments, the stock within the domain of the model area (essentially the WCPO, west of 210°E) has been considered as a discrete stock unit (Davies et al. 2014). This area has been disaggregated into model regions (Figure 15) so as to describe to some extent spatial processes (such as recruitment and movement) and fishing mortality within regions (Tremblay- Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 49 of 175 There is a large amount of tagging data (1989-2012) indicating extensive latitudinal movements among the equatorial regions and a level of longitudinal movements to and from the sub-tropical latitudes (Figure 16). The movement of tagged fish among regions is used in the stock assessment to estimate movement coefficients among different regions. A new regional structure proposed for the current stock assessment, with region boundaries shifted from 20° N to 10° N, was suggested by the PAW based on few movements between tropical tag release sites and temperate zones for Bigeye tuna (McKechnie et al. 2017a).

Figure 15. Yellowfin tuna: the geographical area covered by the stock assessment and the boundaries for the 9 regions when using the “2017 regional structure” (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 16. Map of the movements of tagged Yellowfin Tuna released in the Pacific Ocean and subsequently recaptured more than 1,000 nautical miles from their release site. Plots represent recaptures from different tuna tagging programs. (from Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017).

7.3.2.2 Yellowfin - Status of stocks

Stock assessments for Yellowfin Tuna have been conducted regularly and almost annually since 1999. Furthermore, an independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al. 2012) had several recommendations for improvement that apply equally to the Yellowfin assessment, and these have been incorporated into the current assessment wherever possible.

The assessment model is run in Multifan-CL (MFCL), which provides a Bayesian framework. MFCL requires that ‘fisheries’ are defined with as near as possible constant selectivity and catchability. For each fishery, the assessment uses catch data, effort data (in the form of standardised CPUE time series), time series of size data, externally estimated growth functions, and tagging data. The model can be considered to consist

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 51 of 175 of several components, (i) the dynamics of the fish population; (ii) the fishery dynamics; (iii) the dynamics of tagged fish; (iv) the observation models for the data; (v) the parameter estimation procedure; and (vi) stock assessment interpretations. Detailed technical descriptions of components (i)–(iv) are given in Hampton and Fournier (2001) and Kleiber et al. (2017).

Age / spatial structure: The model is structured into 9 regions and 28 quarterly age classes (the last a plus group).

Growth: Growth was assumed to be invariant by region and sex. It has been noted that growth of smaller fish (up to ~80cm) may not conform to a von Bertalanffy (VB) curve, so the mean length of the first 8 quarterly age-classes were set as independent parameters, with the mean lengths for the remaining age- classes following a VB growth model.

Steepness: Fixed at 0.8, with 0.65 and 0.95 tested as sensitivities (as all the main WCPFC tuna stocks).

Recruitment: Recruitment occurs in the model at age one, instantaneously at the beginning of each quarter. The stock-recruit relationship is considered weak (i.e. weak penalty for deviating from it); the six terminal quarterly recruitments are set at the mean of assessment period; the distribution of recruitment across regions is allowed to vary over time.

Natural mortality: M assumed to vary between males and females (because there is a larger proportion of males in the largest size classes); M is calculated externally by length and then converted to M-at-age using the growth curve; this M vector is put into the model as fixed values.

Maturity: The assessment estimates ‘spawning potential’ rather than spawner biomass, with the objective of estimating directly the relevant contribution to the next generation. This is a function of sex ratio at age, female maturity at age, female spawning frequency at age and female fecundity at age. As for M, this function is calculated by length and then back-transformed to age using the growth function.

Selectivity: Modelled using a variety of functions and methods (cubic spline smoothing, logistic function), depending on the fishery. Fisheries can ‘share’ selectivity if their characteristics are similar, to reduce the number of model parameters

Catchability: Constant catchability is assumed for fisheries where there is standardised CPUE (i.e. the model assumes that standardised CPUE is an index of abundance); otherwise catchability is allowed to vary over time (every 2 years).

The most recent assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017) was an update of the previous assessment (Davies et al. 2014) but also addressed relevant recommendations of that assessment report, including an investigation of an alternative regional structure, exploration of uncertainties in the assessment model, particularly in response to the inclusion of additional years of data, and improving diagnostic weaknesses of previous assessments. It used data from 1952 to 2015, in quarterly timesteps; 2016 data being too preliminary at the time of assessment. SCS Global Services Report

In addition to the diagnostic case model, it reported the results of one-off sensitivity models to explore the relative impacts of key data and model assumptions for the diagnostic case model on the stock assessment results and conclusions. It also undertook a structural uncertainty analysis (model grid) for consideration in developing management advice where all possible combinations of the most important axes of uncertainty from the one-off models were included. The grid contains all combinations of two or more parameter settings or assumptions for each uncertainty axis. The axes are generally selected from the one-off sensitivities with the aim of providing an approximate understanding of variability in model estimates due to assumptions in model structure, not accounted for by statistical uncertainty estimated in a single model run, or over a set of one-off sensitivities. The structural uncertainty grid for the 2017 assessment was constructed from 5 axes: steepness (3 settings), tagging data overdispersion (2), tag mixing (2), size data weighting (3) and regional structure (2). Initially the grid consisted of 48 models as only two size weighting had been applied, subsequently a third was added (see under ‘sensitivities’ below), so the final grid comprised 72 model runs.

In comparison to previous assessments, less emphasis was placed on the diagnostic case model. Instead, Tremblay-Boyer et al. (2017) recommended that management advice be formulated from the results of the structural uncertainty grid and a selection of 48 of the 72 runs were selected by the SC as the basis for this advice (Table 14, Figure 17). In this selection of runs, the lower 10 percentiles for SBlatest/SBF=0 and SBrecent/SBF=0 were 1.02 and 1.05 respectively, indicating that the stock was close to the point at which there would no longer be a high degree of certainty (95% probability) that it was still above the LRP of 20% SBF=0.

Across the range of model runs in this assessment, the key factor influencing estimates of stock status was the size data weighting value. Down-weighting the influence of the size data led to more pessimistic stock status estimates.

Based on the results of the model grid, the general conclusions were:

1. The grid contained a wide range of models with some variation in estimates of stock status, trends in abundance and reference points. However, biomass was estimated to have declined throughout the model period for all models in the grid. Those declines were found across most tropical and temperate regions of the model.

2. Across the model grid, the terminal depletion estimated for the majority of runs estimates stock status levels to be above the 20% SB F=0 . The range of SB latest /SB F=0 values was 0.18 to 0.45. Only two runs (<5%) fell below the LRP of 20% SB F=0 . The median estimate (0.33) was comparable to that estimated from the 2014 assessment grid, noting the differences in grid uncertainty axes used in the two assessments (Figure 17).

3. Corresponding estimates of F recent /F msy ranged from 0.58 to 1.13, with 2 out of the 48 runs (<5%) indicating that F recent /F msy > 1. The median estimate (0.75) was also comparable to that estimated from the 2014 assessment grid.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 53 of 175 4. Fishing mortality for adult and juvenile Yellowfin Tuna was estimated to have increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing (seen in the diagnostic case model). In general, these had been on average higher for juveniles, but in recent years adult fishing mortality had also increased. A significant component of the increase in juvenile fishing mortality was attributable to the Philippines, Indonesian and Vietnamese surface fisheries, which have the most uncertain catch, effort and size data. The work of the WPEA project to assist in enhancing the current fishery monitoring programme and improving estimates of historical and current catch from these fisheries remains important given the contribution of these fisheries in the overall fishing impact analyses from this assessment.

5. The significance of the recent increased recruitment events and the progression of these fish to the spawning potential component of the stock were encouraging, although whether this was a result of management measures for the fishery or beneficial environmental conditions was currently unclear. It was noteworthy, however, that recent favourable recruitment events had also been estimated for Skipjack (McKechnie et al., 2016a, 2016b) and bigeye (McKechnie et al., 2017a) in the WCPO, and bigeye in the EPO (Aires-da Silva et al., 2017), which may give weight to the favourable environmental conditions hypothesis. Whether these trends are maintained in coming years will help separate these factors and will likely provide more certainty about the future trajectories of the stock.

6. There remained a range of other model assumptions that should be investigated either internally or through directed research. Briefly, the apparent non-linear impact of the weighing on the size composition data on population estimates, and the conflict between the abundance indices and the tagging data for region 8 were worthy of note. Also, biological studies to improve our estimates of growth of Yellowfin within the WCPO, for instance through direct ageing of otoliths as was done in bigeye, should be considered a high priority.

The impact of longline fishing is important, but it is spatially variable and has declined in recent years (Figure 18). Over the period 1965-2014, recruitment on average displays very little trend and the uncertainty decreases substantially since the mid 1965s (Figure 19). Biomass has declined steadily over the model period but in the most recent years, that decline has slowed, and shows a small increase in the last two years (Figure 20). Although the age-specific selectivity patterns produce a much higher MSY in the early period of the fishery compared to the recent estimates, the catch has always been less than MSY (Figure 21).

SCS Global Services Report

Table 14. Yellowfin tuna: Summary of reference points over the 48 models in the structural uncertainty grid retained for management advice using divisors of 20 and 50 for the weighting on the size composition data. Note that SBrecent/SBF=0 is calculated where SBrecent is the mean SB over 2012-2015 instead of 2011-2014 (used in the stock assessment report), at the request of the Scientific Committee (from WCPFC-SC 2017).

Mean Median Min 10% 90% Max Clatest 611,982 612,592 606,762 607,517 614,237 614,801 MSY 670,658 670,800 539,200 601,480 735,280 795,200 YFrecent 646,075 643,400 534,400 586,120 717,880 739,600 Fmult 1.34 1.36 0.88 1.03 1.61 1.86 FMSY 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.16 Frecent/FMSY 0.77 0.74 0.54 0.62 0.97 1.13 SBMSY 544,762 581,400 186,800 253,320 786,260 946,800 SB0 2,199,750 2,290,000 1,197,000 1,366,600 2,784,500 3,256,000 SBMSY/SB0 0.24 0.24 0.15 0.18 0.28 0.34 SBF=0 2,083,477 2,178,220 1,193,336 1,351,946 2,643,390 2,845,244 SBMSY/SBF=0 0.25 0.26 0.16 0.19 0.30 0.35 SBlatest /SB0 0.33 0.34 0.18 0.23 0.42 0.45 SBlatest /SBF=0 0.35 0.37 0.16 0.22 0.46 0.50 SBlatest /SBMSY 1.40 1.39 0.80 1.02 1.80 1.91 SBrecent/SBF=0 0.32 0.33 0.15 0.20 0.41 0.46 SBrecent/SBMSY 1.40 1.41 0.81 1.05 1.71 1.93

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 55 of 175 a b c

d e f g

Figure 17. Yellowfin tuna: Majuro plots summarising the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning biomass depletion (B/Bmsy - X-axis) and fishing mortality (F/Fmsy – Y-axis). The red zone represents spawning biomass levels lower than the agreed limit reference point, which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than F MSY ( F MSY is marked with the black dashed line). The points represent SB latest /SB F=0 for each model run except in panel (b) where SB recent /SB F=0 is also displayed. Panels (c)–(g) show the estimates for the different levels for the five axes of the grid. (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 18. Yellowfin tuna: estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing (fishery impact = 1 −SB latest /SB F=0 ) by region, and over all regions (lower right panel), attributed to various fishery groups for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Figure 19. Yellowfin tuna: estimated annual, temporal recruitment (in millions with 95% confidence intervals as the blue shaded regions) for the whole WCPO for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 57 of 175

Figure 20. Yellowfin tuna: trajectories of fishing depletion (of spawning potential) for the 48 model runs retained for the structural uncertainty grid used for management advice. The colours depict the models in the grid with the size composition weighting using divisors of 20 and 50 (from WCPFC-SC 2017).

Figure 21. Yellowfin tuna: History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) for the diagnostic case model compared with an annual catch by the main gear types (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

7.3.2.3 Yellowfin - Fishing and Management

SCS Global Services Report

For Skipjack Tuna, there are three distinct levels of management for the UoA which are described more fully under Principle 3: management by the WCPFC, management by the PNA (noting that the vast majority of the catch of both Skipjack and Yellowfin are taken from PNA waters), and management by the Solomon Islands. Background to the first two of these levels of management is provided above under Skipjack and is equally applicable to Yellowfin Tuna. Management by the Solomon Islands is described in Section 7.5.

7.3.2.4 Yellowfin - Harvest strategy

The WCPFC remains the most important level of management for Yellowfin. Progress towards the development of a Harvest Strategy for Yellowfin is evaluated based on the Harvest Strategy Workplan adopted by WCPFC for the key tuna species (Table 3). This indicates that there are still important decisions to be made concerning harvest control rules, but that progress has been consistent with the agreed plan.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 59 of 175 Table 15. Work plan from WCPFC14 (2017) for Yellowfin Tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06. Bold items are the six elements that are referred to in CMM 2014-06 (a. Objectives, b. Reference Points, c. Acceptable Levels of Risk, d. Monitoring, e. Harvest Control Rules and f. MSE). Items in brackets are related to harvest strategy development, are part of the plan, but are not one of these six elements.

Year Activity 2017 Performance indicators and Monitoring strategy (d). • SC provides advice on a range of performance indicators for the Tropical Longline Fishery to evaluate the performance of harvest control rules. • Commission noted performance indicators for the Tropical Longline Fishery to evaluate harvest control rules 2017 Progress summary: • Recognized the importance of developing harvest strategies for key stocks in the WCPO. The Commission recognized that this work requires the consideration of fisheries managers and scientists at different stages. The Commission notes that the time required for harvest strategy discussions is substantial but will also vary from year to year and the Commission recognized the need for this to be accommodated. • Agreed to reprioritize as needed the annual agenda of the Commission and Scientific Committee to allow sufficient additional time for consideration of harvest strategy issues. In addition, WCPFC recognized that there may also be a need for a dedicated science/management dialogue. 2018 • [SC and Commission discussion of management objectives for fisheries and/or stocks, and subsequent development of candidate TRPs for BET and YFT.] 2019 Agree on Target Reference Point (b). • SC provides advice on potential Target Reference Points for Yellowfin. • Commission agrees on a TRP for Yellowfin. Develop harvest control rules (e) and Management strategy evaluation (f) • SC provides advice on the performance of candidate harvest control rules. (ongoing). • Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. (ongoing). 2020 Develop harvest control rules (e) and Management strategy evaluation (f) • SC provides advice on the performance of candidate harvest control rules. (ongoing). • TCC consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. (ongoing). • Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. (ongoing). 2021 Develop harvest control rules (e) and Management strategy evaluation (f) • SC provides advice on the performance of candidate harvest control rules. • TCC consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. • Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. Adopt a Harvest Control Rule

SCS Global Services Report

7.3.2.5 Yellowfin - Catch profiles

The annual purse seine and pole-and-line catch of yellowfin by gear type for the UoA vessels from 2015 to 2019 is shown in Table 16.

Table 16. Catch for yellowfin tuna by gear type for UoA vessels, catch for the WCPFC Statistical Area and the UoAs’ total catch as a % of the total WCPFC Statistical Area catch (2013-2018) (Data for WCPFC and for Pole and Line from SPC-OFP 2019; data for the UoA for purse seine from SPC).

Year UoA Purse UoA Pole UoA Total WCPFC (t) UoA catch seine (t) and Line (t) / WCPFC catch (t) total (%)

2015 4254 149 5,059 579,672 0.3% 2016 7153 117 7,709 640,246 0.4% 2017 8583 272 8,948 695,107 0.5% 2018 134 2,541 690,207 0.1% 8449

7.3.2.6 Yellowfin - Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

There are no TACs in place for the fishery but the total catch data for the two most recent complete fishing years are provided in Table 17.

Table 17. Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and catch data

TAC Year N/A N/A

UoA share of TAC Year N/A N/A

UoA share of total TAC Year N/A N/A

Year (most Total green weight catch by UoC 2018 9,004 t recent) Year (second Total green weight catch by UoC 2017 8,855 t most recent)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 61 of 175 7.3.3 Principle 1 Performance Indicator scores and rationales SCS Global Services Report

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

Guide It is likely that the stock is It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of post above the point where stock is above the PRI. certainty that the stock is recruitment would be above the PRI. impaired (PRI). Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The WCPFC-SC (WCPFC-SC 2019) provided advice on stock status based on the 2019 stock assessment results (Vincent et al. 2019). Stock status was determined over an uncertainty grid of 54 models with assumed weightings as illustrated in Table 9.

In this assessment SBMSY has been analytically determined to be 0.175 of SBF=0 (from the mean across the uncertainty grid) or 0.176 SBF=0 (from the median across the uncertainty grid) but PRI has not been determined. GSA2.2.3.1 indicates that in such cases (where BMSY is analytically determined to be lower than 27%B0 and there is no analytical determination of the PRI), the default PRI should be 75%BMSY. This equates to 13% SBF=0 (as the SC provides advice based on SBF=0 rather than SB0).

The median level of spawning potential depletion from the uncertainty grid was 0.44 SBrecent/SBF=0 (80% prob. int. 0.37 – 0.53) or 0.41 SBlatest/SBF=0 (80% prob. int. 0.37 – 0.49). Recent refers to the average across years 2015- 2018; latest to 2018. There were no individual models where SBrecent/SBF=0 or SBlatest/SBF=0 were less than 0.30. The SC concluded that the probability that recent spawning biomass was below the LRP (0.2 SB/SBF=0) was zero. As the default PRI is less than the LRP, the probability that the stock is less than the PRI is lower than the probability of it being below the LRP.

There is, therefore, a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which meets the requirements of scoring issue a at the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

Guide The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of post around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The SC noted that the latest assessment estimated that the median stock levels relative to SBMSY from the uncertainty grid were 2.58 SBrecent/SBMSY (80% prob. int. 1.89 – 3.61) or 2.38 SBlatest/SBMSY (80% prob. int. 178 – 3.36) (WCPFC-SC 2019). There were no individual models where SBrecent or SBlatest were less than SBMSY. The

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 63 of 175 trend in estimated spawning potential (Figure 8) shows that the stock has been fluctuating around current levels over recent years. The 2019 assessment also estimated the mean SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.47 with an 80% probability interval of 1.78 to 3.36 and the mean SBrecent/SBMSY = 2.62 with an 80% probability interval of 1.89 to 3.61 for the reference case, and ranged between 1.60 and 3.11 across the one off sensitivity models explored.

There is therefore a high degree of certainty that the stock has been above SBMSY over recent years, meeting SG 80 and SG 100 requirements

References

Vincent et al. 2019; WCPFC-SC 2019

Stock status relative to reference points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point Proportion of average SBF=0 = 6,220,675 t Mean SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.41 > used in scoring spawning potential 0.13X SBF=0 = 808,688 t PRI stock relative to predicted to occur in the Man SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.44 > PRI (SIa) absence of fishing for the PRI period 2002‐11 (SBF=0)

Default PRI = 0.13 SBF=0

Reference point Spawning potential that will SBMSY = 1,100,947 t Mean SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.47 used in scoring produce the maximum Mean SBrecent/SBF=0 = 2.62 stock relative to sustainable yield (SBMSY) MSY (SIb)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Harvest strategy design

Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Yes No Not scored

Rationale

The harvest strategy for WCPO Skipjack has several contributing components, with WCPFC, PNA and national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. There are, however, no formal harvest control rules. The conservation and management measures applied to Skipjack Tuna and the elements they contain are assessed as being expected to achieve stock management objectives meeting the requirements of the SG 60 level. The Skipjack stock is well above levels that would raise concerns about potential impairment of recruitment, so measures to reduce the catch have not been required to date. Nevertheless, the absence of agreed harvest control rules within WCPFC or PNA for any other tuna species, and the record of failing to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna sufficiently when they were considered to have been overfished, reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy would be responsive to the state of the stock or that the elements will work together when required to do so to achieve the management objectives.

The original PNA Skipjack assessment (Banks et al. 2011) scored that fishery as meeting the SG 80 level on the basis that “the Commission responded to the change in the results of the Skipjack assessment and the more cautionary tone of the scientific advice in 2010 by deciding to address the management of Skipjack explicitly in the preparation of a CMM to replace CMM 2008-01 beyond 2011.” At the time of that assessment the specific measures to be contained in the CMM had not been agreed or adopted. CMM 2012-01 (and subsequent tuna CMMs) do contain measures to restrict purse seine fishing effort but there is no explicit linkage to stock status of any species.

These concerns prevent the conclusion that the elements of the strategy are working together to achieve stock management objectives.

This conclusion is consistent with the results of extensive harmonisation discussions among CABs as described elsewhere.

Furthermore, we have considered submissions from the PNAO concerning PI 1.2.1 for Skipjack as outlined in Morgan et al. 2018 and Morison and Meere, 2019. These submissions argue that the processes followed by WCPFC and PNA in making adjustments to management arrangements for Skipjack Tuna are evidence of harvest strategy components working together to achieve stock management objectives . These submissions have also been considered by other CABs as part of harmonisation discussions on this issue. We remained of the view that

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 65 of 175 the deficiencies in the harvest strategy for Skipjack Tuna identified in the initial assessment still remain, particularly while there was no harvest control rule. Specifically, core concerns in the scoring of Skipjack under PI 1.2.1 relative to PNA have been identified as: • There is a lack of a clear link between the PAE and scientific advice on stock status. • There is no clear linkage between potential catch and allocated effort. It is not possible to transparently understand how the VDS/PAE will deal with effort creep and concomitant increase in catchability. • Because Principle 1 is evaluated stock-wide, If PNA unilaterally develops their own HCR, it will become necessary for a formal commitment from PNA to reduce effort to compensate for removals by non- PNA fishery participants in the WCPO, if necessary, to assure that overall PNA removals remain compliant with any HCR and the overall PNA HS.

The MSC identifies a Harvest Control Rule in place (even if just a generally understood one) as one of the key elements required in a harvest strategy (MSC Standard v2.01 GSA2.4) and so the lack of any form of HCR is relevant to the logic behind whether the harvest strategy elements (as defined by MSC) work together as required by the SG80 level for Scoring Issue a for PI 1.2.1. Applying the MSC definition of a harvest strategy, we therefore conclude that a harvest strategy for a fishery could not be given an unconditional pass for PI 1.2.1 without a HCR being in place.

Nevertheless, SCS with other CABs recognize the potential validity of the PNA’s argument, and have in response submitted an interpretation request to MSC on July 2019, to clarify this issue. No formal response has been received to the request to the date of the publication of this report

Skipjack Tuna is therefore considered to meet the SG 60 level of this scoring issue but not the SG 80 or SG 100 levels. b Harvest strategy evaluation

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

Rationale

The Skipjack stock is assessed as being above SBMSY and the status quo stock projections undertaken concluded that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the Skipjack stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014).

Furthermore, the most recent stock assessment (Vincent et al. 2019) indicates that fishing mortality for Skipjack Tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock has not declined below BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives.

Therefore, Skipjack Tuna is considered to meet the requirements of both the SG 60 and SG 80 of this scoring issue. c Harvest strategy monitoring SCS Global Services Report

Guide Monitoring is in place that is post expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Yes

Rationale

Monitoring in place for the purse seine fishery for Skipjack Tuna include mandatory logbooks with records of catch and effort for each fishing operation, a VMS, 100% observer coverage of fishing operations including detailed recording of catch composition, tagging data, biological studies and port inspections. These support a sophisticated stock assessment process that provides robust estimates of stock status that is sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. This meets the SG 60 requirements.

d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Not scored

Rationale

Not scored as not all SG 80 requirements are met.

e Shark finning

Rationale

Sharks are not a target species of this fishery and therefore this scoring Issue need not be scored.

f Review of alternative measures

Guide There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness and practicality of and practicality of and practicality of alternative measures to alternative measures to alternative measures to minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch of the target stock. of the target stock and they of the target stock, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

CMM 2018-01 (and its predecessors) requires that “To create a disincentive to the capture of small fish and to encourage the development of technologies and fishing strategies designed to avoid the capture of small tunas and other fish, CCMs shall require their purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and on the high seas within the area

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 67 of 175 bounded by 20ºN and 20ºS to retain on board and then land or transship at port all bigeye, Skipjack, Yellowfin Tuna.” Exceptions to this requirement are possible where the fish are unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size or when serious malfunction of equipment occurs. Reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and Observer Programs (100% observer coverage). Compliance with CMM 2018-01 (and its predecessors) is verified by observers, with any violations (such as illegal discards) being reported to the WCPFC via the Observer authority. Reported discards for the UoA represented a very small (<2%) proportion of the total catch. Discarded catches of Skipjack across the whole fleet are also estimated to be minor and are ignored in the stock assessment (Vincent et al. 2016). The rules in place indicate that this scoring issue is not relevant to the UoA. . References

Banks et al. 2011; Morgan et al. 2018; Morison and Meere 2019; Vincent et al. 2019; WCPFC-SC 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant) SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a HCRs design and application

Guide Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to post are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced at or above a target level exploitation rate as the point as the PRI is approached, are consistent with MSY, or of recruitment impairment expected to keep the stock another more appropriate (PRI) is approached. fluctuating around a target level taking into account level consistent with (or the ecological role of the above) MSY, or for key LTL stock, most of the time. species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Yes No Not scored

Rationale

A generally understood HCR is taken here to mean one that is not well defined, as otherwise there is no distinction between requirements at the SG60 and SG80 levels. This PI is also assessed taking account the guidance for scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 containing in SA2.5.2, SA2.5.3 and SA2.5.5. The first option for scoring ‘available’ HCRs is intended to cover the situation where even generally understood HCRs are not yet clearly in place for a fishery. For WCPFC fisheries, including Skipjack Tuna, there are measures for controlling fishing effort through closures, limits on fishing capacity and, for vessels involved, through limits on fishing days under the VDS. There are expectations about responses and examples of how actions have been implemented for species such as bigeye tuna, but there is no clear linkage or explicit process that links changes in stock status to emergent associated management actions. Therefore we do not consider that there are even generally understood HCRs that are also “in place” ; the options for ‘available’ HCRs are therefore evaluated below. The second question to address, is whether there are HCRs that meet the requirements for being considered as ‘available’. The guidance in SA2.5.2a indicates that teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs in cases where, “…Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2 generation times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within the next 5 years”. As noted at PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the 2019 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (Vincent et al, 2019). The SC concluded that the median spawning potential for Skipjack Tuna to be at 44% of unfished levels and 2.58 times SBMSY. The stock is estimated to have never been reduced to SBMSY and has hence been above SBMSY in all years. An estimate of the generation time of Skipjack Tuna using the MSC definition (Box GSA4 in CR v2.0) is not available but SPC have produced an estimate of 2 years by a different method (Berger et al. 2013) and by any method of estimation 2 generation times will be much less than the 20 years used in the projections mentioned above. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are therefore considered to be ‘available’. The third question to address is whether these available HCRs meet the requirement for reducing the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The guidance in SA2.5.3 requires that “Teams shall recognise

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 69 of 175 ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where, HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control of the same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; or An agreement or framework in place that requires the management body (in this case WCPFC) to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below Bmsy”. There are CMMs that are in place for a range of tuna species within the WCPFC (including Skipjack) that contain a range of management measures that are designed to constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, none are more highly developed than the measures currently in place for Skipjack Tuna and therefore they do not offer an example of effectiveness in reducing exploitation as the PRI is approached. Option a. is therefore not considered to be met. Option b. examines plans for the introduction of an effective HCR. WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2014-06 (WCPFC, 2014) sets out definitions of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The Commission agreed to adopt a work plan at its 2015 annual meeting, which was revised in 2016, with application to Skipjack, bigeye, Yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was progressed through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. We note that there is no specific requirement in CMM 2014-06 linking implementation of the HCRs to stock projections. Nevertheless, given that Skipjack Tuna are projected to remain well above BMSY for many years and that the process CMM 2014-06 describes has already been initiated – considered in place - we have considered that the requirements of Option b. SA2.5.3b are met. The requirements of the SG60 level are therefore considered to be met. In summary, generally understood HCRs are not in place. Skipjack is a stock that has not previously been reduced below MSY, which has always been maintained well above the TRP and has an improbably low likelihood of becoming overfished or to experience overfishing. Therefore, this stock meets the requirements to be considered against "availability" requirements. In the WCPFC, HCRSs are not effectively used in any other WCPFC-managed UoAs. However, there is a framework that is in place, expected to develop further that will require the WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any detectable, projected risk that Skipjack stock status could decline below BMSY. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a post robust to the main wide range of uncertainties uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? No Not scored

Rationale

The ‘available’ harvest control rules are not sufficiently articulated to allow an evaluation of the extent to which they are robust to the main uncertainties. When well-defined HCRs are developed, they can be evaluated as to whether this is the case. The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met. c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that post tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are SCS Global Services Report

implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes No Not scored

Rationale

As noted under scoring issue “a” above, following SA2.5.3b, we have recognised ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’. SA2.5.5b, which requires that teams shall include in their rationale a description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs. The agreement is contained in CMM 2014-06 whose objective is “To agree that the Commission shall develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for each of the key fisheries or stocks under the purview of the Commission according to the process set out in this conservation and management measure.” This CMM contains general principles (including a description of a harvest strategy) and principles and elements of the proposed harvest strategies (which are consistent with the MSC definitions). The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules (or “harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated before this CMM was passed through the Management Objectives Workshop process and requires no additional trigger for their development. WCPFC has adopted an explicit LRP and TRP for skipjack. Following discussions at WCPFC 12 a workplan was agreed (WCPFC 2015a, Attachment Y). The requirements of SA2.5.5b are therefore considered to be met. Furthermore, SA2.5.6 requires that, in scoring issue (c) for “evidence” teams shall include consideration of the current levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available. The most recent stock assessment for Skipjack Tuna (Vincent et al., 2019) and the earlier status quo projections (Pilling et al. 2014a) provide some evidence that the tools in use (the VDS and WCPFC effort limits) are effective in controlling exploitation of Skipjack Tuna and achieving the exploitation levels that are required. As noted above, these indicate that fishing mortality for Skipjack Tuna has always been below the FMSY level, that the stock has not declined below BMSY and that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality will increase above the FMSY level by 2032. The current levels of exploitation are therefore acceptable and the requirements of SA2.5.6 are met. This meets the requirements of the SG60 level. The HCRs are only regarded as being ‘available’ in scoring issue (a) and not ‘in place’, so we have considered that it is not possible to score more than 60 for issue (c) since the SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery and not the tools ‘in use or available’. In any case, not all available evidence indicates that current exploitation is adequately contained by the existing main tools (VDS and WCPFC effort limits) as catches of Skipjack are still increasing and, although fishing mortality remains below the FMSY level, it has increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing. So the effectiveness of the CMM 2014-01 for restricting fishing mortality to previous levels is not well demonstrated. The requirements of the SG80 level are therefore not clearly met. References

Berger et al. 2015, Vincent et al. 2019 Pilling et al. 2014a, WCPFC (2014a), WCPFC 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 71 of 175 Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant) SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Range of information

Guide Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of post related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock productivity, structure, stock productivity, composition is available to fleet composition and other fleet composition, stock support the harvest strategy. data are available to support abundance, UoA removals the harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The monitoring system that is in place for the fishery collects a comprehensive range of information related to the fishery: this includes mandatory logbooks with records for each fishing operation, a VMS, 100% observer coverage of fishing operations providing a detailed record of catch composition, and port inspections. Information is also available on stock structure (from tagging and other work), and all other key aspects of the species’ biology. Data on environmental conditions is collected and is known to be important for understanding shifts in the distribution of the stock and the fishery. This information has been used to produce complex models of the ecological system (SEAPODYM) that are beyond what is needed for implementation of the harvest strategy. This is considered to meet the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

b Monitoring

Guide Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by post removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are available inherent uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 73 of 175 Delays in the finalization of data from the most recent year prevented the most recent data being used in the assessment and, particularly for a short lived species such as Skipjack Tuna, this could lead to a mismatch between estimates of stock status from the assessment, management actions, and the actual stock status on the water (Rice et al. 2014). Furthermore, the Japanese pole-and-line fishery, which provides the standardised CPUE indices in regions 1, 2, and 3, represents less than 10% of the total catch of Skipjack Tuna and even less in the main equatorial zone, but remains the only fishery that can provide long-term information on relative biomass levels (McKechnie et al. 2016). These authors also report that there is a limited understanding of the factors driving the patterns observed in these data which are the basis for the key index that drives estimated abundance trends. The decline in the catch by the pole-and-line fishery has continued (Figure 7) and the WCPFC-SC (2019) has acknowledged that that the future use of this standardized CPUE index within future stock assessments is uncertain. Nevertheless, the accuracy and coverage of the estimates of removal and abundance have been shown to be sufficient to support an assessment and harvest strategy. Operational level data are also not provided by some WCPFC members (although some who do not provide it to WCPFC make their country’s data available for assessment purposes).

The issues raised above mean that we do not consider there to be a high degree of certainty about stock abundance or the robustness of the assessment to this uncertainty.

This meets the requirements for the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not the SG 100 level. c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on post all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Yes

Rationale

Other fishery removals from the stock include catches by other WCPFC members including removals with fishing gears other than purse seine. Catches by members are required to be reported to the WCPFC. Article 5 of the Convention requires CCMs to “collect and share, in a timely manner, complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities on, inter alia, vessel position, catch of target and non-target species and fishing effort, as well as information from national and international research programmes.” This scoring issue was the subject of particular attention in the PNA Skipjack Tuna assessment (Banks et al. 2011) and in particular whether there was good information on the level of fishery removals from some countries. The conclusion was that “despite a number of deficiencies in compilation and analysis from the Indonesia and Philippines, this reaches SG 80”. Since that assessment there has been additional work to improve the level of data available (noted in the Surveillance Reports for the PNA Skipjack Tuna: Lewis and Scott 2012, Scott and Stokes 2013) and we conclude that the requirements of the SG 80 level are also met for this fishery.

References

Banks et al. 2011; Lewis and Scott 2012; McKechnie et al. 2016; Scott and Stokes 2013; WCPFC-SC 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80 SCS Global Services Report

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 75 of 175 PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guide The assessment is The assessment takes into post appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of the rule. species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The most recent assessment applied to Skipjack Tuna (Vincent et al. 2019), like other recent assessments, is an integrated, model-based assessment that is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment program at the SPC. It takes into account major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the fishery. It therefore meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue. b Assessment approach

Guide The assessment estimates The assessment estimates post stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

The assessment reports provide a wide range of estimates of stock status relative to indicators of interest to management including both the target and limit reference points that have been agreed for Skipjack Tuna. This therefore meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. c Uncertainty in the assessment

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

Rationale

The assessment of Skipjack Tuna has provided explicit commentary on the major sources of uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue d Evaluation of assessment SCS Global Services Report

Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale

There is an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and approaches by the staff in the SPC-OFP. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required. Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data and a suite of sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. The assessment for Skipjack Tuna has been shown to be robust and therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue. We note that there has been no simulation testing of the model, but such testing is not necessary to meet the requirements. e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes No

Rationale

References

Ianelli et al. 2014, Vincent et al. 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 77 of 175

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

The diagnostic case from the 2017 stock assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017) estimated that the spawning biomass was at 40% of unfished levels in 2015 and was well above the WCPFC limit reference point, 20%SBF=0 .5. Recruitment was also estimated to have been stable since the mid 1960s. The assessment considers both statistical uncertainty in the 'diagnostic case' and structural and data uncertainty across an uncertainty grid. As recommended by the assessment scientists, the SC has adopted the latter approach in framing its management advice and we have also accepted this approach for evaluating stock status here.

In the analysis of model structural uncertainty in the assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017), using a crosswise grid of 72 alternative model formulations, only two runs (<5%) fell below the limit reference point. Nevertheless, in the selection of 48 of the 72 runs that were selected by the SC as the basis for its advice (Table 4) the lower 10 percentiles for SBlatest/SBF=0 and SBrecent/SBF=0 were 0.22 and 0.20 respectively, indicating that the stock was close to the point at which there would no longer be a high degree of certainty (95% probability) that it was still above the LRP of 20% SBF=0 and will probably not reach it soon if the stock continues to decline.

Previous modelling had also indicated that a biomass of this level for Yellowfin Tuna had a greater than 95% likelihood of being above the limit reference point of 20% of unfished levels (SPC-OFP 2014). A stock above this limit reference point is considered to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

Guide The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of post around a level consistent certainty that the stock with MSY. has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Yes No

Rationale

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 79 of 175

This is the agreed harmonized score.

There is no explicit target reference point for Yellowfin Tuna but there is considered to be an implicit target of BMSY (supported by CMM 2016-01).

The grid medians for both SBrecent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY in the most recent assessment were 1.42 (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017) which is well above this (default) target reference point and, given the estimated stock trajectory, would have done so over the whole period modelled.

This meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 80 level.

Following SA2.2.1.3 a high degree of certainty means greater than or equal to the 95th percentile of a distribution. This assessment (unlike the previous one) does not provide 95% confidence intervals for the ratios SBrecent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY but across the grid of uncertainties only two runs (<5%) fell below the chance of the stock being below SBMSY over recent years. This finding might suggest that that Yellowfin Tuna now meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 100 level.

Nevertheless, previous assessment scores for Yellowfin tuna, based on the 2014 stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014), were that the SG 100 level was not met because the lower 95% confidence intervals for B/BMSY was less than 1 and the upper 95% confidence interval for F/FMSY was greater than 1. The 2017 assessment was slightly more optimistic but as the stock has recently been estimated to have been below that threshold the SG 100 requirement that stock be above MSY over recent years is still not met.

References

Pilling et al. 2014, Rice et al. 2014, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017

Stock status relative to reference points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point Level of spawning biomass SBF=0 = 2,592,702 t SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.46 > LRP used in scoring in the absence of fishing 0.2X SBF=0 = 518,540 t SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.42 > LRP stock relative to (SBF=0) PRI (SIa) LRP: 20% SBF=0

Reference point SBMSY=750,100 t Level of spawning biomass SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.58 used in scoring relative to MSY (SBMSY) stock relative to SBrecent/SBMSY = 1.46

MSY (SIb)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 81 of 175 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

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE’ (MSC – MSCI Vocabulary v1.1).

The harvest strategy for WCPO Yellowfin has several contributing components, with WCPFC, PNA and national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. There are, however, no formal harvest control rules. This conclusion is consistent with the results of extensive harmonisation discussions among CABs as described in detail in Section 4.1.

The range of measures applied to the sectors that fish for Yellowfin Tuna are expected to achieve stock management objectives meeting the requirements of the SG 60 level.

Nevertheless, the general stock decline for Yellowfin (albeit with a recent increase in stock size), the absence of agreed harvest control rules within WCPFC or PNA for any other tuna species, and the record of the Commission failing to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna when it was thought to have been subject to overfishing, reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy would be responsive to the state of the stock or that the elements will work together when required to do so to achieve the management objectives.

It is also not clear that coherent management actions are implemented throughout the range of the stock, particularly in Indonesia and the Philippines. Overall this prevents the conclusion that the strategy is designed to achieve stock management objectives. Yellowfin tuna is therefore considered to meet the SG 60 level of this scoring issue but not the SG 80 or SG 100 levels. b Harvest strategy evaluation SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

Yellowfin tuna have been estimated to be above default target levels and the status quo stock projections undertaken indicate that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the Yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014). Furthermore, the most recent stock assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017) indicates that fishing mortality for Yellowfin Tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. Therefore, Yellowfin Tuna is considered to meet both the SG 60 and SG 80 levels of this scoring issue

c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guide Monitoring is in place that is post expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Yes

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

Monitoring in place for the longline fishery for Yellowfin Tuna include mandatory logbooks with records of catch and effort for each fishing operation, a VMS, tagging data, biological studies and port inspections. There is, however, only very limited observer coverage of fishing operations so there are relatively few data on the discarded component of the catch, but few Yellowfin would be expected to be discarded. The data that are collected do support a sophisticated stock assessment process that provides robust estimates of stock status that is sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. This meets the SG 60 requirements. d Harvest strategy review

Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Not scored

Rationale

Not scored because at least one other scoring issue does not reach the SG80 level..

e Shark finning

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 83 of 175 Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? NA NA NA

Rationale

Not scored as sharks are not a target species.. f Review of alternative measures

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score. There is negligible unwanted catch of the target stock.

CMM 2015-01 (and its predecessors) requires that “To create a disincentive to the capture of small fish and to encourage the development of technologies and fishing strategies designed to avoid the capture of small tunas and other fish, CCMs shall require their purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and on the high seas within the area bounded by 20ºN and 20ºS to retain on board and then land or transship at port all bigeye, skipjack, yellowfin tuna.” Exceptions to this requirement are possible where the fish are unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size or when serious malfunction of equipment occurs. Reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and Observer Programs. Compliance with CMM 2015-01 (and its predecessors) is verified by observers with any violations (such as illegal discards) being reported to the WCPFC via the Observer authority. Reported discards for the UoA represented 0.9% of the total catch for 2014 and 2015. Discarded catches of yellowfin across the whole fleet are also estimated to be minor and are ignored in the stock assessment (Tremblayer- Boyer et al. 2017). The rules in place indicate that this scoring issue is not relevant to the UoA. References

Pilling et al. 2014. Evaluation of risks of exceeding limit reference points for south Pacific albacore, bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tunas with implications for target reference points: a case study using south Pacific albacore. https://www.wcpfc.int/node/18513

Tremblay-Boyer, L., McKechnie, S., Pilling, G., and Hampton, J. (2017). Stock assessment of Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-06, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 9-17 August 2017. https://www.wcpfc.int/node/29519

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI SCS Global Services Report

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 85 of 175 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

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

A generally understood HCR is taken here to mean one that is not well defined, as otherwise there is no distinction between requirements at the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. This PI is also assessed taking account the guidance for scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG 60 containing in SA2.5.2, SA2.5.3 and SA2.5.5. The first option for scoring ‘available’ HCRs is intended to cover the situation where even generally understood HCRs are not yet clearly in place for a fishery. For WCPFC fisheries, including yellowfin tuna, there are measures for controlling fishing effort through closures, limits on fishing capacity and, for vessels involved, through limits on fishing days under the VDS. There are expectations about responses and examples of how actions have been implemented for species such as bigeye tuna, but there is no clear linkage or explicit process that links changes in stock status to emergent associated management actions. Therefore we do not consider that there are even generally understood HCRs that are also “in place” ; and the options for ‘available’ HCRs are evaluated below. The second question to address, is whether there are HCRs that meet the requirements for being considered as ‘available’. The guidance in SA2.5.2a indicates that teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs in cases where, “…Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2 generation times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within the next 5 years”. As noted at PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the 2017 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017). The stock assessment estimates spawning biomass for yellowfin tuna, SB, to be at 46% of unfished levels (SBF=0) and 1.58 times SBMSY. The stock is estimated to have never been reduced to SBMSY and has hence been above SBMSY in all years.

According to WCPFC (2014a), paragraph 37, “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) depends upon assumptions on future recruitment. When spawner-recruitment relationship conditions are assumed, spawning biomass is predicted to increase and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished (SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or to fall below SBMSY, nor to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY). If recent (2002-2011) actual recruitments are assumed, spawning biomass will remain relatively SCS Global Services Report

constant, and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished or to become subject to overfishing, and it was very unlikely (2%) that the spawning biomass would fall below SBMSY.”

An estimate of the generation time of yellowfin tuna using the MSC definition (Box GSA4 in CR v2.0) is not available but SPC have produced an estimate of 5 years by a different method (Berger et al. 2013) and by any method of estimation 2 generation times will be much less than the 20 years used in the projections mentioned above. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are therefore considered to be ‘available’. The third question to address is whether these available HCRs meet the requirement for reducing the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The guidance in SA2.5.3 requires that “Teams shall recognise ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where, HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control of the same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; or An agreement or framework in place that requires the management body (in this case WCPFC) to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below Bmsy”. There are CMMs that are in place for a range of tuna species within the WCPFC (including yellowfin) that contain a range of management measures that are designed to constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, none are considered to be more highly developed than the measures currently in place for yellowfin tuna and therefore they do not offer an example of effectiveness in reducing exploitation as the PRI is approached. Option a. is therefore not considered to be met. Option b. examines plans for the introduction of an effective HCR. WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2014-06 (WCPFC, 2014) sets out definitions of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The Commission agreed to adopt a work plan at its 2015 annual meeting, which was revised in 2016 and 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was progressed through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process.

We note that there is no specific requirement in CMM 2014-06 linking implementation of the HCRs to stock projections. Nevertheless, given that yellowfin tuna are projected to remain well above BMSY for many years and that the process CMM 2014-06 describes has already been initiated – considered in place - we have considered that the requirements of Option b. SA2.5.3b are met. The requirements of the SG 60 level are therefore considered to be met. In summary, generally understood HCRs are not in place. Yellowfin is a stock that has not previously been reduced below MSY, which has always been maintained well above the TRP and has an improbably low likelihood of becoming overfished or to experience overfishing. Therefore this stock meets the requirements to be considered against "availability" requirements. In the WCPF, HCRs are not yet effectively used in any other WCPFC-managed UoAs. However, there is a framework that is in place, expected to develop further that will require the WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any detectable, projected risk that yellowfin stock status could decline below BMSY. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 87 of 175 Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

There is no HCR in place so it cannot be said that it is robust to the main uncertainties. The ‘available’ harvest control rules are not sufficiently articulated to allow an evaluation of the extent to which they are robust to the main uncertainties. When well-defined HCRs are developed they can be evaluated as to whether this is the case. The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met. c HCRs evaluation

Guide There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that post tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in effective in achieving the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation exploitation levels required controlling exploitation. levels required under the under the HCRs. HCRs. Met? Yes No Not scored

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

As noted under scoring issue a above, following SA2.5.3b, we have recognised ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’. SA2.5.5b, which requires that teams shall include in their rationale a description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs. The agreement is contained in CMM 2014-06 whose objective is “To agree that the Commission shall develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for each of the key fisheries or stocks under the purview of the Commission according to the process set out in this conservation and management measure.” This CMM contains general principles (including a description of a harvest strategy) and principles and elements of the proposed harvest strategies (which are consistent with the MSC definitions). The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules (or “harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The specified timelines are that: “The Commission shall agree a workplan and indicative timeframes to adopt or refine harvest strategies for skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, South Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin and northern albacore tuna by no later than the twelfth meeting of the Commission in 2015. This workplan will be subject to review in 2017.” Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated before this CMM was passed through the Management Objectives Workshop process and requires no additional trigger for their development. The requirements of SA2.5.5b are therefore considered to be met. Furthermore, SA2.5.6 requires that, in scoring issue (c) for “evidence” teams shall include consideration of the current levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available. The most recent stock assessment for yellowfin tuna (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) and the earlier status quo projections (Pilling et al. 2014a) provide some evidence that the tools in use (the VDS and WCPFC effort limits) are effective in controlling exploitation of yellowfin tuna and achieving the exploitation levels that are required. As noted above, these indicate that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level, that the stock has not declined below BMSY and that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality will SCS Global Services Report

increase above the FMSY level by 2032. The current levels of exploitation are therefore acceptable and the requirements of SA2.5.6 are met. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level. The HCRs are only regarded as being ‘available’ in scoring issue (a) and not ‘in place’, so we have considered that it is not possible to score more than 60 for issue (c) since the SG 80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery and not the tools ‘in use or available’. In any case, not all available evidence indicates that current exploitation is adequately contained by the existing main tools (VDS and WCPFC effort limits) as catches of yellowfin (althought slightly lower in 2015) are still generally increasing and, although fishing mortality remains below the FMSY level, it has increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing. So the effectiveness of the CMM 2014-01 for restricting fishing mortality to previous levels is not well demonstrated. The requirements of the SG 80 level are therefore not clearly met. References

Berger et al. 2015, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017, Pilling et al. 2014a, WCPFC (2014a), WCPFC 2014 (CMM for HCRs)

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 89 of 175 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

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

Stock structure - the WCPO yellowfin fishery is assessed and managed as a single stock. However, suggestive evidence for population structure is emerging for the tropical tunas (e.g. Kolody et al., 2013).

Williams (2013) identified data gaps (for all key species, rather than yellowfin in particular) as follows: • Vietnamese domestic fleet: no annual catch data provided (but this now appears to be provided – see Davies et al. 2014); • Philippines and Indonesian fleets: catch data not broken down by gear type; operation (logsheet) data not provided; • Chinese Taipei fleet: no operational data, aggregated effort data or size data prior to 2004; likewise, for the Japanese coastal fleet up to the present data; likewise, for the Japanese pole and line fleet prior to 1972; • Several countries may have historical data which has not been identified • Historical estimates of coverage rates from logsheets and port sampling are missing in some cases; • Some key (distant water) fleets provide only aggregated rather than operation level data – this is identified as a constraint on stock assessments, and on the use of more detail’s spatial models such as SEAPOPDYM.

Overall, given the size and complexity of the fishery, the range and comprehensiveness of the data available is impressive and improving all the time. Nonetheless, these data gaps do constrain stock assessments – as does bias and lack of precision in some of the data sets, particularly historical data. Perhaps more importantly, the stock assessment continues to rely on commercial CPUE as an index of stock abundance, and although these data are carefully analysed and standardised as far as possible, there are no fishery-independent data sets with which they can be compared, while issues such as spatial and temporal changes in catchability remain problematic. On this basis, the team concluded that SG 80 is met, but SG 100 is not met. b Monitoring SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

Stock abundance and removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage that is sufficient to support the harvest control measures in place. There is not, however, a high degree of certainty about all the information required. There is not considered to be a high degree of certainty about stock abundance or the robustness of the assessment to this uncertainty.

This meets the requirements for the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not the SG 100 level

c Comprehensiveness of information

Guide There is good information on post all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Yes

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

This scoring issue was the subject of particular attention in the original Skipjack tuna assessment (Banks et al. 2011) and in particular whether there was good information on the level of fishery removals from some countries. The conclusion was that “despite a number of deficiencies in compilation and analysis from the Indonesia and Philippines, this reaches SG 80”. Since that assessment there has been additional work to improve the level of data available (noted in the Surveillance Reports for skipjack tuna) and we conclude that the requirements of the SG 80 level are also met for yellowfin tuna. References

Banks et al. 2011, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 91 of 175 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

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

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

The most recent assessment applied to Yellowfin Tuna (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017), like other recent assessments, is an integrated, model-based assessment that is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment program at the SPC. It takes into account major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the fishery. It therefore meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue.

b Assessment approach

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

The assessment reports provide a wide range of estimates of stock status relative to indicators of interest to management including both the target and limit reference points that have been agreed for Yellowfin Tuna. This therefore meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels

c Uncertainty in the assessment

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 93 of 175 Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

The assessment of Yellowfin Tuna has provided explicit commentary on the major sources of uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. Two approaches were used to describe the uncertainty in key model outputs. The first estimated the statistical uncertainty within a given assessment model, while the second focused on the structural uncertainty in the assessment by considering the variation among a suite of models that encompassed combinations of alternative parameter values from 5 axes: steepness (3 settings), tagging data overdispersion (2), tag mixing (2), size data weighting (3) and regional structure (2). Greater emphasis was placed on the results of the latter approach for the formulation of management advice.

This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue d Evaluation of assessment

Guide The assessment has been post tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Rationale

This is the agreed harmonized score.

There is an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and approaches by the staff in the SPC-OFP. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required. Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data and a suite of sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. The assessment for Yellowfin Tuna has been shown to be robust and therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue. We note that there has been no simulation testing of the model, but such testing is not necessary to meet the requirements. e Peer review of assessment

Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has been post status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Yes No

Rationale SCS Global Services Report

This is the agreed harmonized score.

Internal reviews are undertaken by SPC and there has been an external review of the assessment of Bigeye tuna (Ianelli et al. 2012) which provided recommendations that were also applicable to other similar assessments such as for yellowfin tuna. Many of those recommendations have been addressed with the latest yellowfin assessment. There have also been external reviews commissioned of different aspects of the data analyses that feed into the assessments. This is also a level of review provided by submission to the scientific committee of the WCPFC, at which experienced scientific staff from several countries attend, but we consider this to be internal to WCPFC processes. We note, as discussed in the background, there have been two earlier reviews of the previous yellowfin tuna assessment (Haddon 2010 and Maguire 2010) which were commissioned by the USA through the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). A response to these reviews was provided by SPC to SC7 (SPC-OFP 2011) but there was no reference to the findings of this review or the response in the subsequent stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014). Given the manner of its initiation (it was not commissioned by the WCPFC or SPC) and the lack of a clear response in the subsequent assessment we are inclined to take a conservative approach in not considering scoring the last scoring issue to have been met at the SG 100 level. An effective external review should lead to an acknowledgment of deficiencies identified and evidence of a response in the subsequent assessment. Therefore, we consider that this scoring issue is met at the SG 80 level but not at the SG 100 level.

References

Davies et al. 2014, Haddon 2010, Ianelli et al. 2012, Maguire 2010, SPC-OFP 2011, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 95 of 175 7.4 Principle 2

7.4.1 Principle 2 background

7.4.1.1 Overview of Non-target Catch

All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes species that are retained for sale or personal use (assessed under Performance Indicator 2.1), bycatch species that are discarded (Performance Indicator 2.2), and species that are considered endangered, threatened or protected by the government in question or are listed by the Convention of International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) (Performance Indicator 2.3). This section contains an evaluation of the total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing, waste, or biota that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear. This section also considers impacts on marine habitats (Performance Indicator 2.4) and the ecosystem more broadly (Performance Indicator 2.5).

Primary species

For the purposes of a MSC evaluation, primary species are those in the catch, and within the scope of the MSC program (fishes or shellfish), and not defined by the client as the target – which by definition is evaluated under Principle 1. Primary species will usually be species of commercial value to either the UoA or fisheries outside the UoA, with management tools controlling exploitation as well as known reference points in place. In addition, the institution or arrangement that manages the species (or its local stock) will usually have some overlap in a jurisdiction with the UoA fishery.

Secondary species

Species associated with the target that is harvested under some management regime, where measures are in place intended to achieve management, and these are reflected in either limit or target reference points are evaluated as Primary species within Principle 2. In contrast, secondary species include fish and shellfish species that are not managed according to reference points. Secondary species are also considered to be all species that are out of the scope of the standard (birds/ mammals/ reptiles/ amphibians) and that are not ETP species. These types of species could in some cases be landed intentionally to be used either as bait or as food for the crew or for other subsistence uses, but may also in some cases represent incidental catches that are undesired but somewhat unavoidable in the fishery. Given the often unmanaged status of these species, there are unlikely to be reference points for biomass or fishing mortality in place, as well as a general lack of data availability.

Main species SCS Global Services Report

For Primary and Secondary species, species may be considered “Main” based on either resilience/vulnerability and catch volume. Species that are not “Main” are Minor. Main and Minor species must meet different Performance Indicators (PIs) in P2.

Resilience/vulnerability:

If the species is considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 2% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise it is considered Minor.

If the species is not considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 5% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise, it is considered Minor.

ETP Species The team should specify an ETP (endangered, threatened or protected) for the following reasons: • Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation; • Species listed in the binding international agreements given below: o Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered. o Binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), including: ▪ Annex 1 of the Agreement on Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (ACAP); ▪ Table 1 Column A of the African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbird Agreement (AEWA); ▪ Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic and North Seas (ASCOBANS); ▪ Annex 1, Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans of the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous Atlantic Area (ACCOBAMS); ▪ Wadden Sea Seals Agreement; ▪ Any other binding agreements that list relevant ETP species concluded under this Convention

7.4.1.2 Overview of Species Classification

Purse seine catch composition

The analysis for P2 is made considering that the UoA and the UoC are the same and are composed of purse seine vessels owned by Tri Marine operating in the Solomon Island’s Main Group Archipelagic (MGA) and Economic Exclusive Zone (EEZ). Observer data from 2013-2019 was used to assess species composition. There has been 100% observer coverage in purse seine vessels in the WCPFC since 2010.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 97 of 175 Catch data show purse seine to be a relatively selective gear with minimal volume of bycatch compared to the catch of target species. MSC FCP v2.2 UoA definition does not allow for evaluation of the fishery’s activity on the basis of ‘fishing methods’ (i.e. set types), catch composition for the purposes of scoring was assessed by combining data across all set types. Analysis of catch composition by set type is included for to provide greater explanation of data—this evaluation is not used in scoring rationales. No species besides Skipjack or Yellowfin comprise more than 2% of the catch; only Rainbow runner was over 1% of the catch (Table 18).

The greatest volume of catches came from AFADs (67%), followed by unassociated catches (20%) (Table 19). DFADs made up only 3.4% of the catch volume. No non-target catches were above 5% across any of the set types (Table 19).

One percent of catch volumes came from sets classified as whale set/whale shark sets. CMM 2012-04 prohibits the intentional set on whale or whale sharks in the WCPFC. There are several potential explanations and the team will investigate this in greater detail during the site visit.

Catches of ETP species (# of individuals) are presented in Table 20. There were 11 marine mammal, 3 Mobulidae, 3 shark and 4 sea turtle species caught over the 5 year period. A total of 350 marine mammals were captured, with high at-vessel survivorship, typically 80-100%, reported by observers. No post-release mortality information is available; thus, observer data are likely underestimates of full mortality. The exception was for the Common dolphin, where 47% (of 17) were discarded dead. Several of the marine mammal species, including the False killer whale, were caught in relatively high numbers. As of 2019, Mobuildae species are protected in the WCPFC, and it is illegal to retain, or intentionally capture any Mobulidae species (CMM-2019-05). Since these species were only recently classified as ‘species of special interest,’ no status of these species upon discard is available as observers were not previously required to record this information (WCPFC 2007). The Devil ray was the most commonly incidentally caught of the Mobulidae spp, followed by the Giant manta; the vast majority of catches were in AFADs. The majority of Silky sharks were taken in AFAD sets with a remainder incidentally caught in DFAD and freeschool sets. The survivorship of silky sharks was low with only 6% reported as released alive. A total of 7 whale sharks and 15 Oceanic whitetip sharks were caught, with 100% and 43% released alive. In comparison to the other ETP species groups, interactions with sea turtles was low, with 100 to 92% reported released alive. SCS Global Services Report

Table 18. Catch Summary for Tri Marine purse-seine fishery from all sets from 2013 to 2019 (Data from SPC). Catch volumes of ETP species were excluded.

Total Catch Retained Total Catch % of UoA Common Name Scientific name (MT) Discarded (MT) Catch Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis 42351.405 1240.043 51.67% Yellowfin Thunnus albacares 37264.078 1186.905 45.58% Rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulata 1059.086 60.614 1.33% Bigeye Thunnus obesus 609.66 14.986 0.74% Kawakawa Euthynnus affinis 115.5 60.358 0.21% Frigate tuna Auxis thazard thazard 89.605 36.243 0.15% Mahi mahi Coryphaena hippurus 74.85 3.876 0.09% Ocean triggerfish Canthidermis 36.277 15.06 0.06% (spotted) maculatus Mackerel scad / saba Decapturus 23.748 25.936 0.06% macarellus Blue marlin Makaira mazara 27.763 2.78 0.04% Blacktip shark Carcharhinus 0 7.763 0.01% limbatus Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax 5.165 0.995 0.01% Bronze whaler shark Carcharhinus 0 5.71 0.01% brachyurus Wahoo Acanthocybium 4.744 0.493 0.01% solandri Bullet tuna Auxis rochei rochei 0.77 3.998 0.01% All other elasmobranchs 0 5.07 0.01% All other tuna 1.089 0 <0.1 % All other billfish 1.68 0.23 <0.1 % Total Catch (mt) 81685 2679

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 99 of 175

Table 19 Catch Summary for Tri Marine purse-seine fishery by set type from 2013 to 2019 (Data from SPC). Only species that represent greater than 0.01% of catch from that set type are shown. ETP catches were excluded.

Log Unassociat Whale/Wh Common Name Scientific name AFAD DFAD Other Grand Total ed ale Shark Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis 53.20% 61.25% 56.85% 43.88% 40.51% 40.51% 51.67% Yellowfin Thunnus albacares 43.80% 32.18% 38.31% 55.25% 57.83% 57.83% 45.58% Rainbow runner Elagatis bipinnulata 1.80% 0.86% 1.43% 0.05% 0.01% 0.01% 1.33% Bigeye Thunnus obesus 0.54% 4.64% 2.73% 0.09% 1.39% 1.39% 0.74% Kawakawa Euthynnus affinis 0.10% 0.72% 0.01% 0.50% 0.05% 0.17% 0.21% Frigate tuna Auxis thazard thazard 0.17% 0.12% 0.24% 0.08% 0.00% 0.05% 0.15% Mahi mahi Coryphaena hippurus 0.13% 0.02% 0.05% 0.00% 0.17% 0.00% 0.09% Ocean triggerfish Canthidermis (spotted) maculatus 0.08% 0.05% 0.16% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% Mackerel scad / saba Decapturus macarellus 0.07% 0.08% 0.13% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.06% Blue marlin Makaira mazara 0.03% 0.02% 0.02% 0.06% 0.01% 0.01% 0.04% Great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda 0.02% 0.02% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Black marlin Makaira indica 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.01% Blacktip shark Carcharhinus limbatus 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% Striped marlin Tetrapturus audax 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.01% Carcharhinus Bronze whaler shark brachyurus 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Acanthocybium Wahoo solandri 0.01% 0.01% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Bullet tuna Auxis rochei rochei 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Total Catch (mt) 57044 2905 4404 17084 1481 1448 84366 % of total 67.6% 3.4% 5.2% 20.3% 1.8% 1.7%

Table 20. Number of individuals classified as ETP species recorded as caught by UoA purse seine vessels (2013-19). The percentage of individuals recorded as released alive are included (averaged across all set types). Individuals were assumed dead if fate was recorded as unknown. Status for turtles, sharks and rays and mammals are CITES Appendix A species listed (App 1 or App 2) and/or protected by WCPFC Conservation Management Measures (CMMs). FS=freeschool.

Common name Scientific name Data Status AFAD DFAD Log FS Other Total % Alive Mammals Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus No App 2 19 28 12 2 0 61 90% Bryde's whale Balaenoptera Edeni No App 1 3 3 3 9 88% Common dolphin Delphinus delphis No App 2 8 9 0 17 47% Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei No App 2 5 0 5 80% Rough-toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis No App 2 21 4 0 25 96% False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Yes App 2 137 8 1 4 8 158 99% Indo-pacific bottlenose dolphin Tursiops aduncus Yes App 2 5 0 5 100% Minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata No App 1 1 1 100% Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis No App 1 3 3 100% Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus No App 2 11 1 12 100% Spinner dolphin Stenella longirostris No App 2 42 12 0 54 57% Mobulidae spp 19 28 12 2 Giant manta Manta birostris No CMM 2019-05 207 15 6 50 7 285 NA5 Manta rays (unidentified) Mobulidae No CMM 2019-05 4 1 1 6 12 NA Mobula (a.k.a. devil ray) Mobula spp. No CMM 2019-05 174 5 12 44 241 NA Sharks Oceanic whitetip shark Carcharhinus longimanus No CMM 2011-04 11 1 1 1 1 15 43% Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis No CMM 2013-08 6804 581 713 1705 200 10,003 6%6

Whale shark Rhincodon typus No CMM 2012-04 1 1 4 1 7 100% Turtles Green turtle Chelonia mydas No App 1 6 1 1 2 10 92% Hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricata No App 1 5 5 100%

5 Mobulidae species have only recently been listed as species of special interest where observers are required to record fate status. Given this, no analysis on the percentage of individuals discarded alive was available. 6 Fate has only been reported when either recorded as discarded dead or alive. There were 26% of records where fate was known. Thus, percent released alive may be an over/underestimate.

Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta No App 1 2 1 3 100% Olive ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea No App 1 13 2 2 17 100% Pole-and-Line

Pole-and-line fishing is recognized as very selective, as fishermen target schools of target species (i.e. skipjack and yellowfin). The pole-and-line fleet is subject to national observer coverage to fulfill 5% WCPFC requirements, with coverage levels reaching 28% in 2018 (MFMR 2019). Catch volume of the pole-and- line fleet is considerably smaller than purse seiners within the Solomon Islands, and the pole-and-line fishery operates predominately in the inner MGA and sometimes within the EEZ (MFMR, 2019).

Other studies of pole-and-line fisheries in the region show that non-target catch is low, with a discard estimate of 0.4% (Kelleher 2005 in Clarke et al 2014). Lewis (2014) reports minimal catch and landing of non-target species, primarily Rainbow runner and Mahi mahi, from the pole-and-line fishery. Additionally, tagging operations conducted by SPC in the MGA and EEZ of the Solomon Islands demonstrate that rainbow runner, mahi mahi, frigate/bullet tuna and kawakawa occur in the catch from time to time but these are in very small quantities (Peter Williams, SFP, pers. comm.). This aligns with other pole-and-line fisheries, including the Indonesia pole-and-line fishery seeking MSC certification in 2020, reporting catches of bigeye, mahi mahi, frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), and rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata) (SAI Global, 2020). None of these catch volumes exceeded 0.5% of the catch, including the target and bait volumes.

NFD established an initiative in 2014 to support full catch retention (i.e. all tuna and by-catch species) and utilisation of tuna and non-tuna fish species which goes beyond compliance with WCPFC and ISSF requirements (Lewis 2014). Although the retained and bycatch species make up a very small proportion of the total catch, portions of the retained catch have value to local communities as an important source of protein (Lewis 2014). Since 2014, bycatch sales have been regularized with NFD selling bycatch and small tuna to local communities on behalf of the crew, with proceeds paid to a cooperative of which vessel crew and their families are members. Some illegal sales are reported to occur, because of people’s need for cash, but are believed to be relatively well controlled. Record keeping requirements of this initiative has improved the accuracy of data on landings.

Bait use is a significant component in pole-and-line fisheries, and including bait volume, it consists of 6 - 12% of the total catch of pole-and-line vessels (Table 21). Live bait is used in the fishery; thus, it is likely that some bait fish do not die as a result of fishing efforts. However, the level of survival is unknown, and we have assumed 100% mortality as a precaution. Total bait use for the pole-and-line vessels was 153 MT in 2019 and landings of Yellowfin and Skipjack were 1,122 MT, meaning bait comprised 12% of catch. Bait data was from logbook data from the pole-and-line vessels. Table 21 Bait catch and tuna catch (Yellowfin and Skipjack) for all vessels in the Solomon Islands pole-and-line fishery, 2011 to 2014 (source: NFD).

Year Buckets Bait (mt) P&L catch (mt) Percentage bait 2011 26672 67 827 7% 2012 49498 124 2089 6% 2013 75283 188 1605 10% 2014 79990 200 1531 12% 2019 69853 153 1122 12%

Pole-and-line vessel logbook data on baitfish use/catches reported using bait from 22 bait grounds in the Solomon Islands. The greatest catches from Raduvu (38%), and 10-15% of catches from 3 other bait grounds, and the remainder across 18 baitgrounds. Blue anchovy (Encrasicholina Devisi) was the most commonly caught species (24%), followed by the Oceanic and Gold anchovy (Table 22). FFA conducted a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) for all 23 target bait species in the Solomon Islands (Table 23). These include an assortment of anchovies (Engraulidae), sprats and round herring (Dussumieriidae), sardines and herrings (Clupeidae), fusiliers and banana fish (Caesionidae), silversides and hardyheads (Atherinidae), and scads and mackerels (Carangidae), but with 150 species taken as bait (8.11 Solomon Island Baitfish PSA). Stock assessments are not available. There are no historic catch records available other than very early studies undertaken by SPC in the early 1980s (Argue and Kearny 1982). Argue and Kearny (1982) found that the species composition of the bait species in the catch changes substantially by bait ground. As part of the baitfish management plan, FFA completed a productivity susceptibility analysis (PSA) for the species identified in the baitfish catch, and all species rated low risk (8.11 Solomon Island Baitfish PSA). The PSA was undertaken (CC 2.4, FCR v1.3) for all species, including some that were allegedly rarely encountered, for example coral reef fish. Because of the high levels of fecundity and productivity, most species scored low risk. The assessment identified all species as low risk. The PSA provides guidance to MFMR in assessing risk to the bait stocks.

Given the number of different baitfish species used, it seems unlikely that any one species would make up more than 5% of the total. Therefore, the assessment team considered that no main bait species occurred in the catch. However, in the absence of abundance data, the assessment team has considered the bait group as important for discussion purposes.

SCS Global Services Report

Table 22 Bait use for the Solomon Island’s pole-and-line fishery in 2019, reported in pole-and-line vessel logbooks.

Common name Catch (kg) Composition (%) Blue Anchovy 9400.6 23.73% Oceanic Anchovy 7918.9 19.99% Gold Anchovy 6363.5 16.06% Fusilier 5321.8 13.43% Sprats 4368.1 11.03% Sardine 2278.1 5.75% Indian Pellona 2054.8 5.19% Gold Spot Herring 1129.7 2.85% Yellowtail Anchovy 506 1.28% Pony fish 246.4 0.62% Mackerel 26.4 0.07% Quantity sampled for species 39614.3 25.78% Total bait catch in 2019 (KGs) 153676.6

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 3 of 175 Table 23 Retained species in the Solomon Island baitfish fishery (source FFA).

No. Family Name Scientific Name Common Name

1 Engraulidae Encrasicholina Devisi Devis' Anchovy

2 Engraulidae Encrasicholina Heteroloba Shorthead Anchovy

3 Engraulidae Encrasicholina Punctifer Buccaneer Anchovy

4 Engraulidae S. Insularis

5 Engraulidae S Indicus

6 Engraulidae Thrissina Baelama

7 Clupeidae Spratelloides Delicatulus Delicate Round Herring

8 Clupeidae Spratelloides Gracilis Silver-Stripe Round Herring

9 Clupeidae Spratelloides Lewisi Lewis' Round Herring Herklotsichthys 10 Clupeidae Quadrimaculatus

11 Clupeidae Amblygaster Sirm

12 Clupeidae A. Clllpeoides

13 Clupeidae Sardinella Melanum

14 Clupeidae Dussumieria Spp

15 Caesionidae Pterocaesio Diagramma Double-Lined Fusilier

16 Caesionidae Pterocaesio Pisang

17 Caesionidae Gymnocaesio Gymnopterus

18 Apogonidae Rhabdamia Gracilis

19 Apogonidae R. Cypselllrus

20 Atherinidae Hypoatherina Ovalaua

21 Atherinidae Atherinomorus Laclinosus

22 Scombridae Rastrelliger Kanagurta

23 Carangidae Selar Crumenophthalmus

SCS Global Services Report

Scoring elements for assessment

Elements evaluated in the scoring of the fishery are as follows:

Table 24 Scoring elements for purse-seine fishery and pole-and-line. Note that for purse seine, species designation is evaluated from catch contribution across all set types combined. See Table 15 & Table 17. Pole- and-line evaluations include non-target and bait use. No species are RBF.

Fishery Component Scoring elements Designation Data-deficient

Purse seine Target Yellowfin tuna Target No

Target Skipjack tuna Target No

Primary Bigeye tuna Minor No

Secondary Rainbow runner Minor Yes

Secondary All other teleost Minor Some

Secondary All other sharks & rays Minor Some ETP Marine mammals (all Yes for some. See Table NA spp.) 20 ETP Silky shark NA No

ETP Whale shark NA No ETP Oceanic whitetip NA No shark ETP Mobulidae spp. NA No

ETP Turtles (all spp.) NA No

Pole-and-line Target Yellowfin tuna Target No

Target Skipjack tuna Target No

Secondary Bait species (all) Minor Yes

7.4.1.3 Observer Programs/Information Sources

Purse seine

Observer programs are only one part of the system for monitoring, control and surveillance of the fishery but are particularly important for providing data on the impacts of the fishery on non-target species, including discards and endangered, threatened and protected species (ETPs).

The WCPFC CMM 2007-01 establishes the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme (Commission ROP), with the objectives of collecting verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional information related to

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 5 of 175 the fishery from the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission.

Each CCM of the Commission is required to ensure that fishing vessels fishing in the Convention Area, except for vessels that operate exclusively within waters under the national jurisdiction of the flag State, are prepared to accept an observer from the Commission ROP if required by the Commission. Furthermore, each CCM is responsible for meeting the level of observer coverage as set by the Commission and source observers for their vessels. The target coverage levels in the region are 100% coverage of purse seine7, 5% for all other gear types.

The ROP is a collection of National and Regional observer programs that are required to be audited before being authorised to join the ROP. The WCPFC have developed basic standards for the formation and operation of observer programmes that wish to be part of the ROP. The WCPFC ROP standards cover minimum data fields, observer training, observer trainers, code of conduct, sea safety, placement/deployment, briefing and debriefing, debriefing training, equipment and materials, communications, performance of observers, dispute mechanism, authorisation process, coverage, vessel safety certificate, insurance, and CMM adherence. These standards are available at http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/wcpfc-regional-observer-programme-standards. The format of collection of required data fields is up to the observer providers, however a useful guide for a format are the SPC/FFA harmonised format, which is used by a number of programmes (https://oceanfish.spc.int/).

We have assessed observer data covering all vessels in the UoA from 2013 to 2018.

Pole-and-line

License conditions for pole-and-line vessels specify that:

• The Master shall update daily, in English: a) a record of the catch, including bycatch, and fishing activity, using FFA/SPC Regional Logsheet form, and b) a navigational and fishing logbook.

• The Master of fishing vessel shall; a) retain all catches on board except fish unfit for consumption, and where there is insufficient well space to accommodate all catch in the last set; b) dispose of bycatches and discards in such a manner as the Director of Fisheries may determine; and c) as required report the disposal of any discards on the 3IA Discard Reporting Form.

Vessels fill out logsheets for each trip, which based on license conditions, should record both retained and discarded species. Observers are deployed on the pole-and-line fishery, with coverage in 2018 at 28% (MFMR 2019). The observer reports have not yet been provided to the assessment team, but data will be reviewed to estimate ETP interactions (if any) and discarded species at the site visit. In addition, catch was

7 The requirement for 100% observer coverage for purse seine fishing between 20N and 20S was first established under the PNA’s Third Implementing Arrangement in 2008; then under WCPFC’s CMM 2011-01. SCS Global Services Report assessed using tagging studies (Peter Williams, pers comm, 2014) or qualitative information (Lewis 2014) in the Solomon Islands and from other pole-and-line fisheries operating in the WCPO (SAI Global 2020). Bait information

Pole-and-line fishing requires substantial quantities of bait to attract and hold the schools of skipjack and yellowfin tuna. Bait is considered part of the catch for MSC assessments.

The catches of the baitfish fishery are monitored in two ways, including:

Logbook - Level 1 - a logbook to record nightly catch (buckets) and effort (number of hauls) by pole-and- line vessel and bagans has been established. The logbook system will require CMOs to record the total catch of baitfish in each haul.

Logbook - Level 2 – use paper-based logbook or tablet-based (e-logbooks) to record an estimate of the proportion of the different species groups (e.g. anchovies, sprats, herrings and bycatch species) caught in the haul of the bait nets and the baitground where baitfishing occurs. A photographic guide is being developed to assist the monitors to identify the baitfish species and record them accurately. In order to provide accurate estimates of the catch, it will be necessary to standardise or account for the size of bucket (e.g. 2.2 kg) used to transfer baitfish from the bouke-ami and bagan net.8

Logbooks record the details required on the logsheet are: date, bait ground name, how many net sets, and how many buckets per set. The initial assessment reported that while logbooks were required to be submitted, no formal analysis from MFMR or SPC was occurring. In addition, the BFMP reports that ‘MFMR observers will be periodically present on pole-and-line boats and bagans to validate data that is collected by CMOs from both bouke-ami and bagan catches.’ The implementation of observer’s and bait logbooks will be investigated at the site visit. Tri Marine provided bait data from 2019 for the purposes of this assessment, and results were reported above.

7.4.1.4 Primary Species

There are no primary main species in either the purse-seine or pole-and-line fishery. Bigeye tuna is the only primary minor species in the purse seine fishery. Therefore, the status of primary species are not discussed in detail here.

8 A bagan is an anchored, floating platform commonly used in Indonesia for catching small pelagic fish. Bouke-ami is a stick-held lift net that is operated directly from the pole-and-line boats.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 7 of 175 7.4.1.5 Secondary Species

No secondary species in the purse-seine fishery exceed the 5% threshold. Rainbow runner comprised 1.3% of the catch across all set types, with all other secondary species representing less than 1% of the catch. None could be considered less resilient, so all are classified as minor secondary species. No additional background information is provided on them. For the pole-and-line fishery, rainbow runner is reported to be a secondary minor species. Observer data and logbook records will be reviewed at the site visit and the report will be updated based on this information.

7.4.1.6 Bait species

Background on the baitfish fishery is presented above (see 7.2.3.1). Because of the diversity of bait species and the variability of catch composition across the baitfishing grounds in the Solomon Islands, no species is determined to comprise over 5% of the catch. Bait fish are evaluated as an element under secondary minor. Given the significance of baitfish in the Solomon Islands pole-and-line fishery, baitfish use and management is discussed below.

Bait volume from the Solomon Islands pole-and-line fleet was historically significant, requiring over 1,000,000 buckets per year (or approximately 2,500 t), a ratio of about 8% bait to tuna catch. However with only three pole-and-line vessels operating in the fishery, baitfish need is a fraction of previous use (Figure 22). The baitfish fishery was largely self-managed, and the fast-growing nature of species coupled with numerous baitfishing grounds meant that harvesting remained stable.

Because of concern from coastal communities regarding the impact that commercial baitfish was having on their food fish stocks, a study was commissioned in the late 1980’s to address the community’s concerns and examine the sustainability of the baitfishery by conducting an in-depth sampling of commercial catches over a 3-year period that examined fishery dynamics as well as the population biology of the targeted baitfish species (MFMR 2015). Baitfish catches were monitored through logbooks and by placing observers on pole-and-line vessels to collect sub-samples on the baitfish. Based on the data collected, the ACIAR project showed that baitfishing had little direct effect on reef fisheries in Solomon Islands. In 2013, FFA undertook a PSA species caught in the baitfish fishery that demonstrated low-levels of risk for all baitfish species (8.11 Solomon Island Baitfish PSA).

SCS Global Services Report

25,000 70 60 20,000 50 15,000 40

10,000 30 CPUE 20

No.of (effot) Nets 5,000 10

- 0

1999 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Years

Net CPUE

Figure 22 Catch and effort data from Solomon Islands over a 17-year period. Red bars indicate level of effort (no. of nets) and blue line indicates CPUE (no. of nets/no. of buckets). (Data and figure from MFMR 2015).

In 1989, there were 87 registered baitgrounds; now, there are approximately 25 baitgrounds in the Solomon Islands, with the majority occurring in the Western Province (~ 70%) , followed by Choiseul Province (~ 20%) and Isabel Province (~ 10%) (MFMR 2015). In recognition of the economic importance of baitfishing, and the need to ensure sustainable management of the baitfish resource, MFMR developed the Baitfish Fishery Management Plan (BFMP) in 2015. The Plan is based on a legal mandate as defined in the Fisheries Management Act 2015 (FMA) and was automatically gazetted as a component of the TMDP in 2019.

The specific goals of the BFMP are: ▪ Ensuring that catch levels of baitfish species are maintained above the level of recruitment impairment (Species sustainability) ▪ Ensuring that any impacts on ecosystem structure and function are above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur (Ecosystem sustainability) ▪ Economic benefits to the community are optimized (Economic outcomes) ▪ Social impacts and negative attitudes associated with the exploitation of these resources are minimized (Social impacts)

A book of maps has been prepared by FFA (FFA, 2013) to delineate all the official bait grounds in the Main Group Archipelago of Solomon Islands. Bait grounds in Solomon Islands are always inshore areas located in protected, relatively shallow lagoons. This brings them within the customary jurisdiction of reef-owners with whom arrangements must be made in order to allow bait fishing to occur. Historically, this responsibility has been assumed by fishing companies with Ministry assistance and this is expected to continue. NFD and the owners of each bait ground sign an agreement to regulate use of the bait grounds by the pole and line vessels. The trustees for each bait ground have been nominated for royalty payments.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 9 of 175 MFMR in cooperation with Provincial Government and NFD is responsible for identifying designated bait ground communities (MFMR 2015). The authorization of baitfish communities is encompassed under a standard MoU (bait fishing agreement) for each community involving MFMR, NFD, and the baitfish community.

The baitfishing agreement provides: ▪ The boundaries of a bait ground, which are then incorporated into the “baitfish map” which is issued by MFMR. Subject to the terms, conditions and provisions contained within the agreement, and subject to the approval of Provincial Government, NFD are given ‘bait fishing rights5’. In recognition of the grant of bait fishing rights, NFD will pay the bait ground communities a fee calculated at an agreed rate on a per vessel per-night basis. ▪ Within the bait fishing agreement there is a list of covenants for both NFD and the bait ground owners that relate to the expected responsibilities and behavior of each party associated to the bait fishing activities within a particular bait ground. These covenants already address many of the potential hazards identified within the Plan.

7.4.1.7 Shark finning

The purse seine fishery caught 17 species of shark from 2013-2018, three of which are classified as ETP (Oceanic whitetip, Silky shark, and Whale shark). The remainder of shark species are considered secondary minor. For non-ETP shark species, FCP v2.2 requires an assessment of whether shark finning is taking place as part of the evaluation of the management strategies under Principle 2. The issue is therefore considered here as background to the evaluation provided under PI 2.2.2.

WCPFC measures

WCPFC’s CMM for sharks (CMM 2019-04) includes the following requirements:

6. CCMs shall take measures necessary to require that their fishers fully utilize any retained catches of sharks. Full utilization is defined as retention by the fishing vessel of all parts of the shark excepting head, guts, and skins, to the point of first landing or transshipment.

7. CCMs shall require their vessels to have on board fins that total no more than 5% of the weight of sharks on board up to the first point of landing. CCMs that currently do not require fins and carcasses to be offloaded together at the point of first landing shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the 5% ratio through certification, monitoring by an observer, or other appropriate measures. CCMs may alternatively require that their vessels land sharks with fins attached to the carcass or that fins not be landed without the corresponding carcass.

8. As finer resolution data become available, the specification of the ratio of fin weight to shark weight described in paragraph 7 shall be periodically reviewed by the Scientific Committee (SC) SCS Global Services Report

and the SC will recommend any appropriate revisions to the Commission for its consideration. The SC and the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) are directed to consider if additional appropriate measures that give effect to paragraph 7 are required.

9. CCMs shall take measures necessary to prohibit their fishing vessels from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or trading any fins harvested in contravention of this Conservation and Management Measure (CMM).

10. In fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species that are not directed at sharks, CCMs shall take measures to encourage the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally and are not used for food or other purposes.

The SC10 report noted that there were no specific documents to address the efficacy or effectiveness of this CMM and that the SC has not been able to assess the specification of the ratio of fins-to-carcass weight, as CMM 2019-04 required. Concerns had also been expressed at the TCC (TCC10 2014) about ambiguity in several provisions in this CMM, particularly the fin-to-carcass ratio, that made it is impossible to determine compliance standards for the measure. At SC12 these concerns were re-iterated, and the SC concluded that

“SC12 was unable to confirm the validity of using a 5% fin to carcass ratio in CMM 2019-04 and forwards these concerns to TCC, noting that an evaluation of the 5% ratio is not currently possible due to insufficient information for all but one of the major fleets implementing these ratios. SC12 took note of SC12-EB-IP-02 that confirms that the information which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the WCPFC ban on shark finning (CMM 2019-04) is currently very limited.”

The subsequent TCC meeting agreed and recommended to the Commission that “WCPFC13 recognize that it is not possible for TCC to assess compliance related to the application of the 5% ratio prescribed in para. 7 of CMM 2019-04.”

In reaction to this issue, CMM-2019-04 requires that from 2020 to 2022 CCM’s ‘vessels to land sharks with fins naturally attached to the carcass’ or ‘take alternative measures as listed below to ensure that individual shark carcasses and their corresponding fins can be easily identified on board the vessel at any time: (1) Each individual shark carcass and its corresponding fins are stored in the same bag, preferably biodegradable one; (2) Each individual shark carcass is bound to the corresponding fins using rope or wire; (3) Identical and uniquely numbered tags are attached to each shark carcass and its corresponding fins in a manner that inspectors can easily identify the matching of the carcass and fins at any time. Both the carcasses and fins shall be stored on board in the same hold. Notwithstanding this requirement, a CCM may allow its fishing vessels to store the carcasses and corresponding fins in different holds if the fishing vessel maintains a record or logbook that shows where the tagged fins and correspondingly 3 tagged carcasses are stored, in a manner that they are easily identified by inspectors.’ [Paragraph 8 & 9]

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 11 of 175 Therefore, although WCPFC has measures intended to prohibit the practice of shark finning, and CMM- 2019-04 placing greater requirements on landings of shark, it is not possible to determine whether this objective is being achieved. This will be investigated further at the site visit.

PNA measures

Banks et al. (2011) noted that the PNA had also raised the issue of finning through WP9 –Application of Management Arrangements for Sharks, submitted to the PNA 29th Special Meeting in February 2010; that at this meeting it was agreed to discuss the issue of shark finning at their Annual Meeting; and that it was suggested in WP9 that a prohibition on shark finning should be considered in a package of management arrangements for a fourth implementing arrangement. A fourth implementing arrangement has not yet been agreed so no measure regarding shark finning is yet in place through measures adopted by the PNA process, and CMM 2019-04 remains the key binding management measure.

Solomon Islands measures

National Fisheries Regulations (2017) specify that it is an offense to engage in shark finning and to possess, store, transship or land, or attempt to transship, land, buy or sell any shark fin (including the tail) that is not naturally attached to the whole corresponding carcass.

License conditions specify that any shark species that are caught incidentally, for which fishing is not permitted, whether by the Fisheries Act, Regulations and any regional conservation and management measure, must be released as soon as possible after the shark is brought alongside the vessel in a manner that causes as little harm as possible. These conditions also require that all sharks retained on board must have their fins naturally attached to the carcass. The reported fines for successful prosecution of shark finning is 40,000 penalty units of 4 months imprisonment, or both (Solomon Islands Gazette, No 92. Published August 27, 2018. Legal notice NO 61).

Only catches from trips that are entirely within the Solomon Islands EEZ are eligible for certification and the catches from all such trips are inspected in port. Both the unloaded catch and any catch that is retained on the vessel are recorded. There is 100% port sampling in the Solomon Islands, where MFMR inspectors board the vessel before and after offload to inspect the catch. SCS Global Services Report

7.4.1.8 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species

ETP interactions are recorded in the purse seine fishery through 100% observer coverage. For the pole- and-line fishery, observer data has been collected from 2014-2019, with 28% coverage in 2018. To date, the team has not received this data and results will be evaluated following the site visit. Though catches of marine mammals and turtles by pole and line gear are believed to be extremely minimal based on tagging studies and other fisheries (Gillette, 2011; Williams, pers comm, 2014; SAI Global, 2020), without the Solomon Islands specific information, this cannot currently be confirmed.

In the purse seine fishery, there were 11 marine mammal, 3 Mobulidae, 3 shark and 4 sea turtle species recorded as being caught by UoA purse seine vessels over the 5-year period that require consideration as ETP species (Table 20).

Silky shark, Whale shark and the Oceanic whitetip shark are classified as ETP species because they are protected under WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures CMM 2013-08, CMM 2012-04 and CMM 2011-04 respectively.

Devil ray, Giant manta, and other Manta rays of the Mobuildae family are classified as ETP species because they are protected under WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2019-05.

The turtles and cetaceans are classified as ETP species because as groups they are protected under CMM 2018-04 and CMM 2011-03 respectively. All the species of turtles and the Sei whale are also listed under Appendix 1 of the Convention on Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and following SA3.5.1.2a meet the criteria for ETP species.

GSA3.1.5 requires that, in situations where data on interactions with ETP species are limited, the assessment team should take a more inclusive approach (i.e., all ETP species in the geographic area). Given the high level of observer coverage for UoA vessels in the purse seine fishery we do not consider the data available to be limited and therefore we have relied solely on the data provided for the definition of ETP species.

7.4.1.9 Whale Shark

Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) are globally distributed in tropical and warm temperate seas. Their populations are potentially part of a single, global meta-population (Sequeira et al. 2013). They are known to undertake multi-annual and very long-distance migrations including between different parts of the Pacific Ocean (Norman 2005). They are also known to be resident year-round in some areas but to use a different habitat in different seasons, being visible on the surface at sometimes of year and swimming deeper and further away from shore at others, presumably in response to prey distributions (Cagua et al. 2015). Their life history is poorly known, but they are known to be ovoviviparous and are reported as highly fecund (for a shark). Their life span has been estimated as 60 to over 100 years. Age at maturity has

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 13 of 175 been variably reported as nine years (Norman 2005) and 30 years (Harley et al. 2013). More details of the biology of this species are provided in Molony (2008).

Whale shark populations have been reported as declining (Norman 2005). They have been considered likely to be a species with low population growth and therefore be vulnerable to fishing-related mortality (Rice and Harley 2012b). They have been the subject of some targeted fisheries and significant non-tuna related fishing mortality is likely to have occurred historically, particularly in the coastal waters of the northwest Pacific Ocean (Rice and Harley, 2012b).

Incidents of whale sharks recorded as having been caught in purse seines by the UoA is indicative of occasions when whale sharks were encountered after a skipper made a set on what was initially thought to be a free or FAD associated school of tuna. It has been previously reported that more than two-thirds of sets where whale sharks were encountered in the net (i.e. “interactions”) were not recorded as a “whale shark-associated” set type (WCPFC 2012). Whale sharks are listed under Appendix II of CITES, not Appendix 1 but qualify as an ETP species because of the binding CMM (2012-04) for them in the WCPFC. The scope of the Solomon Island’s National Tuna Management and Development Plan (2015) specifically includes the provisions of all CMMs adopted by the WCPFC.

Whale sharks are caught in purse seines and WCPFC records indicate that they are generally encountered anywhere significant amounts of fishing occur (Harley et al. 2013). The occurrence of whale sharks in free schools sets by purse seiners in the WCPO has been found to have been reduced by about half over the ten years up to 2012 which could be the result of improved identification of whale sharks prior to setting or a trend in abundance (Harley et al. 2013).

After considering this report, the WCPF-SC considered there to be a low probability that the Indo-Pacific whale shark was at risk from Pacific purse seine fisheries (median probability of less than 8% that current risk levels exceed life history-based notional reference points FLim and Fcrash) (WCPFC-SC 2018c).

CMM 2012-04 includes the requirement that “CCMs shall prohibit their flagged vessels from setting a purse seine on a school of tuna associated with a whale shark if the animal is sighted prior to the commencement of the set” and that “in the event that a whale shark is not deliberately encircled in the purse seine net, the master of the vessel shall ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure its safe release”.

CMM 2019-04 includes the requirement that CCMs “shall implement, as appropriate, the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA Sharks)” and that “CCMs shall advise the Commission (in Part 2 of the annual report) on their implementation of the IPOA Sharks, including, results of their assessment of the need for a National Plan of Action and/or the status of their National Plans of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks” SCS Global Services Report

CMM 2019-04 also includes other requirements for key shark species, which include Silky shark (covered above under retained species), Mako sharks and oceanic whitetip sharks that are outlined in the section on shark finning above.

A good practice guide (Poisson et al. 2012) has been produced, which provides measures for the safe release of whale sharks that have been caught in purse seine gear and evidence suggests good survival rates of encircled individuals prior to net hauling (Muir et al. 2013).

For Solomon Islands vessels there is a requirement contained in all license conditions for compliance with all international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. In addition, in 2018 the WCPFC adopted an additional section to the main tuna CMM (2018-01) that required, among other things, that only non-entangling FADs to be in use by 1st January 2020:

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 15 of 175

As a member of ISSF (see ISSF membership section), Tri Marine is only permitted to deploy non- entangling FADs.9 It should be noted the fishery does not deploy drifting FADs, but does fish on drifting FADs that have entered their operational area that were deployed by other vessels from outside the Solomon Islands EEZ. Anchored FADs are required to be non-entangling.

Information available on the key shark species is collected mainly by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs as outlined in section 3.2 above. It includes data on catch weight and effort at an operation level for most fleets, and some size composition data and biological data.

CMM 2019-04 also contains requirements for CCMs to include information on “key shark species in their annual reporting to the Commission of annual catch and fishing effort statistics by gear type, including available historical data, in accordance with the WCPF Convention and agreed reporting procedures” and that “CCMs shall also report annual retained and discarded catches in Part 2 of their annual report”.

There has been a WCPFC requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. Interactions with whale sharks are reportedly low in the fishery, with just 7 interactions reported in a 6 year period, with 100% of the whale sharks released alive.

7.4.1.10 Silky Shark

Bonfil (2008) reported that based on differences in life-history parameters, it was possible to identify at least three distinct populations of silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis), those inhabiting the Northwest Atlantic, the western-central Pacific, and the eastern Pacific. Genetic analysis of animals from the Pacific Ocean has also provided evidence that there are distinct eastern and western Pacific populations (Galván- Tirado et al. 2013) although the possibility of a single stock could not be excluded. Within the WCPO a single stock is assumed for stock assessment purposes.

Silky shark is an abundant offshore, oceanic and epipelagic and littoral, tropical species, found near the edge of continental shelves and islands but also far from land in the open sea. Silky shark occasionally occurs inshore where the water is as shallow as 18 m, are most often found at depths of 200 m or more in the epipelagic zone but also occur down to at least 500 m depth offshore (Bonfil et al. 2009). The silky shark is often found over deep-water reefs and slopes near islands.

Silky sharks are viviparous, with a yolk-sac placenta and have 2 to 14 young per litter. There seems to be no pronounced seasonality in birth of young. The gestation period is not known. It is primarily a fish-eater, eating pelagic and inshore teleost’s including sea catfish, mullet, mackerel, yellowfin tuna, albacore, and porcupine fish, but also squid, paper nautiluses, and pelagic crabs. It is associated with schools of tuna but is not a desirable species for tuna purse seiners because of the damage it does to nets. It reaches a

9 https://iss-foundation.org/what-we-do/verification/conservation-measures-commitments/ SCS Global Services Report maximum size of about 330 cm; males mature at about 187 to 217 cm and reach 270 to 300 cm; females mature at 213 to 230 cm and reach at least 305 cm; the size at birth is about 70 to 87 cm.

The FAO considers the species to have a mid-range intrinsic rebound potential. Rice and Harley (2013) regard silky sharks as a low productivity species. A more detailed description of the distribution, biology and growth of silky sharks is contained in Rice and Harley (2013).

Using data from observers across all WCPFC fisheries the estimated total catch of silky shark by longlines over the most recent five years (2013-2017) has varied between 126,300 (95% CI 91,000-186,000) animals (2014) and 207,300 (95% CI 154,000-287,000) animals (2016) (Peatman et al. 2018).

A previous stock assessment of silky sharks in the West and Central Pacific Ocean using Stock Synthesis (Rice and Harley 2012) concluded that overfishing was occurring and that it was highly likely that the stock was in an overfished state. This assessment also estimated that catches by both the purse seine (associated sets) and longline sectors were important sources of fishing mortality.

The results of new assessment work were presented to the WCPFC-SC in 2018 that included both an attempt at a Pacific-wide assessment (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018a) and an updated WCPO only assessment (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018b). The Pacific-wide assessment concluded that estimates of management quantities such as SB/SB0 and F/FMSY were unreliable and should not be used as the basis for management advice due to various uncertainties in this Pacific-wide assessment. It did, however, suggest that WCPO and EPO silky shark biomass had substantially declined and that fishing mortality had considerably increased over the last two decades. The conclusions of the WCPO-only model were:

The WCPFC-SC accepted the WCPO silky shark stock assessment as best available science for this stock but also noted that, given the inherent uncertainty in the current assessment, the current estimates of stock status should be considered indicative only. It also noted that indications from the 2018 WCPO model show that the stock declined steadily over the model period (1995-2016) (Figure 23). It concluded that, on balance, the WCPO stock of silky was not considered to be overfished, i.e. there was a 78% probability that SB2016 was greater than SBMSY (Figure 24).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 17 of 175

Figure 23. Silky shark. Estimated spawning biomass relative to unexploited biomass (SB0) for the WCPO assessment model (CPUEqdev) (from WCPFC-SC 2018a).

Figure 24. Silky shark. Kobe plot for the WCPO assessment model (CPUEqdev) (from WCPFC-SC 2018a). SCS Global Services Report

WCPFC introduced a CMM specifically for silky sharks in 2013 (CMM 2013-08). Silky and Oceanic white tip specific measures were also included in CMM 2019-04 and include: • CCMs shall prohibit vessels flying their flag and vessels under charter arrangements to the CCM from retaining on board, transshipping, storing on a fishing vessel or landing any oceanic whitetip shark, or silky shark, in whole or in part, in the fisheries covered by the Convention. • CCMs shall require all vessels flying their flag and vessels under charter arrangements to the CCM to release any oceanic whitetip shark or silky shark that is caught as soon as possible after the shark is brought alongside the vessel, and to do so in a manner that results in as little harm to the shark as possible, following any applicable safe release guidelines for these species. • Subject to national laws and regulations, and notwithstanding (1) and (2), in the case of oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark that are unintentionally caught and frozen as part of a purse seine vessels’ operation, the vessel must surrender the whole oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark to the responsible governmental authorities or discard them at the point of landing or transshipment. Oceanic whitetip shark and silky shark surrendered in this manner may not be sold or bartered but may be donated for purpose of domestic human consumption. • Observers shall be allowed to collect biological samples from oceanic whitetip sharks and silky shark caught in the Convention Area that are dead on haulback in the WCPO, provided that the samples are part of a research project of that CCM or the SC. In the case that sampling is conducted as a CCM project, that CCM shall report it in their Part 2 Annual Report.

In addition, in 2018 the WCPFC adopted an additional section to the main tuna CMM (2018-01) that required, among other things, that only non-entangling FADs to be in use by 1st January 2020, as described above for Whale sharks. For Solomon Islands vessels’ there is a requirement contained in all license conditions for compliance with all international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. Tri Marine vessels are only permitted to deploy non-entangling FADs, per ISSF requirements.

Information available on the key shark species is collected mainly by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs as outlined in section 7.4.1.3. It includes data on catch weight and effort at an operation level for most fleets, and some size composition data and biological data.

Solomon Islands purse seine fishing vessels are required to comply with WCPFC provisions, including those for data reporting, and numbers of silky sharks caught are included in Solomon Islands Part 1 Annual Reports to the WCPFC-SC.

Even with bans on the retention of silky shark and the requirement for the early release of any sharks caught, reductions in fishing mortality are dependent on the level of survival among released animals. Poisson et al. (2014) found that for French purse-seine operations in the Indian Ocean overall mortality of silky sharks was 81%, after accounting for the initial mortality (72%) and the post-release mortality of animals that were released alive after having been either brailed on board (48% mortality) or entangled in the net (18% mortality). Silky shark reported mortality in the UoA was extremely high, with only 6% identified as released alive. This mortality rate does not include mortality that may have occurred post-

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 19 of 175 capture. While the population status of Silky sharks in the WCPFC mean these mortalities do not cause concern at the population level, the extremely high discard mortality in relation to other records is of concern.

7.4.1.11 Oceanic Whitetip Shark

The oceanic whitetip (Carcharhinus longimanus) is an oceanic-epipelagic shark, usually found far offshore in the open sea in waters 200 m deep, between about 30°N and 35°S in all oceans; it is normally found in surface waters, although it has been recorded to 152 m. It has occasionally been recorded inshore but is more typically found offshore or around oceanic islands and areas with narrow continental shelves. Evidence also suggests a stock segregation between juveniles and adults of the species; with juveniles more commonly found in equatorial waters to the west and adults more predominate to the southwest, near the identified center of abundance (10°S, 190°E) (Clarke et al. 2011b, Lawson 2011). They are viviparous with placental embryonic development, mature at 4 to 5 years of age, and reach 4 m long. Their biology has indicated that it is likely to be a species with low resilience to fishing – even among shark species - and minimal capacity for compensation (Rice and Harley 2012a). More details of the biology of this species are provided in Molony (2008). Oceanic whitetip sharks are most often caught as bycatch in the Pacific tuna fisheries, though some directed mixed species (sharks and tunas/billfish) fisheries do exist.

Recent analyses of four different datasets for the WCPO show clear, steep and declining trends in abundance indices and median lengths have decreased significantly providing strong evidence for the depleted state of the oceanic whitetip population in the WCPO (Clarke 2011).

A stock assessment for oceanic whitetip sharks has been undertaken (Rice and Harley 2012a) from which some of the main conclusions were: • Notwithstanding the uncertainties inherent in the input data, the catch, CPUE, and size composition data all showed consistent declines over the period of the model (1995-2009).

• This is a low fecundity species, and this is reflected in the low estimated value for FMSY (0.07) and

high estimated value for SBMSY/SB0 (0.424). These directly impacted the conclusions about overfishing and the overfished status of the stock.

• Estimated fishing mortality had increased to levels far in excess of FMSY (FCURRENT / FMSY = 6.5) and across all model runs undertaken estimated F values were much higher than FMSY (the 5th and 95th quantiles are 3 and 20). Based on these results it was concluded that overfishing was occurring.

• Estimated spawning biomass had declined to levels far below SBMSY (SBCURRENT / SBMSY = 0.153) and

across all model runs undertaken SBCURRENT was much lower than SBMSY (the 5th and 95th quantiles are 0.082 and 0.409). Based on these results it was concluded that the stock was overfished. • The greatest impact on the stock was attributed to bycatch from the longline fishery, with lesser impacts from the fleet defined as a targeted longline fleet and from purse seining. The assessment indicated that both associated and unassociated purse seine sets have a negligible contribution to the total fishing mortality (Figure 25). SCS Global Services Report

Specific CMM for oceanic whitetips (CMM-2011-04) came into force on January 1st, 2013. The updated measures are found in CMM 2019-04, and summarized in the above section for Silky sharks. It is too early to expect the impact of this recent CMM on stocks to be detectable.

For Solomon Islands vessels there is a requirement contained in all license conditions for compliance with all international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC.

CMM 2011-04 requires information to be collected and reported on oceanic whitetip sharks. For the WCPFC, Rice and Harley (2012a) noted that commercial reporting of landings had been minimal, as had information regarding the targeting, and fate of sharks encountered in the fisheries, but an integrated assessment was still possible.

There has been a WCPFC requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. Solomon Islands purse seine fishing vessels are required to comply with WCPFC provisions, including those for data reporting, and numbers of oceanic whitetip sharks caught are included in Solomon Islands Part 1 Annual Reports to the WCPFC-SC.

Data from observers for the UoA (Table 20) show that interaction rates with oceanic whitetip shark are low (15 sharks over 6 years). Observers reported that about 43% of the oceanic whitetip shark were released alive.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 21 of 175

Figure 25. Oceanic whitetip shark: estimated fishing mortality by fleet for the reference case over the model periods (from Rice and Harley 2012a).

7.4.1.12 Cetaceans

Status

There were 11 species of cetaceans recorded as having been caught during fishing operations by UoA vessels between 2013 and 2018, with four species reporting 100% discard survival (Table 20). Less than 10 individuals were caught for five of the species. Of the status of the species for which one or more mortalities were recorded, the Bryde’s whale is the only one listed in Appendix 1 of CITES.

Measures to manage the bycatch of cetaceans are not species-specific so they are considered here as a group. A CMM exists for cetaceans (CMM-2011-03) and came into force on January 1st, 2013. The requirements of the CMM include:

In addition, as detailed in the section on silky sharks, in 2018 the WCPFC adopted an additional section to the main tuna CMM (2018-01) that required only non-entangling FADs to be in use by 1st January 2020. SCS Global Services Report

There is also a ban on large scale drift net fishing in the High Seas by WCPFC under CMM 2008-04 partly because this fishing method was known to catch a large number of non-target species such as marine mammals.

There are also measures to introduce non-entangling FADs by 2020 within CMM 2018-01 as described above for Whale Sharks.

For Solomon Island vessels, there is a requirement contained in all license conditions for compliance with all international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC.

Data on the bycatch of cetaceans is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in Section 3.2. Mandatory logbooks with daily catch and effort records for each fishing operation is required under CMM 2013-05 and this includes “interaction information about other species not listed in those sections but required to be reported by CCMs under other Commission decisions such as, inter alia, key cetaceans, seabirds and sea turtles.” For species of special interest, such as cetaceans, the fate of caught and released animals is also recorded.

There has been a WCPFC requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. Solomon Islands purse seine fishing vessels are required to comply with WCPFC provisions, including those for data reporting, and numbers of cetaceans caught are included in Solomon Islands Part 1 Annual Reports to the WCPFC-SC.

Data from observers for the UoA (Table 20) show that interactions with whales are relatively uncommon. On average, 68 cetaceans are caught per year, with substantially more cetaceans caught in AFADs (246 individuals) compared to DFADs (63 individuals) or free school (34 individuals) over the 5 year period. Observers reported that 88% of the cetaceans were released alive, and 12% dead. In addition, there may be some unaccounted mortalities of cetaceans through entanglement in derelict FADs, but it is generally thought this risk is low in comparison to the risk of entanglement posed to sharks or sea turtles (Hamilton and Baker 2019).

7.4.1.13 Marine Turtles

There were four species of marine turtles recorded as caught during fishing operations by UoA vessels in 2013 to 2018: Green Turtle Chelonia mydas, Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta, Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea, and Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Table 20). Measures to manage the bycatch of turtles are not species-specific so they are considered here as a group.

A review of turtle bycatch in the WCPFC (Anon 2001) concluded that, for purse seine caught animals, in most cases, turtles are encountered alive in the net and are subsequently scooped up and released over the side and that observers had reported a 17% mortality rate in the WCPO purse seine fishery. The report indicated that mortalities are mostly due to drowning after entanglement in the net but that some are crushed during the process of loading the net onboard. The report also indicated that marine turtle

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 23 of 175 encounters in the purse seine fishery appear to be more prevalent in the western areas of the western Pacific Ocean. Set type was the main factor affecting marine turtle encounters in the WCPO purse seine fishery and animal-associated, drifting log and anchored-FAD sets had the highest incidence of marine turtle encounters, compared to drifting FAD and sets on free-swimming schools (free school sets).

The status of turtles encountered by fisheries in the WCPO have not been specifically examined by WCPFC. Purse seine fisheries have been identified as one of the types of fisheries that constitute a threat for Olive Ridley turtles, but the relative contribution of the different gear types is not indicated (Morison and McLoughlin 2015).

The WCPFC has adopted CMM 2018-04 for sea turtles which requires CCMs to implement the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations and to ensure the safe handling of all captured sea turtles, in order to improve their survival. Best practice guidelines to ensure the survival of captured sea turtles is also outlined and obligatory to follow.

It also includes the requirements that purse seine vessels must

“Ensure that operators of such vessels, while fishing in the Convention Area:

1. To the extent practicable, avoid encirclement of sea turtles, and if a sea turtle is encircled or entangled, take practicable measures to safely release the turtle.

2. To the extent practicable, release all sea turtles observed entangled in fish aggregating devices (FADs) or other fishing gear.

3. If a sea turtle is entangled in the net, stop net roll as soon as the turtle comes out of the water; disentangle the turtle without injuring it before resuming the net roll; and to the extent practicable, assist the recovery of the turtle before returning it to the water.

4. Carry and employ dip nets, when appropriate, to handle turtles.”

There is also a ban on large scale drift net fishing in the High Seas by WCPFC under CMM 2008-04 partly because this fishing method was known to catch many marine turtles and other marine animals.

Although specific requirements have not yet been adopted, there is ongoing work on materials and guidelines for the construction and use of biodegradable and non-entangling FADs in the WCPO (Escalle et al. 2018a, WCPFC-SC 2018b).

There are also measures to introduce non-entangling FADs by 2020 within CMM 2018-01 as described above for Whale Sharks. SCS Global Services Report

For Solomon Islands vessels there is a requirement contained in all license conditions for compliance with all international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC.

CMM 2008-03 details reporting requirements for CCMs and includes the obligation to specifically report in CCM annual reports the progress of the implementation of the FAO Guidelines and this CMM, including information collected on interactions with sea turtles in fisheries managed under the Convention.

Information available on the turtles is also collected by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs as outlined in section 3.2 above. Mandatory logbooks with daily catch and effort records for each fishing operation is required under CMM 2013-05 and this includes “interaction information about other species not listed in those sections but required to be reported by CCMs under other Commission decisions such as, inter alia, key cetaceans, seabirds and sea turtles.” For species of special interest, such as turtles, the fate of caught and released animals is also recorded.

There has been a WCPFC requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels and Solomon Islands purse seine fishing vessels are required to comply with WCPFC provisions, including those for data reporting, and numbers of marine turtles caught are included in Solomon Islands Part 1 Annual Reports to the WCPFC-SC.

Data from observers for the UoA (Table 20) show that interactions with marine turtles are more common for AFAD sets than DFAD or free school sets and that 6 turtles on average are caught each year. There is likely to be an unobserved level of mortality of turtles that are entangled in FADs. No attempt to estimate the volume of unreported mortalities is available for the WCPO.

7.4.2 Habitat Impacts

7.4.2.1 Overview

When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (this is called the “managed area” for assessment purposes).

According MSC FCRV2.0 SA3.13.3, the assessment team must determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats) for scoring purposes, [where]:

Both commonly encountered and VME habitats are considered ‘main’ habitats for scoring purposes (GSA3.13.3).

10 According to MSC FCRV2.0 GSA 3.13.3.2: “VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: 11 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2- 5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 25 of 175

7.4.2.2 Habitat Type: Commonly Encountered

Pole-and-line and Free school sets

The fishing gear does not physically interact with benthic habitat in either free school sets or the pole- and-line fishery during its operation. The pole and line fishing gear consists of short lines with jigs attached, which at most impact the surface pelagic habitat in an imperceptible and highly transient manner. The pole-and-line fleet does not conduct any fishing activity within 5 miles of a FAD, as specified in their licensing agreements.

Any impacts of the purse seine fishery during free-school sets or the pole-and-line fishery will therefore be confined to direct or indirect effects on the surface waters in which the fishery operates. This is considered to constitute a single habitat type that is essentially open ocean water. Licensing conditions for purse seine and pole-and-line vessels prohibit fishing activity within 6 nautical miles of low water mark for all islands, atolls, reefs, and closed areas within the MGA. Thus, the depth is such that interaction of fishing gear with the bottom is not an issue. The ability of this habitat to support the target fish populations is related to temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determine the productivity of the lower trophic levels. These are primarily driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their effect on the frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. Neither purse seine no pole-and-line fishing is not considered capable of affecting these key habitat drivers at a broad scale or even local levels of productivity.

It is therefore appropriate that no management measures are in existence which are designed to avoid or mitigate impacts on this marine habitat and no further consideration of impacts of free school sets or pole-and-line operations on such habitats is warranted.

Anchored FAD sets

The operation of the purse seine net itself interacts with marine habitats in the same way and to the same extent as described for Free school sets. It is therefore appropriate that no particular management measures are in existence which are designed to avoid or mitigate impacts on this marine habitat and no further consideration of impacts of FADs sets on such habitats is warranted. For FAD sets, the additional consideration is the potential impact of the FADs themselves on habitats.

The Solomon Islands purse seine fishery targets tuna using both anchored, drifting and natural (e.g. logs or natural material) FADs. For this assessment, FADs have been defined to include both natural objects such as logs and manufactured FADs, but for the evaluation of habitat impacts we consider it necessary to include only manufactured FADs, as natural objects are not deployed by the fishery and any habitat impact of natural objects would occur regardless of fishing activity. We have evaluated anchored FADs as part of the ‘fishing gear’ as these structures remain in place from the anchoring systems that secure the SCS Global Services Report

FADs to the seafloor. It is possible that anchored FADs may become dislodged, turning into drifting debris with the same potential impacts on coastal habitats as drifting FADs. However, the fishing vessels within this UoA do not deploy drifting FADs, rather, they conduct fishing activity from FADs that enter their fishing area released within the WCPF Convention Area. Drifting FADs have potential impacts if they are lost and wash up on coastlines, especially those with coral reefs, which are defined as a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME). However, as the drifting FADs were not deployed by the UoA, the assessment team has determined that potential habitat impacts are not the responsibility/fault of the UoA and are not considered in this assessment. Ownership and responsibility of drifting FADs (and resultant impacts) is an ongoing issue that has not been clearly established in the WCPFC (Banks et al., 2020). However at this stage, it is generally believed that the responsibility falls upon ‘the owner of the dFAD, and similarly, responsibility for damage caused by a dFAD if it runs aground on coastal habitat, should be the company that owns the satellite buoy that is currently attached to the dFAD, or if no satellite buoy is attached, then the company that last had one attached, if this can be determined’ (Banks et al. 2020). We have adopted this viewpoint for the purposes of this MSC assessment.

Little information is available about the benthic marine habitats in the areas fished by UoA vessels. The Bismarck and Solomon Seas, where much of the fishing by UoA vessels occurs, host many underwater features such as seamounts, of which only a very few have been sampled, mapped, or even visited (Pante et al. 2012). The overlap of anchored FADs with different habitat types has not been documented but Chapman (2005) notes that “rocky bottoms” characterize FAD sites in Pacific Island countries.

Anchored FADs are distributed throughout the MGA and EEZ of the Solomon Islands. In Solomon Islands, FADs can be placed in territorial waters (within 12 miles of land), and distance between AFADs can vary from 4-20 miles (The anchoring systems used for FADs include both the anchor weight and the attaching line (Figure 2). The anchor itself would represent a very small footprint on the seafloor. The AFADs range in depth from 1000 to 4000 m and use three joined 100 liter drums filled with concrete as anchors (NFD pers. comm; Itano et al. 2004); the footprint of an anchor amounts to several square meters. The line of chain and rope that attaches the AFAD to its anchor may also damage marine benthic habitats, and the potential impact of this line will depend on design and the length of this line that is in contact with the substrate. Designs provided in Chapman et al. (2005) suggest that the bottom chain attached to AFAD anchors be 6-10 m long with up to 3 m held away from the seafloor to protect the attached ropes from being abraded by contact with benthic substrates. A 10m long chain would represent about 140 sq m of seafloor that would likely be damaged as the FAD moved about its anchor.

The Solomon Islands FAD management plan (2008) states that any fishing company or operator that is intending to deploy AFADs is required to submit to the MFMR the intended positions for deployment of the FADs. Upon approval, the fishing company or operator will then be allowed to deploy its FADs and to report the dates and positions of the FADs to the MFMR. The fishing company or operator concerned will be responsible for the maintenance of its FADs and will report to the MFMR the dates, positions and ID numbers of any lost or replaced FADs. The assessment team was not provided information on the total number of AFADs deployed. Without information on the total number of AFADs deployed, the level of impact where they are deployed (presumed to be high) and the rate of recovery of any affected benthic communities, it is not possible to accurately determine the impact of AFADs. Nevertheless, given the

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 27 of 175 footprint of individual AFADs is quite small, and they are dispersed over a wide area, it seems unlikely that they could have a significant impact on marine benthic habitats when viewed at the scale of the whole fishery.

7.4.2.3 Habitat Type: Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VMEs)

Neither fishing on Free school nor on FADS has any interaction with VMEs. As noted above, however, lost AFADs have potential impacts if they are lost and wash up on coral reefs, which we have considered to be VMEs. Potential impacts of derelict drifting FADs are not evaluated for this assessment.

It should be noted that the impact of lost AFADs from the UoA is considered to be low based on expert opinion, however prior to the site visit, information regarding how/whether these numbers are known was not provided to the assessment team. Thus, a brief description of the coral reefs and their status in the Solomon Islands has been provided below.

Unless otherwise cited, the following information on coral reefs has been sourced from Burke et al. 2011 and 2012. The coral reefs of the Solomon Islands (Figure 26), together with those across to the Philippines and the east coast of Borneo, make up the western half of the Coral Triangle, the region with the highest diversity of corals, fish, and other reef species anywhere in the world. A study of the coral reefs found that Solomon Islands has one of the highest diversities of corals anywhere in the world, with 494 species of corals spread across a reef area of 6,743 km2 (Green et al. 2004). Compared to other parts of the Coral Triangle Region, the corals and marine resources of Solomon Islands are in relatively good condition (Green et al. 2004). Coral reefs face a range of threats. Local threats come from coastal development, watershed-based pollution, marine-based pollution and damage, overfishing and destructive fishing. Global threats arise from changing climate and ocean chemistry such as warming seas, acidifying seas, sea level rise and storms. On top of these are compounding threats from disease and crown of thorns starfish.

Lost FADs contribute to marine-based pollution which also includes a range of other threats from the thousands of commercial, recreational, and passenger vessels that pass near reef areas every day. These potential threats include contaminated bilge water, fuel leakages, raw sewage, solid waste, and invasive species. In addition, reefs are exposed to more direct physical damage from groundings, anchors, and oil spills. The pressure from these threats was widely dispersed, emanating from ports and widely distributed shipping lanes.

The relative risks to coral reefs from the local threats has been evaluated for countries in the Coral Triangle (Figure 27). In the Solomon Islands, 70% of reefs were characterized as low to medium risk (Burke et al. 2012; Figure 28). Overfishing and destructive fishing were the most widespread threats, affecting more than 65 percent of reefs, especially around the more heavily populated central and eastern portions of the archipelago (Figure 28). This is partly related to the blast and poison fishing practices, which affects about 5 percent of reefs (Burke et al. 2012). Marine-based pollution and damage was lowest concern across all threats in the Solomon Islands (Figure 28). SCS Global Services Report

These sources of marine-based pollution described by Burke et al. (2011 and 2012) do not explicitly include lost fishing gear such as derelict FADs and it is unclear if their analyses have accounted for these potential impacts. Nevertheless, it seems very unlikely that its inclusion could greatly elevate the relative importance of marine debris as a local threat for coral reefs either within Solomon Island waters or in the Coral Triangle as a whole, given that other local threats are estimated to be significantly more important.

Furthermore, global and compounding threats are more pervasive sources of risk to coral reefs. The threats to coral reefs from ocean warming and changes to ocean chemistry are considered to be increasing in Solomon Islands and elsewhere. Around Solomon Islands, the combined impacts of acidification with thermal stress are projected to push many reefs into the very high or critical threat categories. This projection is consistent with the outlook proposed for the Great Barrier Reef of Australia where climate change is the most serious threat (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2014).

Figure 26. Distribution of reefs at risk in the Solomon Islands (from Burke et al. 2012).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 29 of 175

Figure 27. Reefs at risk from integrated local threats for the countries of the Coral Triangle Region. These threats consist of overfishing and destructive fishing, marine pollution and damage, coastal development, and watershed based pollution (from Burke et al. 2012).

Figure 28. Relative importance of local threats to reefs at risk in Solomon Islands (from Burke et al. 2012).

SCS Global Services Report

For the WCPFC, the main FAD management measure is a three month closure each year specified in the main tuna CMM (most recently CMM 2018-01):

Although this has been designed as a stock conservation measure for tuna, it also has the additional potential benefit of reducing the number of FADs that may be lost.

There are other ongoing research programs involving scientific staff involved in WCPO fisheries that have been examining various impacts of FADs with papers in scientific journals (e.g. Leroy et al. 2013; Phillips et al. 2017) or presented to the WCPFC-SC (e.g. Pilling et al. 2017).

7.4.3 Ecosystem Impacts

The MSC defines ‘key ecosystem elements’ as “the features of an ecosystem considered as being most crucial to giving the ecosystem its characteristic nature and dynamics and are considered relative to the scale and intensity of the UoA. They are features most crucial to maintaining the integrity of its structure and functions and the key determinants of the ecosystem resilience and productivity” (SA3.16.3 MSC 2014).

Further MSC guidance states that “key ecosystem elements may include trophic structure and function (in particular key prey, predators, and competitors), community composition, productivity pattern (e.g. upwelling or spring bloom, abyssal, etc.), and characteristics of biodiversity” (GCB3.18.1, MSC 2014).

Defining the key ecosystem elements that are applicable to the UoAs is not clear cut and for the purposes of this assessment we have considered a broad range of features and measures from studies at a range of scales. The pelagic ecosystems that support the skipjack and yellowfin tuna fisheries in the WCPO are spread over very broad spatial scales and are influenced by oceanographic and climatic factors beyond the fishery boundaries. Relevant studies include studies of trophic relationships (e.g. Kitchell et al. 1999), studies at scales that are smaller than the whole fishery (e.g. modelling of the ‘warm pool’ by Allain et al. 2015), and modelling of the whole Pacific Ocean (e.g. Sibert et al. 2006). Also, of relevance to this assessment is the potential ecosystem impacts of FADs themselves, including both on target and non- target species. Each have been examined for evidence of impacts of the fishery on the structure and function of the ecosystem.

Trophic Relationships

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 31 of 175 Adult skipjack and yellowfin tuna are high trophic level species, second tier apex predators below sharks, swordfish, marlin and other billfish (Kitchell et al. 1999). They are major biomass components of the apex guild, represented by strong responses in a diversity of food web components (Kitchell et al. 1999). Their diet of a variety of pelagic and mesopelagic species, and their trophic position assure an important role as they themselves are prey for higher apex predators. Tunas are considered the most effective generalists in the system as they are abundant opportunistic carnivores with high degrees of trophic interaction and diet overlap (Kitchell et al. 1999). Ecosystem modelling indicated that adult skipjack and yellowfin have critically important ecosystem roles. Their removal evoked substantial and sustained changes in the structure of the system (Kitchell et al. 1999).

Allain et al. (2007) constructed a trophic mass-balance ecosystem model of the Warm Pool/Cold tongue pelagic ecosystem using Ecopath with Ecosim software (Figure 29). They describe the warm pool as an oligotrophic system characterized by low salinity, low nitrates, high temperature, deep thermocline, low surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll located at 90m depth. Conversely, the cold tongue in the Eastern equatorial Pacific is described as an upwelling system with high salinity, high nitrates, low temperature, shallow thermocline, high surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll at the surface. This model indicated that the ecosystem responds to both top-down and bottom-up processes and has the characteristics of a complex form of ‘wasp-waist’ structure where the majority of the system’s biomass is comprised of mid-trophic level groups. Significant complexity was further added through the effects of climate change, including increased sea surface temperature leading to changes in ocean stratification dynamics and changes in the depth of the thermocline. A combination of increased fishing and climate change produced complex trophic cascades, causing unpredictable increases and decreases in the biomass of groups representing all trophic levels, similar to unpredictable wasp-waist ecosystems in productive temperate ecosystems. This study noted that skipjack tuna appears to be a very resilient species, such that it was nearly impossible to eliminate it from the system with a top-down control (i.e., fishing), which is probably related to its high production rate and internal density-dependence induced by cannibalism.

The available model-based predictions provide only indirect evidence of the trophic impacts associated with declining apex predator abundance, as there are difficulties applying detailed trophic models to open ocean systems in which ecological and fishery data uncertainties are large (Cox et al. 2002).

Warm Pool Pelagic Ecosystem Evaluation

A further study (Allain et al. 2015) has examined a more restricted area of the warm pool pelagic ecosystem (Figure 30) using Ecopath with Ecosim (www.ecopath.org) to provide information on the potential impacts of tuna fishing. This ecosystem model was characterized by five trophic levels, a high number of trophic links between groups, and a diverse pool of prey for predators. In the model, the majority (74%) of the ecosystem’s biomass was in trophic levels 1–2 (phytoplankton, zooplankton), whereas 89% of the industrial fish catch (tuna, edible bycatch and other top predators) was in trophic levels 3–5. The model was used to explore nine different scenarios of fishing effort, ranging from measures designed to reduce and/or increase the amount of bycatch, decrease and/or increase the amount of tuna SCS Global Services Report harvested by altering the amount of longline fishing and purse-seine fishing effort on free swimming schools and on schools associated with FADs. The modelling showed that the warm pool ecosystem structure is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community). The intrinsic resistance of the ecosystem to perturbation appears to be related to the high diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey. The structure of the ecosystem was most sensitive to changes in the biomass of prey groups (e.g. small pelagic fish such as anchovy).

This more recent model of the warmpool (Allain et al. 2015), however, covered only a part of the WCPO (Figure 30). Substantial catches of skipjack and yellowfin tuna are taken from waters outside the modelled area, so it is unclear whether the findings of this study would apply to other areas of the WCPO.

Pacific Ocean Ecosystem Evaluation

At a broader scale, Sibert et al. (2006) described biomass trends of exploited populations of top level predators in the whole Pacific Ocean (the WCPO and the Eastern Pacific Ocean combined) (Figure 31) and compares them to estimated biomass projections had the fishery never been exploited. This study found that the trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al. 2006). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on the Pacific Ocean ecosystem were likely to be minor.

Ecosystem impacts of FADs and other considerations

Leroy et al. (2013) have critiqued the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse-seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. For this UoA, we only consider the potential ecosystem impacts from FADs deployed by the fishery (i.e. anchored FADs) and not drifting FADs, which the assessment team understands are not deployed by the UoA, but the vessels do opportunistically use when targeting tuna.

The direct impacts of removals and their impact on stock status are well known. There is greater uncertainty about other effects such as impacts on fish behavior, predator and prey interactions, and the potential flow on effects of these to population level impacts. The use of FADs varies spatially across the WCPO and the effects may also vary by species (Leroy et al. 2013) and ontogenetically (Fuller et al. 2015). Responses to FADs may also vary among individual fish (Phillips et al. 2017). Leroy et al. (2013) indicated that FADs both attract and retain tuna (by unknown but probably different mechanisms) and may affect distribution and migrations of tuna. FADs have been shown to influence the behavior and movement patterns of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna, with the juveniles of each species occupying shallower habitats when associated with FADs. Leroy et al. (2013) also document residence time of tunas up to 55 days and hypothesized that dense fields of AFADs may entrain fish for extended periods although this has not been studied. They noted that the ways in which FADs interact with the biotic components of tuna environmental preferences, through prey concentration, increased feeding on juvenile conspecifics, or incorrect habitat utilization, need further investigation, including tuna foraging and the effect of FADs on the behavior of other important species in the pelagic ecosystem.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 33 of 175 The results of more recent studies by Phillips et al. (2017) suggest that processes working at different scales may explain the inter- and intra-individual variability in fish behavior that they observed for bigeye and yellowfin tuna. They suggested that there was an interaction between fine scale variability in the availability of prey, the local density of conspecifics, and the multi-species composition of the schools themselves whilst islands and other bathymetric features may affect vertical behaviour at larger spatial scales. They concluded that purse-seiners set on floating objects because they bring tuna to a more easily found locality in horizontal space, and then aggregate them in relative shallow water through this surface behaviour. The surface-association events they identified varied greatly. While some events were clear and prolonged, the large majority are not, and extended surface-association behaviour was rarely exhibited immediately prior to capture.

Another important consideration in the relationship between fishing and the ecosystem is the impact of climate change. Tuna stocks are particularly susceptible to the effects of environmental change. In addition to the seasonal, inter-annual and decadal variability in the WCPO (e.g. the El Niño Southern Oscillation - ENSO), projected changes in the marine environment over the coming decades include increases in sea surface temperature, sea level rise, ocean acidification and increases in precipitation. Recent climate change modelling predicts slight increases in skipjack tuna catch and biomass in the western and central Pacific until 2050, followed by biomass stabilization and subsequent decrease after 2060 as the catch plateaus (Lehodey et al. 2013a). A shift in feeding and spawning grounds is also anticipated to shift to more favorable conditions in the eastern Pacific Ocean away from the current western equatorial region, as well as an extension to higher latitudes (Lehodey et al. 2013a).

Overall, the above modelling studies, together with results of the stock assessments of the main species (described under Principle 1) suggests it is unlikely that the tuna harvested by UoA vessels in WCPO waters is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The ongoing productivity of the purse seine fishery in the WCPO also provides evidence that the structure and function of the ecosystem has not been compromised by the fishery.

Ultimately, for this assessment against the MSC requirements, a key question about all these effects is whether they could affect populations in ways that would not be detected by current monitoring and assessment programs. Because if monitoring and assessment programs can detect any such changes and the harvest strategy is responsive to them, then the Principle 1 and 2 objectives are still likely to be achieved. The monitoring and assessment programs in place are very comprehensive, the scientists involved are aware of these issues and are active in the research on them.

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 29. Spatial extent of the warm pool – cold tongue system in the Pacific Ocean (from Allain et al. 2007).

Figure 30. The boundaries of the area covered by the warm pool ecosystem model, and the exclusive economic zones of the countries included in the model. FSM = Federated States of Micronesia; PNG = Papua New Guinea (from Allain et al. 2015).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 35 of 175

Figure 31. Trends in total biomass for eight stocks of large predators in the Pacific Ocean. The blue line represents the former case, the red line the latter. The single black line indicates the equilibrium biomass corresponding to maximum sustainable yield conditions, assuming current levels of recruitment and distribution of fishing mortality among fisheries. (from Sibert et al. 2006)

The FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries (1995) provides a reference framework for sustainable fisheries addressing ecosystem considerations, principles and goals needed for an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM). The Code is voluntary, although parts are based on international law, including the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). One of the principles of the Code is that management measures should not only ensure the conservation of target species but also species belonging to the same ecosystem. This approach is now explicit in the WCPFC Convention, although tuna fisheries remain managed on single-species basis and there does not appear to be integrated domestic and international strategies to manage the ecosystem components of this fishery.

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

As well as collecting data on target species taken in the WCPO fishery, there has been and continues to be collection of information for and assessments of a wide range of other components of the WCPO ecosystem, including: SCS Global Services Report

This effort occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). Allain et al. (2011) discuss several projects which contribute to EAFM. These include but are not limited to:

The ecosystem model, SEAPODYM, was developed to investigate spatial population dynamics of fish under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects. In addition to fisheries and other fish relevant data (e.g. tagging data, acoustic biomass estimates, eggs and larvae density), the model utilizes environmental data in a manner that allows high resolution prediction (Lehodey et al. 2008). SEAPODYM was initially developed for tuna species and complements the WCPFC Scientific Committee’s MULTIFAN- CL models by providing additional information on how tuna distributions are structured in space and time.

Additional focus on ecosystem information has been provided through Kobe By-catch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) which was established in 2009 with the aim of supporting, streamlining, and seeking to harmonize the by-catch related activities of Ecosystems/By-catch working groups across RFMOs. The KBTWG’s terms of reference include (from Nicol et al. 2013):

• Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. Provide guidance for improving data collection efforts (e.g., information to be collected) and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among Tuna RFMOs; • Identify species of concern that, based on their susceptibility to fisheries and their conservation status, require immediate action across Tuna RFMOs. Review all available information on these species and identify their data needs; • Review and identify appropriate qualitative and quantitative species population status determination methods for bycatch species; • Review data analyses to identify all fishery and non-fishery (e.g. oceanographic and physical) factors contributing to bycatch, taking into account the confidentiality rules of each RFMO; • Review existing bycatch mitigation measures including those adopted by each Tuna RFMO and consider new mitigation research findings to assess the potential utility of such measures in areas covered by other Tuna RFMOs taking into consideration differences among such areas; and • Review and compile information on by-catch research that has been already conducted or is currently underway to delineate future research priorities and areas for future collaboration. Leroy et al. (2013) noted that an important shortcoming for data analyses that would help evaluate the ecosystem impacts of FADS is the lack of information on the number and location of FADs in use in the WCPO. Some information on this is now forthcoming (e.g. Escalle et al. 2018b) and investigations are also continuing into issues such as the impacts of FADs on target and non-target species (Phillips et al. 2017).

At the WCPFC level, ecosystem considerations have been a long-standing area of investigation by the Scientific Committee. Ecosystem and bycatch are one of the themes that is addressed at all SC meetings and papers considered cover a broad range of topics under this heading.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 37 of 175 7.4.4 Principle 2 Performance Indicator scores and rationales The purse seine and pole-and-line fishery are different Units of Assessment and have been evaluated separately in Principle 2. For the pole-and-line fishery, and element approach has been taken to evaluate the impact of the fishery on non-target catches and baitfish uses separately for the Secondary species Performance Indicator.

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the point where recruitment would be impaired (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

Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI. highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI. species are above the PRI OR and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures in If the species is below the place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence ensure that the UoA does of recovery or a not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? PS: NA PS: NA PS: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA Rationale

Purse-seine

There are no main primary species for purse seine vessels (Table 18).

Pole-and-line Pole-and-line fishing is recognized as very selective. Based on results from tagging studies in the Solomon Islands (Williams, pers comm) and other studies of pole-and-line fisheries in the region, non-target catch is low, with a discard estimate of 0.4% (Kelleher 2005 in Clarke et al 2014; SAI Global 2020). Lewis (2014) reports minimal catch and landing of non-target species from the pole-and-line fishery, primarily rainbow runner and mahi mahi which is usually used for crew consumption and/or sale by NFD through the cooperative. Neither of these species are considered primary. In addition, a NFD initiative in place since 2014 to support full catch retention and utilization of tuna and non-tuna fish species (Lewis 2014) has nearly eliminate any discards from the pole-and-line fishery.

SCS Global Services Report

Fishermen are required to complete FFA/SPC Regional Logsheet forms daily and record retained and discarded species, stated in license conditions. The fleet was also subject to some observer coverage in 2019. Logbook and observer data will be reviewed at the site visit.

Based on the available information sources, there are no main primary species in the Solomon Islands pole-and- line fishery, and this scoring issue is also scored as NA.

Bait species There are no primary bait species; bait species are evaluated as secondary minor species below.

b Minor primary species stock status

Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI.

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species. Met? PS: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine

There are no main primary species for purse seine vessels (Table 18). Big-eye tuna is the only minor primary species caught by the fishery, comprising 0.7% of the catch. The WCPFC fishery for bigeye tuna is MSC certified with no conditions under P1 1.1.1. As detailed in the background, the most recent stock assessment (Vincent et al. 2018) indicated that the stock is well above the PRI and above levels that are consistent with MSY. This meets the SG 100 requirements.

Pole-and-line Fishermen are required to complete FFA/SPC Regional Logsheet forms daily and record retained and discarded species, stated in license conditions. The fleet is also subject to observer coverage. Logbook and observer data will be reviewed at the site visit. As this information is not yet available, it is unknown if or which primary minor species the fishery may catch. Thus, as a precautionary basis, we cannot conclude that minor primary species are highly likely to be above the PRI. SG100 is not met. References

Kelleher 2005; Clarke et al 2014; Lewis 2014; SAI Global 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: ≥80 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought on the logbook/observer data for the pole-and-line fleet

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 39 of 175

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.1.2 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 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to be above which are highly likely to be the PRI. above the PRI.

Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main primary species for the purse seine fishery. Therefore, following the explanation of the term ‘if necessary’ in Table GSA3 v2.01, a management strategy is not be required at SG60 or SG80 and no specific rationale need be given in order to achieve the SG60 and SG80 levels. The 100% observer coverage is such that there is confidence in the determination of the minimal non-target catches in relation to target species catches of the purse-seine fishery. The bigeye stock is considered in good condition (see 2.1.1) and the minimal catches of bigeye in the fishery mean that there is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor primary species. SG100 is met.

Pole-and-line As with the purse-seine fishery, there are no main primary species in the pole-and-line fishery and SG80 is met by default. There is also 100% mandatory retention of non-target species caught by pole-and-line vessels in the UoA, as per NFD’s initiative.

Fishermen are required to complete FFA/SPC Regional Logsheet forms daily and record retained and discarded species, stated in license conditions. The fleet is also subject to observer coverage. Logbook and observer data will be reviewed at the site visit. As this information has not yet been provided, we cannot conclude that the strategy in place is sufficient for managing main and minor primary species and SG100 is not met. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the fishery similar fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species and/or species involved. involved. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 41 of 175 Purse-seine There are no main primary species and, consistent with the requirements under scoring issue a, and the low levels of catch of both the minor primary species, neither measures nor a partial strategy are considered necessary, the SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are considered to be met. There has been no testing to support the partial strategy/strategy in place to justify a high level of confidence about the measures that are in place for the minor primary species, so SG100 requirements are not met.

Pole-and-line Non-target There are no main primary species and, consistent with the requirements under scoring issue a, and the low levels of catch of any non-target species means that neither measures nor a partial strategy are considered necessary, the SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are considered to be met. However, no testing to support the partial strategy/strategy in place to justify a high level of confidence about the measures that are in place for the minor primary species exists, so SG100 requirements are not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main primary species and under scoring issue a, and consistent with the rationale for PI 2.1.2a and the low levels of catch of this species of tuna, neither measures nor a partial strategy are considered necessary, the SG 80 requirements are considered to be met. For SG100 the requirement is for clear evidence of implementation that meets the objectives set out in scoring issue a. These objectives are to maintain at, or to not hinder rebuilding to, levels which are highly likely to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. For bigeye, the very low levels of catch by the UoA, and their status being well above PRI, are clear evidence of these objectives being met. Therefore, SG100 requirements are considered to be met.

Pole-and-line The mandatory retention of bycatch species, minimal reported landings of species other than Yellowfin or Skipjack, coupled with the highly selective nature of the gear, is sufficient to reach SG80. Logbook and observer data will be reviewed at the site visit. However, as this information has not yet been provided, we consider there to not be clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). SG100 is not met. d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? PS: NA PS: NA PS: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA Rationale SCS Global Services Report

Purse-seine Not scored. No primary species are a shark.

Pole-and-line Not scored. No primary species are a shark. e Review of alternative measures

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? PS: NA PS: NA PS: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA Rationale

Purse-seine There is a negligible level of unwanted catches of primary species, as indicated by the very low levels of discarding recorded (< 5% for this UoA). Bigeye tuna are a highly valuable species so all possible catch are retained. The levels of discarding across the fishery are estimated to be small enough to be ignored in the stock assessment (McKechnie et al. 2017). Following GSA3.5.3, scoring issue need not be scored when the unwanted catch is negligible.

Pole-and-line The requirement of 100% retention of non-target species means that there are no unwanted catches of Primary species. The scoring issue has not been scored. References

McKechnie et al. 2017

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: ≥80 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought regarding non-target catches/landings in the pole-and-line fishery.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 43 of 175 PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main primary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main primary species but following SA3.3.1 this scoring issue is still required to be scored. There is good information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in the UoA (requirement is for 100% coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records. This provides quantitative data that, should there be a change in catch composition that leads to main primary species being identified in the future, it would be adequate to assess, with a high degree of certainty, the impact of the UoA on them. Therefore, the requirements of SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels are met.

Pole-and-line Qualitative data is available in the form of discussions of tagging studies in the Solomon Islands (Williams, pers comm) and other studies of pole-and-line fisheries in the region showing the minimal catch of non-target catches (Kelleher 2005 in Clarke et al 2014; SAI Global 2020), which is sufficient to estimate the impact of the UoA on the main primary species with respect to status. In addition, Lewis (2014) reported minimal catch and landing of non-target species from the pole-and-line fishery, and landings were primarily Rainbow runner and Mahi mahi which are secondary species.

Fishermen are required to complete FFA/SPC Regional Logsheet forms daily and record retained and discarded species, stated in license conditions. The fleet is also subject to observer coverage. Logbook and observer data will provide some quantitative data, and SG80 is met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to SCS Global Services Report

estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? PS: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine There is good quantitative information available from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in the UoA (requirement is for 100% coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records. This has been adequate to assess that the UoA has had negligible impact on the status of Bigeye tuna. This meets SG100 requirements

Pole-and-line See rationale in 2.1.3 a. Some information is available in the form of logbook and observer data, and therefore, SG100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary manage main primary manage all primary species, species. species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main primary species but bigeye is a minor primary species and the information collected on the species, has been sufficient to determine that that there is a high degree of certainty that these species are above the PRI (the objective required for PI 2.1.2). This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level.

Pole-and-line A main measure employed in this fishery is the use of pole-and-line gear, which is a highly selective gear type (excluding the use of bait). Licensing conditions in the fishery specify that only pole-and-line gear can be used. Daily logbook and recent observer data is collected for the pole and line fleet. Thus, information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main primary species. SG80 is met. Logbook and observer data will be evaluated at the site visit to determine if information is sufficient to reach SG100. References

Kelleher 2005; Clarke et al 2014; Lewis 2014; SAI Global 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: <80 P&L: <80

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 45 of 175 Information gap indicator More information sought regarding non-target catches/landings in the pole-and-line fishery.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.1 The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guide Main secondary species are Main secondary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above highly likely to be above certainty that main biologically based limits. biologically based limits. secondary species are above biologically based limits. OR OR

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place such rebuilding. 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 have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? PS: NA PS: NA PS: NA P&L P&L P&L Non-target: NA Non-target: NA Non-target: NA Bait: NA Bait: NA Bait: NA Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main secondary species (Table 18). Therefore this scoring issue is not relevant.

Pole-and-line Non-target & Bait There are not any main secondary species in either the bait or the direct catches of the pole-and-line fishery. Therefore this scoring issue is not relevant.

b Minor secondary species stock status

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 47 of 175 Guide Minor secondary species are post highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? PS: No P&L Non-target: No Bait: No Rationale

Purse-seine There is a wide range of minor secondary species (Table 18). All of these secondary species are caught in very low levels, but most do not have available stock assessments and reference points. Regardless, the very low catch levels of all minor secondary species indicate that there is a negligible interaction between the UoA vessels and these other secondary species such that, even if these species were below any biologically based limits, any catch by them would not be hindering their recovery.

The MSC v2.0 requirements (Table 3) trigger use of the RBF for any secondary (or primary) species without reference points, regardless of whether the impact of the fishery can be assessed. MSC requirement Annex PF 4.1.4 allows the assessment team to not conduct the required RBF evaluation (a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)) on minor species, in which case the outcome PI cannot be scored above 80. The assessment team elected not to conduct the RBF because the very low levels of catch indicates low impact by the UoA on these species, and due the time and cost implications of conducting an RBF. Therefore, although there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of any secondary species, should any be below biologically based limits, due to requirement Annex PF 4.1.4 the fishery must be scored as meeting SG80, only.

Pole-and-line Non-target Based on qualitative data from the UoA (Lewis, 2014), SPC tagging studies in the region (Williams, pers comm, 2014), and other pole-and-line fisheries in the region (Kelleher et al 2005 in Clarke et al 2014; SAI Global 2020), the non-target catch of pole-and-line tuna fisheries is minimal. Species identified as landed in the Solomon Islands pole-and-line fishery were Rainbow runner and Mahi mahi. Based on sources available, we consider here that there are no main secondary species. Logbook and observer data from the fishery will be reviewed to verify UoA specific information. Given that no stock assessments have been conducted for Rainbow runner, it cannot be said that all minor species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits SG100 is not met.

Bait Information on bait species is collected via daily logbooks from the pole-and-line fleet. Volume is recorded in number of buckets, with bait species composition analysed in 25% of annual bait volume. Bait species comprise between 6 to 12% of the Yellowfin and Skipjack catches (Table 22). The pole-and-line fleet uses live bait, and thus, not all bait individuals die as a result of fishing efforts. However, as the level of survival (i.e. post-capture survival) is unknown, we have assumed full mortality of bait species as a precautionary approach.

SCS Global Services Report

Species composition data from 2019 showed that blue anchovy represented 23% of bait use and just over 3% of the total catch of the UoA, followed by oceanic (19% of bait, 2.5% of catch) and gold anchovy (16% of bait, 2.5% of catch). Additional recent years of bait use and fisheries landings will be evaluated during the site visit to assess whether there are no main bait species over a longer time period. Regardless, the RBF undertaken by FFA in 2013 found all bait species were of low concern given their short life-span and high fecundity. However, given that no formal stock assessments have been conducted on the bait species (and no information regarding if sub-populations exist in the Solomon Islands), it cannot be said that all bait species are highly likely to be above biologically based limits SG100 is not met.

References

Kelleher 2005; FFA 2013; Clarke et al 2014; Lewis 2014; SAI Global 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: ≥80 P&L Non-target: ≥80 Bait: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought regarding non-target catches/landings in the pole-and-line fishery.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 49 of 175 PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place post if necessary, which are place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing expected to maintain or not UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary hinder rebuilding of main maintain or not hinder species. secondary species at/to rebuilding of main secondary levels which are highly likely species at/to levels which to be above biologically are highly likely to be above based limits or to ensure biologically based limits or to that the UoA does not ensure that the UoA does hinder their recovery. not hinder their recovery. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L P&L P&L Non-target: Yes Non-target: Yes Non-target: No Bait: Yes Bait: Yes Bait: No Rationale

Purse seine There are no main secondary species in the purse seine fishery. Therefore, following the explanation of the term ‘if necessary’ in Table GSA3, a management strategy is not be required at SG60 or SG80 and no specific rationale need be given in order to achieve the SG60 and SG80 levels. This table also indicates that as “if necessary” does not appear in the Management PI scoring issue (a) at SG100, in order to score 100 a management strategy should be in place even if there is no interaction of the UoA with that component”

There are a number of CMMs that have been adopted by the WCPFC that concern some of the minor species, including 2004-03 for Swordfish, 2006-04 for Striped marlin, and 2019-04 and 2014-05 for sharks in general. Also, CMM 2008-04 aims to reduce the catch of non-target species by prohibiting the use of large scale drift nets. Nevertheless, minor species were not evaluated in detail and were not considered to meet SG100.

Pole-and-line Non-target There are no main secondary species in the pole-and-line fishery and SG80 is met by default. There is also 100% mandatory retention of non-target species caught by pole-and-line vessels in the UoA, as per NFD’s initiative. Logbook and observer data will be used to verify UoA catches. While pole-and-line gear is very selective, in the absence of the UoA specific logbook/observer data, we cannot conclude that there is a strategy in place for the UoA for managing main and minor secondary species.

Bait There are no main bait species and SG80 is met by default. While management regulations exist and a Baitfish Management Plan is in place in the Solomon Islands, there are numerous bait species captured and because of this, minor species were not evaluated in detail and were not considered to meet SG100. b Management strategy evaluation SCS Global Services Report

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, (e.g. general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the UoA similar UoAs/species). the UoA and/or species and/or species involved. involved. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L P&L P&L Non-target: Yes Non-target: Yes Non-target: No Bait: Yes Bait: Yes Bait: No Rationale

Purse-seine There are no secondary main species. The MSC has clarified that the ‘if necessary’ in scoring issue (a) also pertains to scoring issues (b) and (c).11 SG60 and SG80 are met by default. There has been no testing to support there being a high level of confidence about the measures that are in place for some of the minor secondary species, and these have not been evaluated in detail, so SG100 requirements are not met.

Pole-and-line (non-target and bait species) There are no main secondary species and SG60 and SG80 are met by default. There has been no testing support there being a high level of confidence about the measures that are in place for some of the minor secondary species, and these have not been evaluated in detail, so SG100 requirements are not met. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L P&L Non-target: Yes Non-target: No Bait: Yes Bait: No Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main secondary species and consistent with the requirements under scoring issue a, and the low levels of catch of both the minor primary species, as neither measures nor a partial strategy are considered necessary, SG80 requirements are considered to be met for this scoring issue. The data from the observer programmes and logbooks provides clear evidence that there continues to be such a low level of catch of all secondary species that fishing by UoA vessels is not causing overfishing or hindering the recovery of any species.

Pole-and-line Non-target There are no main secondary species and consistent with the requirements under scoring issue a, SG60 and SG80 are met by default. Daily logbook records are maintained by the fleet and some observer data exists for

11 https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Use-of-if-necessary-in-P2-management-PIs-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-4-2-2- 5-2-PI-2-1-2-1527262011402

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 51 of 175 the 2019 fishing year. However, as neither the logbook records nor observer data have yet been provided, it cannot be said that there is clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). SG100 is not met.

Bait There are only minor bait species, and SG80 is met. While logbook data exists for the baitfish use, the absence of observer data means that clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) cannot be confirmed. SG100 is not met. only logbook information exists for the bait use, d Shark finning

Guide It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of post is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L P&L P&L Non-target: Yes Non-target: Yes Non-target: No Bait: NA Bait: NA Bait: NA Rationale

Purse-seine

As detailed in the background (section 3.4.5) there are measures in place to prevent that practice of shark finning at WCPFC level (although its Technical and Compliance Committee, is not currently able to determine whether this objective is being achieved), at the PNA level, and at the level of the Solomon Islands. The measures in place at the Solomon Islands level are considered to be the most important and effective for this fishery. They include license conditions that specify that any shark species that is caught incidentally, for which fishing is not permitted, whether by the Fisheries Act, Regulations and any regional conservation and management measure, must be released as soon as possible after the shark is brought alongside the vessel in a manner that causes as little harm as possible. These conditions also require that all sharks retained on board must have their fins naturally attached to the carcass.

There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage and the data for the UoA showed that no incidents of shark finning were reported by observers for 2013 to 2018. The level of observer coverage far surpasses the 20% coverage levels which is considered necessary as a standalone measure to reach SG80 under GSA2.4.5.

In addition, the measures also include mandatory unloading in port, 100% port inspections of all offloadings by MFMR staff to verify the unloaded catch and any catch that is retained onboard, and reviews of VMS tracks to ensure there was no transhipment of product outside of port. MFMR officers physically board the vessel pre- and post-offload and witness the entire offload. The port inspections of all catches and inspections of holds are, however, considered to be good external form of validation that shark finning is not occurring. Furthermore, Solomon Islands law requires sharks to be landed with fins naturally attached which avoids any issues with ratio calculations of fin/meat. We consider that the inspection of all offloadings and the absence of any shark finning being detected are consistent with the requirements outlined in GSA2,.4.5, as an alternative measure and evidence that it is highly likely that finning is not taking place.

The 100% observer coverage combined with 100% port sampling of vessels (both prior to and post offload) means there is a high degree of certainty that shark finning is not taking place. SG100 is met.

Pole-and-line Non-target Pole-and-line is an extremely selective gear and the fishery has not reported catches of shark species. Observer data is collected for the fleet (MFMR 2019). Licensing conditions have the same requirements as for the purse SCS Global Services Report

seine fleet, where any shark caught must be landed with fins naturally attached. At this point, the assessment team understands that the same level of Port inspections also apply to the pole and line fishery. The team will look for additional evidence to verify this at the site visit and confirm that the coverage level is the same. Thus, we consider this consistent with GSA2,.4.5, as an alternative measure and evidence that it is highly likely that finning is not taking place. More information on this issue will be sought during the site visit. SG100 is not met.

Bait There is no records of sharks being caught in the baitfish fishery and based on the gear type/operations of the fishery, this is highly unlikely to occur. This scoring issues has been determined as NA for bait. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch secondary species. of main secondary species of all secondary species, and and they are implemented they are implemented, as as appropriate. appropriate. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L P&L P&L Non-target: Yes Non-target: Yes Non-target: No Bait: NA Bait: NA Bait: NA Rationale

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line There are no main secondary species for either gear type and under scoring issue a, consistent with the requirements under scoring issue a, and the low levels of catch of both the minor primary species, as neither measures nor a partial strategy are considered necessary, SG60 and SG80 requirements are considered to be met for this scoring issue.

The level of catch of secondary species by the UoA is clearly already very low, but we were not satisfied that a regular review of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species was undertaken. The requirements of the SG 100 level are therefore not met.

The pole-and-line fishery does not purchase bait from vessels (or catch bait) they do not intend to use. Thus, there is no unwanted catch and this scoring issue is considered not relevant for the bait element.

References

MFMR 2019

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: ≥80 P&L Non-Target: ≥80 Bait: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought regarding the port inspection actions by MFMR for the pole-and-line

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 53 of 175 fishery and whether actions to reduce any non-target catches are in place.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main secondary species with impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the respect to status. secondary species with UoA on main secondary respect to status. species with respect to OR status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main secondary species. susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L P&L P&L Non-target: Yes Non-target: Yes Non-target: No Bait: Yes Bait: Yes Bait: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main secondary species but following SA3.3.1 this scoring issue is still required to be scored. There is good information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in the UoA (requirement is for 100% coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records. This provides quantitative data that, should there be a change in catch composition that leads to main secondary species being identified in the future, it would be adequate to assess, with a high degree of certainty, the UoA’s impact on them. Therefore, the requirements of SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels are met.

Pole-and-line There are no main secondary species but following SA3.3.1 this scoring issue is still required to be scored.

Non-target Some quantitative data is collected in the form of daily logbooks and limited observer coverage from the 2019 fishing year. This is sufficient to meet SG80.

Bait For bait, sufficient data is provided in the form of logbook information that identifies the total volume caught; species composition was identified in 25% of bait used. Thus, adequate to assess the impact of the UoA on main secondary species with respect to status, and SG80 is met. FFA completed a RBF of all baitfish captured in the Solomon Islands and determined that the fishery was highly unlikely to cause an impact on any bait species. There are no main bait species currently in the fishery. The SPC pole-and-line observer sheet has areas for

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 55 of 175 observers to record amount of live bait carried by the vessel. As observer data has not yet been provided, the assessment team is unsure whether this information is recorded. Thus, it cannot currently be concluded that the level of information would be sufficient to detect changes in status of any bait species. SG100 is not met. This will be reviewed following the provision of observer data from the pole-and-line fleet. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status. Met? PS: Yes P&L Non-target: Yes Bait: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine There is a range of minor secondary species. There is good information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in the UoA (requirement is for 100% coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records. This provides quantitative data that is adequate to demonstrate the low impact of the UoA on them. Therefore, the SG100 requirements are met.

Pole-and-line (non-target and bait) See rationale in 2.2.3 a. Some quantitative information is available from the pole-and-line fishery regarding non- target and baitfish use in the form of logbooks for both, and observer records for the pole-and-line activity, and thus SG100 is met. c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L P&L P&L Non-target: Yes Non-target: No Non-target: No Bait: Yes Bait: Yes Bait: No Rationale

Purse-seine There are no main secondary species for either set type but we have interpreted SA3.3.1 to mean that we are still required to score the SG 60 and SG80 requirements of this scoring issue. The information available is provided by the 100% observer coverage which records details of all retained and discarded catches. This information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, including any main secondary species if there was a change in catch composition that leads to such species being identified in the future. This information is sufficient to demonstrate an ongoing low level of catch of these species which is sufficient to provide a high degree of certainty that fishing by the UoA could not be hindering any rebuilding of these species, should that be necessary. This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level

SCS Global Services Report

Pole-and-line Non-target Daily logbooks identifying target and non-target catches are filled out by fishermen and submitted to the SPC. Observer data is collected for the fleet. Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species. SG80 is met. As observer coverage has not yet been reviewed, it cannot yet be said that information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. SG100 is not met.

Bait Sufficient information exists to support the partial strategy to manage (potential) main secondary species used as bait because of the 100% logbook coverage detailing volume by baitfish region and 25% coverage detailing the bait species captured. The SPC pole-and-line observer sheet has areas for observers to record amount of live bait carried by the vessel. As observer data has not yet been provided, the assessment team is unsure whether this information is recorded. Thus, information is not yet adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. SG100 is not met. This will be reviewed following the provision of observer data from the pole-and-line fleet. References

Kelleher 2005; Clarke et al 2014; Lewis 2014; SAI Global 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: ≥80 P&L Non-target: ≥80 Bait: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought regarding species composition and non-target landings from the pole- and-line fishery

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 57 of 175 PI 2.3.1 The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable

Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, the set limits for ETP species, effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the MSC there is a high degree of population/ stock are known UoAs on the population certainty that the combined and likely to be within these /stock are known and highly effects of the MSC UoAs are limits. likely to be within these within these limits. limits. Met? PS: NA PS: NA PS: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA Rationale

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line There are no national and/or international requirement that set limits for the ETP species that interact with either of the UoAs. This SI is therefore considered to be not relevant.

b Direct effects

Guide Known direct effects of the Direct effects of the UoA is There is a high degree of post UoA are likely to not hinder highly not to hinder recovery confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. of ETP species. significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? PS: Y– All elements PS: PS: P&L: Y– All elements N – Cetaceans; Y – Whale shark; Silky shark; Y – All other elements Oceanic White Tip Shark; P&L: Y– All elements Seabirds. N –Marine turtles N - Cetaceans P&L: N– All elements Rationale

Purse-seine The ETP species considered here were identified in Table 20 with eleven marine mammal, three Mobulidae, two shark and four sea turtle species caught over the 5 year period. A total of 350 marine mammals were recorded as incidentally captured, with high post-capture survivorship, typically 80-100%, reported by observers. The survivorship of silky shark was extremely low, at only 6%. These estimates only account for survivorship at the point of discard, and do not include post-release mortalities.

Whale shark A purse seine set that catches a whale shark can either be classified as a freeschool set or a whaleshark set. It has been illegal to set on whale sharks in the WCPFC since 2012. SCS Global Services Report

The results of an assessment of the risk to the Indo-Pacific Ocean whale shark population from interactions with Pacific Ocean purse seine fisheries (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018c) were considered by the WCPFC-SC who concluded that there was a low probability that the Indo-Pacific whale shark was at risk from Pacific purse seine fisheries (median probability of less than 8% that current risk levels exceed life history-based notional reference points FLim and Fcrash) (WCPFC-SC 2018a). This assessment used observer-reported interactions which average 235 per year from 2010 to 2016. Escalle et al. (2018) have also reported zero post- release mortality for whale sharks encircled by and released from purse seines in the Atlantic Ocean.

A total of 7 Whale sharks were caught in the fishery over a 5 year period. The fate of these is not known but observers reported 100% having been released alive. At these levels of catch and mortality it considered highly likely that the fishery is not hindering the recovery of whale shark populations, should such a recovery be required. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 levels and SG 100 levels.

Silky shark Following the most recent stock assessment of silky shark for the WCPP-only (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018b) the WCPFC-SC concluded that silky sharks were subject to overfishing in the WCPO but were likely not to be in an overfished state (WCPFC-SC 2018a). Therefore, rebuilding of silky sharks is not required.

Estimates of the quantities of silky shark taken by different gear types consistently indicate that longlines are responsible for the majority of the catch of silky sharks (Peatman 2017 and 2018 as reported in Clarke 2018). Clarke (2018) estimated the annual catch of silky sharks from the WCPO to exceed 700,000 animals, so the UoA catch represents less than 0.1% of this total mortality. The catch reported by observers on UoA vessels is about 1,670 silky sharks a year, with only 6% reported as released alive.

There is likely to be an unobserved level of mortality. Non-entangling aFADs are employed by the fishery, which reduces potential entanglements. The entanglements that occur in drifting FADs that the fishery opportunistically set upon but do not deploy are not determined to be the responsibility of the fishery, and are not evaluated across the ETP PI’s.

Given this and the extremely high discard mortality of the sharks reported already, it is best to assume a 100% mortality of all silky sharks captured in the fishery. Nevertheless, the level of mortality attributable to the UoA still represent a small proportion of the total fishing mortality. Furthermore, the indicators of relative abundance used in the stock assessment of Silky shark would reflect the impact of all mortality, whether observed or not, so its findings about the species being likely to not be overfished also include a level of cryptic mortality from FADs.

Retention of silky sharks is prohibited and all landings are monitored. The catch of the target species by UoA vessels is a very low-level percentage of the total WCPFC Convention Area and there is 100% observer coverage. These factors provide a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects of fishing by UoA vessels on silky sharks. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Oceanic whitetip shark The stock assessment of oceanic whitetip shark (Rice and Harley 2012a) concluded that oceanic whitetips have been overfished and remain subject to overfishing. The catch reported by observers on UoA vessels is about 3 animals per year of which 43% were released alive (compared to catches of over 40,000 animals per year by longlines – Peatman et al. 2018). There is likely to be an unobserved level of mortality of oceanic whitetip shark that die post-release (Filmater et al. 2013). Nevertheless, even if such a multiplier was applied to the observed UoA catch of Oceanic Whitetip Sharks, and with a conservative assumption of no post-release survival, the level of mortality attributable to the UoA would still represent a small proportion of the total fishing mortality.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 59 of 175 Retention of oceanic whitetip shark is prohibited, and all landings are monitored. Post-release survival of released oceanic whitetip sharks is unknown but the condition on release from longlines suggest more die than survive (Peatman et al. 2018). The very low-level percentage of the total WCPFC Convention Area catch of the target species by UoA vessels, the broad distribution of the species and the 100% observer coverage provide a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects of fishing by UoA vessels on Silky sharks. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans Data from observers for the UoA (Table 20) show that interactions with whales are relatively uncommon. On average, 6o cetaceans are caught per year. Observers reported that 88% of the cetaceans were released alive, and 12% dead. The species most affected by the UoA is the false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) (Table 20). This species is classified as Near Threatened by the IUCN with bycatch from fisheries identified as one of the primary threats (Baird 2018). Bycatch is greatest in longline and other hook-and-line fisheries but, as found for this UoA, some mortality also occurs in gillnet and seine fisheries. The species is also considered to be one of the less common delphinids and is not common anywhere. Furthermore, based on genetics it is believed that subpopulation structure likely exists throughout their range. This combination of factors means that, even though the numbers involved for the UoA are relatively small and so unlikely to not hinder any recovery at the local population level, should that be required, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that this impact is highly likely. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level but not of the SG 80 level.

Marine turtles There were four species of marine turtles recorded as caught during fishing operations by UoA vessels in 2013 to 2018: Green Turtle Chelonia mydas, Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta, Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea, and Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Table 17). All turtles were reported released alive, except for the Green turtle, which has a 92% survival rate at the time of discard. There is likely to be an unobserved level of mortality, however, of turtles that are entangled in FADs. Nevertheless, the recent Common Oceans (ABNJ) Project (2017) reported that a recent ecological risk assessment conducted for the Atlantic suggested that overall mortality from purse seine fisheries is inconsequential compared to longline fisheries (Angel et al. 2014).

Retention of turtles is prohibited, and all landings are monitored. The very low-level percentage of the total WCPFC Convention Area catch of the target species by UoA vessels, the broad distribution of all the species, and the 100% observer coverage makes it highly likely that the known direct effects of fishing by UoA vessels on all populations of marine turtles are not hindering their recovery. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not the SG 100 level.

Pole-and-line Pole-and-line is an extremely selective gear type, and studies of the gear type in the region report no ETP interactions (SAI Global 2020). Daily logbooks are completed and the fleet is subject to observer coverage. The fishery reports no interactions with ETP species. Observer data will be viewed at the onsite—however, we consider the nature of the gear and the existence of logbook/observer data sufficient reach SG80 requirements. As the fleet coverage of observer data is unknown, the SG100 level is not yet met. c Indirect effects

Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered for the UoA and confidence that there are no are thought to be highly significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the UoA unacceptable impacts. on ETP species. Met? PS: Y – All elements PS: N – All elements P&L: Y – All elements P&L: N – All elements SCS Global Services Report

Rationale

Purse-seine Indirect trophic effects of fishing for tuna on the tropical pelagic ecosystem have been considered through a variety of modelling approaches (Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Lehodey et al. 2014) and, although the impacts are not negligible, they have not been considered irreversible and no particular impacts on ETP species have been identified. The warm pool ecosystem was found to be resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community) a feature apparently related to the high diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey (Allain et al. 2015). The indirect effects have thus been considered and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on any ETP species, but the level of evidence is insufficient to assign a high degree of confidence to this conclusion. The requirements of the SG 80 level but not of the SG 100 level are therefore considered to be met for each of the elements.

Pole-and-line Additional indirect effects from the pole and line include the use of small pelagic species for bait, which reduces its availability as prey for certain ETP species. However, an RBF conducted by FFA (2013) identified all bait species as low risk and that the fishery was highly unlikely to have adverse impacts on the bait species population. Thus, the indirect effects have thus been considered and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on any ETP species, but the level of evidence is insufficient to assign a high degree of confidence to this conclusion. SG80 is met.

References

Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2017, 2018b & 2018c, Clarke 2018, Escalle et al. 2015, Escalle et al. 2018, Filmater et al. 2013, Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Lehodey et al. 2014, Peatman et al. 2018, Restrepo et al. 2017, Rice and Harley 2012a, WCPFC-SC 2018a , FFA 2013

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: 60-79 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought on status of cetacean species and potential impact of the fishery on removals of these individuals at a sub-population level

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 61 of 175 Purse seine scoring calculations

Element SI a SI b SI c Element PI score score

Whale shark N/A 100 80 90

Silky shark N/A 100 80 90

Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 100 80 90 75

Cetaceans N/A 60 80 70

Marine turtles N/A 80 80 80 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.2 The UoA has in place precautionary management strategies designed to: (3) meet national and international requirements; (4) ensure the UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species.

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post that minimise the UoA- for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for related mortality of ETP impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact species, and are expected to including measures to on ETP species, including be highly likely to achieve minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise national and international designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed requirements for the to achieve national and to achieve above national protection of ETP species. international requirements and international for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? PS: NA PS: NA PS: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA Rationale

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line There are no requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements. This issue is not scored. b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guide There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive post that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species. Met? PS: Y – All elements PS: Y – All elements PS: N – All elements P&L: Y – All elements P&L: Y – All elements P&L: N – All elements Rationale

Purse-seine

Whale shark CMM 2012-04 includes the requirement that “CCMs shall prohibit their flagged vessels from setting a purse seine on a school of tuna associated with a whale shark if the animal is sighted prior to the commencement of the set” and that “in the event that a whale shark is not deliberately encircled in the purse seine net, the master of the vessel shall ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure its safe release”. A good practice guide has also been produced and distributed to fishers that describes the best techniques for such releases of sharks and rays, including whale sharks (Poisson et al., 2012). This measure addresses the issue of post-release survival for animals that are unintentionally captured.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 63 of 175 CMM 2019-04 also contains measures to reduce mortality of sharks generally. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirement to avoid overfishing, apply to whale shark.

The requirement for 100% observer coverage is a measure that allows management to be able to assess compliance with CMMs and the need any additional measures should they be required.

The WCPFC process for regularly reviewing catch data, updating stock or risk assessments, and revising CMMs when a need to do so has been identified, is evidence that there is a mechanism for or the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts, as required for there to be a strategy. These processes include consideration of all known issues including post-release survival of released animals.

The linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures that exist to manage the impacts of fishing on whale sharks are the required elements of a comprehensive strategy (Table GSA8 in the FCR v2.0). Nevertheless, there is also the requirement that this strategy be tested in some form which have not seen evidence of. Therefore, we do not consider there to be a comprehensive strategy in place for whale sharks. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Silky shark CMMs 2013-08 contains specific conservation measures for silky sharks and CMM 2019-04 also contains measures to reduce mortality of sharks generally. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirement to avoid overfishing, apply to silky shark. There is monitoring through logbooks and 100% observer coverage. A stock assessment has been undertaken (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018a and 2018b), and CMM 2013-08 responded to the findings of a previous assessment.

At the Solomon Islands level, there is also prohibition on retention of silky shark and this is monitored during unloading which is required to be in port. These WCPFC and Solomon Islands measures are considered to constitute a strategy as defined in Table SA8 of the FCP v2.2 that is sufficient to ensure that the UoA would not hinder the recovery of silky shark populations should that be required. To be considered a comprehensive strategy requires that is has been tested in some form which have not seen evidence of. Therefore, we do not consider there to be a comprehensive strategy in place for silky sharks. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, and SG 80 levels but not SG 100.

Oceanic whitetip shark CMMs 2011-04 contains specific conservation measures for oceanic whitetip sharks that responded to evidence of stock declines for this species. CMM 2019-04 also contains measures to reduce mortality of sharks generally. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirement to avoid overfishing, apply to oceanic whitetip shark. There is monitoring through logbooks and 100% observer coverage. A stock assessment has also been undertaken (Rice and Harley 2012a).

At the Solomon Islands level, there is also prohibition on retention of oceanic whitetip sharks and this is monitored during unloading which is required to be in port. For the UoA a key measure is the choice of fishing method: purse seine gears catch minimal quantities of oceanic whitetip shark compared to hook-based fishing methods, such as longlines. The combination of these WCPFC and Solomon Islands measures is considered to constitute a strategy as defined in Table SA8 of the FCP v2.2 that is sufficient to ensure that the UoA do not SCS Global Services Report

hinder the recovery of oceanic whitetip shark populations. To be considered a comprehensive strategy requires that is has been tested in some form which have not seen evidence of. Therefore, we do not consider there to be a comprehensive strategy in place for silky sharks.

This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not SG 100.

Cetaceans CMM 2011-03 contains measure specifically designed to reduce the impacts of fishing on cetaceans, as detailed in the background, including a prohibition on the deliberate setting of purse seines on them and the requirement for safe release for unintentionally captured animals. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirements to assess impacts on non-target species and protect biodiversity, apply to cetaceans.

These WCPFC measures, with which all UoA fleets are required to comply, are considered to constitute a strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of any cetacean populations. To be considered a comprehensive strategy requires that is has been tested in some form which have not seen evidence of. Therefore, we do not consider there to be a comprehensive strategy in place for cetaceans. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels for all UoAs but the SG 100 level is not met.

Marine turtles CMM 2008-03 contains measures specifically designed to reduce the impacts of fishing marine turtles. As detailed in the background, these include avoiding encirclement of sea turtles, and if a sea turtle is encircled or entangled, take practicable measures to safely release it. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirements to assess impacts on non-target species and protect biodiversity, apply to marine turtles.

These WCPFC measures, with which UoA vessels are required to comply, are considered to constitute a strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoA does not hinder the recovery of marine turtle populations. To be considered a comprehensive strategy requires that is has been tested in some form which have not seen evidence of. Therefore, we do not consider there to be a comprehensive strategy in place for marine turtles. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels, but the SG 100 level is not met.

Pole-and-line Daily logbook data are collected from the pole-and-line fishery, which report no interactions with ETP. Information from other pole-and-line fisheries either report no (e.g. SAI Global, 2020) or low interactions (Miller et al. 2017).

Licensing conditions specify the use of this gear type and require the release of any species protected under the WCPFC. It is considered these measures (highly selective gear type and mandatory release of ETP species) considered to constitute a strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoA does not hinder the recovery of any ETP species. The fleet is subject to observer coverage, which will provide additional information on interactions (if any) with ETP species. As the information has not yet been provided, it cannot be said that a comprehensive

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 65 of 175 strategy is in place for pole-and-line vessels. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels, but not SG 100. c Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is an objective basis The strategy/comprehensive post considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy is mainly based on based on plausible argument measures/strategy will work, information directly about (e.g., general experience, based on information the fishery and/or species theory or comparison with directly about the fishery involved, and a quantitative similar fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? PS: Y – All elements PS: Y – All elements PS: N – All elements P&L: Y – All elements P&L: Y – All elements P&L: N – All elements Rationale

Purse-seine Whale shark Information from observers and logbooks on the level of catch and release rates provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for whale sharks will be effective. The recent risk analysis (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018c), which is based on information directly about the fishery and the species involved, also provides confidence. We do not consider there to be a high level of confidence, however, because sets on whale sharks are still common, and post-release survival is a major source of uncertainty in the risk assessment, which depends in part on the development and implementation of better safe handling practices (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018c).

This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Silky shark Information from observers and logbooks on the level of catch and release rates provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for silky sharks will be effective. The quantitative analysis of stock status (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018a), which is based on information directly about the fishery and the species involved, also provides confidence that previous fishing has not greatly depleted the WCPFC component of the stock. There is not a high level of confidence to this, however, because of the new uncertainties with the latest Pacific wide stock assessment. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Oceanic whitetip shark Information from observers and logbooks on the level of catch and release rates provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for oceanic whitetip shark will be effective. And the quantitative analysis of stock status (Rice and Harley 2012a) supports a higher level of confidence in this conclusion as it shows that PS fishing has a negligible impact on this species. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans Information from observers and logbooks on the level of catch and release rates provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for cetaceans will be effective. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Marine turtles SCS Global Services Report

Information from observers and logbooks on the level of catch and release rates provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for marine turtles will be effective. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Pole-and-line There is not believed to be any ETP interactions with the pole-and-line fishery. Substantial detail regarding the status of species that would be expected to potentially interact with the pole-and-line fishery (excluding sea birds) is described in the purse seine section across 2.3.X rationales. Based on all this information, there is an objective basis of confidence that the measures/strategy (i.e. selective gear type and compliance with CMM measure requiring mandatory release) will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or the species involved. SG80 is met. However, as the observer data for the pole-and-line fishery has not yet been provided, SG100 is not met. d Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? PS: PS: N – All elements N – Cetaceans & Whale P&L: N –All elements sharks; Y – All other elements P&L: Y – All elements Rationale

Purse-seine Cetaceans & Whale Sharks The number of sets with cetacean interactions reported by observers, and the numbers involved in many of these instances, suggests that the requirement to avoid setting on cetaceans is not being successfully implemented for the UoA. As whales must come to the surface to breathe, they should be readily detectable before a set is made. The frequency with which cetaceans have been recorded as captured suggests that the methods employed to avoid setting on cetaceans are not effective. In addition, it is prohibited for purse seine vessels to intentionally set on Whales or Whale sharks in the WCPFC. However, 2% of sets in the UoA were classified as ‘whale/whale shark’ sets. Through discussions with SPC and other management officials, the assessment team has been told that this occurs from observers changing their set designation (thereby violating ROP procedures) after the set has been made, once it is clear a Whale/Whale shark has been captured. The designation of a Whale/Whale shark set should only occur if the vessel intentionally set on these animals—not if one was accidentally captured. At this stage, no conclusions can be made. This issue combined with the high reported catches of cetaceans, we conclude that it cannot be said that some evidence exists to demonstrate that the measures/strategy is being implemented successfully. Therefore, the SG 80 requirements are not considered to be met.

All other elements There is some evidence that the most requirements of the strategy are being implemented successfully through the data collected from the observer programs (with 100% observer coverage) and through the information on mortalities contained in the National Reports to the WCPFC.

Pole-and-line

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 67 of 175 Pole-and-line fisheries have minimal if any interaction with ETP species compared to other fishing methods targeting tuna (Miller et al. 2017, SAI Global 2020). The enforcement of licensing conditions requiring the use of pole-and-line gear and the port inspections of landings (confirming no ETP species would be retained) and observer data collected from the UoA provides some evidence that the measures are being implemented successfully, meeting SG80. However, as the observer data for the pole-and-line fishery has not yet been provided, SG100 is not met. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of post potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? PS: Y – All elements PS: Y – All elements PS: P&L: NA P&L: NA Not scored for Whale sharks and Cetaceans Y— All other elements P&L: NA Rationale

Purse-seine

Whale shark, Silky shark and Oceanic whitetip shark There is a WCPFC Shark Research Plan (WCPFC-SC13-2017/EB-IP-09) that contains a detailed list projects concerning sharks that include updated assessments, improved data collection, stock discrimination studies, mitigation practices, training guides, and other activities. Actions specific to whale sharks and silky sharks are included in this plan together with another general shark work. Progress against this plan is regularly reviewed as SC meetings. Proposals to improve mitigation measures are also considered at SC meetings (e.g. Jones and Francis 2017). WCPFC has also supported the Common Oceans (ABNJ) Project that has initiated a range of projects including studies on post-release survival of sharks (WCPFC-SC13-2017/EB-IP-06). For the sharks considered here, this is evidence of an ongoing commitment to the review of the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Data on bycatch are collected by observers on all trips, results are presented annually to the relevant meetings, bycatch is a standing item on the agenda of the SC and the SC reviews the relevant CMMs at each annual meeting. So, in practice, the effectiveness of measures is reviewed annually, and any need for alternative measures would be detected more promptly than biennially. In addition, there is a specific instruction in CMM 2018-01 that “The Scientific Committee shall continue to review research results on the use of non-entangling material and biodegradable material on FADs and shall provide specific recommendations to the Commission as appropriate”.

Implementation of alternative measures has been demonstrated by the regular adoption of revised CMMs that have progressively addressed issues that have been identified through the monitoring and research programs. An example of the progressive implementation mandatory measures in CMMs is the initial requirement for observers on purse seine vessels during the FAD closure period (in CMM 2008-01) being extended to cover all purse seine fishing activity (in CMM 2012-01 and all revisions since). Compliance with the requirements contained in CMMs is regularly monitored at the TCC.

SCS Global Services Report

This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels for all these elements and the SG 100 level for Silky, Whale and Oceanic Whitetip Sharks. Whale sharks are not scored above the SG 80 level because they have not reached SG80 for the previous scoring issue.

Cetaceans and marine turtles There are no research programs for cetaceans and marine turtles that are comparable to that for sharks. Nevertheless, there is ongoing attention to areas where interactions are considered a problem for various groups from specific fishing methods such as turtle entanglements in FADs (e.g. Pilling et al 2017). Data on interactions with cetaceans and marine turtles are collected by observers on all trips and presented annually to the relevant meetings, bycatch is a standing item on the agenda of the SC and the SC reviews the relevant CMMs at each annual meeting. For example, the 2018 CMM relating to seabird bycatch in longline fisheries (CMM 2018-03) was the fifth update of this CMM, and the 2018 CMM relating to turtle bycatch (CMM 2018-04) was also an update of an earlier CMM. So, in practice, the effectiveness of measures is reviewed annually and any need for alternative measures would be detected more promptly than biennially. In addition, there is a specific instruction in CMM 2018-01 that “The Scientific Committee shall continue to review research results on the use of nonentangling material and biodegradable material on FADs, and shall provide specific recommendations to the Commission as appropriate”. Implementation of alternative measures has been demonstrated by the regular adoption of revised CMMs that have progressively addressed issues that have been identified through the monitoring and research programs. Compliance with CMMs is regularly monitored at the TCC. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 for all these elements and the SG 100 level for marine turtles. Cetaceans are not scored above the SG 80 level because they have not reached SG80 for the previous scoring issue.

Pole-and-line Observer data from the fleet will be used to assess this scoring issue. At the moment, logbook data has reported no ETP interactions in the fishery. In addition SPC tagging studies in the region (Williams, pers comm, 2014) reported no ETP species interactions. Thus, this scoring issue is currently scored as NA, but this will be evaluated against 2019 observer results. References

Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018a, 2018b, 2018c; Jones and Francis 2017; Pilling et al 2017b; Poisson et al., 2012; Rice and Harley 2012a; Miller et al. 2017; SAI Global 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: 60-79 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought on observer coverage and data on the pole-and-line fleet.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 69 of 175 Element SI a SI b SI c SI d SI e Element PI score score

Whale shark N/A 80 80 <80 80 75

Silky shark N/A 80 80 80 100 85

Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 80 100 80 100 90 75

Marine turtles N/A 80 80 80 100 85

Cetaceans N/A 80 80 <80 80 75 SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts 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 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on ETP assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the species. mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and OR may be a threat to injuries and the protection and recovery of consequences for the status If RBF is used to score PI the ETP species. of ETP species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is OR adequate to estimate productivity and If RBF is used to score PI susceptibility attributes for 2.3.1 for the UoA: ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? PS: Y—All elements PS: PS: P&L: Y—All elements Y –All elements N – All elements P&L: Y—All elements P&L: N—All elements Rationale

Purse-seine Whale shark Information available on the key shark species is collected mainly by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs (with 100% observer coverage) as outlined in section 7.4.1.3. It includes data on catch weight and effort at an operation level for most fleets, and some size composition data and biological data. The information collected provides representative, unbiased and verified data on the number of interactions and the initial fates of the animals encountered and is consistent with the information requirements outlined in GSA3.6.3.1. These data also allowed the potential impacts of a range of post-release survival values to be evaluated in the risk assessment for whale sharks. These measures are supported by a Shark Research Plan that provides additional information on specific topics of relevance to the assessment of the impact of purse seine fishing. A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available and a risk assessment for the impact of purse seine fishing on WCPO whale sharks. This information does not yet support a high degree of certainty however, because sets on whale sharks are still common, and post-release survival is a major source of uncertainty in the risk assessment (Common Oceans (ABNJ) Tuna Project 2018c). This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Silky shark

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 71 of 175 Information available on silky shark is collected mainly by the combination of vessel logbooks and the observer program (with 100% observer coverage) as outlined in section 7.4.1.3. It includes data on catch weight and effort at an operation level for most fleets, and some size composition data and biological data. The information collected provides representative, unbiased and verified data on the number of interactions and the initial fates of the animals encountered and is consistent with the information requirements outlined in GSA3.6.3.1.

These measures are supported by a Shark Research Plan that provides additional information on specific topics of relevance to the assessment of the impact of fishing by longlines. There is some quantitative information available on the level of mortality for the UoA from the observer program and it is expected to be small relative to the broader impact of fishing on the whole stock. The UoA itself is not considered to be a threat to the protection of silky sharks. There is a stock assessment for silky shark that has estimated the consequences of fishing on their status in the WCPO. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Oceanic whitetip shark Information available on oceanic whitetip sharks is the same as for silky sharks. These measures are supported by a Shark Research Plan that provides additional information on specific topics of relevance to the assessment of the impact of fishing by longlines. There is some quantitative information available on the level of mortality for the UoA from the observer program and it is expected to be small relative to the broader impact of fishing on the whole stock. There is a stock assessment that has provided an estimated of the consequences of fishing on the status of oceanic whitetip shark. Although this has estimated the species to be depleted by fishing, especially by longlines, the UoA itself is not considered to be a threat recovery of the species. The abundance indices used in this assessment will reflect the impacts of all sources of mortality, whether they are observed or not. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Cetaceans Data on the bycatch of cetaceans is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in section 7.4.1.3. There has been a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. The information collected provides representative, unbiased and verified data on the number of interactions and the initial fates of the animals encountered and is consistent with the information requirements outlined in GSA3.6.3.1. A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available, which represents some information about the level of mortality and allows an estimate to be made of the UoA related mortality. SG80 is met.

Marine turtles Data on the bycatch of marine turtles is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in section 7.4.1.3. There has been a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. The information collected provides good data on the number of interactions and the initial fates of the animals encountered.

A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Pole-and-line Some quantitative information on the UoA for ETP interactions in available in the form of daily logbooks and 2019 observer data from the fishery. This reaches the SG80 requirements. The coverage and results of observer data will be analysed by the team to assess whether results are sufficient to assess with a high degree of certainty the magnitude of UoA-related impacts, mortalities and injuries and the consequences for the status of ETP species. SG100 is currently not met. b Information adequacy for management strategy SCS Global Services Report

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? PS: Y – All elements PS: Y – All elements PS: N – All elements P&L: Y – All elements P&L: Y – All elements P&L: N – All elements Rationale

Purse-seine All elements The information described under SI a is adequate to measure trends and support a comprehensive strategy to manage the impacts of the UoAs on all shark, marine turtle, and cetacean ETP species. It is not, however, sufficient to determine with a high degree of certainty whether objectives are being achieved because of uncertainties with the current risk assessment or due to gaps in information on the population estimate of the species. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Pole-and-line The measures employed by this fishery is using highly selective gear resulting in few to no ETP interactions and the prohibition of retention of ETP species (enforced by port inspections at offload). Daily logbooks and observer data from the fishery provide additional information, which reaches the SG80 requirements. However, as the observer data has not yet been provided, it cannot be said that information is adequate to support a comprehensive strategy to manage impacts of ETP species. SG100 is not met. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: <80 P&L: <80 Information gap indicator More information sought regarding data on interactions of pole-and-line fleet on ETP species Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report

Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 73 of 175 Purse seine scoring elements

Element SI a SI b Element PI score score

Whale shark 80 80 80

Silky shark 80 80 80

Oceanic whitetip shark 80 80 80 80

Marine turtles 80 80 80

Cetaceans 80 80 80

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine The deployment of purse seine nets while fishing would never routinely contact demersal habitats and no potential for serious or irreversible harm to pelagic habitats from the use of this fishing gear. Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as the sea areas where the fleet operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant impacts on seabed habitats from the fishery. In 2010, the WCPFC adopted measures for 100% coverage of purse seine vessels operating between 20°N and 20°S. Data from logbooks, VMS tracks of vessels and observer reports, provides good evidence that the fishery operates in areas and in a manner in which there is no serious or irreversible harm to habitats. For anchored FAD sets the additional consideration is the potential impact of the FADs themselves on seafloor habitats from the anchoring systems that secure the FADs to the seafloor. As outlined in the background, we estimate that the anchor and attachment chain for a single FAD may damage about 140 sq m of seafloor. The Solomon Islands FAD management plan (2008) states that any fishing company or operator that is intending to deploy AFADs is required to submit to the MFMR the intended positions for deployment of the FADs. Upon approval, the fishing company or operator will then be allowed to deploy its FADs and to report the dates and positions of the FADs to the MFMR. The fishing company or operator concerned will be responsible for the maintenance of its FADs and will report to the MFMR the dates, positions and ID numbers of any lost or replaced FADs. Itano et al (2004) reported that 335 AFADs were set around the Solomon Islands in total, some of which were for the NFD fleet. The assessment team was not provided information on the total number of AFADs deployed at this time. However, this very small footprint of anchors relative to the size of the total area of the AW and EEZ assures that the damage is a negligible fraction of available habitat. There is no possibility that the fishery would routinely contact demersal habitats during free school sets and no potential for serious or irreversible harm to pelagic habitats. The assessment team understands that the fishery does not deploy drifting FADs, rather, they opportunistically set on ones that have drifted into the Solomon Islands EEZ or Archipelagic waters from elsewhere. The implications of This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Pole-and-line These pole and line fishery’s activity is undertaken in sufficiently deep waters that it does not physically impact the seafloor during their operation. The fishing operations are highly unlikely to affect the structure or function of the habitat if they cannot reach the bottom (MFMR 2015). Due to the nature of the technique used in harvesting baitfish, there are no habitat impacts associated with bouke-ami and bagan methods since the harvesting takes place in more than 20 m of depth and away from coral reefs. Bagans are anchored in deep water away from reefs. Anchoring of bagans takes place over loose substrate following sounding of the underlying

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 75 of 175 benthic substrate. Some baitgrounds will not be suitable for bagan deployment. These include areas with strong currents, high exposure to prevailing winds and the physical structure of the reef environment in the baitground. General knowledge of the fishing gear means that the pole-and-line fishery is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Data from logbooks from the baitfish fishery confirm the location of operation, and the impact of anchoring of bagans is small. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. b VME habitat status

Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME habitats function of the VME habitats reduce structure and to a point where there to a point where there function of the VME habitats would be serious or would be serious or to a point where there irreversible harm. irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L: NA P&L: NA P&L: NA Rationale

Purse-seine No VMEs are affected by Free school sets. There is the potential for lost anchored FADs to wash-ashore and impact coral reefs, which are defined as a VME. Because of this, we have assessed the potential impact of AFADs on coral reefs.

While the UoA does set on drifting FADs, they do not deploy drifting FADs. Rather, they conduct fishing activity on FADs that enter their fishing area released within the WCPF Convention Area. Drifting FADs have potential impacts if they are lost and wash up on coastlines, especially those with coral reefs, which are defined as a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME). However, as the drifting FADs were not deployed by the UoA, the assessment team has determined that potential habitat impacts are not the responsibility/fault of the UoA and are not considered in this assessment and are not discussed further across the habitat scoring issues. 12

The coral reefs of the Solomon Islands, together with those across to the Philippines and the east coast of Borneo, make up the western half of the Coral Triangle, the region with the highest diversity of corals, fish, and other reef species anywhere in the world. In the Solomon Islands, 70% of reefs were characterized as low to medium risk, with overfishing and destructive fishing were the most widespread threats (Burke et al. 2012). Marine-based pollution and damage was lowest concern across all threats in the Solomon Islands (Burke et al. 2012).

While the assessment team has not been provided with the number of deployed anchored FADs in the fishery, it is unlikely to reach numbers where the estimate of detached anchored FADs would be highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the VME habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is met. That said, no evidence has been provided, so SG100 is not met.

12 Ownership and responsibility of drifting FADs (and resultant impacts) is an ongoing issue that has not been clearly established in the WCPFC (Banks et al., 2020). However at this stage, it is generally believed that the responsibility falls upon ‘the owner of the dFAD, and similarly, responsibility for damage caused by a dFAD if it runs aground on coastal habitat, should be the company that owns the satellite buoy that is currently attached to the dFAD, or if no satellite buoy is attached, then the company that last had one attached, if this can be determined’ (Banks et al. 2020). We have adopted this viewpoint for the purposes of this MSC assessment. SCS Global Services Report

Pole-and-line The licensing restrictions in place for the pole-and-line vessels and the operational nature of the gear mean that no VMEs are affected by this fishery. The scoring issue is not relevant. c Minor habitat status

Guide There is evidence that the post UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? PS: No P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine While an extensive survey of coral reefs in the Solomon Islands has been conducted (Green et al. 2004), it is unclear to what degree other habitat types (e.g. seagrass and mangroves) have been studied. So, although we would consider it unlikely that the purse seine fishing on FADs or the FADs themselves could cause serious or irreversible harm to the structure and function of any benthic habitats, evidence in support of this is lacking. The requirements of the SG 100 level are therefore not met.

Pole-and-line There is no possibility that the fishery would routinely contact demersal habitats and no potential for serious or irreversible harm to pelagic habitats (whether minor or not). However, the assessment team has not been provided with evidence (e.g. VMS, observer records, logbooks) to confirm this. Thus, the requirements of the SG 100 level are not met.

References

Green et al. 2004; Burke et al. 2012; MFMR 2015; Banks and Zaharia 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: <80 P&L: <80 Information gap indicator More information sought regarding limits on AFADs and data collection to quantify any lost AFADs

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 77 of 175 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

Guide There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place for post place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is managing the impact of all expected to achieve the expected to achieve the MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine Purse seine free school sets and FAD sets do not interact with any seafloor habitat during fishing operations and free school purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. The requirement for 100% observer coverage provides confidence that catches are being appropriately reported by set type. This is considered to be a strategy that would ensure that any change to this situation would be detected. As the habitat outcome was scored at SG80, this is met by default here. The team has not been provided with information regarding how AFADs are managed (e.g. numbers, location) and thus it cannot be said there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on habitats. SG100 is not met.

Pole-and-line The bait fishing for pole and line vessels occurs in a manner that does not adversely impact habitat; the baitfish management plan acknowledges that dragging anchors of bagans or pole and line vessels constitute a potential hazard, which is addressed in the plan. The Solomon Islands has not developed an explicit habitat impact management plan, in part because the impacts are minimal. However, because of this, it cannot be said that there is a strategy in place for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries on habitats. This meets the SG60, SG80, but not SG100 scoring levels. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general will work, based on based on information directly experience, theory or information directly about about the UoA and/or comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as the sea areas where the fleet operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant impacts on seabed habitats from the operation of the fishing gear itself and purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. In 2010, the WCPFC adopted measures for 100% coverage of purse seine vessels operating between 20°N and 20°S. This enables monitoring of the reporting of catches by set type, providing high confidence on SCS Global Services Report

information from the fishery. Itano et al (2004) reported that 335 anchored FADs were deployed in the Solomon Islands. The number of AFADs in the fishery were not provided to the assessment team, nor were loss rate estimates. However, based on historic information, it can be said that there is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on information directly about the UoA and/or habitats involved. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Pole-and-line Knowledge in relation to the way pole-and-line fishing gear is used as well as the sea areas where the fleet operates is sufficient to discount any significant impacts on seabed habitats from the fishery and it is not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. This scoring issue meets the SG80 by default giving the score in Habitat outcomes. However, as no monitoring of catches and fishing practices or locations occurs, there is no testing to support high confidence on information from the fishery and the habitats concerned. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully and successfully. is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse-seine fishing gear is collected by at-sea observers (100% Observer coverage) and by VMS (100% coverage), and thus there is accurate monitoring that provides quantitative evidence of successful implementation in that all purse seine sets are correctly classified and required data are reported. MFMR must approve the location of all aFADs— though the assessment team is unaware if any limits to the number of AFADs exists, and the assessment team has not been provided with the number of AFADs in the Solomon Islands. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Pole-and-line This scoring issue meets the SG80 by default giving the score in Habitat outcomes. However, the absence of VMS/observer records from the pole-and-line fleet means there is not clear quantitative evidence that the partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). SG100 is not met.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative post evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA complies with its complies with both its complies with both its management requirements management requirements management requirements to protect VMEs. and with protection and with protection measures measures afforded to VMEs afforded to VMEs by other by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 79 of 175 MSC fisheries, where relevant. Met? PS: Yes PS: No PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine The only potential impacts from the UoA on VMEs is from lost/damaged anchored FADs beaching on coral reefs. Licensing conditions state that MFMR must approve the location of all anchored FADs, and that vessels must report any lost FADs. We have seen no evidence to say that this is not complied with, which we consider to be only qualitative evidence of compliance. As dislodged anchored FADs can impact coral reefs, there are no specific management requirements that we are aware of that address this risk, however small, beyond the reporting requirement. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level but not of the SG 80 level. More information will be sought regarding the number/approval process for AFADs and compliance of the fishery with reporting FADs that may be become dislodged.

Pole-and-line There is no anticipated impact on the habitat of the pole-and-line or baitfish fishery and therefore there is no monitoring that occurs. SG100 is met by default.

References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: 60-79 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought on compliance with reporting lost FADs to MFMR and management of placement of AFADs

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide The types and distribution of The nature, distribution and The distribution of all post the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their broadly understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence OR relevant to the scale and 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 If CSA is used to score PI types and distribution of the 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? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine Following GPF7.1.5 “main” habitats include habitats that are commonly encountered by the UoA or VMEs. Commonly encountered habitats: FAD sets take place in the epipelagic habitat and so purse seines themselves do not interact with benthic habitat during their operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial range within which the fishery operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Western Pacific Ocean. There are no vulnerable pelagic habitats. The composition of the bottom habitat is not known at the site of each FAD anchor, but it is known that the footprint of anchored FADs is negligible compared to the habitat area. Therefore, the distribution of pelagic and benthic habitats is sufficiently well known given the scale and intensity of the fishery. VMEs: As described above, derelict anchored FADs potentially impact on coral reefs. The distribution of these reefs has been mapped, their area estimated to be 6,743 km2, and their vulnerability to a wide range of potential threats has been evaluated. The assessment team was not provided with loss rates of anchored FADs, however, based on historic numbers of anchored FADs in the Solomon Islands, it can be said that the nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known at a level of detail relevant to the scale and intensity of the UoA. SG80 is met. It is unclear to what degree the distribution of all habitats is known over their range, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats is known, so SG100 is not met.

Pole-and-line The fishery takes place in the epipelagic habitat and so does not interact with benthic habitat during its operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial range within which the fishery operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Western Pacific Ocean. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 81 of 175 b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts main impacts of the UoA on been quantified fully. of gear use on the main the main habitats, and there habitats, including spatial is reliable information on the overlap of habitat with spatial extent of interaction fishing gear. and on the timing and location of use of the fishing OR gear.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available and habitats. is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine Commonly encountered habitats: Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse seine fishing gear is collected by at-sea observers (100% Observer coverage) and by VMS (100% coverage) and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of this component of the fishing gear. Free school purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat and does not interact with benthic habitat during its operation. The same information is relevant for understanding potential benthic of anchored FADs and provides reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. The physical impacts of the gear have not been quantified fully.

VMEs: The assessment team has not yet been provided with the number of AFADs in the Solomon Islands, or how many are lost annually. However, as MFMR must approve the location of all anchored FADs, it is determined that the identification of the main impacts of the UoA on the main habitats, and there is reliable information on the spatial extent of interaction and on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. SG80 is met.

Pole-and-line The fishing gear used by the UoA is not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat and does not interact with benthic habitat during its operation. Licensing conditions specify the operation area of the pole- and-line fishery, however, it is unknown to what degree MFMR has information to the vessels geographic location, and this will be investigated in the site visit. However, based on the nature of the gear, information is adequate to allow for identification of the main impacts of the UoA, and SG80 is met. As this fishing gear only interacts with the epipelagic zone, it can be said that the physical impacts of the gear on all habitats have been quantified fully. SG100 is met. c Monitoring SCS Global Services Report

Guide Adequate information Changes in all habitat post continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine Commonly encountered habitats: For FAD sets, the habitat relevant to the use of a purse seine is the pelagic water column and no hard substrate is impacted by this component of the gear. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the WCPO are regularly monitored. The client vessels all operate under a VMS scheme and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Information also continues to be collected on the location of all anchored FADs so that any increase in risk to the commonly encountered habitats from their anchors would be able to be detected. VMEs: The numbers of lost FADs (including anchored FADs) are also required to be reported, although as indicated in 2.4.2 the level of compliance with this measure is unknown. As described in PI 2.4.1b, lost FADs have been evaluated by other agencies as representing a very minor source of risk to coral reefs (Burke et al. 2011, 2012) and any increase in risk to them will come from the other much more important stressors on these ecosystems. Thus, SG80 is determined met.

Pole-and-line The fishing gear used by the UoA is not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat and does not interact with benthic habitat during its operation. Licensing conditions specify the operation area of the pole- and-line fishery, however, it is unknown to what degree MFMR has information to the vessels geographic location, and this will be investigated in the site visit. Adequate information continues to be collected to detect any increase in risk to the main habitats, but as it is unknown to what extent geographic information from the pole-and-line fishery is available, it cannot be said that information is sufficient to measure changes in all habitat distributions over time are measured. SG100 is not met. References

Burke et al. 2012; Banks and Zaharia 2020

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: 60-79 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator More information sought on compliance with reporting lost anchored FADs and with geographic tracking of pole-and-line vessels.

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 83 of 175 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

Guide The UoA is unlikely to disrupt The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the post the key elements underlying disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to ecosystem structure and underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements function to a point where structure and function to a underlying ecosystem there would be a serious or point where there would be structure and function to a irreversible harm. a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. a serious or irreversible harm. Met? PS: Yes PS: Partial PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine As described in the background, there has been a range of models of the structure and functioning of the pelagic ecosystems developed that support the main tuna fisheries and their responses to fishing and climate change (e.g. Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Kitchell et al. 1999, Lehodey et al. 2013, Leroy et al. 2013, Sibert et al. 2006). There have been substantial impacts from the depletion of the main target species, but although the trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Other modelling (Allain et al. 2015) suggests that the structure of the warm pool/cold tongue ecosystem is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on top-level predators in the Pacific Ocean were substantial but that ecosystem impacts were likely to be minor. These studies suggests it is unlikely that neither the UoA fishery in particular nor the whole WCPFC tuna fishery, are having an irreversible impact on ecosystem structure or functioning to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm

For FAD sets only, there is the additional issue of the potential broader impact of FADs that is beyond the fish removed by fishing. The presence of both anchored and drifting FADs has the potential to alter the distribution and migration of tunas (Leroy et al. 2013, Phillips et al. 2017). The assessment only evaluates the impact of AFADs as the fishery deploys these, but the assessment team has been told does not deploy any drifting FADs.

FADs have been shown to influence the behavior and movement patterns of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tuna, with the juveniles of each species occupying shallower habitats when associated with FADs (Schaefer and Fuller 2002, 2005, 2010, Fuller et al. 2015). There is some evidence that indicated that FADs both attract and retain tuna, and may affect distribution and migrations of tuna (Leroy et al. 2013). Other studies support the proposal that the large majority of residences at floating objects by tuna are moderately short, and that there is little evidence to suggest that their biology, movement behaviours or entrainment to a region are being significantly affected (Phillips et al. 2017).

Phillips et al. (2017) suggest that processes working at different scales may explain the inter- and intra- individual variability in fish behavior that they observed for bigeye and yellowfin tuna. They suggested that there was an interaction between fine scale variability in the availability of prey, the local density of conspecifics, and the multi-species composition of the schools themselves whilst islands and other bathymetric features may affect vertical behaviour at larger spatial scales. They concluded that purse-seiners set on floating objects because they bring tuna to a more easily found locality in horizontal space, and then aggregate them in SCS Global Services Report

relative shallow water through this surface behaviour. The surface-association events they identified varied greatly. While some events were clear and prolonged, the large majority are not, and extended surface- association behaviour was rarely exhibited immediately prior to capture.

Leroy et al. (2013) noted that the ways in which FADs interact with the biotic components of tuna environmental preferences, through prey concentration, increased feeding on juvenile conspecifics, or incorrect habitat utilization, need further investigation, including tuna foraging and the effect of FADs on the behavior of other important species in the pelagic ecosystem.

This is an area of active research to address the concern that the widespread use of FADs may be having important ecosystem effects. We expect that the monitoring and assessment programs that are in place for the WCPO fisheries are likely to be able to detect any major effects and expect that management would be responsive to them, so that Principle 1 and 2 objectives are still likely to be achieved. These monitoring and assessment programs are very comprehensive, the scientists involved are well aware of these ecosystem issues and are active in the research on them, so we consider it highly unlikely that they would disrupt key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Nevertheless, the science is not yet at the stage where we could say that there is good evidence that this outcome is highly unlikely. Given that this performance indicator is met at the SG80 level for free school sets but not for anchored FADs, a partial score has been awarded.

Pole-and-line As described in the purse seine section, the pelagic ecosystem in the WCPO has been the subject of many models. Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on top-level predators in the Pacific Ocean were substantial but that ecosystem impacts were likely to be minor. These studies suggests it is unlikely that neither the Solomon Islands pole-and-line fishery in particular nor the whole WCPFC tuna fishery, are having an irreversible impact on ecosystem structure or functioning to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. References

Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Schaefer and Fuller 2002, 2005, 2010, Fuller et al. 2015, Kitchell et al. 1999, Lehodey et al. 2013, Leroy et al. 2013, Phillips et al. 2017, Sibert et al. 2006

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: 60-79 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 85 of 175 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

Guide There are measures in place, There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that post if necessary which take into place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place account the potential takes into account available which contains measures to impacts of the UoA on key information and is expected address all main impacts of elements of the ecosystem. to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line At the regional level, Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention reflects the General Principle of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries that management measures should not only ensure the conservation of target species but also minimize the impacts of fishing on associated or dependent species belonging to the same ecosystem.. Tuna are important predatory species in the Pacific Ocean. The WCPFC’s application of the FAO code extends to the highly migratory fish species including tuna through Conservation and Management Measures such as CMM 2014-01 on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack, as well as to the management of non-target species, in particular through Resolution 2005-03 on Non-Target Fish Species and CMMs to improve the protection of sharks. Although not specifically designed to manage impacts on the ecosystem, the range of measures in place is considered to represent a strategy that works to achieve the intended outcome. We note that there is no specific ecosystem management plan for the WCPO but also SA3.17.3.2 states that ‘It may not be necessary to have a specific “ecosystem strategy” other than that which comprises the individual strategies for the other components under P1 and P2.’ There are measures in place to address the main impacts of the UoA as these would arise from the directed fishing at skipjack and yellowfin tuna. The potential impacts of FADs themselves on tuna behavior that have been discussed under PI 2.5.1 are not considered to be main impacts and are therefore not considered relevant to this scoring issue. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. b Management strategy evaluation

Guide The measures are There is some objective basis Testing supports high post considered likely to work, for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible argument measures/ partial strategy strategy/ strategy will work, (e.g., general experience, will work, based on some based on information theory or comparison with information directly about directly about the UoA similar UoAs/ ecosystems). the UoA and/or the and/or ecosystem involved. ecosystem involved. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale SCS Global Services Report

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line The regional stock assessments indicate that current harvest strategies and management measures have been successful in maintaining target species about the BMSY level. The strategy considers the significant sources of fishery related risks to the WCPO ecosystem, namely the removal of target species, risks associated with impacts of bycatch and discarding of a wide range of non-target species. Overall, the strategy is considered likely to work. The extensive ecosystem modelling (described under PI 2.5.1), together with the current and projected future healthy status of skipjack tuna, a key predator and prey species, are results of a form of testing for the specific ecosystem that provides high confidence that the strategy will work. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels

c Management strategy implementation

Guide There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that post the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine As previously indicated, regional stock assessments show that current harvest strategies and management measures have largely been successful in maintaining target species at about the BMSY level. Available ecosystem modelling suggests it is unlikely the client fishery is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The introduction of 100% observer coverage for the purse seine fisheries provides a valuable mechanism for gathering information relevant to monitoring ecosystem impacts. Overall, there is evidence that measures are being implemented successfully. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

Pole-and-line As previously indicated, regional stock assessments show that current harvest strategies and management measures have largely been successful in maintaining target species at about the BMSY level. Available ecosystem modelling suggests it is unlikely the client fishery is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. While at-sea monitoring for the pole-and-line fishery would provide better information relevant to monitoring ecosystem impacts from that sector, the small scale of the fishery means that, overall, there is evidence that measures are being implemented successfully. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. References

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: ≥80 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 87 of 175 Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements of the broadly understand the key ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: Yes Rationale

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line A number of organisations are collecting data to improve the knowledge of the structure of the Pacific Ocean pelagic ecosystem. This occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). However, trophic analyses and mid-trophic level sampling are conducted on a project-by-project basis and are not continuous in space and time. Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, meeting SG 80.

b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guide Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between the post these key ecosystem elements these key ecosystem elements UoA and these ecosystem can be inferred from existing can be inferred from existing elements can be inferred from information, but have not been information, and some have existing information, and have investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line

Trophic structure of pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific, including the WCPO, has been characterised using Ecopath and Ecosim models based on diet data (Allain et al. 2007). SEAPODYM is a dynamic system model developed for investigating spatial tuna population dynamics under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects (Lehodey et al., 2013b). The continued development and application of the SEAPODYM model to the work of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, including its application to tuna and billfish fisheries in the South Pacific, is facilitated through the multi-agency Project 62 which affiliates the independently funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013b). A list of current projects is given in Lehodey et al. (2013b). Main impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail, though not to the extent to meet SG 100 requirements. The potential impacts of FADs themselves on tuna behavior that have been discussed under PI 2.5.1 are not considered to be main impacts and are therefore not considered relevant to this scoring issue. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

c Understanding of component functions

Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on P1 post components (i.e., P1 target target species, primary, species, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP species and

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 89 of 175 ETP species and Habitats) in the Habitats are identified and the ecosystem are known. main functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine Information on target and non-target species (bycatch and ETP species) is gathered by the SPC through logbook data and the regional observer programme, as well as being available via a number of historical research projects. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of species that are impacted and to determine their respective roles e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats. In order to improve the availability of data, the Kobe Bycatch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim to Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. The KBTWG provides guidance for improving data collection efforts and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among tuna RFMOs. These data will improve future analysis of ecosystem functions. The information gathered is sufficient to identify species impacted and understand the main functions of the ecosystem components. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

Pole-and-line Given the selective and low impact nature of pole-and-line gear, and the information presented above regarding impact of the removal of top predators in the ecosystem, it can be said that The main functions of the components (i.e., P1 target species, primary, secondary and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem are known. However, the absence of data from the UoA in terms of at-sea data means that the impacts of the UoA on these aspects cannot be concluded as understood. SG100 is not met. d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts of the available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to UoA on the components and allow some of the main elements to allow the main consequences for the ecosystem consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. to be inferred. Met? PS: Yes PS: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Pole-and-line Though no observer data exist in the pole-and-line fishery, the logbook information in the baitfish fishery and the analysis conducted on these species means that information is sufficient to allow some of the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. The lack of observer data and logbook information for the pole-and-line fishery means SG100 is not met. e Monitoring

Guide Adequate data continue to be Information is adequate to post collected to detect any increase support the development of in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? PS: Yes PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

Purse-seine & Pole-and-line As indicated above, data are collected on the key target and non-target tuna and billfish species taken by the fishery through logbooks and the regional observer programme for the purse seine fishery. Baitfish removal is recorded in logbooks which is sufficient to monitor this impact for the pole-and-line fishery. The minimal take of non-target species and records at processing plants means that information is sufficient to detect any increase in risk level. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components. SG 80 is met, however, in the absence of a comprehensive strategy for ecosystem management which incorporates the collection of broader ecosystem information than existing systems, SG 100 is not met.

References

Allain et al. 2007; Lehodey et al. 2013b; and other references as described in the background section 7.4.3

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: ≥80 P&L: ≥80 Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 91 of 175 7.5 Principle 3

7.5.1 Principle 3 background

7.5.1.1 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions

For this assessment, yellowfin and skipjack tuna harvested by purse seine, and pole and line fishing gear in the Main Group Archipelago (MGA) and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Solomon Islands are assessed (Figure 32).

Management of tuna fisheries across the WCPO involves a complex mix of national and international bodies and agreements. Key components of the regional and sub-regional governance arrangements and fishery management framework relevant to the UoA include: ▪ The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); ▪ The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (the PNA Agreement); ▪ The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement; ▪ The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (not a regulatory organisation but plays an important role in providing support, liaison, and technical assistance to members). ▪ Flag state governance systems for the Solomon Islands.

Figure 32: Solomon Islands EEZ, showing archipelagic waters within the purple lines. Yellow borders around the archipelagic waters and pale outline around the Main Group Archipelago indicate Territorial Seas. Turquoise area around the MGA and the dark blue area indicates the Solomons EEZ (source: MRAG, 2016). SCS Global Services Report

Regional Frameworks and Institutions The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

The Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean established the WCPFC in 2004 to conserve and manage migratory fishery resources in the WCPO. More than half of the world’s tuna catch is taken within the WCPFC Convention Area. The WCPFC is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment.

The WCPFC Secretariat is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and the Commission has three subsidiary bodies the ‘Scientific Committee’ (SC) the ‘Technical and Compliance Committee’ (TCC) and the “Northern Committee” (NC). The WCPFC comprises member nations, participating territories and the fishing entity of Taiwan (also referred to as Chinese Taipei). The ‘Northern Committee’ was established to deal with management and conservation issues to the north of 20° N. The International Scientific Committee (ISC) was established in 1995 to enhance scientific research and cooperation for conservation and rational utilization of the species of tuna and tuna-like fishes which inhabit the North Pacific Ocean during a part or all of their life cycle. The ISC provides information to the WCPFC Scientific Committee (introduced below) and directly to the Northern Committee.

In addition to these bodies specified in the Convention, the Commission may establish other subsidiary bodies (e.g., the Finance and Administration Committee) and employs ad hoc working groups as required. Ad hoc working groups have been established for data-related issues, the Commission’s vessel monitoring system, the regional observer program, and other issues.

Scientists of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC- OFP) are responsible for leading much of the scientific research utilized by the Committees. WCPFC has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the SPC to provide scientific services, including data management services. Under the MoU, the SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme collects, compiles, and disseminates fisheries data; undertakes regional stock assessments of key target and non-target species; conducts ecosystem analyses; and advises on the WCPFC’s observer program and other strategies to monitor and control fishing activities.

The SC is required to work closely with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, particularly in areas of overlap. Flag states in areas of overlap must nominate whether they will apply IATTC or WCPFC measures, for example the USA has chosen to apply WCPFC measures in such areas. WCPFC SC also works closely with the International Scientific Committee (ISC).

The Convention incorporates provisions of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), in particular: ▪ The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2);

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 93 of 175 ▪ The general principles in Article 5 of UNFSA including the application of the precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines for The Application of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5); ▪ The application of these principles by parties in their cooperation under the Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national jurisdiction, (Article 7); ▪ Compatibility of measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction (Article 8); ▪ Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31); and ▪ Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources (Article 30).

The Convention provides a framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, it also provides for participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission. The Convention specifically provides recognition of the special requirements of developing States, small island developing states (SIDS) and cooperation with other RFMOs whose respective areas of competence overlap with the WCPFC.

The Commission has 26 Members, of which most are SIDS. The current members are: Australia, Canada, People‘s Republic of China, Cook Islands, European Union (EU), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America (USA) and Vanuatu. Participating Territories include American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna. In addition, the following States are Cooperating Non-members: Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Liberia, Vietnam, Panama and Thailand.

A list of the Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) relevant to the purse seine fishery can be sourced on the WCPFC website (www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures).

Roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are clearly described in the Convention13, especially Articles 23 and 24, the Commission Rules of Procedure, Conservation and Management Measures, and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission.

Article 30 recognizes special requirements for developing states in regard to high dependence on marine resources and the need to avoid adverse impacts on subsistence fishers and indigenous people. To this end, the Article established a fund to facilitate effective participation through provision of financial and technical resources and assistance to developing States.

13 Available online: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/text.pdf SCS Global Services Report

The WCPFC allows participation by non-members and territories, with opportunities for cooperating non- Members. Observers can participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the Scientific Committee, the Northern Committee, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee although some parts of these meetings are closed to Observers. As part of the conditions for Cooperating Non-Member status, applicants are required to provide annually “a commitment to cooperate fully in the implementation of conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission and to ensure that fishing vessels flying its flag and fishing in the Convention Area and, to the greatest extent possible, its nationals, comply with the provisions of the Convention and Conservation and Management Measures adopted by the Commission.” (CMM 2009-11) The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA)

The Nauru Agreement is a regional agreement made to facilitate cooperation in the management of fisheries resources of common interest. The EEZs of the Pacific island states party to this Agreement collectively account for a significant bulk of the region’s tuna catch and most of the purse seine catch. The Nauru Agreement is a binding Treaty-level instrument considered to be a sub-regional or regional fisheries management arrangement from the perspective of the UNFSA and the WCPF Convention. The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau, commonly referred to as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), have worked collaboratively since 1982 to manage the tuna stocks within their national waters. Tokelau is not a member but in 2012 signed an agreement with the PNA countries to join the VDS. It has its own TAE, which it brings to the VDS and which is transferable with PNA members. This was initially established at 1000 days and is adjusted proportionately with changes in the PNA TAE.

The PNA coordinates the implementation of management measures with a view to enhancing economic benefits from the fishery. The PNA secretariat is in Majuro in the Marshall Islands. Its objectives are to enhance regional solidarity and to promote economic control and participatory rights over the tuna resources in PNA waters, with a primary focus to: ▪ Develop strategic fisheries conservation and management initiatives; ▪ Develop initiatives to maximise the sustained direct and indirect economic benefits to the Parties; and ▪ Maximise the profitability of the fishery and ancillary industries within the PNA.

PNA’s functions include operating an access and management regime to optimise revenue for the parties and promoting development of the Parties’ indigenous fishery sector. The Nauru Agreement is implemented through binding Implementing Arrangements and associated Arrangements, which include: ▪ The 1st Implementing Arrangement, 1983, setting minimum licensing standards, including reporting, inspection and on-board observation, vessel identification and “good standing” on the FFA regional register; ▪ The 2nd Implementing Arrangement, 1990, adding additional conditions relating to VMS, high seas reporting and a prohibition on transshipment at sea;

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 95 of 175 ▪ The FSM Arrangement: 1994, establishing arrangements for preferential access among the parties for vessels meeting certain standards for the provision of domestic economic benefits; ▪ The Palau Arrangement, 1995, limiting the purse seine fishery, initially by limiting vessel numbers, but now through the VDS which is described separately in more detail below; ▪ The 3rd Implementing Arrangement (3IA) 2008, applying a FAD closure, 100% observer coverage and catch retention/no tuna discards in PNA EEZs, and prohibition of fishing in high seas pockets for licensed vessels.

The Nauru Agreement is an important component of the regional management system within the UoA, noting a large proportion of the total Western Pacific tuna catch is taken within PNA waters. The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS)

The Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific was developed by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement and entered into force in November 1995 (Banks et al. 2011). The Palau Arrangement is a multilateral treaty governing the operation of purse seine vessels in the national, EEZ waters of the PNA member nations. Its initial intent was to limit the number of vessels operating in the waters of the PNA. The Arrangement was originally a 205-vessel limit, which could be licensed by the Parties and allocated by fleet. This was replaced by the VDS, an input control framework which allows Parties to set a limit on the number of purse seine days to be fished. The VDS was established in response to scientific advice regarding overfishing, to allow new entrants to the fishery to create competition for access and in turn, increase PNA members’ control over the fishery and increase the value of fishing access (Dunn et al. 2006). The VDS was also introduced to better manage “effort creep” (increased efficiency per fishing effort) experienced under the 205-vessel limit. Under the VDS Scheme the PNA set the total number of days that can be fished in their combined waters and the apportionment of the total number of days between each country. These allocations of fishing days are set for 12-month periods and can be set up to 3-years in advance. Allocated fishing days are tradable as Party Allowable Effort (PAE). The most recent stock assessment information on the target species of Skipjack, Yellowfin and Bigeye tuna and economic information relating to maximizing economic returns and the optimal utilization of the resource is used to determine the number and allocation of fishing days.

The VDS is now integral to management of the WCPO purse seine fishery in national waters and has been adopted as a major component of the purse seine fishery management framework by the WCPFC, through CMM 2014-01 (para 20 and 21). Key features of the VDS are: 1. Parties set the Total Allowable Effort (TAE) in fishing days for each Management Year (calendar years); 2. A fishing day is defined as any day or part of a day where fishing activity occurs in the waters of a Party outside archipelagic waters; SCS Global Services Report

3. Initially, allowances for the FSM Arrangement fleet effort and the USA Treaty effort were deducted from the TAE. Current arrangements require individual PNA parties to contribute days from their PAEs into pools for the FSM Arrangements and the USA Treaty; 4. The adjusted TAE is allocated amongst the Parties as their PAE for each management year based on the distribution of estimated biomass and historical effort; 5. Parties may transfer days freely between themselves within a single management year; days cannot be transferred and/or borrowed between management years; 6. Each Party is required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the number of fishing days by purse seine vessels in its EEZ does not exceed that Party’s PAE or adjusted PAE in any management year; 7. As a capacity adjustment, a fishing day of a small vessel (<50 m length overall (LOA)) is counted as half of a fishing day, and large vessels (>80 m LOA) one and a half fishing days; 8. The VDS is overseen and reviewed by an Inter-Party VDS Committee (VDSC), and reports to the annual meeting of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement. The role of the VDSC is to have oversight on the operational aspects of the VDS and provide recommendations as appropriate to the plenary meetings of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement: the committee may also be mandated to decide on certain operational aspects of the VDS.

At their 22nd annual meeting in Majuro, Marshall Islands, on 5-7 April 2017, the Parties to the Palau Arrangement agreed that the 2018 PNA TAE be set at 44,033 days; and this amount was also adopted as the provisional PNA TAE for 2019 and 2020. Including the additional Tokelau TAE of 972 days for 2018- 2020, the total VDS TAE for this current period is 45,005 days for 2018; and 45,005 days provisionally for 2019 and 2020.

The PNA’s VDS is a very large management program being applied by a group of developing countries of varying capacities. Taken together with the various other conservation and management measures, the VDS provides a central element in the management of the key target stocks and is also an important element in the current regional strategy to rebuild bigeye tuna stocks.

In PNA waters, use of VDS days is tracked via the PNA ‘Fisheries Information Management System’ (FIMS), which is based in Australia. Finer level operational information about operational management of the FIMS system by the PNA is not readily available. VDS Implementation at the National Level

From the VDS system administration perspective, fishing days are allocated to fleets, but permission for viewing usage is provided by vessel. FIMS doesn't know which vessel is allocated which days and is thus unable to display the information. If days were allocated by vessel or by Flag then FIMS would be able to display days allocated, but there are situations where an association is buying some days for the fleet, then the company goes and negotiates additional days for just their company’s vessels. Therefore, while from the management perspective the analysis of the VDS is useful, it says little in terms of compliance,

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 97 of 175 which is left to both coastal and flag states. It is up to each vessel owner or association to provide data access to its flag state regarding VDS days usage. All owners have access to see their days usage and can provide access for the flag state authority to see their days usage.

Strengths and weaknesses of the VDS

A 2011 summary of the VDS (Banks et al. 2011) identified key strengths of the system, and some weaknesses. Strengths included: ▪ Binding agreement on allocations of fishing effort; ▪ High-level political support in the PNA Leadership; ▪ A long history of cooperative PNA management efforts; ▪ An extensive consultative process with stakeholders directly involved; ▪ Acceptance of the VDS by the WCPFC and its incorporation into CMM 2008-01 and later iterations of this CMM including CMM 2014-01; ▪ Centralized monitoring of effort by VMS; ▪ Support from the FFA VMS and the Regional Observer Programme; and ▪ Monitoring (log sheet) and scientific support from SPC.

Key weaknesses included the following: ▪ The lack of a clear link between the PAE and scientific advice on stock status; ▪ PAE allocation has been unsettled, and difficulties have been addressed in part through increasing the TAE and individual PAEs through ad hoc adjustments; ▪ Some Parties have overrun their PAEs, and it is not clear that the sanctions in the Scheme for over-runs are being applied; ▪ Limits have only been partially applied at national level; ▪ There are inconsistencies in the treatment of non-fishing days, with apparently high provisions for non-fishing days for some Parties, while no provisions are made for other Parties; ▪ The Scheme does not apply to archipelagic waters, and effort has increased substantially in archipelagic waters of the Parties since 2004; ▪ The FSMA effort is capped at 3907 days but this looks likely to have been exceeded in 2010; ▪ The need to bring USA effort under the VDS.

The VDS continues to evolve and several of the above weaknesses have now been addressed, for example the USA purse seine effort is now being accounted for as part of the VDS. It should also be noted that the SCS Global Services Report

PNA renewed its commitment to fully implement the VDS through a formal PNA Resolution in 2013 (Resolution 01-2013).

The effectiveness of the VDS is a key issue in this assessment because of the importance of the VDS as a tool for managing fishing effort across WCPO tropical tuna fisheries, including the fisheries for skipjack. Information noted in Banks et al. (2011) indicated that the Scheme has not been fully implemented, and that full implementation would greatly improve the system. The Client Action Plan of the PNA fishery following MSC certification included a commitment by the PNA Parties to commission an external review of the integrity and effectiveness of the VDS. This independent review became publicly available in mid- 2015.

The VDS review (PNA 2015b) concluded that the FIMS is a well-designed information system capable of providing timely information to the VDS-members and that the system has greatly increased the transparency of the VDS operation, including vessel location, fishing day use and trade, catches etc., to all its members. One aspect of the VDS examined by the review related to concerns about the lack of compliance with VDS rules by individual partners. The review found that the concerns most often mentioned were: ▪ The way certain partners define "so-called" non-fishing days, i.e. subtract them from their PAEs; ▪ the failure of some partners to actually close the fishery in their EEZs when their PAE has been exhausted; and ▪ the willingness of certain partners to undercut the minimum benchmark price in their sales of days. The review concludes that interviews undertaken provided a general perception that compliance improved considerably in 2013 and continued to improve in 2014 and that there is some support for this perception from official documentation (PNA 2015b).

Subsequent recommendations from the review provide valuable guidance to ongoing improvements for the system, including: ▪ formal adoption of a clear and simple objective for the VDS e.g. “to maximize fee revenues from the tuna fisheries on a sustainable basis”; ▪ the durability of vessel day rights held by Parties should be strengthened. In particular, there are great efficiency advantages in the Parties having a long-term share in the TAE that would be unaffected by the fishing in their EEZ and their own trading in their PAE; ▪ steps be taken to substantially increase transferability. In particular, trades of the PAE to other Parties should not affect future years PAE; ▪ a study be undertaken into the costs and benefits of altering VDS to a system where the fishing rights are in terms of harvest volume rather than effort;

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 99 of 175 ▪ the current process of determining PAE be replaced with an allocation mechanism which gives long-term certainty to Parties regarding their entitlement to a share of the VDS and increased flexibility in the way in which VDS can be transferred to other Parties without a penalty in the form of reduced future PAE; ▪ whilst a fishing effort-based system is retained, the PNAO carefully manage fishing effort creep by more closely relating individual vessel performance to its calculated use of a standard VD; ▪ the PA be amended, or provision made in a new integrated legal instrument allowing for a range of appropriate mechanisms to be integrated into the VDS to manage effort creep. ▪ VDS-partners should do their utmost to exclude fishing from the high seas’ pockets (doughnut holes) between or bordering their EEZs; ▪ free trading of VDs between partners be formally allowed within the VDS-structure ▪ the VDS rules should be as clear and complete as possible to minimize the room for alternative interpretation and loopholes; ▪ the rules and/or applicable legal instruments should have clear statements of the process of dealing with infringements as well as the type and level recompense for violations; ▪ a clear system of sanctions for deviations from VDS rules designed to make deviations unattractive should be set up; ▪ there is a considerable uncertainty about both the short run and long run optimal level of vessel days. Bio-economic analysis undertaken for the review indicates that the fee revenue maximizing vessel days could be somewhat higher than those today, however, the evidence is not very conclusive. This suggests that a more careful bio-economic study should be conducted before the current vessel day policy is updated; ▪ there should be a substantially enhanced role of the PNAO with added functions including facilitating trades of VD, overseeing auctions of VDs, bio-economic research, expanded VD registry.

PNA has subsequently developed a work plan to consider the key issues for implementation, with a focus on addressing the application of Non-Fishing Days (NFD) that is causing ‘leakage’ in the VDS (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017). Differing definitions of non-fishing days (NFDs) has been raised as a concern because it can result in “leakage” in the VDS. The 3rd MSC surveillance audit for the PNA fishery examined this issue (Daume and Morison 2014). The audit team reports that PNA acknowledged the problem of inconsistent application of the definition of NFDs and processing on NFDs. PNA have undertaken measures including use of e-Reports for verification of NFDs, time limits for the submission of NFDs by vessel operators and for processing, which have led to a decrease in the percentage of NFDs (Morgan et al. 2018). The surveillance audit concluded that “…this weakness in the VDS is not currently considered sufficient to compromise the effectiveness of the VDS as a tool for limiting fishing effort to the desired levels (Daume and Morison 2014). SCS Global Services Report

Most recently, greater electronic integration of the FIMS system (now referred to as iFIMS) has provided a more efficient platform to integrate VDS and other key fisheries management and MCS information across the UoA and encompassing a large proportion of regional tuna catches. The platform now integrates fishing industry reporting of catch, vessel position and activity data generated by the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), and fisheries observer reporting. The system includes a user friendly “dashboard” where managers can monitor vessel locations within PNA EEZ’s and how much tuna has been caught in the region in almost real-time. Via an industry portal, fishing companies can see their own boats and catch information and apply electronically for licenses through their own portal. Data related to catch and vessel activity within EEZs can be viewed through iFIMS by individual PNA Parties14. The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)

The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency’s was established through a treaty in 1979, with a mission “To drive regional cooperation to create and enable the maximum long term social and economic benefit from the sustainable use of our shared offshore fishery resources.”

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

FFA is an expertise based organisation providing advice, technical assistance and other support to its members who make sovereign decisions about their fisheries resources, especially their tuna resources, and participate in regional decision making on tuna management through organizations’ such as the PNA and WCPFC.

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

The Forum Fisheries Committee is comprised of one representative of each of the 17 members. The representative may be assisted by deputies. Observers may also participate, and this allows review and engagement by other relevant organizations. The FFC meets once a year at its annual session, normally held in the first week of May and again in special meetings held at other times of the year, according to its discretion and agenda. Meetings are closed to the public and an attempt is made to reach decisions by

14 See: https://www.pnatuna.com/content/ifims-backbone-pna-fisheries-management

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 101 of 175 consensus among member countries, although there is also the ability to take issues to a vote (each party has one vote and a two thirds majority is required of all parties present for the vote to pass).

The FFC reviews the FFA’s performance, consider regional policies, the budget and the future work programme of FFA. The development and operation of FFA’s Annual Work Plan and Budget is driven by the Statement of Intent, which is a rolling three-year bridging arrangement to ensure achievement of the longer-term Strategic Plan.

FFA’s fisheries management programme is designed to assist members, including PNA members, to refine and maintain effective policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable management of the shared tuna fisheries resources of the region (Banks et al., 2011). This programme provides advice on: ▪ Appropriate legal frameworks for national tuna management, including members’ obligations under various treaties and arrangements; ▪ Appropriate fisheries management frameworks including the incorporation of the principles of ecosystem-based fisheries management; ▪ Effective fisheries administration, including access arrangements, licensing of foreign and domestic fishing vessels, economic implications of different management systems, and the use of new systems and technologies; ▪ Development and implementation of monitoring, control and surveillance systems and effective compliance regimes; and provides these services assisting members to keep abreast of best practice fisheries management models, and develop stronger and deeper regional cooperation in fisheries management; ▪ Providing effective oversight, and where appropriate management of a regional vessel register, vessel monitoring system, and observer program; ▪ Servicing regional fisheries treaties and arrangements; and improving capacity in fisheries management.

Two key instruments in the implementation of these programmes are the Regional Tuna Management and Development Strategy and national Tuna Management Plans for FFA members, and the Regional Monitoring Control and Surveillance Strategy.

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

In 1982, FFA established standardization of minimum terms and conditions of fisheries access throughout the Pacific region. Members agreed to adopt these minimum standards and conditions in licensing distant- water fishing nations’ fleets. They included the regional register of fishing vessels and conditions such as SCS Global Services Report licensing procedures, rights of authorized law enforcement officers, requirements for reporting catch and maintaining logbooks, reporting requirements and procedures for entering and exiting zones and for identifying vessels.

These conditions are updated from time to time by the FFA by agreement of all member countries and territories. The Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions (HMTCs) as they are known, are given national effect through vessel licensing conditions or by incorporation into national law as appropriate. The current HMTCs are as amended by FFC9915 (4 July 2016). The HMTCs constitute a key strategic tool for FFA members to regulate access to their waters and set standards to protect, as well as maximise the benefits from, their fisheries resources. The current HTMCs include: ▪ Compliance with national laws; ▪ Vessels to carry Common Regional Licence Form on board at all times; ▪ Vessels and operators to have “good standing” on the FFA Vessel Register; ▪ Vessels to be registered on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels; ▪ Transshipment: no purse seine vessel to transship at sea (except for group seiners), 72 hours notice to transship in port; submit full reports on transshipping; ▪ Maintain and Submit Catch Logs in Zones and on High Seas; ▪ Reporting: each Wednesday; within a reasonable time of entry into and departure from the zone; and entry into a port; ▪ Observers to be allowed and assisted to undertake their duties; operators shall ensure 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels and at least 5% on longline vessels; ▪ An agent to be appointed to receive and respond to any legal process; ▪ Vessels in transit to have fishing equipment stowed or secured in such a manner that it is not readily available to use for fishing; ▪ FFA members shall take measures through legislation or regulations and in accordance with international law to exercise powers of port State overfishing vessels in their ports; ▪ Operators to comply with instructions and directions given by an authorised and identified officer; ▪ Vessel monitoring system shall be implemented by the operator; ▪ Fish Aggregating Devices to be clearly marked and identified; and ▪ Compulsory pre-fishing inspections to be carried out. The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)

15 FFA’s current HMTC’s are available at https://www.ffa.int/system/files/FINAL%20MTCs%20as%20revised%20by%20FFC99_4July2016.pdf

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 103 of 175 The SPC-OFP, based in Noumea, New Caledonia, provides scientific (and policy) support services to all Pacific Island countries and Territories, including members of the Forum Fisheries Agency. SPC was founded in 1947 and has 26 member countries, including American Samoa, Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji Islands, France, French Polynesia, Guam, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, Northern Mariana Islands, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Pitcairn Islands, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America, Vanuatu and Wallis and Futuna. SPC is the science service provider for the WCPFC and as such provides services including provision of data and scientific stock assessment support services for all major tuna species.

Coastal States

Coastal states are those nations whose EEZ is fished by the UoA under the afore-described regional management framework. This contrasts with a flag state, defined as a state with vessels fishing in the WCPO. National laws of coastal states are important to the extent that they influence fishing behaviour in the WCPFC convention area (e.g. UoA waters). National legislation requirements under WCPFC

As Parties to the WCPF Convention and members of the WCPFC, all members are required to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 and Annex II of the UNFSA which is specifically referenced in the WCPF Convention. The approaches to implementation of these requirements in national laws across members and Pacific Island Parties (PIPs) are broadly similar, reflecting the long period of collaboration of the Parties in tuna management through PNA, FFA and more recently, the WCPFC. Most WCPFC CMMs and PNA arrangements apply obligations to Parties or Members, rather than vessels, but Members are expected to reflect CMM arrangements in their domestic laws and therefore to their vessels. Implementing arrangements are then required at national level to legally bind vessel operators based on flag state obligations. These arrangements can take the form of legislation, regulations, Gazette Notices, Authority decisions (which in some cases have the power of regulations), access agreement provisions or licence conditions.

In addition to measures deriving from the various global and regional instruments, the Parties apply specific additional measures nationally. These are generally focused on managing interactions between large scale distant water fleets and local fleets, especially small-scale fishers. There are relatively few traditional rights over offshore resources in the Pacific Islands region, compared with the extensive systems of rights over the resources of nearshore reefs and lagoons (Banks et al., 2011). Where offshore rights exist, they typically apply to the shallow water resources around offshore banks and reefs. In archipelagic waters, purse seine fishing is often prohibited inside the 12-mile territorial seas, and in many cases inside a 50-mile radius around main islands. At national levels, tuna policies and decisions are the subject of extensive consultations of varying forms, particularly where there are established domestic interests in the tuna fisheries.

WCPFC Members such as the Solomon Islands provide Annual Reports in two parts to the WCPFC: SCS Global Services Report

▪ Part 1. Research and Statistics – reports for 2015 available at http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/11th-regular-session-scientific-committee ; ▪ Part 2. Management and Compliance. These reports are confidential to the WCPFC Secretariat and CCMs. National legislation requirements for FFA members

FFA Members have applicable fisheries legislation including the following features: definition of limits of national jurisdiction, definitions of fishing vessel types, fisheries management plans, licensing requirements, access agreements, transshipment restrictions (generally prohibited at sea), regulations on the use of gear such as FADs and conservation provisions such as prohibitions on the use of destructive fishing practices, closed areas and harmonisation with regional and international agreements. A general feature of national-level tuna management in the region is the use of tuna management plans (TMPs). FFA has played an important role in developing TMPs. The TMPs characteristically give a description of the current national tuna fisheries, the status of the tuna resources, overall government goals in the fisheries sector, specific objectives for the management of the fishery and the interventions used to obtain the objectives (Gillett, 2010). As well as tuna resource sustainability, objectives in the TMPs typically relate to increasing employment, increasing access fees and creating and/or enhancing domestic tuna fisheries. PNA Parties’ management arrangements

The fisheries management arrangements in place vary across PNA national governments. The management of tuna fisheries is the responsibility of government departments for Kiribati, Palau, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. In the other four PNA Parties (FSM, Nauru, PNG and Marshall Islands) fisheries management is the responsibility of statutory authorities.

All PNA members have legal, institutional and policy frameworks, including tuna management/development plans, in place to manage purse seine fishing in PNA waters. National legal frameworks for offshore fisheries management are based on the implementation of global and regional instruments including UNCLOS, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures and other decisions, the Nauru Agreement and its subsidiary and associated arrangements, and the FFA Convention and subsidiary FFA arrangements including the Niue Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement adopted in 1993.

As Parties to the UNFSA and the WCPF Convention, all PNA Parties have accepted the obligation to comply with the provisions of those Agreements, including the obligation to apply the principles in those agreements, including the precautionary approach, in their EEZs (Banks et al., 2011). Approaches to implementation of these instruments in national laws are broadly similar, reflecting the long period of collaboration of the Parties in tuna management through PNA, FFA and the WCPFC. A detailed summary of the national arrangements for PNA Parties is provided by Banks et al. (2011).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 105 of 175 Table 25. Membership of WCPFC and FFA, signatories to UNFSA for PNA Parties.

PNA members WCPFC UNFSA FFA EAFM Management/Development Plan report FSM M ✓ ✓ ✓` ✓ Kiribati M ✓ ✓ ✓ Marshall Islands M ✓ ✓ ✓ Nauru M ✓ ✓ ✓ Palau M ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ PNG M ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Solomon Islands M ✓ ✓ ✓ Tuvalu M ✓ ✓ ✓ M=member; P=participating territory. EAFM=Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management; FEP=Fishery Ecosystem Plan

Decision Making Processes

The WCPFC is the principal fisheries management decision-making body for the UoA. Commission members, and the Commission as a whole, seek to use the best available information, apply a precautionary approach, and ensure deliberations and decisions are well documented. Decision-making occurs predominantly at the annual Commission meeting and is usually based on consensus. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process. These approaches are described in Article 20 of the Convention.

Provisions include the option of a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers (where all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted - WCPFC 2004a; Rule 22). This voting provision has not been used for deciding on conservation and management measures. In addition, there are provisions for a decision to be reviewed by a review panel at the request of a Member (WCPFC 2000; Annex II). The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention.

Decision-making is generally open, with the process, outcomes and basis for decisions recorded in records of Commission sessions, and publicly available papers. The subsidiary bodies of the Commission, including formal Working Groups, provide detailed reports back to the Commission, including advice and recommendations (see meeting reports at http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings).

Noting the complex and at times protracted processes inherent in regional fisheries management, the WCPFC decision-making framework has relatively quickly delivered an extensive and contemporary set of Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) and strategies to respond to sustainability issues. However, the degree to which the decision-making processes at the Commission result in measures that achieve fishery specific objectives could be questioned in respect of the historic control of fishing effort on bigeye tuna. Stock assessment and studies presented at the Commissions Scientific Committee (SC) meetings have previously identified some serious management issues at regional level. The Commission typically addresses these via agreed Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs). A summary of current CMMs relevant to the UoA is provided in Error! Reference source not found. below.

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

Information on fishery performance is also made publicly available through SPC data, and Part 1 Country Reports submitted annually by Commission members provide detailed reporting on catch, fleet size and other issues relating to the fishery at a country level and in aggregate. The WPPFC SC and TCC papers and reports available online provide a high level of public access and transparency. They generally illustrate how scientific information is used to inform management actions, and how these actions are monitored for effectiveness and further discussed at the Commission.

Table 26. WCPFC binding conservation management measures (CMM) and Resolutions of particular relevance to the Unit of Assessment. Purpose WCPFC CMM Bigeye, yellowfin & skipjack CMM 2018-01 (longline and purse seine fisheries) Pacific Bluefin CMM 2019-02 North Pacific Striped Marlin CMM 2010-01 Swordfish CMM 2009-03 Striped marlin in the West Pacific CMM 2006-04 Non-target species Resolution 2005-03 Silky shark, Oceanic whitetip shark, CMM 2014-05; CMM 2013-08; CMM 2011-04; CMM 2019-04; Sharks, Whale sharks (purse seine) CMM 2012-04; CMM 2019-04 Mobulidae CMM 2019-05 Sea turtles CMM 2008-03 Seabirds CMM2018-03 Cetaceans (purse seine) CMM 2011-03 Scientific observers CMM 2017-03; CMM 2018-05; CMM 2006-07 FAD management 2009-02 Monitoring, control and surveillance CMM 2018-06; CMM 2014-03; CMM 2014-02; CMM 2019-06; activities CMM 2013-05; CMM 2013-04; CMM 2010-06; CMM 2009-10; CMM 2009-09; CMM 2009-06; CMM 2004-03 High seas controls CMM 2016-02; CMM 2009-02; CMM 2008-04 List of IUU vessels CMM 2019-07 Climate change Resolution 2019-01 Marine Pollution CMM 2017-04

7.5.1.2 National Level Management

At a national level the Solomon Island’s Government is a party to both the UNFSA and the WCPFC, accepting obligations to comply with provisions of these Agreements; and giving effect to this through its national fisheries legislation. This reflects the long history of cooperation for regional tuna management through PNA, FFA and most recently through evolving WCPFC arrangements (MRAG, 2016).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 107 of 175 The UoA encompasses waters within the Solomon Islands EEZ as well as archipelagic and coastal waters within the Main Group Archipelago. PNA (2014) note some ambiguity in relation to management responsibilities and obligations between WCPFC processes, and those of Coastal States such as the Solomon Islands, for these Archipelagic Waters. For example, the WCPFC references conservation and management of stocks “in their entirety”, and measures under the Convention being “applied throughout the range of the stocks, or to specific areas within the Convention Area, as determined by the Commission.” This suggests WCPFC primacy in archipelagic waters and territorial seas, however, responsibilities of coastal states are described through Articles 61 and 64 of UNCLOS, relating only to the EEZ. Alternatively, such responsibilities are given effect through sovereign rights which relate only to EEZs, and not archipelagic waters and territorial seas.

The Solomon Islands MFMR have recognised the importance of complementary fisheries management arrangements across the High Seas, and within their EEZ and Archipelagic Waters. This includes giving effect to WCPFC CMM’s via domestic arrangements. For example, the current Solomons Tuna Management and Development Plan states 16 “The Commission (WCPFC) uses Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) to achieve its objectives; there are currently more than 40 CMMs. Implementation of the CMMs applicable to the Solomon Islands is an important strategy in the TMDP”.

Fishing effort for tuna taken in the Solomon Islands Main Group Archipelago by any method is outside of the cooperative PNA and WCPFC arrangement given effect through the current PNA TAE system using vessel days. Despite this, and to enable complementary management arrangements regionally, the Solomon Islands government has implemented an archipelagic TAE limit of 1,000 Purse Seine Vessel Days for these waters, with the intent of not undermining the broader VDS effort limit approach and based on scientific advice from SPC.

For the Solomons Pole and Line Fishery, operating primarily within Archipelagic and Territorial Waters, MFMR has established a complementary effort limit system operating at 0.25 of a PS vessel day, with a 400 day limit. These effort units are not transferable to the Purse Seine sector (MFMR, 2015).

The governing legislation dealing with fisheries management in the Solomon Islands is the Fisheries Management Act 2015. The primary objective of the Act is to prevent or eliminate overfishing and excess fishing capacity and ensure sustainable levels of fishing effort. The Act also requires conservation and management measures for ecologically related species; with the intent of maintaining or restoring populations of such species above a point where reproduction may become seriously threatened.

A summary of the purpose and scope of the key Solomon Islands legislative and policy instruments relating to fisheries management is provided below.

16 Available at: http://macbio-pacific.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Tuna-Development-and-Management- Plan.pdf SCS Global Services Report

Table 27: legal and policy framework for Solomon Islands tuna fisheries (source: adapted from McClean et al. 2019).

Legal/policy Purpose and scope instrument Solomon Islands Provides the legal framework for management of fisheries resources and identifies Fisheries Management an overarching objective and principles of management. Act 2015 Objective: • To ensure the long-term management, conservation, development and sustainable use of Solomon Islands fisheries and marine ecosystems for the benefit of the people of Solomon Islands

Principles directly relevant to social and economic benefits: • Sustainable use so as to achieve benefits including economic growth, human resource development, employment creation and sound ecological balance • Management measures shall be based on the best scientific evidence including relevant economic information • An understanding of and participation of stakeholders shall be promoted to the extent practicable

Solomon Islands Identifies policy areas and broad objectives, nested under the wider objectives of National Fisheries the SI National Development Strategy 2016–2035, including: Policy 2019–2029 • Inshore and inland fisheries: Safeguard inshore and inland fisheries and associated ecosystems and ecosystem services, for good nutrition and increased social and economic benefits • Offshore fisheries: Increase, improve and diversify the benefits that the nation receives from its offshore fisheries resources

Regional Roadmap for Identifies four key goals for regional tuna fisheries management with specific Sustainable Pacific targets associated, focused on: Fisheries 2015 1. Sustainability – Includes implementation of Target Reference Points, ETP measures and IUU reduction 2. Value – The region’s tuna catch in 2024 will be worth double what it is in 2014, by increasing value rather than volume 3. Employment – 18,000 new jobs created in the tuna industry within 10 years, primarily through increased processing in Melanesia 4. Food security – The supply of tuna for domestic consumption in the region will increase by 40,000 tonnes per year by 2024

National Tuna Identifies six specific objectives for tuna fisheries management, and identifies Management and actions and indicators for progress. Development Plan 1. Ensure fish stocks are sustainable and at levels that support profitable fisheries 2. Manage fisheries within recognised principles of ecosystem approach to management 3. Maximise employment opportunities for Solomon Islanders, use resource access to promote maximum national participation 4. Increase investment in fisheries and SIG income from the tuna fishery sector 5. Enhance food security and livelihoods, and minimise adverse social, cultural, gender and environmental impacts 6. Ensure good governance, management and compliance systems are in place

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 109 of 175 Under the fisheries act, the Solomons Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) is responsible for portfolio leadership and policy initiatives for the conservation and sustainable management and development of the fisheries resources and the industry they support. The Ministry is made up of six functional divisions including: ▪ Research ▪ Aquaculture ▪ Licensing and Enforcement ▪ Extension ▪ Statistics ▪ Administrative unit

Principal MFMR outputs include: ▪ Policy Advice. review existing institutional arrangements including fisheries legislation, regulations and policies with stakeholder consultation. ▪ Research publication: production of research reports, dissemination of research reports to all concerned parties, Fisheries impact assessments, MPAs, management and conservation of endangered species and the application of the Ecosystem Approach to fisheries management. ▪ Awareness promotion and training – sustainable fisheries management: Communication and awareness strategy. Internal reviews ▪ Fisheries law enforcement – observer program, inspection and enforcement, licensing and permitting, data collection reviews and training.

For the 2015 fisheries act, key provisions include: ▪ Licensing of local and foreign vessels; ▪ Provisions on fishing permits (date of validity, revocation and issuance); ▪ Access arrangements; ▪ Licensing of processing establishments; ▪ The record of fishing vessels; ▪ The powers of authorised officers; ▪ Prohibited activities; ▪ Fisheries access agreements and management arrangements; ▪ Improved powers for licensing domestic foreign fishing vessels and fish processing establishments; SCS Global Services Report

▪ Requirements for fishing vessels including the activities defined in the MTCs, gear stowage and reporting, access by Solomon Islands vessels in areas beyond national jurisdiction, transshipments at sea requirements for fish and fish product processing; ▪ Appointment of authorized fishery offices; ▪ Appointment and functions of, and duties to, observers, port samplers and fish quality control officers; ▪ Protection and obstruction of authorized persons; ▪ The Vessel Monitoring System; ▪ Disposition and release of seized items and forfeiture; ▪ Jurisdictional proceedings and sanctions, and evidential issues. ▪ Restrictive entry licensing; ▪ Authorisation when fishing outside national waters; ▪ Use of a Mobile Transceiver Units (MTUs) and Vessel Monitoring System tracking inside and outside the national EEZ; ▪ Offloading or transhipping into designated ports is limited to Honiara, Tulagi and Noro; ▪ No transhipment at sea, including in the high seas; ▪ Catch logsheet reporting; ▪ Weekly catch reports; ▪ Carriage of observers on all purse seiners, and longliners, as selected; ▪ Entry and exit requirements; and ▪ When seeking to land or transship into port, 48 hours advance notice is required, then 24 hours pre-notification to MFMR for submission of reports on offloading and transshipping including declarations of SPC offloading and transshipping forms.

As an example of decision-making processes adopted in the Solomon Islands, most of the NFD activity by purse seine and pole and line vessels is within the MGA, and the potential yields from the main group archipelago (NTFSR, 2011) have been subject to discussion. Management measures for the domestic fleet operating the MGA and EEZ have been assessed by SPC for the pole-and-line and purse seine fishery (SPC and Banks 2015), with recommendations submitted to the MFMR FAC. Recommended effort limits for purse seine and pole-and-line were accepted by the FAC and recommended to the Minister. Minutes of the FAC document the information available, and discussion of alternatives.

To enable effective higher-level stakeholder consultation, the 2015 Act also continued a Fisheries Advisory Council (FAC) from the previous 1998 Act. Members are appointed by the Minister; with the function to advise the Minister and make recommendations at the request of the Permanent Secretary on matters relating to fisheries conservation, management, development and sustainable use. Members of FAC

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 111 of 175 typically include representatives from key Government agencies, industry, and regional organisations. The role of the Fisheries Advisory Council is laid down in the Fisheries Act; the Minister may authorise the Council to make such inquiries, conduct such research, and make such reports as may assist the Council in advising the Minister. Following a dormant period for several years, in December 2019 the FAC was again gazetted, with MFMR and government currently preparing recommendations on membership for ministerial endorsement. (Tri Marine Ltd, pers. comm).

The Tuna Industry Association Solomon Islands (TIASI) is the peak industry body that represents all tuna fishing and processing companies in the Solomon Islands; a nominated TIASI representative is one of the FAC members.

7.5.1.3 Fishery-Specific Management

Long Term Objectives for the Fishery

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

These long-term fisheries management objectives are developed and agreed to via WCPFC processes. Longer term objectives are also laid out in some national plans and agreements (e.g. the Palau Arrangement and the VDS).

Fishery-specific objectives

WCPFC’s recently revised CMM 2018-01 provides the operational fishing reference points guiding management of bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna in the WCPO. For skipjack and yellowfin, it includes the following explicit objectives: “Principles - Compatibility 2. Conservation and management measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction shall be compatible in order to ensure conservation and management of bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna stocks in their entirety. Measures shall ensure, at a minimum, that stocks are maintained at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, pending agreement on target reference points as part of SCS Global Services Report

the harvest strategy approach, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors including the special requirements of developing States in the Convention Area as expressed by Article 5 of the Convention..

Skipjack 13. the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than Fmsy, i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1.

Yellowfin 14. the fishing mortality rate is not greater than Fmsy, i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1.”

These objectives are consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and 2, although there have previously been some deficiencies in the definition and measurability of the objectives. These are gradually being addressed as a formal WCPFC harvest strategy for these species is developed and implemented.

Fisheries Regulations to Meet Objectives

In addition to key target species’ reference points outlined above, WCPFC CMM 2018-01 is also directed at reducing FAD related fishing impacts likely to undermine sustainable harvests of Yellowfin, Bigeye and Skipjack Tuna in the UoA. It implements a three month (July, August and September) prohibition on deploying, servicing or setting on FADs for all purse seine vessels, tender vessels, and any other vessels operating in support of purse seine vessels fishing in exclusive economic zones and the high seas in the WCPFC area between latitudes 20° North and 20° South 17. There is also a two month closure of fishing activity in the high seas. The closure is intended to reduce incidental or deliberate catch of small bigeye and yellowfin tuna to help maintain these stocks at levels consistent with the target and limit reference points for these stocks.

In addition, from January 2020, CMM 2018-0118 will require FADs used in the WCPFC area to be designed in a way to reduce the likelihood of trapping and/or entangling sharks, cetaceans, sea-turtles and other species. To reduce pollution and broader environmental impacts, FAD’s must also be constructed of natural and/or bio-degradable materials. Because of ISSF membership requirements, Tri Marine’s anchored FADs are already all non-entangling.

CMM 2018-01 also requires that flag CCM’s ensure purse seine vessel deploy, at any one time, no more than 350 drifting FAD’s. The effectiveness of these new measures is to be reviewed by the WCPFC Scientific Committee and relevant working groups at each annual meeting and out of session as required.

17 Members of the PNA may implement the FAD set management measures consistent with the Third Arrangement Implementing the Nauru Agreement of May 2008. Members of the PNA shall provide notification to the Commission of the domestic vessels to which the FAD closure will not apply. That notification shall be provided within 15 days of the arrangement being approved. 2 Those vessels fishing within a 100 nautical mile buffer zone extending from the high seas adjacent to the Cook Islands shall inform Kiribati and the Cook Islands authorities at least 24 hours prior to entry into and 24 hours prior to the exit from the buffer zone with estimated coordinates for entry and exit. Each report shall contain the vessel name, international radio call sign and position at time of reporting. 18 Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2018-01/conservation-and-management-measure-bigeye- yellowfin-and-skipjack-tuna-western-and

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 113 of 175 Additional CMM’s designed specifically to improve the management of FAD related fishing impacts include:

▪ CMM 2012-04 Conservation and Management Measure on the protection of whale sharks from purse seine operations;

▪ CMM 2011-03 Conservation and Management Measure to Address the Impact of Purse Seine Activity on Cetaceans.

In giving effect to CMM 2012-04, CCM’s must prohibit their flagged vessels from setting a purse seine on a school of tuna associated with a whale shark if the animal is sighted prior to the commencement of the set. If a whale shark is inadvertently encircled in the purse seine net it is to be released unharmed, and the details of the set recorded by the onboard observer. Details of such incidental captures are also required in annual country reports tabled to the Scientific Committee and the Commission.

CMM 2011-03 prohibits CCM vessels from setting a purse seine net on a school of tuna associated with a cetacean on the high seas and within the WCPFC area, if the animal is sighted prior to commencement of the set. For accidental encirclement similar reporting and release provisions apply as described above for whale sharks.

To develop more effective FAD management strategies and measures, and to support evaluation of existing FAD management measures, WCPFC also has an intersessional FAD Management Options Working Group. This Working Group, with assistance from the SC and SPC, and ISSF19, has recently developed Draft Guidelines for Biodegradable and Non-entangling FADs.

There is ongoing debate from WCPFC CCM’s about the definition of FADs, and whether these definitions should be clarified/updated to reduce confusion between vessel crews and observers. The definition of a FAD as used by WCPFC is the PNA definition, and was intentionally made strict and inclusive, to minimise confusion between observers and vessel operators about FAD definitions. There is also ongoing discussion about FAD management effectiveness in the context of managing bigeye tuna mortality and outcomes (e.g. CMM 2017-01, and 2018-01). In addition, at the Fourteenth annual Commission meeting in 2017, the EU observed that the compliance sub-committee (TCC1420) had difficulties assessing compliance with the CMM related to FAD closures and indicated that there was a risk this would continue at subsequent meetings.

At the national level, the Solomon Islands Fisheries Management Act 2015 specifies an overall objective of ensuring “the long-term management, conservation, development and sustainable use of Solomon Islands fisheries and marine ecosystems for the benefit of the people of Solomon Islands.” The Act then provides a suite of subsidiary objectives:

19 See https://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/guides-best-practices/non-entangling-fads/ 20 Meeting reports for TCC14 are available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/meeting-folders/technical-and-compliance- committee. SCS Global Services Report

▪ all natural living resources of Solomon Islands, as well as the environment in which they exist and in which mariculture activities may occur, are a natural asset and heritage of all its people, and should be managed and developed for the benefit of present and future generations in the country as a whole; ▪ Solomon Islands fisheries resources are to be used sustainably so as to achieve socio- economic benefits including economic growth, human resource development, employment creation and sound ecological balance, consistent with Solomon Islands’ national development objectives; ▪ management measures shall be based on the best scientific evidence available to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors including fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and relevant international standards; ▪ management measures shall, as appropriate, be based on applicable standards agreed at international, regional or sub-regional level, such as Limit Reference Points and Target Reference Points; ▪ the precautionary approach shall be applied to the management and development of the fisheries at a standard that is equal or superior to the standard set out in Article 6 and Annex II of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement; ▪ the ecosystem as a whole and the general marine and aquatic environment shall be protected; ▪ biodiversity in the fisheries waters shall be protected; ▪ complete and accurate data and information concerning fishing activities and fisheries resources shall be collected and, as appropriate, shared in a timely manner; ▪ international agreements and relevant international law shall be effectively implemented; ▪ fishing and related activities shall minimise - o wastes, by-catch, discards, regulatory discards, economic discards and catch by lost or abandoned gear; o pollution originating from fishing vessels or vessels engaged in related activities; and o catch of non-targeted species; ▪ development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques shall be promoted; ▪ over-fishing and excess capacity shall be prevented or eliminated and levels of fishing effort managed so they do not exceed those commensurate with sustainable use of fisheries resources; ▪ customary rights shall be recognised and access for customary fishing ensured; ▪ the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers shall be taken into account, including their participation in management of their respective fisheries; ▪ conservation and management measures shall be implemented and enforced through effective monitoring, control and surveillance; ▪ an understanding of, and broad and accountable participation by, stakeholders in the conservation, management, development and sustainable use of fisheries resources shall be promoted to the extent practicable; and ▪ conservation and management standards and measures in international agreements shall be applied to the extent possible; and Solomon Islands shall cooperate effectively with other States and organisations.

Tuna Management Plans (TMPs), as required under WCPFC guidelines, typically include a description of the respective national tuna fishery, status of tuna resources, and overall government objectives for, and related to, the fisheries sector. TMPs also contain objectives and strategies to deliver on these. Some plans include a monitoring and evaluation component to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their implementation. In addition to over-arching tuna resource sustainability objectives, TMPs typically include objectives relating to increasing national employment, both for fishing participation and related to onshore processing. They are also aimed at creating and/or enhancing revenue available from fishing access fees.

Prior to the development of TMP’s, FFA’s Regional Tuna Management and Development Strategy 2009- 201421 was used to support sustainability and economic performance of regional tuna fisheries.

The Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan (MFMR 2015) provides objectives and policy guidance for all aspects of the Solomons’ tuna fisheries, and related industry. It applies to South Pacific Albacore, Yellowfin tuna, Bigeye tuna, and Skipjack tuna. Other key commercial species and bycatch species may be added to the provisions of the plan if required (e.g. mahi mahi, marlin, rainbow runner, sailfish, swordfish, wahoo, sharks).

The TMDP covers all waters from 3 nautical miles (NM) out to the 200NM EEZ and includes archipelagic waters22. The TMDP does not apply directly to waters inside 3NM as these are managed by villages (through customary ownership rights) and Provincial Governments.

Key objectives for the TMDP are to: 1. Ensure fish stocks are maintained at sustainable levels that support profitable fisheries. 2. Manage fisheries within recognised principles of ecosystem approach to management 3. Maximise employment opportunities for Solomon Islanders 4. Increase investment in fisheries and SIG income from the tuna fishery sector 5. Enhance food security and livelihoods, and minimise adverse social, cultural, and gender impacts. 6. Ensure good governance, management and compliance systems are in place 7. Enhance Solomon Islands influence at regional and international management organisations. There are also fishery specific and shorter-term objectives and strategies/actions defined within the TMDP, including management measures for archipelagic waters. These include setting sustainable levels of fishing effort, including the numbers of vessels allowed to access the fishery, in an adaptive manner according to changes in catch rates for key species. Priority may be given to smaller vessels with limited ability to fish in EEZ (MFMR, 2015). The SI TMDP uses existing WCPFC CMM’s as part of its domestic

21 See: https://www.ffa.int/system/files/Regional%20Tuna%20Management%20and%20Development%20Strategy.pdf 22 Archipelagic waters are waters up to 12NM within UNCLOS-recognised archipelagos. Coastal states have stronger sovereign rights to determine management of fisheries within archipelagic waters than within the EEZ. SCS Global Services Report management framework, including for Archipelagic Waters. Similarly, “…implementation of endorsed PNA measures and regulations are critical to the success of the TMDP”. MFMR has explicitly recognised the importance of ensuring complementary management measures for both offshore and inshore waters to enable effective management of highly migratory tuna stocks fished across the region. The Solomons TMDP is currently being reviewed and updated, with stakeholder consultation to enable this occurring in January 2020. A revised draft TMDP is scheduled for stakeholder consideration and comment by April 2020 prior to parliamentary approval (Trimarine Ltd, pers. comm.).

Table 28: Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan objectives and actions (TMDP 2015).

Goal: ensure fish stocks are sustainable and at levels that support profitable fisheries Objectives Actions 1.1 Establish catch or effort limits • Support Commission efforts to develop target and limit based on best scientific and economic reference points for key target species that will ultimately assessment to ensure stocks remain feed into a harvest strategy aimed at ensuring sustainable within economically viable levels in the SI and profitable fisheries. EEZ. 1.2 Develop management regimes • Establish preliminary catch and effort limits for key target that ensure target species are not species by end – 2014 for implementation in 2015. overfished and minimise the risk of • Assess the application of spatial and or temporal closures as reducing industry profitability. a management tool by mid-2015. 1.3 Establish effective monitoring and • Actions for Monitoring, Compliance and Surveillance are surveillance capacity to regulate the contained in Strategy 6. fishery and control IUU fishing. 1.4 Maximise FFA and PNA control • Lead processes to have complementary arrangements on the overfishing in high seas areas. high seas – ongoing. • Implement applicable Commission CMMs in a timely manner. 1.5 Implement regional • Implement agreed PNA regulations once approved and arrangements. review regularly. • Implement VDS for longline fishery for 2014. 1.6 Promote and support appropriate • Support SPC research programs, wherever possible research on tuna fishery stock status and • Develop a 5-year strategic research plan for Solomon Islands management arrangements in the WCPO. tuna fisheries – by mid-2015 1.7 Ensure data is collected from • Review data management systems as per SLA with FFA industry and provided to relevant agencies • Annually review Observer resources to ensure appropriate in a thorough and timely manner; collect observer coverage that at minimum is consistent with PNA data from artisanal and local market and WCPFC requirements fisheries.

2.1 Identify and address ecosystem • Review and update EAFM for Solomon Islands Tuna impacts caused by tuna fisheries. Fisheries by end- 2014 and biennially thereafter.

• Develop and implement shark NPOA 2.2 Develop management • By end-2013 implement Commission CMMs on arrangements that minimise discarding o sharks and promote the use of by-product. o seabirds o turtles

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 117 of 175 • Undertake a baitfish risk assessment by mid-2014 2.3 Manage baitfish resources to • Prepare and implement a baitfish management plan by end- ensure their sustainability. 2014.

• 2.4 Ensure use and impact of FADs is Develop and implement a FAD management plan by end- 2013. consistent with EAFM principles. • Monitor the use of FADs in cooperation with industry.

Table 29: Solomon Islands tuna fishery management zones, licence types and management approaches (Source: adapted from MRAG, 2016).

Fishery Area Permitted Methods and Licence Types Approach to Management Artisanal fishers and small-scale fishing Management determined by MHWM – 3 NM operations supplying local markets villages and Provincial Government EAFM Permitted methods and 3 NM – 12 NM Adaptive management based on licence types as above, PLUS: Small scale catch rates industrial fishing Permitted methods and licence types as Fishing effort limits and access Archipelagic above, PLUS: modified according to catch rates; 10 waters Locally registered fishing vessels time closures may be considered. landing their catch for onshore Priority given to smaller vessels processing using purse seine, pole with limited ability to fish in EEZ. and line, longline, troll, and VMS for purse seine and longline. handline.

Permitted methods and licence types as Access agreements 12 – 30 NM above, PLUS: Foreign vessels chartered by local • VDS for purse seine and longline companies landing their catch for • VMS onshore processing and using the fishing methods listed above. 30 – 60 NM Permitted methods and licence types as Access agreements: above, PLUS: Foreign purse seine vessels operating • FSM Arrangement under the FSM Arrangement and foreign • VDS for purse seine and longline vessels operating under bilateral • VMS agreements using the fishing methods described above.

Permitted methods and licence types as Access agreements: above, PLUS: Purse seine vessels operating 60 – 200 NM under the US Treaty • FSM Arrangement • US Treaty arrangement VDS • VMS for purse seine and longline

SCS Global Services Report

Baitfish Management Plan

To complement sustainable management of its tuna fisheries, the MFMR has also developed a Baitfish Management Plan (BMP). This recognises both the importance of sustainable baitfish management in supporting a viable pole and line fishery; and the importance of more localized baitfish resources that help protect the livelihoods of local communities. The BMP has been developed with regard to the UNFSA, with explicit reference to both the precautionary approach and an ecosystem based approach to fisheries management (MFMR, 2015a).

Access Rights

For the UoA, and in a regional fisheries management context, legal rights are created explicitly or established by custom for people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood via the WCPFC. The Convention establishes safeguards and recognizes the rights of communities dependent on fishing for food or their livelihoods. In addition, fishing undertaken by vessels in this UoA is primarily comprised of one of vessels from distant water fishing nations fishing for industrial tuna stocks and operating on the high seas or within EEZs where traditional fishing arrangements and areas are safeguarded. Background information provided below is focused on the WCPFC and subsidiary/related regional fisheries agreements. Background for the Solomon Islands is also provided with respect to their customary rights.

To date, the Commission has not allocated fishing rights but has sought and received external advice on allocation mechanisms and options. Further, Article 30 of the Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC Convention. The Convention explicitly recognizes the rights of subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers and fish workers, as well as indigenous people in developing States Parties, particularly small island developing States Parties, and territories and possessions.

The WCPFC has an explicit relationship with the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, which represents the interests of the independent island States in the region. These interests demonstrably protect their people’s traditional rights to these resources.

Subsequent to the Nauru Agreement, The Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific was developed by the PNA as a multilateral treaty governing the operation of purse seine vessels in national waters of the PNA member nations. Its initial intent was to limit the number of vessels operating in the waters of the PNA, however it has evolved to a more contemporary input control effort management framework based on limiting the number of purse seine days to be fished. The VDS was established in response to scientific advice regarding overfishing, to allow new entrants to the fishery to create competition for access and in turn, increase PNA members’ control over the fishery and increase the value of fishing access (Dunn et al. 2006).

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 119 of 175 Under the VDS Scheme the PNA set the total number of days that can be fished in their combined waters and the apportionment of the total number of days between each country. These allocations are set for 12-month periods and are tradable as Party Allowable Effort (PAE). The most recent stock assessment information on the target species of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna and economic information relating to maximizing economic returns and the optimal utilization of the resource guide determination of the number and allocation of fishing days. The VDS has now been adopted by the WCPFC as a major component of the purse seine fishery management framework (CMM 2014-01 (para 20 and 21)). Key features of the VDS are:

1. Parties set the Total Allowable Effort (TAE) in fishing days for each Management Year (calendar years); 2. A fishing day is defined as any day or part of a day where fishing activity occurs in the waters of a Party outside archipelagic waters; 3. Initially, allowances for the FSM Arrangement fleet effort and the USA Treaty effort were deducted from the TAE. Current arrangements require individual PNA parties to contribute days from their PAEs into pools for the FSM Arrangements and the USA Treaty; 4. The adjusted TAE is allocated amongst the Parties as their PAE for each management year based on the distribution of estimated biomass and historical effort; 5. Parties may transfer days freely between themselves within a single management year; days cannot be transferred and/or borrowed between management years; 6. Each Party is required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the number of fishing days by purse seine vessels in its EEZ does not exceed that Party’s PAE or adjusted PAE in any management year; 7. As a capacity adjustment, a fishing day of a small vessel (<50 m length overall (LOA)) is counted as half of a fishing day, and large vessels (>80 m LOA) one and a half fishing days; 8. The VDS is overseen and reviewed by an Inter-Party VDS Committee (VDSC), and reports to the annual meeting of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement. The role of the VDSC is to have oversight on the operational aspects of the VDS and provide recommendations as appropriate to the plenary meetings of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement: the committee may also be mandated to decide on certain operational aspects of the VDS. In addition to access rights for the tuna fisheries, MFMR also recognises customary rights for localized baitfish resources that are used as chum to attract skipjack and yellowfin tuna for the pole and line fishery. Bait grounds are located throughout coastal areas (in lagoons, passages and bays) where coastal communities have traditional rights through customary use. Ongoing access to these resources has been negotiated between bait ground owners and fishing companies. Access is typically provided in return for 'compensation, effectively a form of royalty payments (MFMR, 2015a).

In terms of management, there are numerous alternative bait grounds across the Solomon Islands. This coupled with life-history characteristics of baitfish species (short-lived, fast growing, highly fecund) makes SCS Global Services Report the baitfish fishery in Solomon Islands generally robust to fishing pressure (MFMR, 2015a – citing pers comm. Lewis, 2015).

Specific objectives of the SI BMP are: 1. “Ensuring that catch levels of baitfish species are maintained above the level of recruitment impairment (Species Sustainability); 2. Ensuring that any impacts on ecosystem structure and function are above the point where serious ecosystem impacts could occur (Ecosystem Sustainability); 3. Economic benefits to the community are optimized (Economic Outcomes); and 4. Social impacts and negative attitudes associated with the exploitation of these resources are minimized (Social Impacts)” (MFMR 2015a).

Baitground access arrangements are guided by a standard agreement between MFMR, local owners (including Provincial Government) and pole-and-line operators. Agreements include: a) Baitground locations and boundaries in the form of a map; b) Bait fishing rights 23 whereby pole-and-line fishers pay the bait ground communities a fee calculated at an agreed rate on a per vessel per-night basis; and c) An agreed code of conduct for both parties to guide behaviours and activities associated with baitfish access.

Review and Audit of the Management Plan

WCPFC has mechanisms in place to evaluate key aspects of the management system, including a range of committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings back to the Commission’s annual meeting and out of session as required. The WCPFC Secretariat submits a report on compliance of members with the reporting provisions of the Commission, with CMM implementation progress monitored through the reporting provisions within the CMMs themselves, or the members Annual Reports to the Commission. Several of the formal sub-committees and working groups also work closely with members and other stakeholders to develop CMM’s and to evaluate and refine these after they have been implemented. Stock assessments conducted by the SPC are subject to peer review by other members of the Scientific Committee, occasional external review, and are scrutinized by member countries and their scientific representatives.

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

23 (a) the exclusive right to fish in, and catch, take and carry away baitfish from the bait grounds together with (b) the right of unimpeded access to the bait grounds (including without limitation the right of entry to, exit from, transit and passage through, and anchorage in the bait ground.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 121 of 175 The VDS, as a key operational component of the overall WCPFC fisheries management system, is overseen and reviewed internally by a VDS Committee, and externally with advice and reviews of performance by the FFA. There have been a series of internal and external reviews of other key parts of the PNA processes, including the VDS. There are also regular internal reviews of national fisheries administration performance, and frequent, but ad hoc, external reviews of key features of national performance (Banks et al. 2011).

A 2013 report by the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) examined fisheries management arrangements in nine Pacific island states (PASAI 2013), including the Solomon Islands. The report noted several positive aspects including the presence of comprehensive and contemporary legislation for each country, guiding sustainable management of their tuna fisheries. The report also noted scope to improve fisheries governance coordination arrangements, and to ensure that Tuna Management Plans were consistent with guidelines and up to date. The PASAI report has served to initiate and guide further improvements to fisheries management and governance arrangements across the WCPFC area, and for member countries.

Solomon Islands domestic fisheries legislation is prepared by the Solomons MFMR with support from the Office of the Attorney General; with legislative review managed under a similar approach. For primary high-level legislation, legal drafts are submitted to the Cabinet for approval, before submission to Parliament. Gazettes or regulations are usually lower level and may not require submission to Parliament (MRAG, 2016).

As part of English Law, which provides the basis for the Solomon Islands legal system, there is provision for legal challenges in court through Judicial Review processes or matters of interpretation can be made. MFMR seek to prevent any such challenges through effective consultation, but if challenged the processes of adjustment are in place to implement rapid changes to legislation, facilitated by the Attorney General’s office. There is no evidence of any legislation having been tested, but the process for challenge/judicial review is in place.

Decision Making Processes

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

7.5.1.4 Recognized Interest Groups

A description of the key international and regional fisheries management entities, and supporting agencies and organizations (e.g. WCPFC, PNA, FFA), is provided in the preceding sections. There are extensive, regular formal and informal stakeholder liaison and consultation processes across the regional management framework. These operate at the WCPFC, PNA, and FFA and other regional & international fora, as well as bilateral consultations, along with ongoing engagement with domestic stakeholders.

At a regional level, FFA plays an important role as a conduit for the relevant Pacific nations. In addition to these fisheries management and governance focused organisations, there are a range of other interest groups and stakeholders supporting and/or engaged with fisheries management processes across the UoA.

The Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA) is a representative body for national fisheries associations of FFA Pacific Island Countries, including the Solomon Islands. PITIA’s major role is representation of commercial interest to policy making forums. PITIA has observer status at several policy forums and is the recognized industry representative to Forum Fisheries Committee meetings.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 123 of 175 Key purse seine and pole and line fishery stakeholders and interest groups include domestic and foreign fishers and related companies; and longline license holders that also target yellowfin and skipjack tuna. Supply chain related stakeholders include canneries and other fish processing facilities, the Solomon Islands government and a range of local and national government bodies related to fisheries, fishing industry organizations, the regional WCPFC and related fishery management and research entities, local/customary fishers, and environmental NGO’s.

The most active and influential of these environment and conservation focused NGO’s and Charitable Trusts active on key fisheries issues within the UoA include Birdlife International, Conservation International, Environmental Defense Fund, Fishwise, Greenpeace, International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), The Nature Conservancy, PEW Charitable Trusts, the Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, and World Wildlife Fund (WWF).24 Tri Marine was involved in the founding of ISSF and is an active member.

There is also a significant local and non-commercial or artisanal based fishing sector operating throughout the Solomon Islands, including traditional owners of bait fishing grounds where live bait for pole and line fishing is sourced. Access rights to local baitfish resources are negotiated between traditional owners and pole and line fishers in accordance with arrangements outlined in the MFMR BMP (MFMR, 2015a). In practice this includes royalty payments by fishers to local communities commensurate with their level of access and harvest size. Customary fishing rights are also explicitly recognised and protected in the 2015 Fisheries Act and subordinate arrangements. The Tuna Industry Association of the Solomon Islands (TIASI), the peak industry body representing all tuna fishing and processing companies in the Solomon Islands.

7.5.1.5 Arrangements for On-going Consultations

The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states and the committees formed under Commission control (SC, NC, and TCC) in relation to consultative processes. The Commission and its committees have well defined operating procedures and terms of reference, and the roles and responsibilities of members and non-members are well defined in the Convention, in the Rules of Procedure and in relevant CMMs. The Commission Secretariat facilitates effective engagement by stakeholders including Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other interested parties. Attendance at Commission and related meetings (including SC and TCC) are comprehensive and meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management of the tuna fisheries; noting that some of these meetings are held in closed session (in particular some important aspects relating to compliance with CMMs by CCMs) and thus do not offer transparent and open opportunity for meaningful involvement.

Attendance at WCPFC meetings and through regional cooperation at FFC has expanded understanding of the functions, roles and responsibilities of national jurisdictions and WCPF Commission and the

24 For example, see https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/leading-environmental-ngos-stand-together-to- call-for-100-observer-coverage-on-industrial-tuna-fishing-vessels-300873686.html SCS Global Services Report components of the management structure. The Commission is active in assisting and facilitating the regular and timely provision of fisheries information.

The Commission actively uses information from the fishery and its member states to inform fisheries management discussions and the formulation of management measures, as demonstrated by reports and outcomes of WCPFC meetings.

National Considerations

The Solomon Islands’ Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR) has over-arching responsibility for the conservation, sustainable management, and development of tuna fishery resources and dependent industries. MFMR’s legislative duties and responsibilities are specified in the Solomon Islands Fisheries Management Act 201525, including guidance in relation to formal and less formal engagement and consultation with key stakeholders.

The Solomon’s fisheries legislation provides for a Fisheries Advisory Council (FAC) with members appointed by the Minister; Council members have an advisory function, making recommendations on fisheries conservation, management, development and sustainable use. FAC membership is drawn from key Government agencies, industry, and regional organisations. The Solomon Islands’ FAC has not met since 2014 and is currently being re-constituted (Trimarine Ltd, pers. comm.).

The Tuna Industry Association Solomon Islands (TIASI) is the peak industry body that represents all tuna fishing and processing companies in the Solomon Islands. Its objective is to sustainably develop tuna resources in partnership with the Solomon Islands Government and key stakeholders. A TIASI representative was a member of the previous Solomon Islands FAC.

7.5.1.6 Planned Education and Training for Interest Groups

Planned education and training, and capacity building, for both sustainable fisheries business development across the wild catch fishing supply chain, and to better support regional and national level fisheries management capabilities, is an ongoing priority for both small and larger coastal states throughout the UoA. For example, WCPFC have recently concluded an independent review of the Compliance Monitoring Scheme, identifying areas requiring capacity building and technical assistance for key internal and external stakeholders in an effort to streamline Commission processes, including development and implementation of a more efficient framework for the Conservation and Management Measures (CMM’s).

At this broader regional level, the WCPFC Secretariat and embedded Commission processes generally facilitate effective engagement by stakeholders including Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other interested parties. By its nature, this level of engagement incorporates a significant element of less formal knowledge transfer and capacity building for participants. More formal capacity building is an

25 Available at: http://macbio-pacific.info/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Fisheries-Management-Act-2015.pdf.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 125 of 175 explicit objective of fisheries legislation throughout the UoA at a national level and is also reflected in lower level operational plans and strategies such as the national Tuna Management Plans.

In 2015 the Pacific Islands Regional Oceanscape Program (PROP) of the World Bank reviewed fisheries management systems to assess key aspects of the integrated national fisheries management framework. This included opportunities to build capacity through the training of observers and enforcement officers and update monitoring equipment, and strengthen fisheries management through capacity building of fisheries agency systems, institutions and staff (Control Union Pesca. 2019).

7.5.1.7 Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Enforcement

Regional

Regional (e.g. WCPFC, FFA and related agencies) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) systems include Minimum Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Access (MHTC), a regional VMS system, Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels and a range of regional and international MCS cooperation programmes, including the Niue Treaty and the Agreed Minute of Cooperation in MCS between the USA and FFA member states.

The extent of these regional and collaborative MCS programmes illustrates that, despite significant progress combatting illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, these practices are still occurring with very significant costs across Pacific tuna fisheries26. The value of total product either harvested or transshipped involving IUU activity in Pacific tuna fisheries has been estimated recently at USD $616.11m, with a potential economic loss to FFA Members of $152.67m per year (MRAG Asia Pacific, 2016).

Between 2015 and 2017, FFA Members have led and completed substantial national and regional work, evaluations and consultations to update the regional MCS framework, now referred to as the FFA Regional MCS Strategy (RMCSS) 2018 – 202327. This Strategy targets key regional risk areas and supports the development and consolidation of similarly targeted MCS initiatives, including enhancement of national and regional MCS capabilities to further reduce IUU fishing. The Strategy includes a monitoring and evaluation component to guide and facilitate implementation throughout the life of the framework. Priority objectives for this revised MCS strategy are:

1. Regional standards are in place for effective and efficient MCS systems.

2. Quality information is available and accessible to national and regional officials to assess IUU risks and plan MCS activities.

3. Procedures established and operationalised to conduct effective MCS activities.

26 See: https:// MRAG Asia Pacific - Towards the Quantification of Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing in the Pacific Islands Region. 27 Available at: https://www.ffa.int/system/files/RMCSS%20%202%20August%20web%20version.pdf SCS Global Services Report

4. Effective compliance and enforcement through efficient use of available information, analyses and intelligence, achieved through whole of government engagement.

At the regional level, a range of sanctions exist to deal with situations of non-compliance; notably through black-listing of IUU vessels, and Port State Measures. Port inspection reports provide evidence that they are being applied. Logbook data are supplied as part of licence requirements. An extensive VMS system is in operation, as well as a 100% observer programme for large scale purse seiners. Observers report data from catches in EEZ waters, with special provisions through a MoU to allow observers to operate in the waters of several EEZs.-As described in Banks et al. (2011) and via the WCPFC website28, the Commission has developed and implemented a comprehensive compliance programme, much of which is operationalized via MCS related CMM’s. These include:

▪ Requirements for vessels, including support vessels operating outside their own waters to be on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish (CMM 2013-10)

▪ Responsibilities and process for Cooperating Non Members (CMM 2009-11)

▪ Specifications, Markings and Identification of Vessels (CMM 2004-03)

▪ High seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures (CMM 2006-08)

▪ High seas Vessel Monitoring System (CMM2014-02) with the option of “flip the switch29” arrangements within EEZs and a blacklist of IUU Vessels (CMM2010-06)

▪ Regulation of Transshipment, including ban on purse seine vessels transshipping at sea (CMM 2009-06)

▪ Charter Notification Scheme (CMM 2016-05)

▪ Monitoring Landings of Purse Seine Vessels (CMM 2009-10)

▪ Rules for Provision of Scientific Data and Data Dissemination

Additional measures have been introduced in recent years30, including:

▪ Conservation and Management Measure to establish a List of Vessels presumed to have carried out Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing activities in the WCPO (CMM 2019-07)

28 An overview of the WCPFC compliance and MCS systems is available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/compliance- monitoring 29 Essentially flipping the switch allows coastal States to have the WCPFC VMS monitor all vessels reporting to the WCPFC within their EEZ 30 Current CMM’s are available at the WCPFC website: https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management- measures

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 127 of 175 ▪ Conservation and Management Measure on daily catch and effort reporting (CMM 2013-05)

▪ WCPFC Implementation of a Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI) (CMM 2013-04)

▪ WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorization to Fish (CMM 2013-10)

▪ Conservation and Management Measure for Commission VMS (CMM 2014-02)

▪ Conservation and Management Measure for Eastern High Seas Pocket Special Management Area (CMM 2016-02)

▪ Conservation and Management Measure on minimum standards for Port State Measures (CMM 2017-02)

▪ Conservation and Management Measure for the protection of WCPFC Regional Observer Programme Observers (CMM 2017-03)

▪ Conservation and Management Measure for the Regional Observer Programme (CMM 2018-05)

▪ Conservation and Management Measure for WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish (CMM 2018-06)

▪ Conservation and Management Measure for Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2019-06).

The strengths and weaknesses of regional MCS arrangements were analysed by MRAG (2009) and reported on in Banks et al. (2011). MRAG identified the strengths in regional national fisheries licensing systems with good databases and good regional systems, most notably the Pacific VMS, but also others within FFA, WCPFC and SPC. Compliance risks identified with the region were as follows: ▪ Under-reporting of catches in vessel logs or weekly reports;

▪ Under-reporting of bycatches;

▪ CCMs not reporting details on catch and effort to WCFPC;

▪ Failure to inspect vessels on landing;

▪ Landings into foreign ports;

▪ Failure to implement pre fishing inspections to check licence and other details (e.g. ships master);

▪ High observer turnover;

▪ Observer reports of violations not acted upon;

▪ Weaknesses in implementation of fisheries violations in some countries; and SCS Global Services Report

▪ Weak system of information exchange and data base management.

Banks et al. (2011) concludes that purse seine non-compliance is extremely modest as compared to that for longliners. The PNA implemented a series of changes to respond to the risks identified (including 100% catch retention for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin; Increasing purse seine observer coverage to 100%; prohibition on transshipping at sea; revision of penalty systems and prosecution laws; and joint initiatives in data exchange between countries, some of which are also covered under various WCPFC CMM’s).

The role of FFA

Several of the major elements of this programme, including the observer and VMS programmes, are founded on, and supported by FFA initiatives. Because most of the fishing taking place is in national waters, the broad strategy of the WCPFC compliance programme is to focus on controlling high seas fishing, strengthening the exercise of control by coastal state CCMs, and monitoring compliance with CCM obligations throughout the range of application of Commission measures (Banks et al. 2011).

At the national level, FFA provides policy and services to its members to build national capacity and regional solidarity to control fishing in the Pacific, including illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing. As well as VMS, this includes technical expertise, information sharing and projects related to monitoring activities, regional surveillance operations, the FFA Observer Program, FFA licence information and staff training and support.

FFA maintains a regional vessel register, coordinates the regional observer programme (and USA Treaty vessels), operates the FFA centralised VMS, maintains several other databases on behalf of the FFA parties such as the violations and prosecutions database, and coordinates, through the FFA Regional Fisheries Surveillance Centre, Joint Deployment Actions. The FFA employs a Surveillance Operations Office (SOO) to this end.

Four annual regional multilateral fisheries surveillance operations support the MCS tools and communications of Pacific Island countries. These are Operation KURU KURU, BIGEYE/ISLAND CHIEF, TUI MOANA and RAI BALANG, and are executed by the QUAD operational Working Group. The QUAD nations comprise the aerial and naval arms of Australia, France, New Zealand and the USA. They provide aerial and surface assets to assist regional surveillance. The FFA SOO has the responsibility for facilitating the coordination of the surveillance assets provided by the QUAD nations, in support of national and multilateral fishing surveillance and response activities. The SOO, and thus the RFSC, is in many cases the conduit between the QUAD nations and FFA members.

All FFA members have access to the FFA Resilience and Food Security Program (RFSP) covering both their respective EEZ’s and the high seas. The three information sources (FFA VMS, WCPFC VMS and AIS) are used to correlate additional sighting reports from QUAD and FFA member assets, potentially highlighting ‘dark’ vessel contacts not polling on VMS or AIS. These vessels are referred to individual nations for further management/enforcement action.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 129 of 175 The RFSP is linked to the extensive FFA secure databases containing a range of fisheries information that are designed to assist national MCS officers to assess the relative level of compliance of all vessels on the FFA VMS. In the RFSP, all vessels are ‘traffic-light’ colour coded to indicate the level of compliance risk (Compliance Index (CI)) (see next section for further description), which can then be used by member countries to plan MCS activities and operations for their Pacific Patrol Boats (PPB’s), with red indicating the possibility of a high-risk/non-compliant vessel, green indicating a greater probability of a low- risk/compliant vessel. Regional reporting and transparency

The WCPFC TCC is tasked with examining compliance with CMMs adopted by the Commission. Members and CCMs submit a Part 2 Annual Country Report on the implementation of Commission measures. This leads to the development of a Compliance Monitoring Report. There is a lack of transparency with this reporting as much of the material is treated as confidential, including the Part 2 Annual Reports. Discussion of identified compliance issues are held in closed session.

CMM 2018-07 provides an update from CMM 2015-07 pertaining to the WCPFC Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS). This CMM is relevant to MSC scoring and Performance Indicator 3.2.3.

The stated purpose of the CMS is:

▪ assess CCMs’ compliance with their WCPFC obligations;

▪ identify areas in which technical assistance or capacity building may be needed to assist CCMs to attain compliance;

▪ identify aspects of CMMs which may require refinement or amendment for effective implementation;

▪ respond to non-compliance by CCMs through remedial and/or preventative options that include a range of possible responses that take account of the reason for and degree, the severity, consequences and frequency of non-compliance, as may be necessary and appropriate to promote compliance with CMMs and other Commission obligations; and

▪ monitor and resolve outstanding instances of non-compliance by CCMs with their WCPFC obligations.

The revised CMM’s include additional scope provisions in Section 2, which focus on Capacity Assistance and Investigation Status Reports. The 2016 Final Compliance Monitoring Report (Covering 2015) accordingly added two new categories for Capacity Assistance Needed and Flag State Investigation in its Compliance or Implementation Status tables, which classify flag state areas of noncompliance by CMM or data provision article. There has been an increasing level of detail provided in these compliance tables in recent years that demonstrates progress toward greater transparency (Morgan et al. 2018). SCS Global Services Report

There is also a new online system that was launched in 2016 called the Compliance Case File online system. This system tracks individual alleged violations relevant to the CMS. There are four lists currently published in this new system that are accessible to relevant flag CCMs and the Secretariat:

▪ Article 25-2 compliance cases (non-observer prompted flag state investigations),

▪ FAD set alleged infringements (from observer data),

▪ observer obstruction alleged infringements (from observer data), and

▪ shark catch alleged infringements (from observer data).

There is also ongoing discussion in meeting documents regarding allowing participation by observers in closed TCC sessions, including the session which considers the draft Compliance Monitoring Report (CMR) or working group sessions considering the provisional CMR, subject to confidentiality restrictions (WCPFC 2016a & 2016b). As part of WCPFC’s commitment to ongoing improvement of key MCS programmes, an independent review of the WCPFC CMS was announced in 2017 and recently concluded. The report is available via the WCPFC website31. In the Executive Summary (paragraph 6.), the review panel observe that:

“the current system is fundamentally sound, and achieves its overall objectives, as well as stacking up well against other compliance monitoring systems, including those of other RFMOs. It is robust and comprehensive. It appears to be having positive effects upon overall compliance. However due to its comprehensive nature and its (still increasing) size and scope, as well as the demands it places on participants, it is at risk of collapsing under its own weight unless those demands can be reduced”.

Higher priority recommendations from the review focus on:

▪ making the CMS more manageable, as well as more effective and efficient for those CCM personnel using and/or contributing to the system;

▪ reducing the burden placed on CCMs, particularly small administrations, with respect to data provision, duplication and repetition;

▪ reducing the volume of material going to TCC, by introducing pre-screening in a “Friends of the Chair” Group;

▪ including ‘audit points’ that reflect critical obligations in each CMM prior to adoption;

▪ improving the process for development and refinement of CMMs;

31 Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/doc/final-report-independent-panel-review-compliance-monitoring- scheme-executive-summary.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 131 of 175 ▪ improving capacity building to support effectiveness of the CMS;

▪ improving the Review Process to better reflect the requirements of procedural fairness; and

▪ in the interim, introducing a Quality Assurance Review (QAR) system to assist CCMs where there is a pattern of serious non-compliance and possibly systemic issues.

Whilst there is progress at WCPFC in examining compliance information and the need for responses to non-compliance, the WCPFC continues to underperform relative to other tuna RFMOs in some regards. In contrast to other tuna RFMOs (ICCAT, IOTC, CCSBT and IATTC), observers are not allowed in the compliance working group meetings and no detailed information on infringements or responses to them are released publicly.

National MCS Programs and Records

While the Regional organizations - predominantly WCPFC and FFA - set up conditions, general policies, capacity building operational support for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) activities in the WCPO tuna fishery, none of these organizations has enforcement capacity per se and therefore rely completely on coastal and flag state enforcement actions.

As a party to the FFA, the Solomon Islands’ benefit from the suite of MCS related support services provided by WCPFC and the FFA regionally. These include the Regional Surveillance Centre, coordination of regional Vessel Monitoring System services, coordination of Joint MCS Operational Programmes, and observer training (MRAG Americas, 2016). Foreign Fishing Vessels such as those operating within the UoA also pay fees related to the cost of Solomon Islands’ MCS services.

In addition, the Niue Treaty Subsidiary Agreement (NTSA) functions as a key cooperative MCS agreement between FFA members, including provisions on exchange of fisheries data and information, as well as procedures for cooperation in monitoring, prosecuting and penalising operators of IUU fishing vessels.

Compliance aspects of broader Solomon Islands MCS activities are the responsibility of a specific division within the SI MFMR and include:

▪ The coordination of Pacific Patrol Boat (PPB) deployment in cooperation with the Police Maritime Division (PMD) of the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF);

▪ catch log sheet data collection and input, and data monitoring, including data entry for log sheets, transhipping documentation, and recording advanced notice of vessel exit and entry;

▪ Operating a fisheries monitoring station;

▪ Licensing and permits for domestic and foreign vessels and collecting licensing fees.

MRAG (2016) also note European Commission (EC) evaluation of SI MFMR MCS capabilities and performance in the context of SI compliance with EU IUU Regulation 1005/2008 (an EU directive intended SCS Global Services Report to deter and eliminate IUU fishing and prevent IUU sourced products from entering EU markets). In December 2014, the EC issued a ‘yellow card warning’ on the basis that SI action to prevent IUU fishing was not compliant with EU requirements. SI MFMR have subsequently introduced significant improvements across the range of MCS related activities, under the broad umbrella of comprehensive legislative reform including the introduction of comprehensive and contemporary ecosystem based national fisheries legislation in 2015. Improvements include better administration of the EU’s catch documentation scheme and more effective monitoring of Solomon Islands flag/chartered vessels if fishing beyond the EEZ. In recognition of these improvement, the EU Yellow Card was lifted in 2017.

The SI’s Police Maritime Division conduct at sea inspections, with target tasking of around 12 trips per year (between 2000 to 3,500 hours) using two vessels (MRAG, 2016). Penalties for non-compliance include a system of potentially compounding administrative penalties and options for pre-court settlement. Additional penalties may include forfeiture of fish, vessels, imprisonment and suspension of the license.

As for other WCPFC members, IUU vessels known to the SI government may also be put on the WCPFC IUU list, or “black-listed” on the FFA’s Vessels of Good Standing Register (VOGS) which would deny it the ability to be licensed to fish in any FFA member State EEZ. Fines for serious offences of not less than SB$2.5 million may be imposed and vessels confiscated, or fishing operations stopped. The Solomon Islands National Plan of Action for Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (NPOA-IUU) fishing classifies NFD purse seine operations as ‘low risk’ (MRAG, 2016). A risk rating for the significantly smaller pole and line sector is not readily available

WCPFC maintains a comprehensive record of CCM’s compliance with resolutions and CMM’s, and this information forms part of the annual reporting process. This assists identification of compliance risks and also serves to guide improvement of regional MCS strategies. The most recent WCPFC Final Compliance Monitoring Report for 2019 (covering 2018 activities) includes one minor infringement from the Solomon Islands with respect to meeting a VMS data reporting deadline (CMM 2014-02) (WCPFC16, 2019).

7.5.1.8 Non-fishery Uses or Activities and Arrangements for Liaison and Coordination

Note: There is limited guidance available currently to support completion of this background section. Further advice and supporting information will be sought during future client visits and liaison.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 133 of 175 7.5.2 Principle 3 Performance Indicator scores and rationales

PI 3.1.1 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); - 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

Guide There is an effective national There is an effective national There is an effective post legal system and a legal system and organised national legal system and framework for cooperation and effective cooperation binding procedures with other parties, where with other parties, where governing cooperation with necessary, to deliver necessary, to deliver other parties which delivers management outcomes management outcomes management outcomes consistent with MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

At a regional level, the WCPFC Convention, the Nauru Agreement, relevant national fisheries laws and national tuna management plans are consistent with the provisions of UNCLOS and UNFSA. All WCPFC Members, including the US are legally bound to apply the precautionary approach as parties to the WCPFC Convention (Article 5 & 7). UNCLOS makes specific provisions for straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stock in Articles 63 and 64 and requires that “... States ...cooperate directly or through appropriate international organizations with a view to ensuring conservation and promoting the objective of optimal utilization ...” of the stocks. This is reinforced in Articles 118 and 119 where States are required to cooperate in the conservation and management of high seas stocks. Article 119 further develops the need for catch limits, the use of the best available scientific evidence, the need to rebuild overfished stocks and to manage fishing impacts on non-target stocks. The UNSFA, operating as an implementing Agreement, seeks to elaborate on roles and responsibilities and requirements of UNCLOS with respect to managing straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stocks. Article 8 reinforces the need for States to cooperate to ensure the objective of the Agreement “to ensure the long-term conservation and sustainable use of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks through effective implementation of the relevant provisions of the Convention” is achieved. As the first RFMO to be established following the entry into force of the UNFSA, the WCPF Convention draws on all the key provisions of the UNFSA. It is also designed to reflect the regional political, socio-economic, geographical and environmental characteristics of the WCPO. The arrangements set out in the WCPF Convention and implemented via CMMs are designed to deliver outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Nauru Agreement The Nauru Agreement is a regional agreement made to facilitate cooperation in the management of fisheries resources of common interest. The Agreement is a binding treaty-level regional fisheries management instrument established in the 1980’s to manage tuna stocks within national waters. The Parties to the Nauru SCS Global Services Report

Agreement (PNA) are Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau. The objectives of the Agreement are to enhance regional solidarity and to promote economic control and participatory rights over the tuna resources in PNA waters, with a primary focus to: • Develop strategic fisheries conservation and management initiatives; • Develop initiatives to maximise the sustained direct and indirect economic benefits to the Parties; and • Maximise the profitability of the fishery and ancillary industries within the PNA. The PNA have consistently sought to develop and implement arrangements designed to improve the sustainability of tuna stocks in their waters and maximise the economic return to them when allowing other entities to fish these stocks. The Parties have effective national legal systems and have demonstrated effective cooperation to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. As a Party to the UNFSA, WCPF Convention and the Nauru Agreement, the Solomon Islands has accepted the obligation to comply with the provisions of these Agreements. The Solomon Islands Fisheries Management Act 2015 is the overarching legislative framework and explicitly recognises customary rights of indigenous people. Arrangements in the Act, supporting Regulations and within subordinate arrangements such as the Tuna Management and Development Plan provide a comprehensive suite of management and enforcement powers designed to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The Act and Regulations provide for the development and implementation of rules and regulations governing fishing operations and for the application of sanctions where these rules are not followed. They also provide for organized and effective cooperation with other parties via the FFA, PNA and the WCPFC. The Solomon Islands participates in regional MCS arrangements both within WCPFC and with the FFA/PNA. The Tuna Management and Development Plan makes specific reference to the management of international fisheries and working with the WCPFC. The Solomon Islands participates in sub-regional arrangements (FFA and PNA) which feed into WCPFC discussions and decisions, it also contributes scientific data from their tuna fisheries for collective use by SPC on behalf of all WCPFC Parties (GSA 4.3.2.3.). In conclusion, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met for the UoA. SG100 is potentially met at the WCPFC and PNA levels, and through complementarity with Solomon Islands management arrangements within Archipelagic Waters, however binding arrangements do not apply across these waters.

b Resolution of disputes

Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven appropriate to the context of to be effective. the UoA. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

For WCPFC CCM’s the dispute mechanism (Article 31 of the Convention) relies on a consensus-based decision- making process, requiring a 75% majority in both voting chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. It seeks peaceful settlement of all disputes. The WCPFC Commission holds a regular meeting every year where members and observers are represented. These meetings develop and adopt binding management measures and non-binding resolutions, negotiated at

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 135 of 175 both a technical and political level. Non-parties to the Convention can apply to become Co-operating Non- members and as such are also required to implement the measures and requirements set by WCPFC. These decision-making processes, and the WCPFC management system broadly, is relatively democratic and transparent. Under Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission is required to promote transparency in its decision-making processes and other activities. Independent observers, including NGO representatives may also attend and observe any resolutions and subsequent justifications. The Convention states that “Such intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations shall be given timely access to pertinent information subject to the rules and procedures which the Commission may adopt”. Observers can make presentations to members, subject to approval of the chairperson. 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 (Medley and Powers 2015). At the sub-regional level, the UNFSA dispute settlement mechanism applies to the Nauru Agreement, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS. The Palau Arrangement sets out a dispute settlement mechanism in Article 8 for issues related to the purse seine fishery and the VDS. Annex 2 of the WCPF Convention allows for the establishment of a Panel to review decisions of the Commission (Art. 20 & 31), however there is no readily available evidence that this has been tested. Domestically, the Solomon Islands government has established a Fisheries Appeals Committee under the 2015 Fisheries Act. The committee is tasked with reviewing decisions on licensing and other substantive decisions made by the Director in exercise of his or her functions, powers and duties under the Act. Under the Solomon Islands legal system, there is also provision for legal challenges in court through Judicial Review processes. MFMR seek to prevent any such challenges through effective consultation, but if challenged the processes of adjustment are in place to implement rapid changes to legislation, facilitated by the Attorney General’s office. At this stage, there is no direct evidence of the successful application of these dispute resolution and/or review powers domestically. WCPFC, PNA and Solomon Islands’ domestic dispute resolution systems meet SG60 and SG80 requirements, however SG100 is not met because these dispute and review arrangements have not been tested and proven to be effective. c Respect for rights

Guide The management system has The management system has The management system post a mechanism to generally a mechanism to observe the has a mechanism to formally respect the legal rights legal rights created explicitly commit to the legal rights created explicitly or or established by custom of created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The WCPF Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within its framework for sustainability. The Convention further requires that the needs of SIDs, territories and possessions, and coastal communities dependent on stocks including those taken in the fishery be recognised in the allocation of catch or effort (Art 10 (3) and Resolution 2008-01) and their capacity strengthened (see CMM 2013-06 Conservation and Management Measure on the criteria for the consideration of conservation and management proposals and CMM 2013-07 Conservation and Management Measure on the special requirements of Small Island Developing States and Territories). Article 30 of the Convention further provides SCS Global Services Report

for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC. To date, the Commission has not formally allocated fishing rights but has sought and received external advice on allocation mechanisms and options. Further, Article 30 of the Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC Convention. The Convention also explicitly recognizes the rights of subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers and fish workers, as well as indigenous people in developing States Parties, particularly small island developing States Parties, and territories and possessions. The Solomon Islands’ - as a member of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency - engage closely with FFA to effectively represent their economic and cultural interests, and to build capacity to operate effectively within regional fisheries fora. For the Solomons, and other FFA members, the need to safeguard their people’s traditional rights to Pacific tuna resources is a primary objective. Medley and Powers (2015) identified ambiguity in the Convention around consistent management approaches for oceanic, territorial and archipelagic waters and a lack of criteria for allocating fishing quotas as legal issues to resolve. As part of its domestic management framework, the Solomon Islands also use strategies within their national tuna management plan to protect the interests and rights of traditional and small-scale fishers. Similarly, a national baitfish management plan has been scheduled for development for some years to improve sustainability and support customary rights for Solomon Islanders engaged in this, and the related pole and line fishery. Over the last decade there has been renewed efforts, including from Tri Marine International Pte Ltd, to both develop Solomon Islands domestic fishing capacity and further integrate this with onshore processing facilities at the port of Noro. McClean et al. (2019) note that this has helped to provide livelihood, food supply, and food security benefits to Solomon Islanders locally. The WCPFC management system outlines, and seeks to observe, the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. This approach is also formalised, through the PNA process. Solomon Islands law provides an explicit framework to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Therefore the management system meets the requirement for SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100. References

UNCLOS; UNFSA; WCPFC Convention; FFA Convention; Nauru Agreement; Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; PASAI 2013; WCPF Convention Implementation Act; Solomon Islands Fisheries Act 2015, Morgan et al. 2018, Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan 2015, MRAG Americas 2016.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 137 of 175 PI 3.1.2 The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities

Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process have management process have management process have been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are roles and responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and well explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of understood for all areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The WCPF Convention (Article 23 - Obligations of members of the Commission) details functions, roles and responsibilities of member states and the principal functional committees formed under the Commission (e.g. Scientific Committee, Technical and Compliance Committee). Commission Conservation and Management Measures also explain requirements for sharing information, meeting obligations, conservation measures, and applying appropriate levels of surveillance and enforcement. At the sub-regional level, there are extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the PNA, and FFA levels, including consultation with bilateral partners and domestic stakeholders. At the PNA and national levels, organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified, with functions, roles and responsibilities explicitly defined and well understood. This also applies for both the FFA, and for scientific processes via the SPC. At the domestic level, the Solomon Islands MFMR has set up legislated arrangements to consult with stakeholders through its Fishery Advisory Council (FAC), which provides advice to the Minister to guide decision making. These processes have been designed to both seek and accept information. Despite the fisheries act making provision for the FAC, there is no evidence that the FAC has met in recent years. Recent advice (Trimarine Ltd, pers. comm.) is that the FAC is currently being re-constituted with nominations for membership being reviewed prior to the Group being re-formed. The Solomon Islands’ peak Tuna industry consultative group, TIASI, also acts as an important conduit for information flow to industry from government and the regional management agencies, and also for fishing industry advice back to government and related agencies. TIASI representatives also attend WCPFC and other key regional meetings. The social and cultural importance of tuna to local people is well recognized in the Convention, is the essence of arrangements under the PNA, and is also a key area of focus within Solomon Islands fisheries legislation, including the Solomons Tuna Management Plan. There is ongoing use of local knowledge via contributions of WCPFC members to the range of commission processes, including plenary and subordinate committees and working groups. The WCPFC management system demonstrates consideration of this information, including explanations of the use of member scientific information in preparation of stock assessments and other scientific processes and reports. At national and international levels, the functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations involved in the management processes are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility. At the SCS Global Services Report

domestic level, key organisations and individuals involved in Solomon Islands management processes have been identified; and their functions, roles and responsibilities are clearly defined and understood across key areas, meeting SG60 and SG80.

b Consultation processes

Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek relevant information from and accept relevant and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, to knowledge. The knowledge. The inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The WCPFC formal annual meeting follows annual meetings of the formal sub-committees (SC, the TCC and the Northern Committee). There are also extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes through the PNA, FFA and other regional & international fora and at national levels. Other organisations have access to all the main management bodies as formal observers or informally. These processes seek and accept information and demonstrate consideration of the information. Scientific reports are generally very transparent with respect to the information being used, and how and why it is used, or not used. In general, information provided for other management processes such as MCS information and how this is used to inform management decision making, is less transparent. This also appears to be the case for some aspects of PNA recommendations and decision making; for example the PNA’s VDS system has been criticized for lack of transparency about how effort limits are determined and applied. This should also be considered in the operating context of such decisions. They are often part and parcel of efforts to ensure national interests – or sub-regional interests – are met in the context of WCPFC and Flag State negotiations on fishing access conditions. For consultation processes, the overarching regional and sub-regional management system regularly seeks, accepts, and considers information, including local knowledge. Solomon Islands domestic processes also operate at this level, meeting the SG 60 and SG80 levels. These processes do not always demonstrate consideration of the information across all facets of management decision making or explain how it is used or not used. Therefore, the SG100 level is not met.

c Participation

Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and interested and affected encouragement for all parties to be involved. interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? No No

This Scoring Issue considers the extent to which consultation processes ensure interested parties can participate in decision making. It is considered at the regional level (WCPFC), and sub regional and domestic levels. The WCPFC has a comprehensive governance structure that provides for Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members. It also allows observers (intergovernmental and non-government) to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the SC, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee (although they are restricted from some sections of some of these meetings). All relevant Small Island Developing States are members or participating territories and additional access and support is provided through the participation of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency. Attendance at Commission and related meetings is comprehensive, and logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance, meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management. Participation in PNA meetings is open to Nauru agreement parties, to FFA members and observers, including industry partners and NGOs, on application to the PNA Secretariat. Solomon Islands fisheries legislation and subordinate policy include arrangements to give effect to management priorities and initiatives needed as a result of WCPFC deliberations and processes, including development of new compliance and management measures. There is also active participation in Forum Fisheries Agency and PNA meetings and other processes. These opportunities are also generally available to other stakeholders including TIASI, and local and international environment NGO’s. Formal consultation and participation in management deliberations at the level of the FAC is provided for in fisheries legislation, however there is no evidence that a primary consultative group, the FAC, has met in recent years. Recent client advice suggests a new FAC is being convened. Interested parties have the opportunity and are encouraged to participate in Solomon Islands’ fisheries consultation processes. Formal arrangements are in place facilitate this engagement however some (e.g. FAC) may not operate as actively, or effectively, as envisaged under legislation. The SG 60 level is met. More information will be gathered at the site visit to determine whether progress toward addressing the open condition is sufficient.

References

WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure; Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; Morison and McLoughlin 2015, Morgan et al 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report

Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant) SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.1.3 The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Yes Yes Partial

Rationale

GSA 4.5 states that

“The emphasis of this PI is on the presence or absence of long-term objectives at the broader management level, i.e., the objectives of the management agency for all UoAs under its control. Where UoAs fall under dual control (e.g., internationally managed UoAs where management falls to both a national agency and a bilateral/multilateral agreement or organisation, or federally managed UoAs which have some provincial or state management component), the subject of PI 3.1.3 should be the wider organization”. Furthermore, GSA 4.5 also states: “This PI forms an important part of the overall understanding of the use or otherwise of a precautionary approach in the UoA but is not concerned with the operational implementation of the precautionary approach within the ‘day-to-day’ management of the UoA itself.”

The WCPF Convention provides clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. These are explicit at a range of levels, including within applicable CMMs, and management measures set out in the Palau Arrangement, the purse seine VDS and national laws and plans of FFA and PNA members including the Solomon Islands. While the precautionary approach is a stated requirement for WCPFC, the degree to which it is reflected in management action is less clear. For example, Bigeye Tuna stock assessments in 2010, 2011 and 2014 indicated fishing mortality exceeded levels at MSY. While precautionary limit reference points have since been set and CMMs updated, clear precautionary action that has sufficiently reduced exploitation levels was not evident before an updated assessment indicated that the stock was in better condition than previously thought. Banks et al. (2011) note the Nauru Agreement does not explicitly require objectives consistent with the precautionary approach. PNA members have ratified the UNFSA, which does explicitly require application of the precautionary approach. More recently, PNA members have been at the fore front of efforts to formalize more precautionary management strategies for key WCPFC tuna species through the use of both limit and target reference points. The PNA does not explicitly require objectives consistent with the precautionary approach. The Solomons Fisheries Management Act 2015 (MFMR 2015) includes a comprehensive suite of conservation, social, and cultural objectives, including application of the precautionary approach. It contains the over-arching objective of ensuring “the long-term management, conservation, development and sustainable use of Solomon Islands fisheries and marine ecosystems for the benefit of the people of Solomon Islands.” Section 5(1), of the Act makes application of the Precautionary Approach explicit in subordinate legislation and policy, such as the

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 141 of 175 actions aimed at developing both target and limit reference points as part of the Solomon’s National Tuna Fisheries Development Plan. The TMDP applies to both the purse seine and pole and line sectors whether they are fishing on the high seas, within the SI EEZ, or in Archipelagic Waters. In addition to the TMDP, explicit longer term management objectives are present in the SI BMP to guide sustainable harvesting of baitfish resources in coastal areas. The BMP also explicitly recognises the precautionary approach, and the need for ecosystem based fisheries management. Overall, there are explicit objectives incorporating the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based management that meet the MSC Fisheries Standards in WCPFC management arrangements, meeting SG 60 and SG 80. However, these objectives and the use of the precautionary approach have not always been followed within management and policy by the Commission and it has historically struggled to do so for some stocks. The development and implementation of target reference points to meet the management objectives has been slow. Evidence that the objectives are guiding decision-making is available in Commission reports however, it is unclear that they are explicit within and required by management policy. At the Solomon Islands level, the Fisheries Management Act 2015 provides clear long-term objectives, which when combined with fishery specific management plans and the principles in Section 5(1), provide for decision making consistent with MSC Fisheries Standard and the precautionary approach which is explicit and required in management policy. SG 80 is met for both the national and regional systems. SG 100 is met for the Solomon Islands but not the WCPFC. Based on partial scoring at the SG 100 level, the overall score is 90.

References

WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure; Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; Miller et al. 2014; Morison and McLoughlin 2015; Morgan et al. 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant) SCS Global Services Report

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

Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable post broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent with Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are achieving the outcomes implicit within the fishery- explicit within the fishery- expressed by MSC’s Principles specific management specific management 1 and 2, are explicit within the system. system. fishery-specific management system. Met? Yes Yes Partial

Rationale

This PI requires that the management system have specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed in MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 and seeks to establish whether these objectives are implicit, explicit and/or well defined and measurable. The management system focus remains on two levels, a broader regional level and a specific national level, as this is where detailed fisheries management arrangements of the UoA are established. The WCPFC is responsible for the overall sustainability and management of target stocks and for considering and minimizing the impact of the fishery on ecosystem components whereas the Solomon Islands must ensure that its management system is compatible with WCPFC CMMs and does not undermine any regional management arrangements. Overall, the WCPFC is responsible for the sustainability and management of target stocks at a regional level, and for considering and minimizing the impact of the fishery on ecosystem components. Within Solomon Islands Archipelagic Waters this responsibility also falls to the MFMR and is given effect by national fisheries legislation and subordinate arrangements. There are a range of WCPFC CMMs that relate directly to P1 and P2 outcomes, developed with the support of both the SC and TCC, and aiming to deliver specific conservation and/or management outcomes for WCPFC CCM’s. For example, CMM 2018-01 (the Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean) includes explicit and measurable operational objectives for all three key tuna species. CMM 2018-01 incorporates high seas purse seine effort limits and requires the establishment of limits for non-PNA Pacific Island Parties. Management objectives are also laid out in the Palau Arrangement and the VDS implementing purse seine fishing effort limits for parties. WCPFC members also report against a number of indicators, including detailed performance reporting of progress against specific WCPFC CMM’s, as part of their obligations through Part 2 Annual Country Reporting. At the domestic level, MFMR gives effect to a range of short and longer term MSC P1 and P2 fisheries management objectives through national strategies and actions. These include the Tuna Management and Development Plan applying to both purse seine and pole and line fleets, and the planned National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (NPOA Sharks). MFMR also recognises the importance of complementary management arrangements at a regional and national level, explicitly giving effect to key WCPFC CMM’s in its own domestic plans and policies. The first two goals of the Tuna Management and Development Plan “To ensure that fish stocks are maintained at sustainable levels to support profitable fisheries” and “To manage fisheries within recognised principles of the ecosystem approach to fisheries,” the

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 143 of 175 Expected Results and the Objectives and Strategies to support Goals and Strategies, provide well defined measurable short and long-term objectives to manage the fishery. Based on the above SG 100 is met for the Solomon Islands.

For baitfish species taken as live-bait for use in pole and line fishing, the Solomons MFMR has developed a Baitfish Management Plan32, largely in recognition that sustainable operation of the pole and line fishery is depended on the sustainable management of the baitfish fishery. MFMR note that the baitfish management plan will set out the strategic direction for a sustainable bait fishery in a manner consistent with Marine Stewardship Council certification standards. WCPFC short and long-term objectives are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements and this is consistent with other current MSC assessments of the yellowfin and skipjack tuna fisheries. However, it is unclear how well defined and measurable these objectives are, particularly in relation to Principle 2 (Sieben et al. 2019). As such SG 100 is not met.

A partial score of 90 is therefore awarded.

References

WCPF Convention; WCPFC CMMs; Palau Arrangement; National plans; Banks et al. 2011; Scott and Stokes 2013; PASAI 2013; MFMR 2015; Morison and McLoughlin 2015; Morgan et al. 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

32 See: https://www.fisheries.gov.sb/management-plans SCS Global Services Report

PI 3.2.2 The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes

Rationale

At the WCPFC level, decision-making processes are open, seek to apply the precautionary approach and use the best available information and are well documented. Consensus is the general rule for decision-making by Commission Members during the annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached; voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation, and review, are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. The decision-making processes, including development of CMM’s, are operationalised through the processes of the Scientific Committee, the Technical and Compliance Committee and the Commission itself. As an operational level example, WCPFC’s 2018 Annual Summary Report for the Technical and Compliance Committee provides an update on working group (FAD IWG) progress to develop Draft Guidelines for Biodegradable and Non-entangling FADs. Draft guidelines from SC14 (2018) were presented to the FAD-IWG along with additional information from SPC. A report and further recommendations are expected to be tabled at WCPFC15 (WCPFC TCC Annual Summary Report, 2018). Most recently ISSF, working collaboratively with WCPFC and its sub-committees, have released a Guide to Non-entangling and Biodegradable FADs33, providing detailed guidance on constructing biodegradable FAD rafts and tails. The ISSF note that the FAD related research projects associated with these initiatives have initiated large-scale deployments of more than 2,000 biodegradable FADs in the Indian and Eastern Pacific Oceans to test different materials and constructions. More generally, information used to inform decision making is published via WCPFC and related processes, although some details are not readily available. Conservation and Management Measures are binding, but WCPFC Resolutions are non-binding, with all management measures applying equally inside EEZ’s and on the high seas. PNA also has well-established decision-making processes which have resulted in measures and strategies contributing to, and in important respects, underpinning effective management of the WCPO purse seine fisheries. PASAI (2013) reports that for most PIP jurisdictions examined, decision making is aided through the use of SPC/WCPFC reports. Domestically, The Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan provides clear policy guidance and consistent direction across the range of Solomon Islands’ tuna fisheries. It covers waters from 3 nautical miles (NM) out to the 200NM Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), including archipelagic waters. The TMDP does not apply

33 The ISSF guide is available at: https://iss-foundation.org/knowledge-tools/guides-best-practices/non-entangling-fads/download-info/non- entangling-and-biodegradable-fads-guide/

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 145 of 175 directly to waters inside 3NM as these are managed by villages and provincial level officials (through customary ownership rights). Development of management measures and strategies to achieve fishery-specific objectives are established, as are those related to data collection and review, including stock assessment processes. Therefore, both SG 60 and SG 80 are met. Domestic, regional and national decision-making processes are in place that result in measures and strategies to achieve objectives, meeting both SG 60 and SG 80. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes post respond to serious issues respond to serious and other respond to all issues identified in relevant important issues identified in identified in relevant research, monitoring, relevant research, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, monitoring, evaluation and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and consultation, in a in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

As outlined above, WCPFC decision-making processes allow consideration of serious and important issues through inter-sessional scientific and MCS working groups and committees (e.g. the SC and TCC) and annually at the Commission meeting. A recent example is CMM 2018-01 providing for a transitional management regime (pending development of a formal harvest strategy) that ensures the sustainability of bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Deliberations and advice/decisions from the working groups and Commission are relatively transparent with the rationales explained in working group reports tabled to the annual meeting. Summary details are generally provided in annual MCS summary reports, and in summary level country reports for members. Specific details about timeliness of decision-making are less obvious, however the WCPFC decision-making framework has generally delivered targeted CMMs and strategies to address sustainability issues and specific objectives in the purse seine fishery relatively promptly in an RFMO context. The PNA has established effective decision-making processes which respond to issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation. All PNA members have tuna management plans that are applied at the national level. The PNA management system is underpinned by a fishery information system, the Fisheries Information Management System (FIMS) which provides ready access to timely data. PNA members make use of the services provided by both SPC and FFA to identify and respond to important issues. At the domestic level, the Solomon Islands Fisheries Management Act 2015, in addition to requiring the implementation of WCPFC CMMs, specifically requires under Section 5 (c) that “management measures shall be based on the best scientific evidence available to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors including fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and relevant international standards; “and in section 5 (h) that, “complete and accurate data and information concerning fishing activities and fisheries resources shall be collected and, as appropriate, shared in a timely manner.” It is less clear how effective these arrangements are at the domestic level independent of scheduled and well- structured PNA and WCPFC arrangements. Specifically, the level of broader stakeholder consultation and the timeliness of input to local and regional serious and other important issues is unclear. For example, the primary higher-level consultative group, the FAC, has not met since October 2014. There have been bilateral meetings between MFMR and the four companies operating in the UoA (they meet annually to discuss management SCS Global Services Report

arrangements and their annual MoU’s and licence conditions), and also between MFMR and the TIASI. However, no evidence was provided that these meetings deal specifically with relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. The MFMR deals with important issues through subordinate plans of action and fishery management plans, with tuna management, IUU, sharks, and baitfish recognised as important management issues. Both the TMDP and the Baitfish Management Plan reflect contemporary management approaches, including clear measurable objectives, and an appropriate level of transparency. Commitments have also been made to complete a NPOA Sharks however this is not yet complete. As such, SG 60 is met, however SG 80 and SG100 are not.

c Use of precautionary approach

Guide Decision-making processes post use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Yes

Rationale

Assessment of this Scoring Issue is focused on management decisions and the management approach both at the WCPFC and sub regional level; and domestically. WCPFC processes result in development and implementation of CMM’s and the PNA and Flag States give effect to implementation and manage this. The WCPFC Convention, in recognition of UNFSA requirements, requires that Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members of the Commission, directly and through the Commission, apply the precautionary approach. WCPFC decisions are also required to be based on the best scientific information available per the WCPF Convention text. The Commission through its annual meetings and inter-sessional processes, supports this objective. For the PNA, Banks et al. (2011) concluded in the initial MSC assessment that the best available information is used for decision- making, albeit with a lack of clarity in the links between decisions on the VDS and WCPFC scientific and stock assessment processes. An MSC assessment condition was then set in relation to this issue. The 2nd surveillance audit for the PNA fishery (Scott & Stokes, 2013) examined progress against this condition and concluded that the Client Action Plan had sufficiently addressed this shortcoming and that SG 80 requirements are met for that fishery (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017). Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2017) indicate that the PNA process, both within their own systems as well as the conditions set by the previous MSC certification, has been responsive to these opportunities and has evolved positively. Analysis of the inter-play between PNA and WCPFC processes and decisions also supports this conclusion (Miller et al. 2014). While the precautionary approach has not been explicitly adopted by the PNA, member commitments to the WCPFC demonstrate an implicit commitment to the precautionary approach in management of the purse seine fishery. Recognition of the need for a precautionary approach is made explicit as part of the Solomon Islands over-arching National Fisheries Policy 2019-2029 (strategic policy objective 2. for offshore fisheries). Adoption of the precautionary approach is also explicit in both the TMDP, and the related Baitfish Management Plan. At the regional, sub-regional and domestic level, there is evidence that decision making uses the precautionary approach and the best available information, meeting the SG80 level.

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guide Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive available on request, and information on the fishery’s

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 147 of 175 generally available on explanations are provided performance and request to stakeholders. for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes No No

Rationale

Regionally, the WCPFC is responsible for effective management and acts as the primary fisheries management “decision making” entity on behalf of members and co-operating non-members. Papers and reports from WCPFC plenary sessions, the SC and the TCC are also published formally, and are publicly available on the Commission’s website. These papers and reports provide a generally high level of transparency, demonstrating the development of positions on conservation and management issues; and showing how stakeholder contributions including scientific and other information are used to inform management actions. For example, these processes contribute to the development of various Commission CMM’s, which are implemented at the national level and monitored for effectiveness via WCPFC processes. Members’ progress, and major issues in relation to these measures, are evaluated and reported annually via the Part 1 Annual Country Reports to the Commission. These Part 1 country reports provide information on fisheries, research and statistics during the preceding calendar year. Part 2 reports are also provided each year summarising management and compliance issues and performance since the previous report; although these are not publicly available. It is not clear if these reports represent all of the relevant information used to inform decision-making. There is also no formal, detailed explanation linking the information provided to any decisions that results. In an international context it is recognized that it is very difficult to give full explanations for all decisions, since this might undermine matters of national interest for members, and/or multi-lateral co-operation. Decisions are very often negotiated outcomes with the trade-offs not always apparent. At the domestic level, the Solomons MFMR makes some information available during development of policies, management plans and subordinate legislation. There are established stakeholder consultation processes and evidence that these are used in the development of policies and positions taken to regional and sub-regional meetings. At the higher level this is a key role of the Fishery Advisory Council, and TIASI for industry related advice. Although the FAC has not convened for some years, it is being re-established; and earlier processes indicate that minutes of FAC meetings, providing details and the rationale for recommendations were available on request. MRAG (2016) note that its MSC assessment team for the original Solomons Purse Seine and Pole and Line assessment did not receive evidence that FAC and related ministerial correspondence relating to decision making was publicly available. Therefore, at the regional level (WCPFC) there is a relatively high level of transparency for decision making, and reasons for decisions are more readily available, meeting SG80. At the sub-regional (PNA) and domestic level, there is less consistent transparency in some areas; and in the case of the key consultative body, the FAC, little recent evidence of transparent decision making. This meets the SG60 level, requiring a Condition. e Approach to disputes

Guide Although the management The management system or The management system or post authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not rapidly implements judicial SCS Global Services Report

indicating a disrespect or with judicial decisions arising decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by from any legal challenges. challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The WCPFC management and decision-making process is collaborative, serving to develop and implement management arrangements, and monitor member compliance. WCPFC Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members are party to all decisions at the WCPFC through ongoing participation in the SC, the TCC, and WCPFC annual meetings. Disputes/disagreements are typically resolved either during the iterative development of new management measures, including CMM’s, or for more formal matters via negotiation at WCPFC annual meetings. The Commission has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. As established in 3.1.1 b. the WCPFC dispute resolution mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. Essentially, this Article implements the dispute settlement arrangements established in the UNFSA/UNCLOS and binds all WCPFC Members to those arrangements whether or not they are Parties to the UNFSA. At the national level the Solomon Islands government has established a Fisheries Appeals Committee through the Fisheries Management Act 2015. The appeals committee is established to review decisions on licensing and any substantive decision of the MFMR Director taken in the performance or exercise of his or her functions, powers and duties under the Act. There no evidence readily available about current circumstances or cases to illustrate the extent to which the fishery and/or management systems could or would respond, in a timely way, to outcomes of a legal dispute. Therefore, and in the absence of actual disputes, the WCPFC and national level dispute response process is assessed as meeting SG 60 and SG80 requirements.

References

Banks et al. 2011, Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017, Medley & Powers 2015, Miller et al. 2014, Scott & Stokes 2013, WCPF Convention, Morison and McLoughlin 2015; Morgan et al. 2018

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range 60-79

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

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

Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has been monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented implemented in the fishery surveillance system has been in the fishery and there is a and has demonstrated an implemented in the fishery reasonable expectation that ability to enforce relevant and has demonstrated a they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to enforce strategies and/or rules. relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? PS: Yes PS: No PS: No P&L: Yes P&L: Yes P&L: No Rationale

MCS arrangements considered for this Scoring Issue have been assessed at the regional (WCPFC); sub-regional (PNA/FFA), and Solomon Islands national level. Whilst WCPFC develop and implement management and MCS measures, it is up to the PNA (at the sub regional level) and Flag States to ensure these are operationalised (often via WCPFC CMM’s) and enforced through national and fleet level processes. At the regional level there is a well-developed MCS system that generally results in effective compliance with management arrangements. The basis of this system for the WCPFC is its Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS). The CMS is a contemporary, integrated framework to ensure that Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) implement and comply with obligations arising under the Convention, as well as CMMs adopted by the Commission. The CMS is designed to: (i) assess CCMs’ compliance with their obligations; (ii) identify areas in which technical assistance or capacity building may be needed to assist CCMs to attain compliance; (iii) identify aspects of conservation and management measures which may require refinement or amendment for effective implementation; (iv) respond to non-compliance through remedial options that include a range of possible responses that take account of the reason for and degree of non-compliance, and include cooperative capacity-building initiatives and, in case of serious non-compliance, such penalties and other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to promote compliance with CMMs and other Commission obligations; and (v) monitor and resolve outstanding instances of non-compliance. It covers requirements relating to: (i) catch and effort limits for target species; (ii) catch and effort reporting for target species; (iii) reporting including with respect to implementation of measures for non-target species; (iv) spatial and temporal closures, and restrictions on the use of fish aggregating devices; SCS Global Services Report

(v) authorizations to fish and the Record of Fishing Vessels, observer, VMS coverage, transhipment and the High Seas Boarding and Inspection Scheme; (vi) provision of scientific data through the Part 1 Annual Report (and its addendum) and the Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission; and; (vii) submission of the Part 2 Annual Report, including compliance with the obligations in paragraph 36, and compliance with other Commission reporting deadlines. WCPFC members are required to submit annual TCC reports reflecting the status of fishery compliance in the WCPFC and these publicly identify member compliance (or non- compliance). The WCPFC also maintains an IUU vessel list which currently lists three vessels, one of which, the Yu Fong 168, is flagged to Chinese Taipei. In a note to the WCPFC IUU Vessel list for 2017, Chinese Taipei confirmed that with respect to Yu Fong 168, the license was revoked in 2009 and the owner of the vessel has been penalized through repeated monetary punishment for violating the rules of not returning to port. The WCPFC’s Regional Observer Program plays an important part in the MCS system with a target of 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels. Observers provide a suite of important MCS information, including information about the implementation of CMMs relating to both target and by-catch species. There is ongoing uncertainty about actual coverage rates. As the assessment team understands, the fishery does not deploy drifting FADs but will opportunistically fish on drifting FADs that enter the fishing area. The vessels themselves do not own the FADs, and therefore, any subsequent habitat impacts (e.g. coral beaching) or ghost fishing impacts are not the fault of the vessel. However, the Solomon Islands purse seine licensing conditions stipulate that ‘vessels’ shall not be used to: a) fish within five nautical miles of any deployed FAD, except those deployed by the vessel or the company that operates the vessel.’ It is unclear to the assessment team whether the fishery is in contravention of Solomon Islands legislation, as the fishery is fishing on drifting FADs that were not deployed by the vessel or the fishing company (i.e. NFD or Tri Marine) that operates the vessel. Thus, the team considers at this stage that the MCS system has not been implemented in the fishery and nor demonstrate an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. At the sub-regional level (PNA/FFA), the FFA is the main service organisation providing MCS support for the coastal States in the WCPO. The arrangements are comprehensive and include a regional MCS strategy endorsed by Forum Fisheries Committee Ministers, (covers regional operations and cooperation), a regionally agreed benchmark level of observer coverage and at-sea and in-port inspections. The FFA Surveillance Centre (RFSC) undertakes regional coordination of MCS activity and assesses the risk of non-compliance by vessels. The RFSC monitors fishing vessel activity using a combination of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). MCS arrangements are also supported by the QUAD Operational Working Group. This group comprises the aerial and naval arms of Australia, France, New Zealand and the USA who provide aerial and surface assets to assist regional surveillance. The Nauru Agreement and Te Vaka Moana Arrangement (a sub-regional arrangement between the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau and Tonga) also promote regional cooperation between parties on MCS activities. All WCPFC members are also required to submit annual Part 1 Country Reports to the Scientific Committee of the WCPFC detailing activities related to fisheries management and related obligations and performance against WCPFC CMM’s. These reports are publicly available via the WCPFC website. Currently the Solomon Islands do not have authorised inspection vessels listed on the WCPFC High Seas Boarding and Inspection Register. Regional (WCPFC and FFA) MCS systems includes harmonized Terms and Conditions of Access, a regional VMS system, Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels and a range of regional MCS cooperation programmes, including the Niue Treaty (a multilateral treaty of members of the FFA to enhance their ability to enforce effectively their fisheries laws, and deter breaches). An important part of the overall compliance system at the sub-regional level is the transferable effort management system (VDS) implemented by PNA. While this only

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 151 of 175 applies to about 60% of the fleet (PNA vessels) Blyth-Skyrme et al (2017) suggest it has proven to be effective at this scale. At the national level, the Solomon Islands maintain contemporary legislative frameworks that complement and work to uphold both domestic and regional fisheries objectives. This includes multi-lateral subsidiary agreements such as the Niue Agreement. The Solomons Tuna Management Plan includes explicit objectives and performance indicators to enable implementation of effective and efficient tuna fishery management for both offshore and inshore waters. The TMP includes a suite of MCS focussed objectives and activities that are designed to complement the sub-regional and regional processes and objectives. For example, domestic arrangements include licensing, vessel identification, the application of catch limits, data requirements, VMS, bans on transhipment at sea, the carriage of observers, and descriptions of permitted fishing gears. The above information demonstrates that monitoring, control and surveillance systems in place regionally, sub- regionally and domestically have generally demonstrated an ability to enforce management measures, strategies and/or rules. The exception here is the requirements in the Solomon Islands prohibiting setting upon FADs that were not deployed by the vessel/company, though as the assessment team understands, sets are made on drifting FADs deployed by vessels from outside the Solomon Islands which drift into the geographic area. Thus, the team considers at this stage that the MCS system has not been implemented in the fishery nor does it demonstrate an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules for these FAD related measures. SG80 for 3.2.2a is not met. For the pole-and-line fishery, as no FAD fishing occurs, SG60 and SG80 levels are met more generally for the management system across the WCPFC, and the PNA/FFA.

None are considered to achieve SG100 because the MCS measures have not consistently demonstrated their effectiveness across the full range of management measures and issues (e.g. not for recently introduced FAD management measures). b Sanctions

Guide Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- post compliance exist and there is compliance exist, are compliance exist, are some evidence that they are consistently applied and consistently applied and applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The WCPFC Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS), and its Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) manage compliance issues based on available information on infringements from observers and other sources. These discussions are held in closed session. Responses to infringements are considered at the TCC and reported to the Commission in the Compliance Monitoring Summary Report. This report provides a reporting matrix describing compliance with CMMs by CCM. Additional detail on the compliance status of each flag State has been added in recent years. The annual compliance summary report still does not provide information on outcomes of investigations into non-compliance, nor specific cases. This makes it difficult to judge whether non- compliance is dealt with consistently (Morgan et al. 2018) or deterred appropriately. Although not a direct sanctioning tool, the CMS provides information on non-compliance, and may provide some deterrence in so far as Flag States would not wish to be rated non-compliant or priority non-compliance over time. The only other significant tool directly available to the WCPFC is the IUU Vessel list, which is aimed at vessels presumed to have carried out IUU fishing. Where IUU fishing is detected, flag States are notified and asked to take appropriate enforcement action, including ensuring that the vessel leaves the Convention area. At SCS Global Services Report

December 2019, there are three vessels on the IUU Vessel list, and this sanction appears to be consistently applied and provide effective deterrence in relation to proven IUU fishing.34 At the domestic level, the Solomon Islands Fisheries Management Act provides for a range of sanctions for various infringements. Trumble and Stocker (2016) suggest this framework is generally effective although there is little evidence of formal violations and sanctions being applied. The framework is also supported by a system of administrative penalties, and provisions for pre-court settlements. The Solomon Islands also reserves the right to prosecute fisheries-related offences through criminal proceedings. Fisheries-related offences can include forfeiture of fish, vessels, imprisonment and suspension of the license. An IUU vessel may also be put on the WCPFC IUU list, or “black-listed” on the FFA VOGS Register which would deny it the ability to be licensed to fish in any FFA member State EEZ.

MFMR provided the following information in relation to recent offences: Summary table of fishery infringements within the Solomon Islands EEZ from 2014 – 2018.

Date Gear Nature of offence MFMR action Penalty Type March 2016 LL Breach of Licence Vessel detained SBD $2.5m Conditions and released upon payment of fine 23 January 2017 LL Breaching section 49 Vessel detained SBD $ 1.0m (2) (a) and (b) of SI and released FMA 2015 after payment of fine 6 February 2017 PS Breach 2016 License Vessel detained SBD $ 1.0m conditions 8 for and released Purse Seine vessels after fine operating in SI payment waters which contravene section 49(2) (a) (b) of the FMA 2015 14 August 2018 LL Non- compliance Vessel detained SBD $ with license for investigation 100,000 conditions Source MFMR

The infringement cases in the Table were all handled via administrative proceedings. The Summary Administrative Proceedings provisions are contained in Section 116 and 117 of the Fisheries Management Act 2015. The Administrative processes involves the Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution and the Attorney General’s Office. This process can only proceed where the Company or Vessel admit to the offence or infringement and agreed to have the matter dealt with via these provisions.

Therefore, at a regional and domestic level, MCS arrangements, including available sanctions, provide generally effective compliance with management requirements and SG60 and SG80 are met. Information such as

34 https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/WCPFC-TCC8-2012-10-Analysis-IUU-listing-procedures-tRFMOs.pdf

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 153 of 175 enforcement effort and violations detected is not readily available to support judgements about effective deterrence, thus SG100 is not met. c Compliance

Guide Fishers are generally thought Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

WCPFC Members are bound to implement all WCPFC CMMs. Any detected non-compliance with these arrangements is reported in National Part 2 Country Reports and annually assessed by the TCC. CCMs performance in this regard is reported in the Compliance Monitoring Report and available to the Commission. A review of the 2019 CMR for activities during 2018 indicates non-compliance with CMMs by some flags and vessels; including one low level reporting deadline infringement by a Solomon Islands vessel. Overall, fishers comply with the management system, including providing necessary supporting information. The WCPFC has a comprehensive MCS system in place supported by at-sea compliance monitoring and very high levels of coverage by trained scientific observers. This is recognised as contributing to generally strong compliance outcomes and improving the quality of both catch and effort and ecosystem related data collection. The MCS system also requires that logbook and other data be supplied as part of licence requirements. Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2017) note good levels of compliance by fishers in the PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin, un-associated / non-FAD set, tuna purse seine fishery (PNAFTF); although solid evidence to support this observation, without intensive surveillance, is difficult to obtain. The TCC reports, observer reports, logbook and other data requirements and regional MCS operations coordinated by FFA, provide reliable evidence that there is compliance with the management system. For example, in August 2017, Operation Island Chief ran as a ten-day operation involving 10 participating FFA member nations - Fiji, FSM, Kiribati, Palau, PNG, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. 117 at sea and in-port vessel boardings were undertaken with infringements involving four vessels (three flagged to China and one to Chinese Taipei) were detected. The infringements involved non-reporting or misreporting of information and are reported as such in the annual WCPFC Compliance Summary. Logbook data are supplied as part of licence requirements; with VMS and observer reports providing additional evidence of general compliance with the management system. MRAG (2016) notes that there are no records of fishery violations for the Solomon Islands fleet suggesting strong compliance performance, and meeting SG 60 and SG80 levels. At the SG100 level, it cannot be said that there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with all aspects of the management system. Therefore, SG100 is not met. d Systematic non-compliance

Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non-compliance. Met? Yes

Rationale SCS Global Services Report

Pacific Island Nations, like the Solomon Islands, have a particular interest in protecting their fisheries resources and ensuring long term sustainable benefits. The information presented above and throughout PI 3.2.3 suggests no evidence of systematic non-compliance. There is one minor data reporting infringement by the Solomon Islands in the most recent WCPFC compliance summary. It is noted that even in well-managed domestic fisheries, with effective MCS systems in place, some non- compliance will occur. For example, the TCC 12 CMR report to the Commission in December 2016 identifies that non-compliance occurs and that the range of offences varies from minor (such as late submissions of reports), to more serious issues, such as not complying with the conditions of FAD closures or unauthorized fishing. Overall, there does not appear to be evidence of systematic non-compliance at either the regional or national level and as such SG 80 is met.

References

Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; FFA Strategic MCS Plan (2010); WCPFC 2014a; WCPFC TCC minutes; NOAA 2013; Niue Treaty (see: https://www.ffa.int/system/files/Niue%20Treaty_0.pdf); MRAG America, 2016; Morison and McLoughlin 2015; Morgan et al. 2018; WCPFC16-2019-Final Compliance Monitoring Summary Report.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range PS: 60-79 P&L: >80 Information gap indicator Information regarding the license condition requirements in the Solomon Islands in relation to setting upon FADs not deployed by the company/vessel

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 155 of 175 PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation

PI 3.2.4 There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Evaluation coverage

Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some parts place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system. management system. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Rationale

The WCPFC fishery-specific management system has been developed to effectively pursue ecological sustainability for both target stocks and the broader marine environment of the fishery. There are well developed arrangements to do this; including operation of two key committees, the Scientific Committee, and the Technical and Compliance Committee. Both committees have key roles in monitoring and evaluating key parts of the fishery-specific management system, and are comprised of representatives from CCMs, technical advisors/experts and observers (both IGO and NGO). An Intersessional FAD Management Options Working Group also develops and evaluates FAD management measures for the FAD fishery. Key Scientific Committee functions are to: (i) recommend a research plan; (ii) review the assessments, analyses, other work and recommendations prepared for the Commission by the scientific experts; (iii) review the results of research and analyses of target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species in the Convention Area; (iv) report to the Commission its findings or conclusions on the status of target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species in the Convention Area; (v) in consultation with the Technical and Compliance Committee, recommend to the Commission the priorities and objectives of the regional observer programme and assess the results of that programme; (vi) make reports and recommendations on the conservation and management of and research on target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species in the Convention Area. The TCC’s functions are to: (i) provide the Commission with information, technical advice and recommendations relating to the implementation of, and compliance with, conservation and management measures; (ii) monitor and review compliance with conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission and make such recommendations to the Commission as may be necessary; and (iii) review the implementation of cooperative measures for monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement adopted by the Commission and make such recommendations to the Commission as may be necessary. At the sub-regional level, the PNA VDS is overseen and regularly reviewed internally by a VDS Committee. Further oversight and performance evaluation are provided by the FFA. There have also been a series of internal and a comprehensive external review of other key parts of the PNA processes (Banks et al. 2011, PNA 2015, SCS Global Services Report

Hagrannsoknir, 2014). The Solomon Islands national tuna management plan also contains specific objectives and measures to ensure that performance of national tuna fishery management arrangements, including both purse seine and pole and line sectors in all waters, are monitored, and regularly evaluated. For the baitfish fishery, the BMP (Section 8.9) requires performance evaluation against the Plan’s objectives; and regular review; including stakeholder consultation. For both the TMDP, and the BMP, the extent to which these evaluation commitments have been fulfilled is unclear. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met at all levels as there are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system. SG100 is not met as it is not clear that these arrangements cover all parts of the fishery-specific management system, or if they are being consistently implemented.

b Internal and/or external review

Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional internal subject to regular internal subject to regular internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Yes Yes No

Rationale

The focus of this Scoring Issue remains the WCPFC however Flag State capabilities for effective internal and/or external review of their national fisheries management arrangements are also considered. As described previously, the WCPFC has well developed arrangements for the regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system by virtue of the two committees established by the Convention – the Scientific Committee and the Technical and Compliance Committee. The WCPFC has commissioned one independent review of its performance, delivered in February 2012. This is consistent with the approach adopted by other RFMOs and recommended by the Kobe process. The Review Team comprised four external experts (Dr. Denzil Miller, Dr. Fábio Hazin, Mr. Ichiro Nomura and Dr. Judith Swann), and three Commission members from the European Union (Mr. John Spencer), Nauru (Hon. Min. Rolland Kun), and the Philippines (Mr. Malcolm Sarmiento). The panel composition reflected the Commission decision that the review team should include independent experts and Commission members, including SIDS representation. An independent review (MRAG, 2009) has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the SC, the adoption of a peer review process and a number of other changes to the data and science functions. The WCPFC fishery-specific management system is also regularly evaluated via internal SC and TCC deliberations. There has been one external performance review of the WCPFC and a separate review of the science structure and functions. For the Solomon Islands, the Office of the Auditor General conducted a performance audit of the MFMR in 2012 entitled “Managing Sustainable Fisheries (Tuna Fishery) in Solomon Islands Fisheries Exclusive Economic Zone” (OAG 2012). The objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the management of offshore fisheries (the tuna fishery) by Solomon Islands fisheries authorities in accordance with national fisheries policies and framework. The Audit found some deficiencies in arrangements at that time. In December 2014 following a review of Solomon Islands management arrangements, the European Commission issued a warning (a yellow card) under the European Union IUU regulations. The objective of the EU IUU Regulation is to prevent, deter and eliminate trade of fisheries products originating from IUU fishing activity and stop their access to the EU markets. Under the Regulations, non-EU countries are ‘carded’ by the EU when they fail to fight IUU fishing. A yellow card acts as a warning for the country that they need to improve their management and enforcement and compliance. Since then, the Solomon Islands has embarked on a series of reforms to bring its fisheries legal and administrative frameworks fully into line with international law and is now well equipped to tackle these threats

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 157 of 175 effectively. Working closely with the European Commission, they have strengthened their sanctioning system, and have improved monitoring and control of their fleets. The “yellow card” was lifted in February 2017. Overall, considering regional and national arrangements, including the performance management aspects of the Tuna Management and Development Plan for both purse seine and pole and line fisheries, there is evidence to suggest that the overall management system is subject to regular internal and occasional external review. As such SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met. However, the management system is not subject to regular internal and external review, thus SG 100 is not met.

References

Hagrannsoknir, 2014; PNA, 2015; Solomon Islands Government, 2012; Morgan et al. 2018; MFMR, 2015.

Draft scoring range and information gap indicator added at Announcement Comment Draft Report Draft scoring range ≥80

Information gap indicator Information sufficient to score PI

Overall Performance Indicator scores added from Client and Peer Review Draft Report Overall Performance Indicator score

Condition number (if relevant)

SCS Global Services Report

8 Appendices

8.1 Assessment information

8.1.1 Previous assessments

This fishery was initially certified on July 12, 2016 under the Fisheries Standard v1.3.35This is the first reassessment of the fishery. Both the purse seine and pole-and-line fishery were subject to 5 conditions, 4 on P1 and one condition on decision-making in the Solomon Islands. The four P1 conditions remain open into the re-assessment of the fishery, and were subject to Principle 1 harmonization of timelines across all MSC tuna fisheries targeting the same stock. The conditions are expected to close in 2022 following the implementation of harvest strategies and harvest control rules for both Yellowfin and Skipjack at the WCPFC 2021 Annual Meeting. This timeline aligns with the WCPFC 2017 workplan.

The decision-making condition was closed in 2017 in the first annual surveillance audit. Two conditions were opened in the 3rd surveillance audit related to decision-making and consultation. These conditions were harmonized with the MSC certified Solomon Islands longline fishery.

35 More information on the fishery’s initial assessment and subsequent surveillance audits can be found here: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/solomon-islands-skipjack-and-yellowfin-tuna-purse-seine-and-pole-and- line/@@view

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 159 of 175 Table 30. Summary of previous assessment conditions

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed

Skipjack 1.2.1a 2022 Condition timeline aligned with all other P1 tuna fisheries. Based on 2017 harvest WCPFC workplan. Progress on condition based on outcome of 2021 strategy WCPFC Annual Meeting.

Skipjack 1.2.2 2022 Condition timeline aligned with all other P1 tuna fisheries. Based on 2017 harvest control a, b, c WCPFC workplan. Progress on condition based on outcome of 2021 rule WCPFC Annual Meeting.

Yellowfin 1.2.1a 2022 Condition timeline aligned with all other P1 tuna fisheries. Based on 2017 harvest WCPFC workplan. Progress on condition based on outcome of 2021 strategy WCPFC Annual Meeting.

Yellowfin 1.2.2 2022 Condition timeline aligned with all other P1 tuna fisheries. Based on 2017 harvest control a, b, c WCPFC workplan. Progress on condition based on outcome of 2021 rule WCPFC Annual Meeting.

Decision 3.2.2d Closed A letter from MFMR was sent to audit team. Deemed sufficient to making 2017 demonstrate that MFMR provides explanations for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity are made available on request to interested stakeholders.

Consultation 3.2.1 Opened Condition opened to harmonize with the Solomon Islands longline PCR in 2019

Decision 3.2.2 b Opened Condition opened to harmonize with the Solomon Islands longline PCR making & d in 2019

8.1.2 Small-scale fisheries This fishery is not a small scale fishery.

8.2 Evaluation processes and techniques

8.2.1 Site visits Information will be included at the client and peer review draft report stage.

SCS Global Services Report

8.2.3 Evaluation techniques

Documentation and Information Gathering

One of the most critical aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team gets a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest fishery, the assessment team typically needs documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures.

Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location.

Scoring and Report Development Process

ACDR: The Announcement Comment Draft Report was completed in May 2020.. The client decided to continue with the full assessment.

Scoring Methodology

The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCP v2.2 Section 7.10 “Scoring the fishery”. Scoring in the MSC system occurs via an Analytical Hierarchy Process and uses decision rules and weighted averages to produce Principle Level scores. There are 28 Performance Indicators (PIs), each with one or more Scoring Issues (SIs). Each of the scoring issues is considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels. The decision rule described in Table 33determines the Performance Indicator score, which must always be in an increment of 5. If there are multiple ‘elements36’ under consideration (e.g. multiple main primary species), each element is scored individually for each relevant PI, then a single PI score is generated using the same set of decision rules described in Table 33.

36 MSC FCPV2.1 7.10.7: In Principle 1 or 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the UoA.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 161 of 175 Table 33. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCPV2.2 Table 4) Score Combination of individual SIs at the PI level, and/or combining multiple element PI scores into a single PI score. <60 Any scoring element/SI within a PI which fails to reach SG60 shall not be assigned a score as this is a pre-condition to certification. 60 All elements (as scored at the PI level) or SIs meet SG60 and only SG60. 65 All elements/SIs meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do not meet SG80. 70 All elements/SIs meet SG60; half* achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there. 75 All elements/SIs meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. 80 All elements/SIs meet SG80, and only SG80. 85 All elements/SIs meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. 90 All elements/SIs meet SG80; half achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not. 95 All elements/SIs meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few fail to achieve SG100. 100 All elements/SIs meet SG100. *MSC FCPV2.2 uses the word ‘some’ instead of half. SCS considers ‘half’ a clearer description of the methodology utilized.

SCS Global Services Report

8.3 Peer Review reports To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 163 of 175 8.4 Stakeholder input To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

SCS Global Services Report

8.5 Conditions

8.5.1 Summary of conditions closed under previous certificate Only one condition was closed during the initial certificate cycle, all others remain open going into the 4th surveillance audit. Justification for closing PI PI revised Performance Condition original score Indicator (PI) score (Year revised) MRAG, 2017: ‘Subsequent to the publication of the PCDR, MRAG Americas received from Dr Christian Ramofafia, Permanent Secretary of the MFMR, a letter explaining the procedures for making public the decisions By the third surveillance, the of the MFMR, in support of closing fishery client shall demonstrate Condition 5. As the letter arrived after the that documented PCDR, MRAG Americas chose not to make explanations provided for any changes to the Final Report and actions or lack of action Determination, such that the evaluation of associated with findings and 80 3.2.2 the letter and its supporting material 75 relevant recommendations (2017) would occur during surveillance. The emerging from research, explanation with supporting material monitoring, evaluation and demonstrates that MFMR provides review activity are made explanations for any actions or lack of available on request to action associated with findings and interested stakeholders. relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity are made available on request to interested stakeholders. See Appendix 1.2 for details. This PI was rescored to SG80.’

8.5.2 Open Conditions at reassessment announcement Conditions that are open at the reassessment announcement are described in Table 35.

Table 35. Summary of conditions open at time of reassessment announcement

PI Condition Performance Status for Open Overview of condition and Condition original number Indicator (PI) conditions expected closure year score By the fourth year, the Condition closure fishery client shall dependent on WCPFC 1 1.2.1 Skipjack On target 70 demonstrate that harvest following timeline/actions strategy is responsive to the in 2017 Work Plan.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 165 of 175 state of the stock and the Condition to be closed in elements of the harvest 2022—based on WCPFC strategy work together 2021 Annual Meeting towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. By the fourth year, the fishery client shall demonstrate that well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached; that See explanation for 1.2.1 2 1.2.2 Skipjack On target 60 the selection of the harvest Skipjack control rules takes into account the main uncertainties; and that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. By the fourth year, the fishery client shall demonstrate that harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the 1.2.1 See explanation for 1.2.1 3 elements of the harvest On target 70 Yellowfin Skipjack strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. By the fourth year, the fishery client shall demonstrate that well defined harvest control rules are in place that are consistent with the harvest 1.2.2 See explanation for 1.2.1 4 strategy and ensure that On target 60 Yellowfin Skipjack the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached; that the selection of the harvest control rules takes into account the main SCS Global Services Report

uncertainties; and that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. By the second surveillance audit of the reassessment, provide evidence that the Expected to close in 202437 management system includes consultation Client to work with MFMR processes that regularly to ensure regular PI 3.1.2 seek and accept relevant Opened 2019 consultations being held, 6 Management 75 information from a range of On target producing information from system sources, including local a range of sources which is knowledge. Additionally, being considered by the the national management management system at the system demonstrates national/regional levels. consideration of the information obtained. SI b) By the second Expected to close 2024 surveillance audit of the

reassessment, provide Client to work with MFMR evidence that decision- to implementing decision- making processes respond making processes that to serious and other respond to serious and important issues identified other important issues in relevant research, identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation and research, monitoring, consultation, in a evaluation and transparent, timely and consultation, in a adaptive manner and take PI 3.2.2 transparent, timely and account of the wider Opened 2019 7 Decision 75 adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. On target making account of the wider

implications of decisions. SI d) By the second Information on the fishery’s surveillance audit of the performance and reassessment, provide management action are evidence that Information available on request and on the fishery’s explanations are provided performance and for any actions or lack of management action is action associated with available on request, and findings and relevant explanations are provided recommendations emerging for any actions or lack of from research, monitoring, action associated with

37 Client provided information to assessment team that FAC has reconvened. If true, progress on this condition may be sufficient to meet SG80 levels. Score in ACDR reflects the expectation of the closure of this condition. More information required at the site visit to confirm.

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 167 of 175 findings and relevant evaluation and review recommendations emerging activity. from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

8.5.3 New conditions & Client Action Plan To be added at the Client and Peer Review Draft stage.

SCS Global Services Report

8.6 Client Action Plan

To be drafted at Public Comment Draft Report stage.

8.7 Surveillance

To be drafted at Client and Peer Review Draft Report stage.

SCS Global Services Report

8.8 Harmonized fishery assessments

Fisheries considered for harmonization in this assessment are described in Table 41. The fishery is subject to harmonization requirements due to its overlap with numerous other WCPO skipjack and yellowfin fisheries. A combined CAB variation request was submitted to the MSC in 2018 regarding harmonization of highly migratory species (HMS) fisheries in the MSC system. The MSC has now published a response to this request. The detail is available at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/solomon-islands-skipjack- and-yellowfin-tuna-purse-seine-and-pole-and-line/@@assessments but in brief, the MSC has agreed that conditions for Principle 1 for all certified tuna fisheries under the jurisdiction of the WCPFC should be aligned with regard to timelines and that these should follow the agreed Harvest Strategy Workplan adopted by WCPFC in 2017 (Attachment L to WCPFC14 report).

This means that for the fishery being evaluated here, some adjustment to the timeframes for the CAP is needed to match this agreed work plan. Although, as described above in Section 4.2, the timelines in this work plan were further amended in 2018, it is the timelines in the 2017 version that are too reflect in milestones in the CAP. In doing so we note that, because WCPFC meets in December each year, where it has proposed a specific year for achieving a particular outcome, the evaluation of the relevant milestone condition would occur in a fishery’s surveillance audit the following year.

To further improve harmonization among fisheries there is also a new requirement for those fisheries that were originally scored under v1.3 (which this fishery was) will be re-scored under v2.0 as part of the next surveillance audit. Specifically, for fisheries scored against v1.3:

Harmonization discussions were held among CABs around potential changes to Principle 1 Conditions for overlapping WCPO fisheries after this surveillance audit was conducted. These discussions focused on written and oral submissions received from the PNAO to CABs (see Solomon Islands 3rd year surveillance audit for stakeholder submission) that contained some new information and additional arguments to support increases to scores for PI 1.2.1a, PI 1.2.2a, and PI 1.2.2c. There was no agreement, however, that the evidence was insufficient to justify increasing scores and removing conditions for these PIs at this stage. Therefore no changes to scores are proposed for this fishery.

Table 41. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization.

Fishery Status Principles for Harmonization 1 Pan Pacific yellowfin, bigeye In Assessment Principle 1 and albacore longline fishery 2 PT Citraraja Ampat, Sorong Certified Principle 1 pole and line Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna 3 Fiji Albacore and Yellowfin Certified Principle 1 Tuna longline 4 SZLC CSFC & FZLC FSM EEZ Certified Principle 1

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 171 of 175 Longline Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna 5 Tri Marine Western and Certified Principle 1 Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna 6 PNA Western and Central Certified Principle 1 Pacific skipjack and yellowfin, unassociated / non-FAD set, tuna purse seine 7 French Polynesia albacore Certified Principle 1 and yellowfin longline fishery 8 American Samoa EEZ Certified Principle 1 Albacore and Yellowfin Longline Fishery 9 SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Certified Principle 1 Islands EEZ South Pacific albacore & yellowfin longline 10 WPSTA Western and Certified Principle 1 Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine 11 Japanese Pole and Line Certified Principle 1 skipjack and albacore tuna fishery 12 Talleys New Zealand Certified Principle 1 Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine 13 Ishihara Marine Products Certified Principle 1 albacore and skipjack pole and line fishery 14 Tropical Pacific yellowfin and Certified Principle 1 skipjack free‐school purse seine fishery 15 Walker Seafood Australian Certified Principle 1 albacore, yellowfin tuna, and swordfish longline 16 Solomon Islands longline Certified Principle 1 and Principle 3 tuna fishery 17 PNG Fishing Industry Certified Principle 1 Association tuna fishery

SCS Global Services Report

Table 42. Overlapping fisheries

Supporting information

Principle 3 scores were harmonized between the Solomon Islands purse seine and pole-and-line fishery and the newly certified Solomon Islands longline fishery for the relevant PI’s (i.e. 3.1.2 and 3.2.2) during the 3rd surveillance under FCP v2.1. No formal harmonization meeting was held as the assessment team was the same for both fisheries and the CAB was SCS. Was either FCP v2.2 Annex PB1.3.3.4 or PB1.3.4.5 applied when harmonising? No

Date of harmonisation meeting NA

If applicable, describe the meeting outcome

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 173 of 175 Table 43. Harmonization for scoring/scoring differences against the Solomon Islands certified fisheries.

PI Solomon Solomon PS Comments Longline and P&L 3.1.1 85 >80 3.1.2 75 60-79 3.1.3 90 >80 3.2.1 90 >80 3.2.2 75 60-79

SCS Global Services Report

8.9 Objection Procedure

To be added at Public Certification Report stage

Version 5-4 (December 2019) | © SCS Global Services | MSC V1.1 Page 175 of 175 8.10 Vessel list Table 44: Vessel list for the UoA

Gear type Vessel Name Purse-seine Solomon Pearl Solomon Emerald Solomon Ruby Solomon Jade Solomon Opal

Pole-and-line Soltai 101 Soltai 105 Solomon Fisher Solomon Hunter

SCS Global Services Report

Table 45. List of NFD vessels by gear type, showing area and years of operations.

Vessel Gear Area of Year Comments Name Type Operation 2016 2017 2018 2019 Solomon PS - SI Fishing * Fishing Fishing Fishing SI MSC trips since Opal Small MGA/EEZ first certifed in July 2016 Solomon PS - SI Fishing * Fishing Fishing Fishing SI MSC trips since Pearl Small MGA/EEZ first certifed in July 2016 Solomon PS - SI Fishing * Fishing Fishing Fishing SI MSC trips since Ruby Small MGA/EEZ first certifed in July 2016 Solomon PS - SI Fishing * Fishing Fishing Fishing SI MSC trips since Jade Small MGA/EEZ first certifed in July 2016 Solomon PS - SI Fishing * Fishing Fishing Fishing SI MSC trips since Emerald Small MGA/EEZ first certifed in July 2016 Soltai P&L SI MGA Fishing * Fishing Fishing Fishing SI MSC trips since 101 first certifed in July 2016 Soltai P&L SI MGA Fishing * Fishing Fishing Fishing SI MSC trips since 105 first certifed in July 2016 Solomon P&L SI MGA Fishing * Tied up Decommissioned Decommissioned Removed from Venture MSC fisheries/CoC certs Solomon P&L SI MGA JP-flag Purchased/re- Fishing Fishing Ex-JP flag Fisher fit* (coastal); commenced MSC trips Mar 2018 Solomon P&L SI MGA JP-flag Purchased/re-fit Fishing * Ex-JP flag Hunter (coastal); first trial trip June 2019; no MSC yet * Denotes year vessel was added to MSC fisheries and CoC certificates

8.11 Solomon Island Baitfish PSA

8.11.1 Solomon Island Baitfish PSA Information

age

FAMILY_NA

ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME

Average age at maturity Average max Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase)

nongaurders. Open Engraulidae Encrasicholina devisi Devis' anchovy 0.29 years Fishbase 1.7 years Fishbase 1698-6785 eggs Luther 8 cm Fishbase 4 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase 1989 scatterers 1000-2000 absolute nongaurders. Open Engraulidae Encrasicholina heteroloba Shorthead anchovy 0.36-0.98 years Fishbase 1-2.2 Lewis fecundity, 536 min Fishbase 7-12 cm Fishbase 5.1-6.7 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase 1989 scatterers If Tmax =2.11 then Tmax = 3/K = nongaurders. Open Engraulidae Stolephorus indicus Indian anchovy Tmat = <2.11 years Calculated 3/0.8 or Fishbase 4293-22213 eggs Luther 14-15.5 Fishbase 12cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 3.6 se 0.6 Fishbase 3/1.42 = 0.266-2.11 1989 cm scatterers years

If Tmax =2 then Tmat 300-500 oocytes per Engraulidae Stolephorus insularis Hardenberg's anchovy = <2years Calculated 1.5-2 Lewis gram of fish Lewis 6.4-8 cm Fishbase 6 cm Fishbase nonguarders Fishbase 3.2 se 0.4 Fishbase 1989 1989 (Family)

If Tmax =2.5 then Tmat Tmax = 3/K = 3/1.2 = 7000-11000 Engraulidae Encrasicholina punctifer Buccaneer anchovy = <2.5 years Calculated 2.5 Fishbase absolute fecundity Fishbase 13 cm Fishbase 6.5-7 cm Fishbase nonguarders Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase years (Family) If Lmax =16cm then 2.9 se Engraulidae Thryssa baelama Baelama anchovy 16 cm Fishbase Lmat = < 16 cm Calculated nonguarders Fishbase 0.26 Fishbase (Family) If Tmax =1 then Tmat 300-500 oocytes If Lmax =20cm then 3.4 se Clupeidae Dussumieria acuta Rainbow sardine = <1 years Calculated 1 year Fishbase per gram of fish Lewis 18-20 Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated nonguarders Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase 1989 cm (Family) If Tmax =5.45 then Tmax = 3/K = 300-500 oocytes If Lmax =20cm then 3.4 se Clupeidae Dussumieria elopsoides Slender rainbow sardine Tmat = <5.45 years Calculated 3/0.55 = Fishbase per gram of fish Lewis 14.8-20 Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated nonguarders Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase 5.45 years 1989 cm (Family) Clupeidae Spratelloides delicatulus Delicate round herring 0.14-0.25 years Fishbase 0.4 2000-5000 eggs 7 cm Fishbase 3.5-4.5 cm Fishbase batch spawner Fishbase 3.1 se 0.2 Fishbase 882-1690 mean Clupeidae Spratelloides gracilis Silver-stripe round herring 0.2 years Fishbase 0.5 years Fishbase relative fecundity Fishbase 10.5-11 Fishbase 4.5 cm Fishbase nonguarders Fishbase 3 se 0.2 Fishbase cm (Family) If Tmax =0.3 then 925-1230 mean If Lmax =6cm then Clupeidae Spratelloides lewisi Lewis' round herring Tmat = <0.3 years Calculated 0.3 years Fishbase relative fecundity Fishbase 6 cm Fishbase Lmat = <6 cm Calculated nonguarders Fishbase 3 se 0.1 Fishbase (Family) If Lmax =22.8cm then Lmat 300-500 oocytes per = <22.8 3.1 se Clupeidae Amblygaster clupeoides Bleeker smoothbelly 1-2 years Lewis 1989 2 Lewis gram of fish Lewis 21-2-22.8 Fishbase cm Calculated broadcast spawners Lewis 198 0.28 Fishbase sardine 1989 1989 cm (Family) 187-300 mean nongaurders. Open Clupeidae Amblygaster sirm Spotted sardinella 0.41-1 year Fishbase 8 years Fishbase relative fecundity Fishbase 27 cm Fishbase 15 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase scatterers 294-344 mean nongaurders. Open Clupeidae Herklotsichthys Bluestripe herring 0.34-0.75 years Fishbase 0.8-2 Lewis relative fecundity Fishbase 25 cm Fishbase 10.1 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 3.6 se 0.5 Fishbase quadrimaculat 1989 scatterers 2-75 cm If Lmax =75cm then Clupeidae Herklotsichthys sp (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <75 cm Fishbase nonguarders Fishbase (Family) If Tmax =6 then Tmat Tmax = 3/K = Pristigasterida Pellona ditchela Indian pellona = <6 years Calculated 3/0.5 or Fishbase 16 cm Fishbase 13.5 cm Fishbase nonguarders Fishbase 4 se 0.7 Fishbase 3/0.96 = 3.125-6 (Family) years If Tmax =4.1 then If Lmax =21cm then Sardinella melanura Clupeidae Blacktip sardinella Tmat = <4.1 years Calculated 4.1 years Fishbase 15.2-21 Fishbase Lmat = <21 cm Calculated nonguarders Fishbase 2.9 se 0.3 Fishbase cm (Family) 2-75 cm If Lmax =75cm then Sardinella sp. Clupeidae (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <75 cm Fishbase nonguarders Fishbase (Family) 2-75 cm If Lmax =75cm then Clupeidae Clupeidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <75 cm Fishbase nonguarders Fishbase (Family) If Tmax =2 then Tmat nongaurders. Open 2.7 se Scombridae Rastrelliger brachysoma Short mackerel = <2 years Calculated 2 years Fishbase 34.5 cm Fishbase 17 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 0.31 Fishbase scatterers If Tmax =2 then Tmat Tmax = 3/K = 3/1.5 = If Lmax =20cm then 3.4 se Scombridae Rastrelliger faughni Island mackerel = <2 years Calculated 2 Fishbase 20 cm Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated broadcast spawners Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase years (Family) SCS Global Services Report

300-500 oocytes nongaurders. Open 3.2 se Rastrelliger kanagurta Scombridae Indian mackeral 1 year Fishbase 4 years Fishbase per gram of fish Lewis 35 cm Fishbase 19.6 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 0.38 Fishbase 1989 scatterers 320000-1500000 nongaurders. Open Scombridae Scomberomorus Narrow-barred Spanish 1-3 years Fishbase 10-22 years Fishbase absolute fecundity Fishbase 240 cm Fishbase 55-90 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase commerson mac scatterers Scombridae Scombridae unidentified sp. broadcast spawners Fishbase (Family)

Solomon Islands SKJ-YFT Public Certification Report Page 290 of 305

strategy

FAMILY_NA

maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive Trophic level (fishbase)

ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME Average age at

Nectamia bandanensis If Lmax =10cm then bearers, external brooders, Apogonidae Bigeye cardinalfish 10 cm Fishbase Lmat = <10 cm Calculated mouthbrooders Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase If Lmax =12cm then bearers, external brooders, Apogonidae Apogon compressus Ochre-striped cardinalfish 12 cm Fishbase Lmat = <12 cm Calculated mouthbrooders Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =7.5cm then Lmat = <7.5 Distinct pairing during Apogonidae Fowleria marmorata Marbled cardinalfish 7.5 cm Fishbase cm Calculated courtship/spawning Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase 10-20 cm If Lmax =20cm then Apogonidae Apogon sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated mouthbrooders (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =10.3cm then Lmat = <10.3 bearers, external brooders, Apogonidae Archamia lineolata Shimmering cardinal 10.3 cm Fishbase cm Calculated mouthbrooders Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =10cm then bearers, external brooders, Apogonidae Apogon fraenatus Bridled cardinalfish 10 cm Fishbase Lmat = <10 cm Calculated mouthbrooders Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =8cm then bearers, external brooders, Apogonidae Archamia zosterophora Blackbelted cardinalfish 8 cm Fishbase Lmat = <8 cm Calculated mouthbrooders Fishbase 3.7 se 0.6 Fishbase If Lmax =25cm then bearers, external brooders, Apogonidae Cheilodipterus macrodon Large toothed cardinalfish 25 cm Fishbase Lmat = <25 cm Calculated mouthbrooders Fishbase 4 se 0.66 Fishbase If Lmax =13cm then bearers, external brooders, Apogonidae Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus Five-lined cardinalfish 13 cm Fishbase Lmat = <13 cm Calculated mouthbrooders Fishbase 3.8 se 0.6 Fishbase 10-20 cm If Lmax =20cm then Apogonidae Cheilodipterus sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated mouthbrooders (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =11cm then Distinct pairing during Apogonidae Pseudamia gelatinosa Gelatinous cardinalfish 11 cm Fishbase Lmat = <11 cm courtship/spawning Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =8.5cm Pseudamia amblyurop then Lmat = <8.5 Distinct pairing during Apogonidae White-jawed cardinalfish 8.5 cm Fishbase cm Calculated courtship/spawning Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =6cm then Distinct pairing during Apogonidae Rhabdamia cypselurus Swallowtail cardinalfish 6 cm Fishbase Lmat = <6 cm Calculated courtship/spawning Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase If Tmax =1.12 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/2.6 = 1.12 If Lmax =6cm then Distinct pairing during 3.3 se Apogonidae Rhabdamia gracilis Luminous cardinalfish Tmat = <1.12 years Calculated years Fishbase 6 cm Fishbase Lmat = <6 cm Calculated courtship/spawning Fishbase 0.26 Fishbase 10-20 cm If Lmax =20cm then Apogonidae Rhabdamia sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated mouthbrooders (Family) Fishbase 10-20 cm If Lmax =20cm then Apogonidae Siphamia sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated mouthbrooders (Family) Fishbase 10-20 cm If Lmax =20cm then Apogonidae Apogonidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <20 cm Calculated mouthbrooders (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =35cm then nongaurders. Open 3.4 se Caesionidae Caesio caerulaurea Blue and gold fusilier 35 cm Fishbase Lmat = <35 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase If Lmax =14cm then nongaurders. Open 3.4 se Caesionidae Dipterygonotus balteatus Mottled fusilier 14 cm Fishbase Lmat = <14 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase If Lmax =18cm then nongaurders. Open 3.4 se Caesionidae Gymnocaesio gymnoptera Slender fusilier 18 cm Fishbase Lmat = <18 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase nongaurders. Open 3.4 se Caesionidae Pterocaesio diagramma Double-lined fusilier 2-3 years Fishbase 30 cm Fishbase 21.3 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.48 Fishbase If Tmax =2.857 then If Lmax =21cm then nongaurders. Open 3.4 se Caesionidae Pterocaesio pisang Banana fusilier Tmat = <2.857 years Calculated 2.857 years Fishbase 21 cm Fishbase Lmat = <21 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase If Lmax =30cm then nongaurders. Open 3.3 se Caesionidae Pterocaesio tile Dark-banded fusilier 30 cm Fishbase Lmat = <30 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.33 Fishbase 60 cm If Lmax =60cm then Caesionidae Pterocaesio sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 60 cm If Lmax =60cm then Caesionidae Caesionidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase

strategy

FAMILY_NA

maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive Trophic level (fishbase)

SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME Average age at

If Lmax =11cm then Atherinidae Atherinomorus duodecimalis Tropical silverside 11 cm Fishbase Lmat = <11 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.2 se 0.4 Fishbase If Lmax =9cm then 3.4 se Atherinidae Atherinomorus endrachtensis Eendracht Land silverside 9 cm Fishbase Lmat = <9 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase If Tmax =1.174 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/2.556 = Atherinidae Atherinomorus lacunosus Hardyhead silverside Tmat = <1.174 years Calculated 1.174 years Hallier 1989 150-1600 eggs total Hallier 1989 25 cm Fishbase 6.4 cm Hallier 198 nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.3 se 0.5 Fishbase 60 cm If Lmax =60cm then Atherinidae Atherinomorus sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase Atherinidae Hypoatherina barnesi Barnes' silverside 10 cm Fishbase 4-4.5 cm Fishbase nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase If Lmax =7.8cm 500-1500 oocytes then Lmat = <7.8 Atherinidae Hypoatherina ovalaua Fijian silverside 3-4 months Lewis 1989 1 year Lewis 1989 per gram of fish Lewis 1989 7.8 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase If Lmax =12cm then 3.4 se Atherinidae Hypoatherina temminckii Samoan silverside 12 cm Fishbase Lmat = <12 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase If Lmax =12cm then 3.2 se Atherinidae Hypoatherina valenciennei Sumatran silverside 12 cm Fishbase Lmat = <12 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 0.32 Fishbase 60 cm If Lmax =60cm then Atherinidae Hypoatherina sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =11cm then Atherinidae Stenatherina panatela Panatella silverside 11 cm Fishbase Lmat = <11 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.2 se 0.4 If Tmax =4.286 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.7 or 3/1.3 If Lmax =21cm then Leiognathidae Gazza minuta Toothpony Tmat = <4.286 years Calculated = 2.31-4.286 years Fishbase 21 cm Fishbase Lmat = <21 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.2 se 0.7 Fishbase Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.58 or nongaurders. Open Leiognathidae Leiognathus bindus Orangefin ponyfish 1.2 years Fishbase 3/2.63 = 1.14-5.172 years Fishbase 11-14 cm Fishbase 8 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 2.5 se 0.1 Fishbase If Tmax =5.36 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.56 or Leiognathidae Leiognathus equulus Common ponyfish Tmat = <5.36 years Calculated 3/1.88 = 1.6-5.36 years Fishbase 28 cm Fishbase 10.7 cm Fishbase nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3 se 0.4 Fishbase If Lmax =11.3cm If Tmax =9.1 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.33 or then Lmat = <11.3 2.8 se Leiognathidae Secutor insidiator Pugnose ponyfish Tmat = <9.1 years Calculated 3/1.5 = 2-9.1 years Fishbase 11.3 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 0.27 Fishbase If Tmax =3.75 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.8 = 3.75 63000-161000 Carangidae Atule mate Yellowtail scad Tmat = <3.75 years Calculated years Fishbase absolute fecundity Fishbase 28-30 cm Fishbase 17.1 cm Fishbase nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Tmax =1 then Tmat If Lmax =32cm then Carangidae Carangoides hedlandensis Bumpnose trevally = <1 years Calculated 1 year Fishbase 32 cm Fishbase Lmat = <32 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.1 se 0.6 Fishbase If Tmax =11 then Carangidae Caranx sexfasciatus Bigeye trevally Tmat = <11 years Calculated 11 years Fishbase 120 cm Fishbase 42 cm Fishbase nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Tmax =6 then Tmat Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.5 or 3/2.3 nongaurders. Open 3.4 se Carangidae Decapterus macrosoma Shotfin scad = <6 years Calculated = 1.3-6 years Fishbase 19-35 cm Fishbase 14.8-15.5 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase If Tmax =1.58 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/1.9 = 1.58 If Lmax =30cm then 3.5 se Carangidae Selar boops Oxeye scad Tmat = <1.58 years Calculated years Fishbase 25-30 cm Fishbase Lmat = <30 cm Calculated eggs are pelagic Fishbase 0.41 Fishbase If Tmax =4 then Tmat Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.75 or If Lmax =70cm then nongaurders. Open Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus Bigeye scad = <4 years Calculated 3/1.45 = 1.45-4 years Fishbase 30-70 cm Fishbase Lmat = <70 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 4.1 se 0.7 Fishbase If Tmax =3.75 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.8 or 3/1.2 Carangidae Selaroides leptolepis Yellowstripe scad Tmat = <3.75 years Calculated = 2.5-3.75 years Fishbase 18.5-22 cm Fishbase 10.1 cm Fishbase nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.5 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =110cm If Tmax =9.09 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.33 = then Lmat = <110 Carangidae Scomberoides lysan Doublespotted queenfish Tmat = <9.09 years Calculated 9.09 years Fishbase 110 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Lmax =60cm then Carangidae Scomberoides tol Needlescaled queenfish 60 cm Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.4 se 0.8 Fishbase Carangidae Scomberoides sp. nonguarders (Family) Fishbase Carangidae Carangidae unidentified sp. nonguarders (Family) Fishbase SCS Global Services Report

level

FAMILY_NA

ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME

Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic (fishbase)

Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.11 = nongaurders. Open Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda 2-4 years Fishbase 27.27 years Fishbase 180-200 cm Fishbase 58-66 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Tmax =7.69 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.39 = If Lmax =30cm then nonguarders, pelagic school Sphyraenidae Sphyraena chrysotaenia Yellowstripe barracuda Tmat = <7.69 years Calculated 7.69 years Fishbase 30 cm Fishbase Lmat = <30 cm Calculated spawners (Family) Fishbase 4 se 0.7 Fishbase If Tmax =10 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.3 = 10 If Lmax =60cm then nonguarders, pelagic school Sphyraenidae Sphyraena flavicauda Yellowtail barracuda Tmat = <10 years Calculated years Fishbase 50-60 cm Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated spawners (Family) Fishbase 3.8 se 0.6 Fishbase If Lmax =75cm then nonguarders, pelagic school Sphyraenidae Sphyraena forsteri Bigeye barracuda 60-75 cm Fishbase Lmat = <75 cm Calculated spawners (Family) fishbase 4.3 se 0.8 Fishbase If Lmax =150cm If Tmax =30 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.1 = 30 then Lmat = <150 nonguarders, pelagic school Sphyraenidae Sphyraena jello Pickhandle barracuda Tmat = <30 years Calculated years Fishbase 150 cm Fishbase cm Calculated spawners (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Tmax =6 then Tmat Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.5 or If Lmax =55cm then nonguarders, pelagic school Sphyraenidae Sphyraena obtusata Obtuse barracuda = <6 years Calculated 3/0.96 = 3.125-6 years Fishbase 39-55 cm Fishbase Lmat = <55 cm Calculated spawners (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Tmax =8.11 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.37 = If Lmax =90cm then nonguarders, pelagic school Sphyraenidae Sphyraena putnamiae Sawtooth barracuda Tmat = <8.11 years Calculated 8.11 years Fishbase 90 cm Fishbase Lmat = <90 cm Calculated spawners (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Lmax =180cm 180 cm then Lmat = <180 nonguarders, pelagic school Sphyraenidae Sphyraenidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase cm Calculated spawners (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =25cm then Lutjanidae Lutjanus biguttatus Two-spot banded snapper 25 cm Fishbase Lmat = <25 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.4 se 0.8 Fishbase If Tmax =4 then Tmat If Lmax =25cm then Lutjanidae Latjanus notatus Blustriped snapper = <4 years Calculated 4 years Fishbase 25 cm Fishbase Lmat = <25 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4 se 0.66 Fishbase If Tmax =4 then Tmat nongaurders. Open Lutjanidae Lutjanus fulvus Blacktail snapper = <4 years Calculated 4 years Fishbase 40-50 cm Fishbase 20-30 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 4.1 se 0.7 Fishbase If Tmax =6 then Tmat nongaurders. Open Lutjanidae Lutjanus kasmira Common bluestripe snapper = <6 years Calculated 6 years Fishbase 40 cm Fishbase 17-25 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 3.6 se 0.6 Fishbase If Tmax =4 then Tmat nongaurders. Open 4.1 se Lutjanidae Lutjanus lutjanus Bigeye snapper = <4 years Calculated 4 years Fishbase 25-35 cm Fishbase 12 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.68 Fishbase If Lmax =100cm 100cm then Lmat = <100 Lutjanidae Lutjanidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =35cm then nongaurders. Open 3.4 se Holocentridae Myripristis adusta Shadowfin soldierfish 35 cm Fishbase Lmat = <35 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 0.45 Fishbase If Lmax =18cm then nongaurders. Open Holocentridae Myripristis leiognathus Panamic soldierfish 18 cm Fishbase Lmat = <18 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 3.1 se 0.3 Fishbase If Tmax =2.655 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/1.13 = If Lmax =17cm then nongaurders. Open Holocentridae Sargocentron diadema Crown squirrelfish Tmat = <2.655 years Calculated 2.655 years Fishbase 17 cm Fishbase Lmat = <17 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 3.4 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =51cm then nongaurders. Open Holocentridae Sargocentron spiniferum Sabre squirrelfish 51 cm Fishbase Lmat = <51 cm Calculated water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 3.5 se 0.6 Fishbase nonguarders, broadcast Holocentridae Sargocentron sp. spawners (Family) Fishbase nonguarders, broadcast Holocentridae Holocentridae unidentified sp. spawners (Family) Fishbase If Tmax =18.75 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.16 or 44898-379772 nonguarders, pelagic spawners Mullidae Mulloidichthys flavolineatus Yellowstripe goatfish Tmat = <18.75 years Calculated 3/0.9 = 3.33-18.75 years Fishbase oocytes Cole 2009 26.5-43 cm Fishbase 11-17.5 cm Fishbase (Family) Fishbase 3.3 se 0.4 Fishbase If Tmax =4.41 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.68 or 20,339 to 279,217 nonguarders, pelagic spawners Mullidae Mulloidichthys vanicolensis Yellowfin goatfish Tmat = <4.41 years Calculated 3/0.97 = 3.09-4.41 years Fishbase ripe oocytes Cole 2009 38 cm Fishbase 19-24 cm Fishbase (Family) Fishbase 3.6 se 0.5 Fishbase 60 cm If Lmax =60cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners Mullidae Upeneus sp. (Family) Lmat = <60 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 60 cm If Lmax =60cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners Mullidae Mullidae unidentified sp. (Family) Lmat = <60 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase

Solomon Islands SKJ-YFT Public Certification Report Page 293 of 305

FAMILY_NA

SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME

maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase)

ME Average age at

If Lmax =32cm then nongaurders. Open Synodontidae Saurida gracilis Gracile lizardfish 25.8-32 cm Fishbase Lmat = <32 cm water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 4.2 se 0.7 Fishbase nongaurders. Open Synodontidae Saurida undosquamis Brushtooth lizardfish 1.1-1.8 years Fishbase 7-8 years Fishbase 50 cm Fishbase 16.6-19.8 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Tmax =6.98 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/0.43 = nongaurders. Open Synodontidae Synodus variegatus Variegated lizardfish Tmat = <6.98 years Fishbase 6.98 years Fishbase 40 cm Fishbase 14 cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 4.2 se 0.7 Fishbase Synodontidae Synodus sp. nonguarders (Family) Fishbase Synodontidae Synodontidae unidentified sp. nonguarders (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =40cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners Siganidae Siganidae unidentified sp. 40 cm Fishbase Lmat = <40 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase nonguarders, pelagic spawners Acanthuridae Acanthuridae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =15cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners Labridae Stethojulis strigiventer Three-ribbon wrasse 15 cm Fishbase Lmat = <15 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 3.2 se 0.4 Fishbase If Lmax =230cm 230 cm then Lmat = <230 nonguarders, pelagic spawners Labridae Labridae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =8cm then gaurders, nesters, demersal Pomacentrida Neopomacentrus bankieri Chinese demoiselle 8 cm Fishbase Lmat = <8 cm Calculated eggs adhere to substrate Fishbase 3.4 se 0.4 Fishbase 35 cm If Lmax =35cm then guarders, demersal egg layers Pomacentrida Neopomacentrus sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <35 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 35 cm If Lmax =35cm then guarders, demersal egg layers Pomacentrida Pomacentridae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <35 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase bearers, external brooders, male Syngnathidae Corythoichthys intestinalis Scribbled pipefish 16 cm Fishbase 6.5-7 cm Fishbase carries eggs in brood pouch Fishbase 3.2 se 0.4 Fishbase 60 cm If Lmax =60cm then carries eggs in brood pouch Syngnathidae Syngnathidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase Diodontidae Diodontidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase 45 cm If Lmax =45cm then broadcast spawners (mixed) Hemiramphida Hemiramphidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <45 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =35cm then 3.6 se Nemipteridae Pentapodus caninus Small-toothed whiptail 35 cm Fishbase Lmat = <35 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) fishbase 0.49 Fishbase Nemipteridae Nemipteridae unidentified sp. nonguarders (Family) Fishbase Anguillidae Anguillidae unidentified sp. nonguarders (Family) Fishbase guarders, demersal egg layers Balistidae Balistidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase nonguarders, pelagic spawners Bothidae Bothidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase 90 cm If Lmax =90cm then guarders, demersal egg layers Tetraodontidae Tetraodontidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <90 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =160cm then Lmat = <160 Fistulariidae Fistularia commersonii Bluespotted cornetfish 115-160 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nongaurders Fishbase 4.3 se 0.7 Fishbase If Lmax =106cm then Lmat = <106 Fistulariidae Fistularia corneta Pacific cornetfish 106 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nongaurders Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Lmax =200cm then Lmat = <200 Fistulariidae Fistularia petimba Red cornetfish 200 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Lmax =201cm then Lmat = <201 Fistulariidae Fistularia tabacaria Cornetfish 200 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.5 se 0.6 Fishbase If Lmax =50.7cm then Lmat = <50.7 nonguarders, pelagic eggs Priacanthidae Heteropriacanthus cruentatus Glasseye 50.7 cm Fishbase cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 3.8 se 0.5 Fishbase 50 cm If Lmax =50cm then nonguarders, pelagic eggs Priacanthidae Priacanthidae sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <50 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase SCS Global Services Report

FAMILY_NA

ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME

Average age at maturity Average max age Fecundity Average max size Average size at Maturity Reproductive strategy Trophic level (fishbase)

If Tmax =2.73 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/1.1 = 2.73 Ariommatidae Ariomma indicum Indian driftfish Tmat = <2.73 years Calculated years Fishbase 25 cm Fishbase 15.1 cm Fishbase nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.6 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =7.6cm then Lmat = <7.6 Bregmacerotid Bregmaceros nectabanus Smallscale codlet 7.6 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 3.2 se 0.3 Fishbase If Tmax =1.58 then Tmax = 3/K = 3/1.9 = 1.58 nongaurders. Open Chaetodontida Chaetodon trifasciatus Melon butterflyfish Tmat = <1.58 years Calculated years Fishbase 15-18.8 cm Fishbase 12.5-15cm Fishbase water/substratum egg scatterers Fishbase 3.3 se 0.6 Fishbase nonguarders, pelagic spawners Chaetodontida Chaetodontidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Trichiuridae Trichius sp. Trichiurus lepturus 2 years Fishbase 15 years Fishbase 234 cm Fishbase 46.3 cm Fishbase nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.5 Fishbase If Lmax =30cm then Ostraciidae Rhynchostracion nasus Shortnose boxfish 30 cm Fishbase Lmat = <30 cm Calculated nongaurders Fishbase 3.3 se 0.5 Fishbase If Lmax =50cm then guarders, nest spawners Gobiidae Gobiidae unidentified sp. 10-50cm Lmat = <50 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =110cm If Tmax =2 then Tmat Tmax = 3/K = 3/1.5 = 2 then Lmat = <110 guarders, demersal egg layers Tetraodontidae Lagocephalus sceleratus Silver-cheeked toadfish = <2 years Calculated years Fishbase 41.5-110 cm Fishbase cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 3.6 se 0.6 Fishbase 90 cm If Lmax =90cm then Mugilidae Mugilidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <90 cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =8.5cm then Lmat = <8.5 gaurders, nesters, demersal Blenniidae Petroscirtes mitratus Floral blenny 8.5 cm Fishbase cm Calculated eggs adhere to substrate Fishbase 2 se 0 Fishbase 15-54 cm If Lmax =54cm then guarders, demersal egg layers Blenniidae Blenniidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase Lmat = <54 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase nonguarders, pelagic spawners Lethrinidae Lethrinus haematopterus Chinese emperor 45 cm Fishbase 26 cm Fishbase (Family) Fishbase 3.6 se 0.6 Fishbase nonguarders, pelagic spawners Lethrinidae Lethrinidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase guarders, demersal egg layers Pomacentrida Chromis sp. (Family) Fishbase Carapidae Carapidae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase external, sex change at 29 cm Scaridae Scarus ghobban Blue-barred parotfish 2 years Fishbase 13 years Fishbase 90 cm Fishbase 49 cm Fishbase (7 years) Fishbase 2 se 0 Fishbase nonguarders, pelagic spawners Scaridae Scaridae unidentified sp. (Family) Fishbase If Lmax =65cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners 3.5 se Ephippidae Platax batavianus Humpback batfish 65 cm Fishbase Lmat = <65 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 0.37 Fishbase If Lmax =40cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners Ephippidae Platax boersii Golden spadefish 40 cm Fishbase Lmat = <40 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 3.4 se 0.4 Fishbase If Lmax =60cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners 3.3 se Ephippidae Platax orbicularis Orbicular batfish 50-60 cm Fishbase Lmat = <60 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 0.49 Fishbase If Lmax =45cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners 3.3 se Ephippidae Platax pinnatus Dusky batfish 35-45 cm Fishbase Lmat = <45 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 0.35 Fishbase If Lmax =70cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners Ephippidae Platax teira Longfin batfish 45-70 cm Fishbase Lmat = <70 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 4 se 0.64 Fishbase If Lmax =100cm then Lmat = <100 Chirocentridae Chirocentrus dorab Dorab wolf-herring 36.5-100 cm Fishbase cm Calculated nonguarders (Family) Fishbase 4.5 se 0.8 Fishbase If Lmax =18cm then nonguarders, pelagic spawners Pomacanthida Chaetodontoplus mesoleucus Vericulated angelfish 18 cm Fishbase Lmat = <18 cm Calculated (Family) Fishbase 2.7 se 0 Fishbase

Solomon Islands SKJ-YFT Public Certification Report Page 295 of 305

8.11.2 Solomon Island Baitfish PSA Scores

Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic)

capture mortality capture TAXA_ FAMILY_NA - Risk Category MSC scoring

NAME ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME PSA Score Name guidepost

Average Average ageat maturity Average maxage Fecundity Average maxsize Average size at Maturity Reproductivestrategy Trophiclevel (fishbase) Productivity Total (average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post (multiplicative) Total

Engraulidae Encrasicholina devisi Devis' anchovy 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80

Engraulidae Encrasicholina heteroloba Shorthead anchovy 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Engraulidae Stolephorus indicus Indian anchovy 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80

Engraulidae Stolephorus insularis Hardenberg's anchovy 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80

Engraulidae Encrasicholina punctifer Buccaneer anchovy 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Engraulidae Thryssa baelama Baelama anchovy 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Clupeidae Dussumieria acuta Rainbow sardine 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Clupeidae Dussumieria elopsoides Slender rainbow sardine 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Clupeidae Spratelloides delicatulus Delicate round herring 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Clupeidae Spratelloides gracilis Silver-stripe round herring 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Clupeidae Spratelloides lewisi Lewis' round herring 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Clupeidae Amblygaster clupeoides Bleeker smoothbelly sardine 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Clupeidae Amblygaster sirm Spotted sardinella 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Clupeidae Herklotsichthys quadrimaculat Bluestripe herring 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Clupeidae Herklotsichthys sp 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Pristigasterida Pellona ditchela Indian pellona 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Clupeidae Sardinella melanura Blacktip sardinella 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Clupeidae Sardinella sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Clupeidae Clupeidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Scombridae Rastrelliger brachysoma Short mackerel 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1.14 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.01 Low >80 Scombridae Rastrelliger faughni Island mackerel 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Scombridae Rastrelliger kanagurta Indian mackeral 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Scombridae Scomberomorus commerson Narrow-barred Spanish mac 1 2 1 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Scombridae Scombridae unidentified sp. 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 SCS Global Services Report

Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic)

capturemortality TAXA_ FAMILY_NA - Risk Category MSC scoring

NAME ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME PSA Score Name guidepost

Apogonidae Nectamia bandanensisBigeye cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Apogon compressus Ochre-striped cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Fowleria marmorata Marbled cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Apogon sp. 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Archamia lineolata Shimmering cardinal 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Apogon fraenatus Bridled cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Archamia zosterophora Blackbelted cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus macrodon Large toothed cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus quinquelineatus Five-lined cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Cheilodipterus sp. 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Pseudamia gelatinosa Gelatinous cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Pseudamia amblyurop White-jawed cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Rhabdamia cypselurus Swallowtail cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Rhabdamia gracilis Luminous cardinalfish 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Rhabdamia sp. 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Siphamia sp. 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Apogonidae Apogonidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 3 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Caesionidae Caesio caerulaurea Blue and gold fusilier 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Caesionidae Dipterygonotus balteatus Mottled fusilier 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Caesionidae Gymnocaesio gymnoptera Slender fusilier 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Caesionidae Pterocaesio diagramma Double-lined fusilier 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Caesionidae Pterocaesio pisang Banana fusilier 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Caesionidae Pterocaesio tile Dark-banded fusilier 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Caesionidae Pterocaesio sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80

Caesionidae Caesionidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80

Solomon Islands SKJ-YFT Public Certification Report Page 297 of 305

Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic)

capturemortality TAXA_ FAMILY_NA - Risk Category MSC scoring

NAME ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME PSA Score Name guidepost

Atherinidae Atherinomorus duodecimalis Tropical silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Atherinidae Atherinomorus endrachtensis Eendracht Land silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Atherinidae Atherinomorus lacunosus Hardyhead silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Atherinidae Atherinomorus sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Atherinidae Hypoatherina barnesi Barnes' silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Atherinidae Hypoatherina ovalaua Fijian silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Atherinidae Hypoatherina temminckii Samoan silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Atherinidae Hypoatherina valenciennei Sumatran silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Atherinidae Hypoatherina sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Atherinidae Stenatherina panatela Panatella silverside 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Leiognathidae Gazza minuta Toothpony 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Leiognathidae Leiognathus bindus Orangefin ponyfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1.14 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.01 Low >80 Leiognathidae Leiognathus equulus Common ponyfish 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Leiognathidae Secutor insidiator Pugnose ponyfish 2 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Carangidae Atule mate Yellowtail scad 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Carangidae Carangoides hedlandensis Bumpnose trevally 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Carangidae Caranx sexfasciatus Bigeye trevally 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2.00 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.59 Low >80 Carangidae Decapterus macrosoma Shotfin scad 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Carangidae Selar boops Oxeye scad 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Carangidae Selar crumenophthalmus Bigeye scad 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Carangidae Selaroides leptolepis Yellowstripe scad 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Carangidae Scomberoides lysan Doublespotted queenfish 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Carangidae Scomberoides tol Needlescaled queenfish 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Carangidae Scomberoides sp. 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Carangidae Carangidae unidentified sp. 2 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 SCS Global Services Report

Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic)

level

capturemortality TAXA_ FAMILY_NA - Risk Category MSC scoring

NAME ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME PSA Score Name guidepost

Average Average ageat maturity Average maxage Fecundity Average maxsize Average size at Maturity Reproductivestrategy Trophic (fishbase) Productivity Total (average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post Total(multiplicative)

Sphyraenidae Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda 1 3 2 2 2 1 3 2.00 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.59 Low >80 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena chrysotaenia Yellowstripe barracuda 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena flavicauda Yellowtail barracuda 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena forsteri Bigeye barracuda 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena jello Pickhandle barracuda 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1.86 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.34 Low >80 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena obtusata Obtuse barracuda 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Sphyraenidae Sphyraena putnamiae Sawtooth barracuda 2 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Sphyraenidae Sphyraenidae unidentified sp. 2 2 2 2 2 1 3 2.00 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.59 Low >80 Lutjanidae Lutjanus biguttatus Two-spot banded snapper 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Lutjanidae Latjanus notatus Blustriped snapper 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Lutjanidae Lutjanus fulvus Blacktail snapper 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Lutjanidae Lutjanus kasmira Common bluestripe snapper 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Lutjanidae Lutjanus lutjanus Bigeye snapper 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Lutjanidae Lutjanidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Holocentridae Myripristis adusta Shadowfin soldierfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Holocentridae Myripristis leiognathus Panamic soldierfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Holocentridae Sargocentron diadema Crown squirrelfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Holocentridae Sargocentron spiniferum Sabre squirrelfish 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Holocentridae Sargocentron sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Holocentridae Holocentridae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Mullidae Mulloidichthys flavolineatus Yellowstripe goatfish 3 2 1 1 1 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Mullidae Mulloidichthys vanicolensis Yellowfin goatfish 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Mullidae Upeneus sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Mullidae Mullidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80

Solomon Islands SKJ-YFT Public Certification Report Page 299 of 305

Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic)

Productivity capturemortality TAXA_ FAMILY_NA - Risk Category MSC scoring

NAME ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME PSA Score Name guidepost

Average Average ageat maturity Average maxage Fecundity Average maxsize Average size at Maturity Reproductivestrategy Trophiclevel (fishbase) Total (average) Availability Encounterability Selectivity Post Total(multiplicative)

Synodontidae Saurida gracilis Gracile lizardfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Synodontidae Saurida undosquamis Brushtooth lizardfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Synodontidae Synodus variegatus Variegated lizardfish 2 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Synodontidae Synodus sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Synodontidae Synodontidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Siganidae Siganidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.17 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.02 Low >80 Acanthuridae Acanthuridae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.17 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.02 Low >80 Labridae Stethojulis strigiventer Three-ribbon wrasse 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Labridae Labridae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 2 3 1 2 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Pomacentrida Neopomacentrus bankieri Chinese demoiselle 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1.71 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80 Pomacentrida Neopomacentrus sp. 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1.71 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80 Pomacentrida Pomacentridae unidentified sp. 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1.71 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80 Syngnathidae Corythoichthys intestinalis Scribbled pipefish 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Syngnathidae Syngnathidae unidentified sp. 1 1 3 1 2 3 2 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Diodontidae Diodontidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.17 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.02 Low >80 Hemiramphida Hemiramphidae unidentified sp. 1 1 3 1 2 2 1.67 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.35 Low >80 Nemipteridae Pentapodus caninus Small-toothed whiptail 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Nemipteridae Nemipteridae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Anguillidae Anguillidae unidentified sp. 2 2 2 2 2 1 1.83 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.47 Low >80 Balistidae Balistidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 2 1.33 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.12 Low >80 Bothidae Bothidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.17 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.02 Low >80 TetraodontidaeTetraodontidae unidentified sp. 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 1.86 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.34 Low >80 Fistulariidae Fistularia commersonii Bluespotted cornetfish 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Fistulariidae Fistularia corneta Pacific cornetfish 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Fistulariidae Fistularia petimba Red cornetfish 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Fistulariidae Fistularia tabacaria Cornetfish 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Priacanthidae Heteropriacanthus cruentatus Glasseye 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 Priacanthidae Priacanthidae sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1.57 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.28 Low >80 SCS Global Services Report

Productivity Scores [1 3] Susceptibility Scores [1 3] PSA scores (automatic)

capturemortality TAXA_ FAMILY_NA - Risk Category MSC scoring

NAME ME SCIENTIFIC_NAME COMMON_NAME PSA Score Name guidepost

Ariommatidae Ariomma indicum Indian driftfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Bregmacerotid Bregmaceros nectabanus Smallscale codlet 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1.29 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.09 Low >80 Chaetodontida Chaetodon trifasciatus Melon butterflyfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Chaetodontida Chaetodontidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 3 1.60 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.30 Low >80 Trichiuridae Trichius sp. Trichiurus lepturus 1 2 2 2 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Ostraciidae Rhynchostracion nasus Shortnose boxfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Gobiidae Gobiidae unidentified sp. 1 1 3 1 2 2 3 1.86 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.34 Low >80 TetraodontidaeLagocephalus sceleratus Silver-cheeked toadfish 1 1 3 2 2 2 3 2.00 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.46 Low >80 Mugilidae Mugilidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 2 1 1.33 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.12 Low >80 Blenniidae Petroscirtes mitratus Floral blenny 1 1 3 1 1 2 1 1.43 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.02 Low >80 Blenniidae Blenniidae unidentified sp. 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 1.57 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.12 Low >80 Lethrinidae Lethrinus haematopterus Chinese emperor 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Lethrinidae Lethrinidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Pomacentrida Chromis sp. 1 1 3 1 1 2 3 1.71 1 2 3 3 1.43 2.23 Low >80 Carapidae Carapidae unidentified sp. 1 1 2 1 1 1 1.17 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.02 Low >80 Scaridae Scarus ghobban Blue-barred parotfish 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Scaridae Scaridae unidentified sp. 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 1.43 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.18 Low >80 Ephippidae Platax batavianus Humpback batfish 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Ephippidae Platax boersii Golden spadefish 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Ephippidae Platax orbicularis Orbicular batfish 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Ephippidae Platax pinnatus Dusky batfish 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Ephippidae Platax teira Longfin batfish 2 2 2 1 2 1 3 1.86 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.48 Low >80 Chirocentridae Chirocentrus dorab Dorab wolf-herring 1 1 2 2 2 1 3 1.71 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.38 Low >80 Pomacanthida Chaetodontoplus mesoleucus Vericulated angelfish 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1.14 1 3 3 3 1.65 2.01 Low >80

SCS Global Services Report

9 References Aguila, R., Perez, S., Catacutan, B., Lopez, G., Barut, N., and Santos, M. (2015). Distinct yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) stocks detected in western and central pacific ocean (wcpo) using DNA microsatellites. PLoS ONE, 10(9):e0138292. Anhalzer, G., Morison, S., and Meere, F. (2020) PNG Fishing Industry Association’s purse seine Skipjack & Yellowfin Tuna Fishery. Banks R., Clark L., Huntington T., Lewis T. and Hough A. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. Banks, R. and Zaharia M. (2020). Characterization of the costs and benefits related to lost and/or abandoned Fish Aggregating Devices in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Report produced by Poseidon Aquatic Resources Management Ltd for The Pew Charitable Trusts. 1514-PNA/R/01/A Berger, A.M., Pilling, G.M., Kirchner, C. and Harley, S.J. 2013. Determination of appropriate time- windows for calculation of depletion-based limit reference points. WCPFC-SC9-2013/MI-WP-02. Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y. and Ochi, D., 2014. Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species: a global review of status and mitigation measures. FAO fisheries and aquaculture technical paper, 588, pp.1-199. Davies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J. and McKechnie, J. 2014. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-04. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Daume, S., and Morison, A. (2014) The Pna Western And Central Pacific Unassociated Purse Seine Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus Pelamis) Fishery. file:///C:/Users/shelby.oliver/Downloads/SS- F_RPT_PNA_Tuna_Surv3_021715.pdf Dunn, S., Rodwell, L. and Joseph, G. (2006). The Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Pacific Purse Seine Fishery - Management Scheme (Vessel Day Scheme). Conference paper presented at “Sharing the Fish 2006”. March 2006, Perth Western Australia. http://www.fishallocation.com/papers/pdf/papers/GlenJoseph.pdf Gaertner, D., Gado de Molina, A., Ariz, J., Pianet, R., and Hallier, J.P. 2008. Variability of the growth parameters of the Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) among areas in the eastern Atlantic: analysis from tagging data within a meta‐analysis approach. Aquat.Living Resour. 21: 349‐356. (Cited in McKechnie et al. 2014). Green, A., P. Lokani, W. Atu, P. Ramohia, P. Thomas and J. Almany (eds.) 2006. Solomon Islands Marine Assessment: Technical report of survey conducted May 13 to June 17, 2004. TNC Pacific Island Countries Report No. 1/06. Grewe, P, Feutry, P, Hill, P; Gunasekera, R; Foster, S, Schaefer, K; et al. 2015. Evidence of discrete yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) populations demands rethink of management for this globally important resource. Scientific Reports. 5(11):9. Grewe, P., Irianto, H., Proctor, C., Adam, M., Jauhary, A., Schaefer, K., Itano, D., Killian, A., and Davies, C. (2016). Population structure and provenance of tropical tunas: recent results from high throughput

genotyping and potential implications for monitoring and assessment. WCPFC-2016-SC12/SA-WP-01, CSIRO, Stones Hotel, Kuta, Bali, Indonesia. Hagrannsoknir, S. F., (2014). Independent review of the PNA purse seine vessel day scheme. Hamilton, S. and Baker, G.B., 2019. Technical mitigation to reduce marine mammal bycatch and entanglement in commercial fishing gear: lessons learnt and future directions. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, pp.1-25. Hampton, J. 2000. Natural mortality rates in tropical tunas: size really does matter. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2000, 57(5): 1002-1010, 10.1139/f99-287. Hampton, J. and Fournier, D. (2001). A spatially-disaggregated, length-based, age-structured population model of yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Marine and Freshwater Research, 52:937–963. Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Harley, S., and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of Skipjack Tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. No. WCPFC‐SC7‐2011/SA‐WP‐04 REV1. Ianelli, J., Maunder, M., and Punt, A. E. 2012. Independent review of the 2011 WCPO bigeye tuna assessment. WCPFC SC8‐SA‐WP‐01, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7‐15 August 2012. Kleiber, P., Fournier, D., Hampton, J., Davies, N., Bouye, F., and Hoyle, S. (2017). MULTIFAN-CL User’s Guide. http://www.multifan-cl.org/. Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A., and Picaut, J. 1997. El Niño Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389: 715-718. Leroy, B. (2000). Preliminary results on skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) growth. SKJ-1, 13th Meeting of the S Lewis, A. 2014. Report on NFD bycatch marketing initiative. Report to ISSF and NFD.tanding Committee on Tuna and Billfish. Noumea, New Caledonia McKechnie, S., Pilling, G., and Hampton, J. (2017a). Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-05, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 9–17 August 2017 McClean, N., Barclay, K., Fabinyi, M., Adhuri, D., Sulu, R., Indrabudi, T. (2019). Assessing tuna fisheries governance for community wellbeing: case studies from Indonesia and Solomon Islands. Report commissioned by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney. Medley P.A.H. and Powers J.E. 2015. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 3). ISSF Technical Report 2015-04. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), 2015. Solomon Islands Tuna Management and Development Plan (TMDP). Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), 2015a. Solomon Islands Baitfish Fishery Management Plan. Solomon Islands Ministry of Fisheries and Marine Resources (MFMR), 2019. Solomon Islands National Fisheries Policy 2019-2029. Miller, K.I., Nadheeh, I., Jauharee, A.R., Anderson, R.C. and Adam, M.S., 2017. Bycatch in the Maldivian pole-and-line tuna fishery. PloS one, 12(5), p.e0177391. Morison, A., and McLoughlin, K. Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE), MSC Full Assessment: Final Report. SCS Global Services, 2015. SCS Global Services Report

Morgan, S., Morison, A., and Meere, F. Western Pacific Sustainable Tuna Alliance (WPSTA) Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine MSC Fishery Assessment Report, SCS Global Services, 2018. Morison, S. and Meere, F. (2019) Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Fishery 3rd Surveillance Audit Report. https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/tri-marine-western-and-central- pacific-skipjack-and-yellowfin-tuna/@@assessments Morison, S. and Meere, F (2019) Solomon Islands Longline Tuna Fishery. Pilling et al. 2017a - A compendium of fisheries indicators for tuna stocks. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-02 Pilling et al. 2017b. Review of research into drifting FAD designs to reduce species of special interest bycatch entanglement and bigeye/Yellowfin interactions. WCPFC-SC13-2017/EB-WP-02 Pilling et al. 2017c. Updating indicators of effort creep in the WCPO purse seine fishery. WCPFC-SC13- 2017/MI-IP-04. PNA 2015. Review of the PNA Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme - Final Report. Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office, Majuro, Marshall Islands (July 2015). Independent review of the PNA purse seine vessel day scheme undertaken by Hagrannsoknir sf, completed 30 October 2014. PNA 2016. Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Pacific Fishery as Amended - Management Scheme (Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme) (Amended October 2016). PNA 2017. Purse Seine VDS TAE for 2018-2020. Parties to the Palau Arrangement. 22nd Annual Meeting 5-7 April 2017. Majuro, Marshall Islands. PA22/WP.4; VDS-T&SC6/WP.1 Rice, J., Harley, S., Davies, N. and Hampton, J. 2014. Stock assessment of Skipjack Tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10- 2014/SA-WP-05 Rev 1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Sibert, J.R., Hampton, J., Fournier, D.A., and Bills, P.J. 1999. An advection‐diffusion‐reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 925‐938. Sibert, J. and J. Hampton. 2003. Mobility of tropical tunas and the implications for fisheries management. Marine Policy 27: 87 – 95. Tanabe, T., Kayama, S., and Ogura, M. 2003. Precise age determination of young to adult Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) with validation of otolith daily increment. 16th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 916 July 2003, Mooloolaba, Australia. Working Paper SKJ8. 2003. 2003. (Cited in McKechnie et al. 2014). Tolvanen, S., Thomas, K., Lewis, T. and McCoy, M. (2019) FFA Study: Assessing the contribution of landings from locally based commercial tuna fishing vessels to food security. https://www.ffa.int/system/files/Local%20Tuna%20Landings%20Report%20May%202019.pdf Trumble, R. and Stocker, M. (2016) Solomon Islands Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna Purse Seine Anchored FAD, Purse Seine Unassociated, and Pole and Line fishery. Vincent, M.T., Pilling G.M. and Hampton J. 2019. Stock assessment of Skipjack Tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC15-2019/SA-WP-05-Rev2. Ward, R., Elliott, N., and Grewe, P. (1994). Allozyme and mitochondrial dna variation in yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) from the pacific ocean. Marine Biology, 118:531–539.

WCPFC 2007. WCPFC DATA STANDARDS FOR REGIONAL OBSERVER PROGRAMME. WCPFC-SC3/GN WP- 6. WCPFC 2014. Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2014-01. WCPFC-SC 2017. Summary Report. Thirteenth Regular Session of the Scientific Committee. Rarotonga, Cook Islands. 9 - 17 August 2017 WCPFC - 2019. WCPFC Annual Compliance Monitoring Report. Sixteenth Regular Session of the Compliance Committee, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, 5 – 11 December 2019. WCPFC 2019a. Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2018. WCPFC-SC15-2019/GN WP-1. WCPFC 2020. Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) and Resolutions of the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Williams, P. and Terawasi, P. 2014. Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1. [2015?] Williams, P, Terawasi, P. and Reid C. 2017. Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2016. WCPFC-SC13-2017/GN-WP-01.

SCS Global Services Report

10 Template information and copyright This document was drafted using the ‘MSC Reporting Template v1.2’.

Template version control

Version Date of publication Description of amendment

1.0 17 December 2018 Date of first release

1.1 29 March 2019 Minor document changes for usability

1.2 25 March 2020 Release alongside Fisheries Certification Process v2.2

A controlled document list of MSC program documents is available on the MSC website (msc.org).

Marine Stewardship Council Marine House 1 Snow Hill London EC1A 2DH United Kingdom

Phone: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8900 Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7246 8901 Email: [email protected]