Seafood Watch

Mahi mahi Coryphaena hippurus

©Monterey Bay Aquarium

Costa Rica, Ecuador, Guatemala and Peru Surface longline

August 15, 2013 Jennifer Hunter, Consulting Researcher

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to ensure all our Seafood Reports and the recommendations contained therein are accurate and reflect the most up-to-date evidence available at time of publication. All our reports are peer- reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science or aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. We always welcome additional or updated data that can be used for the next revision. Seafood Watch and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Final Seafood Recommendation

This report covers longline-caught mahi mahi from Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru and Ecuador. Imports account for more than 95% of the mahi mahi on the US marketplace, and these countries combined account for some 60% of those imports. Guatemala, Costa Rica and Peru all received Avoid designations due to concerns over bycatch of sensitive species and deficiencies in mahi mahi and bycatch management. Ecuador received a Good Alternative rating. Bycatch of sensitive species does occur infrequently, although there is presently a management framework in place to address the fishery impacts on mahi mahi stocks and species of concern.

All fisheries in this report are engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP).

Impacts Impacts on Manage- Habitat and Stock Fishery on the Overall other Species ment Ecosystem Stock

Rank Lowest scoring species Rank Rank Recommendation (Score) Rank*, Subscore, Score Score Score Score

Mahi mahi Guatemala Scalloped Yellow Red Yellow AVOID hammerhead 2.64 1.41 3.16 1.85 Red, 1,1 Mahi mahi Costa Rica Green sea turtle, Leatherback sea turtle, Yellow Red Green AVOID Hawksbill sea turtle, 2.64 1.41 3.87 2.17 Loggerhead sea turtle Red, 1.53,1.53 Mahi mahi Peru Green sea turtle, Hawksbill sea turtle, Yellow Waved Albatross, Red Green AVOID 2.64 Loggerhead sea turtle, 1.41 3.87 2.17 Leatherback sea turtle Red, 1.53,1.53 Mahi mahi Ecuador Green sea turtle, Yellow Hawksbill sea turtle, Yellow Green GOOD ALTERNATIVE 2.64 Loggerhead sea turtle 3 3.87 2.77 Red, 1.92,1.92

Scoring note – scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations have no significant impact.

Table of Contents

Final Seafood Recommendation ...... 2

Executive Summary ...... 4

Analysis ...... 13 Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation ...... 13 Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks ...... 15 Criterion 3: Management effectiveness ...... 27 Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem ...... 34

Overall Recommendation ...... 36

Acknowledgements ...... 37

Appendix A: All Species Included in Assessment ...... 45

Appendix B: Review Schedule ...... 47

About Seafood Watch® ...... 49

Guiding Principles ...... 50

Executive Summary

Mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) is found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. This assessment focuses on the mahi mahi fisheries in Ecuador (26% of total imports into the US), Peru (24%), Guatemala (7%) and Costa Rica (3.5%). Imports comprise more than 95% of the mahi mahi on the US market. Mahi mahi destined for export from these countries are landed using surface set longlines and are fished by artisanal vessels (Ecuador, Peru) as well as small- scale semi-industrial (Costa Rica) and medium to large scale industrial (Guatemala) vessels.

Mahi mahi is short lived, highly fecund and, hence, is moderately resistant to fishing pressure. Recent analyses of CPUE data suggests that biomass is stable, although quantitative analyses of stock status and fishing mortality rates for this species are lacking.

Mahi mahi is a highly seasonal fishery and this species is the primary component of the catch in these fisheries. However, Guatemalan, Costa Rican, Peruvian and Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishers all catch sea turtles with varying frequency. Guatemalan sea turtle fishing mortality attributable to the mahi mahi fishery is entirely unknown, while in Costa Rica there remains much ambiguity around estimates of sea turtle bycatch. Several studies have demonstrated that there is significant interaction between turtles and Peruvian artisanal longline fishers, however mortality rates are generally low. The available data from the Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery suggests that sea turtles are captured infrequently.

In Guatemala mahi mahi are often landed with a variety of shark species. Catch composition data are not available so sharks are presented as a pooled category in this assessment. Silky sharks and scalloped hammerhead sharks are the two most frequently landed species in the commercial Guatemalan shark fishery. Silky sharks in the Eastern Pacific are considered Vulnerable, while scalloped hammerheads are considered Endangered in this region. A recent IATTC assessment concluded that while there are incomplete historical records of silky landings and some uncertainty in the total EPO catch, current fishing mortality levels will likely allow stock size to increase. There is no stock assessment for EPO scalloped hammerheads, although this species has recently been approved for inclusion in CITES Appendix II, which certifies that while this species is not in danger of extinction, it could become imperiled without trade regulation.

Peruvian longline fisheries account for much of the observed mortality of adult waved albatrosses, and hooking and entanglement in fishing gear poses a serious risk to the survival of this species. Waved albatrosses are considered critically endangered by the IUCN.

Discard rates are unknown for the mahi mahi fisheries in Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru and Ecuador. Small-scale operators, like those in Costa Rica, Ecuador and Peru, typically have low discards, as artisanal fishers are able to utilize most of the incidental catch. The discard rate in the Guatemalan mahi mahi fishery is also low. While industrial vessels typically have relatively

high discard rates, the majority of incidentally captured fish in Guatemala is retained for sale in the domestic market.

Recently, a management plan for the Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery has been adopted, and includes comprehensive policies regarding catch parameters, bycatch mitigation, scientific oversight and enforcement. This plan is very encouraging, but its efficacy remains to be seen. In Peru, the mahi mahi fishery has been the subject of an assessment carried out by an NGO, but the conclusions of this report and any governmental review are unavailable, although there are some existing minimum size limitations. In Costa Rica, there is no management plan in place, although some measures have been undertaken, with mixed results, to reduce sea turtle bycatch. In Guatemala, there is no management plan in place. There do not appear to be any plans to pursue research into the state of the stock, nor to monitor the impacts of this fishery on mahi mahi populations.

All of the mahi mahi imported to the United States from Guatemala, Costa Rica, Peru and Ecuador is caught using surface-set longlines, which do not touch the bottom substrate, therefore, no gear mitigation is necessary. Apex predators (sharks) are captured and generally retained in the mahi mahi fisheries of Costa Rica, Peru and Ecuador, but do not comprise a significant proportion of the catch during the austral summer months when the majority of mahi mahi are landed. In Guatemala, mahi mahi are both targeted directly and incidentally caught in the Pacific shark fishery. A number of sensitive species are captured in this fishery, and the fishery likely constitutes a significant source of mortality for these species in Guatemalan waters. Sharks are utilized domestically for meat, oil, leather and fins are exported to Asia.

All fisheries in this report are engaged in a Fishery Improvement Project (FIP). FIPs are in place in Ecuador and Peru, and are in development in Costa Rica and Guatemala. Engagement in a FIP does not affect the Seafood Watch score as we base our assessments on the current situation. Monterey Bay Aquarium is a member organization of the Conservation Alliance for Seafood Solutions. The Alliance has outlined guidelines for credible Fishery Improvement Projects. As such, Seafood Watch will support procurement from fisheries engaged in a FIP provided it can be verified by a third party that the FIP meets the Alliance guidelines. It is not the responsibility of Monterey Bay Aquarium to verify the credibility or progress of a FIP, or promote the fisheries engaged in improvement projects.

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation Mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) is found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. This assessment focuses on the mahi mahi fisheries in Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica and Guatemala which together account for over 67% of the mahi mahi imported to the US. In Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica, and Guatemala mahi mahi destined for export are landed using surface set longlines and are fished by artisanal vessels (Ecuador, Peru), small-scale semi-industrial vessels (Costa Rica) and medium to large scale industrial (Guatemala) vessels. This species is also retained for domestic consumption in tuna purse seine and gillnet fisheries (IATTC 2011a).

Overview of the species and management bodies Coryphaena hippurus is one of two species in the family Coryphaenidae, along with the pompano dolphinfish (C. equiselis). Both species have a global distribution, and, while pompano dolphinfish are typically smaller than mahi mahi, they share a similar morphology and coloration. Accordingly, pompano dolphinfish are often mistaken for juvenile mahi mahi (Froese and Pauly 2011) and are sometimes sold as mahi mahi (Whoriskey, et al. 2011).

Mahi mahi are mid-trophic level predators, feeding primarily on other fishes and, occasionally, crustaceans and squid (Polovino et al. 2009, Froese and Pauly 2012). They are found worldwide (Figure 1) in tropical and subtropical waters warmer than 20°C (FAO 2004). This species is extremely fast growing and reach sexual maturity in the first year of life. Size at maturity varies throughout its range (for a summary, see Collette et al. 2011). For example, in the Western Central Atlantic female mahi mahi mature at approximately 41.9 cm (50%, 16.5 in; McBride et al. 2012) and males mature at approximately 47.6 cm (50%, 18.7 in; Schwenke and Buckel 2008), whereas in the Eastern Caribbean , 50% of males and females mature at 91 cm and 83 cm, respectively (Oxenford 1999). Females are highly fecund, producing as many as 1.5 million eggs per spawning event, and short lived, with a typical lifespan of less than 5 years (Collette et al. 2011, Froese and Pauly 2012). Mahi mahi are sexually dimorphic, with males significantly larger than females; in the tropical Pacific maximum sizes of 149cm fork length (FL) for males and 137cm FL for females have been recorded (Uchiyama and Boggs, 2006). Mahi mahi school in feeding aggregations and these schools are commonly associated with floating objects, hence, they are often captured near fish aggregation devices (FADs; Olson and Galván-Magaña, 1996).

Figure 1. Distribution of mahi mahi. Color variation indicates probability of presence, with mahi mahi more likely to be found in darker areas (www.aquamaps.org).

In the Eastern Pacific Ocean the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) is charged with the management of tuna and bycatch species in the Pacific Ocean, including mahi mahi. Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala, along with 17 other member nations are bound by the recommendations and management guidelines set forth by this organization.

The Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery is managed through the Sub-Secretariat of Fisheries Resources (SRP). The Ecuadoran government is currently working towards establishing sustainable fishing practices for highly migratory and straddling stocks, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS, CNDM 2009) and the FAO. In February 2011, Ecuador adopted a national plan of action (NPOA), which sets forth a number of management guidelines for the conservation and management of the mahi mahi fishery. In Peru, the development, implementation and enforcement of fishery policy is overseen by the Ministerio de la Producción. This agency works closely with the Instituto del Mar del Perú (IMARPE), which is charged with conducting research on fishery resources for the purpose of informing management policy.

Costa Rica’s marine fisheries are managed by the Instituto Costarricense de Pesca y Acuicultura (INCOPESCA).

Guatemalan fisheries are managed through the Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Dirección de la Pesca y Acuicultura; DIPESCA). Prior to 2011, the fishery ministry was known as Unidad de Manejo de la Pesca Y Acuicultura (UNIPESCA). DIPESCA is a subsection of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (Ministerio de Agricultura, Ganadería y

Alimentación; MAGA) and its responsibilities include developing strategies for the sustainable management of marine resources in collaboration with MAGA’s Unit on Policy and Strategic Information (Unidad de Políticas y Información Estratégica) and ensuring compliance with management guidelines (MAGA 2010).

Production statistics Mahi mahi are fished by commercial and artisanal vessels throughout its range. Mahi mahi landings have increased 7.5 fold over the last 60 years (Figure 2). Worldwide, the top producers include Brazil, Taiwan, Ecuador, Indonesia and Italy, although FAO reports mahi mahi landings in 51 nations and territories (FAO 2011). The increase in mahi mahi landings may be attributable to increased fishing effort, improved reporting (Whoriskey et al. 2011) and/or an increase in mahi mahi stocks due to competitive release stemming from the decline of apex predators (Polovina et al. 2009).

60000

50000

40000

30000 Tonnes

20000

10000

0 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year

Figure 2. Worldwide mahi mahi landings by year (FAO 2011). Note: Mahi mahi landings from Peru are not reported by FAO and are therefore not included in this figure.

In the Eastern Pacific Ocean mahi mahi is a highly seasonal resource, with availability peaking during the austral summer. The confluence of the Humboldt LME and the Pacific -Central American LME is one of the most productive marine ecosystems in the world (Sherman and Hempel 2009) and it is in this region, where the effects of El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events are most pronounced. During ENSO years, when sea surface temperatures rise, there is typically a pulse in the mahi mahi stock, particularly off the coast of Peru (Lasso and Zapata

1999). In contrast, in La Niña years, when sea temperatures drop, mahi mahi are comparably scarce (FAO 2011).

Ecuador has the largest artisanal fleet in the region (Project GloBAL, n.d.) and mahi mahi is an important resource, representing 50% of the total large pelagic landings in the last decade (CNDM 2009) and 65% of the total landings of the contemporary artisanal fleet, making mahi mahi one of the most economically important fisheries in the country (Guerrero, 2010; Figure 3). The use of motherships has allowed small scale fishers in Ecuador to exploit fishing grounds beyond the EEZ (P. Guerrero pers. comm.).

16000 14000 12000

10000 8000

Tonnes 6000 4000 2000 0

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 3 Mahi mahi landings by year, Ecuador (data from FAO, 2011)

Mahi mahi are also landed in Peru by an artisanal fleet (J. Alfaro-Shigueto, pers. com). The FAO does not include Peru in its reporting of worldwide fishery captures, although the Ministerio de la Producción publishes statistics on Peru’s mahi mahi landings (www.produce.gob.pe, Figure 4). In 2009 Peru landed 57,153 mt. of mahi mahi, which, when compared to the entire FAO reported global catch for that same year, of 53,011 mt, underscores the importance of Peruvian mahi mahi fishery.

40000 35000 30000

25000 20000

Tonnes 15000 10000 5000 0

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Figure 4. Mahi mahi landings by year, Peru (data from PRODUCE, 2010)

While Costa Rica has fishing ports on both the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean Sea, the vast majority of mahi mahi capture takes place in the Pacific Ocean (FAO 2011) by a small-scale semi-industrial fleet (Arauz 2000; Figure 5). Landings of large pelagic fish, including mahi mahi, have increased in recent years and now comprise approximately 50% of Costa Rica’s reported catch (Trujillo et al. 2012).

12000

10000

8000

6000 Tonnes 4000

2000

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 5. Mahi mahi catch by year, Costa Rica (data from FAO, 2011).

The majority of Guatemalan mahi mahi destined for export are captured by medium- and large- scale vessels, while the small-scale artisanal fleet supplies most of the fisheries products to the domestic market (FAO 2000). Guatemalan fishing activities take place in both the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans (Cifuentes-Velasco 2009), although the bulk of mahi mahi landings take place in

the Pacific (FAO 2011, Cifuentes-Velasco 2009, E. Villagrán pers.comm). Records of mahi mahi landings in Guatemala, as reported to the FAO, are of dubious accuracy and vary widely from year to year (Figure 3, Figure 4), with the total capture in 2010 reported as 1 mt. (FAO 2011), while Guatemala exported 3.15 mt. to the US alone in that same year (NMFS 2012). Mahi mahi are captured both in a directed fishery and are incidentally captured in the Guatemalan shark fishery (E. Villagrán pers. comm.).

Figure 6. Guatemalan mahi mahi capture, as reported by FAO (FAO 2011).

Figure 7. Guatemalan mahi mahi capture in lbs. (libras) from (1991-2001) as reported by Valle (2003) (per Project GLOBAL n.d.). For reference, 200,000 lbs. = 90.7 mt.; 400,000 lbs. = 181.4 mt.

Importance to the US/North American market The majority of mahi mahi available in the United States comes from imports from Central and South America and Southeast Asia, with over 73% originating in Ecuador (26.0%, of total imports), Peru (24.3%) or Taiwan (23.3%). Other major trade partners include Guatemala

(7.0%), Costa Rica (3.5%) and Mexico (3.0%) (NMFS 2011). In 2010 domestic landings comprised less than 5% of the mahi mahi available in the U.S. marketplace that year (NMFS 2010). In recent years the U.S. has not exported or re-exported mahi mahi (NMFS 2011).

Common and market names C. hippurus is most commonly marketed as mahi mahi or dolphinfish in the United States, although it is also known as dorado throughout Latin America and perico in Peru.

Primary product forms Mahi mahi is primarily available as fresh or frozen fillets

Analysis

Scoring guide • All scores result in a zero to five final score for the criterion and the overall final rank. A zero score indicates poor performance, while a score of five indicates high performance. • The full Seafood Watch Fisheries Criteria that the following scores relate to are available on our website at www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation

Guiding principles

• The stock is healthy and abundant. Abundance, size, sex, age and genetic structure should be maintained at levels that do not impair the long-term productivity of the stock or fulfillment of its role in the ecosystem and food web. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given current abundance and inherent resilience to fishing while accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty, and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.

Summary

Inherent Stock Status Fishing Mortality Resilience Stock Fishery Crit 1 Rank Rank(Score) Rank (Score) Rank Mahi mahi Costa Rica Medium Moderate Concern Moderate Concern Yellow (3) (2.33) Mahi mahi Guatemala Medium Moderate Concern Moderate Concern Yellow (3) (2.33) Mahi mahi Peru Medium Moderate Concern Moderate Concern Yellow (3) (2.33) Mahi mahi Ecuador Medium Moderate Concern Moderate Concern Yellow (3) (2.33)

Justification of Ranking

Factor 1.1 Inherent Vulnerability - Moderate

Mahi mahi has been given a FishBase score of 39/100 denoting high to moderate resilience to fishing (Froese and Pauly 2012)

Factor 1.2 Stock status – Moderate Concern

There is currently no stock assessment for mahi mahi in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO), although there are research efforts underway to assess mahi mahi stock biomass in the EPO (IATTC 2013, Aires-da-Silva et al. 2013).

Detailed rationale (optional): Ecuador has recently undertaken a study of the Eastern Pacific mahi mahi to ascertain the status of these stocks but, at present there are no data available. Scientists from Ecuador’s Undersecretary of Fisheries (Subsecretaría del Recursos Pesqueros; SRP) are currently working with the Interdisciplinary Center for Marine Sciences (Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas; CICIMAR) in Mexico and IATTC to develop abundance indices for mahi mahi in the Eastern Pacific (P. Guerrero, pers. comm., IATTC 2013, Aires-da-Silva et al. 2013). Preliminary nominal CPUE data from purse seiners suggests abundance is stable (Aires-da-Silva et al. 2013).

Factor 1.3 Fishing mortality – Moderate Concern

As with biomass, there is limited data available on mahi mahi fishing mortality. Patterson and Martinez (1991) assessed the exploitation of mahi mahi off Ecuador and found the fishing mortality rates (0.51-0.63) to exceed the maximum sustainable rate (0.40-0.49), as predicted by length based population projections. There is little reason to believe the data in this study are accurate today however, given their age and the species short longevity.

Detailed rationale (optional): In 2008, SRP began a mahi mahi fishery monitoring program, although no data from this effort has been published as yet (P. Guerrero, pers. comm.). It should be noted that for each Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala the reported mahi mahi catch likely includes both C. hippurus and C. equiselis, however C. equiselis is generally considered to comprise a minor portion of the catch ( Lasso and Zapata 1999, IATTC 2013).

Criterion 2: Impacts on other retained and bycatch stocks

Guiding principles

• The fishery minimizes bycatch. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, pre-catch mortality and ghost fishing. All discards, including those released alive, are considered bycatch unless there is valid scientific evidence of high post-release survival and there is no documented evidence of negative impacts at the population level. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. Fishing mortality should be appropriate given each impacted species’ abundance and productivity, accounting for scientific uncertainty, management uncertainty and non-fishery impacts such as habitat degradation.

The criterion 2 score for each species under assessment is the lowest score of all the other ‘main’ species caught with it, multiplied by a factor based on the discard rate in the fishery. A species is included in the assessment as a main species if:

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

In cases where the actual species and/or quantity/number of the species being caught in the fishery is unknown, main species and their scores are based on the ‘unknown bycatch matrix’ (see Seafood Watch Criteria for more information).

Summary

This section of the report focuses on the main species. A full list of species considered can be found in Appendix A.

Guatemala Stock Inherent Resilience Stock Status Fishing Mortality Subscore Score Rank (subscore* (based on Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) discard subscore) modifier) Scalloped Low Endangered or Overfishing occurring 1.00 1.00 Red hammerhead threatened (1) (1) Loggerhead sea Low Endangered or Unknown or Risk of 1.53 1.53 Red turtle threatened (1) Overfishing (2.33) Leatherback sea Low Endangered or Unknown or Risk of 1.53 1.53 Red turtle threatened (1) Overfishing (2.33) Hawksbill sea turtle Low Endangered or Unknown or Risk of 1.53 1.53 Red threatened (1) Overfishing (2.33) Green sea turtle Low Endangered or Unknown or Risk of 1.53 1.53 Red threatened (1) Overfishing (2.33) Silky shark Low Overfished, Unknown or Risk of 2.16 2.16 Red Depleted, or Stock Overfishing (2.33) of Concern (2)

Olive ridley sea Low Overfished, Unknown or Risk of 2.16 2.16 Red turtle Depleted, or Stock Overfishing (2.33) of Concern (2)

Mahi mahi Medium Unknown or Risk Unknown or Risk of 2.64 2.64 Yellow of Overfished (3) Overfishing (2.33)

Costa Rica Stock Inherent Resilience Stock Status Fishing Mortality Subscore Score Rank (subscore* (based on Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) discard subscore) modifier) Green sea turtle Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red (1) (2.33) Leatherback sea Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red turtle (1) (2.33) Hawksbill sea turtle Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red (1) (2.33) Loggerhead sea Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red turtle (1) (2.33) Olive ridley sea Low High Concern (2) Moderate Concern 2.16 2.16 Red turtle (2.33) Mahi mahi Medium Moderate Concern Moderate Concern 2.64 2.64 Yellow (3) (2.33)

Peru Stock Inherent Resilience Stock Status Fishing Mortality Subscore Score Rank (subscore* (based on Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) discard subscore) modifier) Green sea turtle Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red (1) (2.33) Hawksbill sea turtle Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red (1) (2.33) Waved Albatross Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red (1) (2.33) Loggerhead sea Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red turtle (1) (2.33) Leatherback sea Low Very High Concern Moderate Concern 1.53 1.53 Red turtle (1) (2.33) Olive ridley sea Low High Concern (2) Moderate Concern 2.16 2.16 Red turtle (2.33) Mahi mahi Medium Moderate Concern Moderate Concern 2.64 2.64 Yellow (3) (2.33)

Ecuador Stock Inherent Resilience Stock Status Fishing Mortality Subscore Score Rank (subscore* (based on Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) discard subscore) modifier) Green sea turtle Low Very High Concern Low Concern (3.67) 1.92 1.92 Red (1) Hawksbill sea turtle Low Very High Concern Low Concern (3.67) 1.92 1.92 Red (1) Loggerhead sea Low Very High Concern Low Concern (3.67) 1.92 1.92 Red turtle (1) Mahi mahi Medium Moderate Concern Moderate Concern 2.64 2.64 Yellow (3) (2.33) Olive ridley sea Low High Concern (2) Low Concern (3.67) 2.71 2.71 Yellow turtle

While mahi mahi is captured worldwide using a variety of fishing practices, the mahi mahi imported to the United States from Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala are landed by artisanal (Peru, Ecuador, Costa Rica) , small-scale semi-industrial (Costa Rica) and industrial scale (Guatemala) longline fishers. Given the uniformity in capture technique and the contiguous areas exploited by these nations, there is significant overlap in bycatch species. The scales of the fisheries vary however and accordingly the impacts of these fisheries on incidentally captured species also vary. For example, industrial scale Guatemalan vessels have a much greater potential impact on populations of sensitive species, when compared to artisanal and other small vessels operating in Ecuador, Peru and Costa Rica.

Mahi mahi is a highly seasonal fishery, with the peak mahi mahi catch typically occurring during the austral summer months (Swimmer et al. 2011) when sea temperature is highest (Lasso and

Zapata 1999). This species is the primary component of the catch in these fisheries. In most cases precise estimates of bycatch rates are difficult to ascertain due to a lack of reporting. The species assessed here include those that are routinely captured in the EPO mahi mahi fisheries and comprise greater than 5% of the catch or are regionally or globally threatened or endangered. For the fisheries considered here major bycatch species include several species of sea turtle as well as sharks (primarily scalloped hammerhead and silky sharks). Seabirds foraging on cast longlines are also caught.

Justification of Ranking

Sea Turtles (Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala)

Olive ridley, Lepidochelys olivacea Green (black), Chelonia mydas agassiz Loggerhead, Caretta caretta Leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea Hawksbill, Eretmochelys imbricata

Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability – High

Generally, sea turtles have low inherent resilience. These species are long lived, in some cases taking as long as 40 years to reach sexual maturity (Mortimer & Donnelly 2008), and experience high hatchling and juvenile mortality (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008; IUCN 2011).

Factor 2.2 Stock status – Very High Concern, High Concern (Olive ridley)

World Conservation Union ranking (IUCN 2011):

Olive ridley—Vulnerable Green (black)—Endangered Loggerhead—Endangered Leatherback—Critically endangered Hawksbill—Critically endangered

Detailed rationale: Populations of all sea turtles are imperiled worldwide (IUCN 2011). A number of factors have contributed to decline of these species including conflict with fisheries, pollution, nesting habitat loss, and direct hunting. Sea turtle eggs have historically been an important resource for coastal communities around the world and the unregulated harvest of eggs has been credited with the decline of several species (IUCN 2011). Longline fishing has contributed significantly to the decline of leatherback and loggerhead sea turtle populations in the Eastern Pacific (Sarti Martinez 2000, Lewison et al. 2004).

Factor 2.3 Fishing mortality – Moderate Concern (Ecuador, Costa Rica, Guatemala), High Concern (Peru)

While pelagic longline fisheries are widely regarded as one of the main sources of fishing mortality for turtles (Lewison and Crowder 2007), no assessment of the impacts of these fisheries from Costa Rica, Ecuador, and Guatemala on turtle populations has been conducted. Thus, the fishery contribution from these sources is unknown. All three countries have some measures in place that have been found to be effective in reducing turtle mortality when used correctly (i.e. circle hooks – see below and Criterion 3.2). In Peru, while the fishery-specific mortality on turtle populations is also unknown, there is some indication that the artisanal longline and net fleets may be having a severe impact. There are also no management measures in place to reduce mortality.

Detailed Rationale:

Sea turtle conflict with mahi mahi longliners in the Eastern Pacific is, to some extent unavoidable. These five species of sea turtle each spend some aspect of their life history off the northwest coast of South America, bringing them into contact with Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala’s mahi mahi fishing fleets (Figure 8).

Figure 8. From Alfaro-Shigueto (2011) illustrating the movement of turtle stocks throughout the Southeastern Pacific Ocean.

Numerous observer programs have found that sea turtles are frequently caught in shallow longline sets (Lewison and Crowder 2007). For example, in Costa Rica’s fishery, olive ridley hooking rates sometimes exceeds CPUE rates for mahi mahi (Swimmer et al. 2011). Despite the high initial survivability of most hookings, there may be delayed mortality due to the stress

of capture or the secondary effects of hooking or hook removal, which cannot be accounted for through catch observation alone (Swimmer et al. 2006). Furthermore, the presence of observers likely affects fisher behavior, with vessels carrying observers being more likely to land captured turtles and remove the hooks with relative care, rather than simply rip out the hook or cut the line with the turtles still in the water (Arauz 2000).

Estimates of fishery captures of sea turtles vary considerably. For example, in separate studies of the Costa Rican mahi mahi fishery, Whoriskey et al. (2011) and Swimmer et al. (2012) found a catch rate (turtles/mahi mahi) of 0.17 and 2.21, respectively. Although, it should be noted that the Swimmer et al. (2012) study only partially overlapped with the traditional mahi mahi season, thus one would expect lower mahi mahi catch rates, which may account for the high turtle:mahi mahi ratio. A recent study of the effects of hook type on sea turtle bycatch in the Ecuadorian and Costa Rican mahi mahi fishery showed generally low hooking rates for sea turtles in these nations (Table 1). Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011 estimated a mean of 1061 greens, 133 olive ridleys, 2613 loggerheads and 6 leatherbacks are caught per year in the Peruvian mahi mahi longline fishery, and concluded that interactions with Peru’s artisanal longline and net fleets may be severely impacting the populations of sea turtles in the Pacific (Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011).

While sea turtles are regularly hooked in the southeastern Pacific mahi mahi fishery, they are usually released alive, as the hook proximity to the surface allows the turtles to continue to surface to breathe (Swimmer et al. 2006, Witzell 1999). Governments and NGOs have focused much of their bycatch mitigation efforts for the mahi mahi fishery on reducing turtle hooking and entanglements. Loggerhead, hawksbill and olive ridley turtles are most often caught via biting baited hooks (Swimmer 2006, Largarcha et al. 2005) whereas leatherback and green turtles are more likely to become entangled in lines or to be hooked in flippers (Largarcha et al. 2005, Witzell 1999).

Hook modifications are the primary means of reducing sea turtle capture. Circle hooks are generally considered to be “turtle friendly,” usually resulting in lower capture rates and fewer deep hookings when compared to J-hooks (i.e. Andraka et al. 2013, Swimmer et al. 2006, 2011). There is an effort underway to encourage fishers in this region to replace the traditional J-style hooks with circle hooks (Mug et al. 2008). Fishers in Guatemala, Costa Rica routinely use circle hooks (E. Villagran pers. comm., R. Arauz pers. comm.) while Ecuador is actively encouraging fishers to switch from J to circle hooks (P. Guerrero pers. comm). J-hooks are still used predominantly in Peru.

In addition to lower catch rates for turtles, these hooks have been shown to result in lower catch rates for mahi mahi when compared to J-hooks (Largarcha et al. 2005, Mug et al. 2008), although circle hooks do yield a higher quality, and hence, more valuable mahi mahi catch (R. Arauz pers. comm.). The addition of an “appendage” to the commonly used 14/0 circle hook, showed a general decrease in CPUE for all species, including a reduction in sea turtle hookings by 52% and a 23% reduction in tunas and billfish captures (Swimmer et al., 2011). Despite the benefits for sea turtles, the economic cost of lower tuna, billfish and mahi mahi (R. Arauz pers.

comm.) landings may make the use of these hooks impracticable (R. Arauz, pers. comm., Andraka et al. 2013). Other hook modifications (10°offset 14/0 circle hooks, Swimmer et al. 2010), or bait modifications (blue dyed bait, Swimmer et al., 2005) have failed to measurably reduce sea turtle catch rates.

Sea turtle bycatch in Costa Rican longline fisheries has been the subject of several recent studies (i.e. Arauz 2000, Swimmer et al. 2005, 2006, 2010, 2011, Whorisky et al. 2011, Andraka et al. 2013) with fairly ambiguous results. Sea turtle CPUE (per 1,000 hooks) varies from 1.5 (C 16/0 hooks, Andraka et al. 2013), to 9.05 (C 14-16/0, Whoriskey et al. 2011), to 19 (C 14/0 Swimmer et al. 2010). These discrepancies may be due in part to sampling proximity to nesting beaches or during times of year with higher or lower turtle densities (Andraka et al. 2013), although significant uncertainty remains around the impact of Costa Rican mahi mahi fishers on local and regional turtle populations.

The Ecuadorian government is currently working on several fronts to increase circle hook usage in the mahi mahi fleet including supplying circle hooks for a J-hook exchange program, training fishers on proper handling and release of hooked or entangled turtles and exploring technologies to reduce entanglement (P. Guerrero pers. comm.). The government has recently reduced the import tariff on circle hooks, while leaving this tax in place for J-hooks, in order to ensure the widespread availability of circle hooks at competitive prices. The end goal of these activities is to mandate the use of circle hooks and other mitigation measures, once circle hooks are readily available to Ecuadorian fishers.

Table 1. Sea turtle catch rates by hook type in Ecuador (J vs. C15/0 and J vs.C14/0) and Costa Rica’s (J vs. C16/0) mahi mahi fishery (Andraka et al. 2013). Catch per unit effort (CPUE) rates are per 1,000 hooks.

Ecuador Costa Rica J-hook C 15/0 J-hook C 14/0 J-hook C 16/0 CPUE CPUE (No.4,5) CPUE (No. 2,3) CPUE CPUE CPUE Target species: Coryphaena hippurus 144.13 86.34 151.94 101.93 24.66 27.86

Sea turtles: Caretta caretta 0 0 0.09 0 - - Chelonia mydas 0.41 0.34 0.45 0 - - Eretmochelys imbricata 0.49 0.08 0.54 0.45 0.03 0.08 Lepidochelys olivacea 1.07 1.17 1.16 0.81 2.32 1.5

There was a directed sea turtle fishery in Peru through much of the 1990’s and evidence suggests that some harvest continued following the 1995 ban on the commercial capture of turtles (Arauz, 1999, Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011). A hook exchange program has been initiated by a coalition of organizations (Pro Delphinus, WWF, NFWF, NOAA), but there are currently no

government mandated measures in place to reduce sea turtle bycatch (J. Alfaro-Shigueto pers. comm., A. Gonzales, pers. comm.).

There is exceedingly little data available on sea turtle interactions with Guatemalan mahi mahi fishers. However, eggs from olive ridley turtles are harvested legally on the Guatemala’s Pacific coast and it is estimated that essentially all turtle nests are poached (Lopez Lopez 2006, ARCAS 2011). The Guatemalan Council for Protected Areas (Consejo Nacional de Áreas Protegidas, CONAP) has recently enacted a 5-year ban (15 Oct., 2012- 15 Oct., 2017) on the collection of leatherback and hawksbill eggs and the hunting of green (black) and loggerhead turtles. However, collectors can continue to harvest an unlimited supply of olive ridley eggs, provided that 20% of the nest is donated to a hatchery for species conservation. There are 21 hatcheries in Guatemala operated by public and private entities. In addition, hawksbill and loggerhead turtles are harvested illegally for meat along Guatemala’s Caribbean coast (Lopez Lopez 2006).

Sharks (Guatemala)

Mahi mahi stock abundance off the coast of Guatemala does not adhere to the strict seasonality observed in Peru and Ecuador (Andraka et al. 2013), thus it is more difficult to identify a specific mahi mahi season (Figure 9). As a result mahi mahi destined for export are landed in both a directed fishery and incidentally captured in the Pacific shark fishery.

Figure 9. Guatemalan mahi mahi (Dorado) and shark (Tiburón) landings in lbs (y-axis) by month (x-axis) in 2006 (de Jesús Ixquiac Cabrera 2008).

A variety of shark species are targeted in Guatemala. Some data regarding catch composition are available (Figure 10) but these data reflect the entirety of national fishery, including both the artisanal and industrial hook and line and net fleets. Catch composition data specific to the industrial longline mahi mahi and shark fisheries are not available. Accordingly, sharks are

presented as a pooled category in this assessment. While species ecology varies, all possess general life history characteristics (i.e. low grown rates, late maturation, long lived) which make them vulnerable to fishing pressure (Tonachella 2010). As no data are available regarding the relative proportion of specific species in the Guatemalan pelagic longline fishery, this assessment focuses on those species of the most pressing conservation concern, and where assessment scores vary the more conservative value was selected.

Multiple species (Valle 2003, E. Villagran, pers. comm.), including:

Silky, Carcharhinus falciformis Oceanic white tip, C. longimanus Whitenose, Nasolamia velox Black tip, C. limbatus Bullshark, C. leuca Pacific sharpnose, Rhizoprionodon longurio Scalloped hammerhead, Sphyrna lewini Smooth hammerhead, S. zygaena Great hammerhead, S mokarran Sicklefin smoothhound, Mustelus lunulatus Tiger, Galocerdo cuvier Pelagic thresher, Alopias pelagicus Nurse, Ginglymostoma cirratum Mexican hornshark, Heterodontus mexicanus Miscellaneous Lamniformes spp.

Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability - High

Sharks, in general, have very low resilience. The Fishbase scores for the species identified here as captured in the Guatemalan shark fishery ranges from 88/100 (C. leuca) to 55/100 (C. limbatus).

Factor 2.2 Stock status – High Concern

Comprehensive stock assessments do not exist for coastal and pelagic sharks off the Pacific coast of Guatemala. NOAA has conducted some stock assessments of shark populations in the Gulf of Mexico, however this information is not particularly useful in assessing the Guatemalan fishery as the shark fishery is based in the Pacific. A recent assessment by the IUCN (Kyne et al. 2012) has designated the following species to be of special concern in the Eastern Central Pacific region:

Silky—Vulnerable (E. Central Pacific) Oceanic white tip—Vulnerable (Pacific) Black tip—Near threatened

Bullshark—Near threatened Scalloped hammerhead—Endangered (E. Central and S.E. Pacific) Smooth hammerhead—Vulnerable Tiger—Near threatened Pelagic thresher—Vulnerable

Factor 2.3 Fishing mortality – Moderate Concern

Shark meat, oil and leather are all valuable domestic commodities and the shark fishery is economically important to coastal communities. Data regarding stock status of targeted species (primarily Carcharhiniformes and Lamniformes species) are lacking, but recent landings data suggest that populations of these species may be declining; in 2002 Guatemalan fishers landed 404.7 mt. of shark, whereas in 2006 shark landings had decreased to 67 mt. (Cifuentes- Velasco 2009).

Figure 10. Percentage of 2006 Guatemalan shark landings by species (number of individuals) (from de Jesús Ixquiac Cabrera 2008). Guatemalan vernacular names translate as follows: blanco: silky shark, cazón: black tip shark, cornuda: scalloped hammerhead, gambuzo: bull shark, lija: nurse shark, mamon: sicklefin smoothhound, punta: whitenose shark, tintorera: tiger shark, zorro: pelagic thresher, azul: blue shark (Ruiz-Alvarado and Mijangos-López 1999).

Silky sharks (local name: blanco) and scalloped hammerhead sharks (local name: cornuda) are the two most frequently landed species in the commercial Guatemalan shark fishery (Figure 10). Silky sharks are landed both by industrial scale commercial vessels on the high seas as well as artisanal coastal fishers. Silkys are ranked as by IUCN as Vulnerable in this region (Bonfil et al. 2009). In an assessment of EPO silky shark stocks IATTC concluded that while there are incomplete historical records of silky landings and some uncertainty in the total EPO catch, current fishing mortality levels will likely allow stock size to increase (Aries-da-Silva et al. 2013).

Throughout Central America adult and neonate scalloped hammerhead are targeted in directed fisheries and are frequently taken as bycatch in a number of fisheries (Watts and Wu 2005). In general hammerhead sharks reach sexual maturity at about 70% of their maximum length and 50% of their total lifespan (Hayes 2007) and are frequently captured in fisheries prior to having an opportunity to reproduce. There is no stock assessment for scalloped hammerhead in the Eastern Pacific, although this species is considered endangered (Kyne et al. 2012) and declines have been noted throughout the region. Klimley and Nelson (1981) documented a school of scalloped hammerheads, at an established aggregation site, of 525 individuals. Multiple attempts have been made to recreate this study, and seldom has anyone observed schools of more than 8 sharks (Baum et al. 2007).Dive operators in Ecuador’s Galapagos National Park have reported steep declines in scalloped hammerhead sightings (Baum et al. 2007).

Hammerhead and silky fins are both are prized in the shark fin trade. Clarke et al. (2004) concluded an annual average of 52,133 kg of dried silky fins is traded annually in Hong Kong markets, comprising approximately 3.5-4.4% of the total fin trade (Clark et al. 2004, 2006). This study also found the fins of an estimated 1.3-2.7 million hammerheads (including S. lewini) are traded annually in Hong Kong’s shark fin markets (Clarke et al. 2006). Scalloped hammerheads have recently been approved for inclusion in CITES Appendix II (effective Sept. 14, 2013), which certifies that while this species is not in danger of extinction, it could become imperiled without trade regulation.

For all species it is difficult to ascertain the precise number of sharks landed in each year. Governmental and international reporting methodologies vary greatly and are further confused by the formerly widespread practice of landing fins only and discarding shark carcasses at sea. Landings are measured in metric tons, and when only the fins are landed this vastly underestimates the actual volume of sharks captured. Shark finning is now illegal in Guatemala and the 7 other member nations of the Central America Integration System (SICA, Regulation OSP-05-11, effective January 1, 2012). Sharks must be landed with their fins naturally attached, although the import and export of shark fins is permitted with documentation as to the origin of the fins.

Waved Albatross, Phoebastria irrorata (Peru)

Factor 2.1 Inherent Vulnerability – High Waved albatrosses are long-lived and do not reproduce until 4-6 years of age (BirdLife International 2012). Chicks experience high mortality and mortality rates increase for both adults and chicks during ENSO years (Awkerman et al. 2006). Additionally, waved albatrosses practice obligate, bi-parental care (Birdlife International 2012), so the loss of one member of a breeding pair reduces the effective population size by two individuals.

Factor 2.2 Stock status – Very High Concern Waved albatrosses are ranked as critically endangered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN 2011).

Detailed rationale With few exceptions, the entire breeding population of waved albatrosses resides on Isla Española in Galápagos National Park, Ecuador and forages primarily off the coasts of southern Ecuador and northern Peru (Jiménez-Uzcátegui et al. 2006, Anderson et al. 2008). Accordingly, the entirety of the wild population is vulnerable to local environmental perturbations. The total number of waved albatrosses was estimated at 34,694 adults in 2001 (Anderson et al. 2002), with observed declines in the number of breeding pairs in subsequent years (Birdlife International 2012).

Factor 2.3 Fishing mortality – High Concern The limited information available suggests that longline fisheries account for much of the observed mortality of adult waved albatrosses (44%) and hooking and entanglement in fishing gear poses a serious risk to the survival of this species (Jiménez-Uzcátegui et al. 2006).

Detailed rationale: The incidental catch of a variety of sea birds with pelagic longline gear has been well documented. Birds attempting to forage on baited hooks often become hooked or entangled in the lines and ultimately drown as the gear sinks. Jahncke et al. (2001) estimate 5-13% of the pooled population of waved and Chatham Island albatrosses are caught in Peru’s artisanal longline fisheries per year. In addition to the risk associated with interaction with gear, Pro Delphinus (2006) reported targeted capture and consumption of waved albatrosses, and other seabirds by Peruvian gillnet crews. While this practice may not be widespread, the estimated hunting a few hundred birds per year (Pro Delphinus 2006) can nonetheless have egregious population consequences.

Reducing adult mortality associated with fishery bycatch is crucial to waved albatross recovery (Anderson et al. 2008). Using fresh or thawed bait, blue-dyed bait, tori lines and setting hooks at night have been demonstrated to greatly reduce incidental seabird capture (Jahncke et al. 2001, Gilman et al. 2011).

2.4 Discards—0-20%

Discard rates are unknown for the mahi mahi fisheries in Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala. Small-scale operators typically have lower discard rates than industrial scale vessels (Kelleher 2005), because artisanal fishers are able to utilize more of the incidental catch. Kelleher (2005) assumed a discard rate of <1 to 5% for artisanal fisheries. In keeping with this standard, the discard rate for the mahi mahi fisheries in Ecuador, Peru and Costa Rica was categorized as <20%. Kelleher (2005) also found that industrial scale longliners targeting HMS, like those used in the Guatemalan mahi mahi fishery, averaged a discard rate of 28.5%, however, the majority of incidentally captured fish is consumed in the domestic market (E. Villagrán, pers. comm.) so the discard rate in this fishery is likely significantly lower.

Criterion 3: Management effectiveness

Guiding principle

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

Summary

Fishery Management: Management: Criterion 3 Retained Species Non-retained species Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Score Red Guatemala Very High Concern (1) High Concern (2) 1.41 Red Costa Rica Very High Concern (1) High Concern (2) 1.41 Red Peru High Concern (2) Very High Concern (1) 1.41 Yellow Ecuador Moderate Concern (3) Moderate Concern (3) 3

A management plan for the Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery has very recently been adopted and includes comprehensive policies regarding catch parameters, bycatch mitigation, scientific oversight and enforcement. The overriding goal of Ecuador’s National Plan of Action is a holistic approach to mahi mahi fishery management and the formation of a framework whereby fisheries managers, scientists and various stakeholder groups all are participants in the management process. This plan is very encouraging, but its efficacy remains to be seen. In Peru the mahi mahi fishery has been the subject of an assessment carried out by an NGO but the conclusions of this report and any governmental review are unavailable, although there are some existing minimum size limitations. In Costa Rica there is no management plan in place, although some measures have been undertaken, with mixed results, to reduce sea turtle bycatch. Despite the economic importance of the mahi mahi fishery in Guatemala there is no management plan in place. There do not appear to be any plans to pursue research into the state of the stock, nor to monitor the impacts of this fishery on mahi mahi populations.

Justification of Ranking

Factor 3.1 Harvest Strategy

The Regional Fisheries Management Organization with management jurisdiction of fisheries in the Eastern Pacific (IATTC) does not have conservation or harvest control measures in place for mahi mahi. Both Ecuador and Peru have some measures in place to manage their fisheries’ impact on mahi mahi stocks, while Costa Rica and Guatemala do not.

Fishery Critical? Mgmt Recovery of Scientific Scientific Enforce. Track record Stakeholder Management of strategy and stocks of research and advice inclusion Retained Species implement. concern monitoring Rank (Score)

Very High Guatemala No Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Concern (1) Very High Costa Rica No Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Concern (1) Moderately Peru No Effective N/A Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective High Concern (2) Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderate Ecuador No Effective N/A Effective Effective Effective Effective Effective Concern (3)

Detailed rationale:

Costa Rica and Guatemala

Management Strategy and Implementation: There is no management plan nor any mahi mahi-specific management measures in place in Costa Rica or Guatemala. As the Guatemalan fishery regularly catches and retains species of concern (sharks), and there is no management plan in place, the management harvest strategy is considered to be of very high concern. There is also an indication that there are inadequate resources for the Navy to effectively patrol the coastline (Lemus-Guzman 2012). Recently, DIPESCA enacted additional guidelines for administrative oversight of landings (Acuerdo Ministerial 108-2012). Included are requirements that fishing vessels carry tracking devices that transmit vessel ID, geographic location and other trip information (Acuerdo Ministerial 84- 2012) as a means of reducing IUU fishing (Cifuentes-Velasco 2013), but it will be some time before the effectiveness of these measures is known. Costa Rica also suffers from a lack of sufficient fisheries enforcement, but there is research and monitoring occurring, conducted jointly by WWF and INCOPESCA (R. Arauz, pers. comm.). Although this is a positive development, the harvest strategy in Costa Rica remains a Very High Concern.

Peru

Management Strategy and Implementation: There is currently no mahi mahi management plan in place in Peru, although some measures have been taken to try to reduce the impact of the Peruvian mahi mahi fleet on recruitment.

The government has established a minimum size of 70cm with an allowance for 10% of the catch to be below this size (A. Gonzales, pers. comm.). In addition, a scientific study of Peru’s mahi mahi fishery was carried at the behest of the World Wildlife Fund. Although the findings of this study are not publicly available, WWF is currently working with Food Certification International to develop a strategy for gaining Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification for the Peruvian mahi mahi fishery (S. Amoros, pers. comm.). Once the preliminary assessment is complete, it will be presented to PRODUCE, with the goal of assembling a workshop with various stakeholder groups in early 2013 to develop an action plan for the fishery (S. Amoros, pers. comm.).

Recovery of stocks of concern: The Peruvian fishery is highly seasonal, with mahi mahi stocks most abundant from December to March (Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011). During this period fishery landings are dominated by mahi mahi. As the stock diminishes in April many longline fishers modify their gear and begin targeting sharks. While there is undoubtedly some overlap of the mahi mahi and shark season, where fishers are both landing mahi mahi for export and sharks for domestic consumption, there are sufficient temporal and gear configuration differences to consider these two separate fisheries (Alfaro-Shigueto et al. 2011). There are no stocks of concern retained in the Peruvian mahi mahi fishery.

Scientific Research and Monitoring: There has been some scientific investigation into Peru’s mahi mahi fishery but the results of this study are not available.

Scientific Advice: The Instituto del Mar del Perú (IMARPE) conducts fisheries research to inform management policy. While this organization is well established throughout the coast, there is some question as to whether IMARPE has adequate resources to fulfill its mandate (A. Gonzales, pers. comm.).

Enforcement: PRODUCE enforces fisheries laws and guidelines, as recommended by IMARPE. It is unclear as to whether its enforcement capacity is sufficient to police such a large and spatially diffuse fishery.

Track Record: There is no history of active management of the Peruvian mahi mahi fishery.

Stakeholder inclusion: Unknown

Ecuador

Management Strategy and Implementation:

Ecuador has undertaken several steps in the past few years to develop and implement a comprehensive mahi mahi management strategy. A national plan of action (NPOA) for the management of the Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery was adopted in February 2011. The plan provides for several regulations, including: establishment of a decision-making process (an advisory board), a minimum capture size (80cm) to protect recruitment, a fishery closure from June-November, improved communication and education of fishermen, and stipulations to allow for scientific exploration of the stock parameters(SRP 2011; SRP-MAGAP 2011).

Recovery of stocks of concern: As with Peru, the Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery is highly seasonal. During the austral summer months, when mahi mahi is most abundant, other species are rarely captured (Andraka et al. 2013). No stocks of concern are retained in the Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery.

Scientific Research and Monitoring: There are currently 60 fishery inspectors and 30 onboard observers operating in Ecuador’s main fishing ports to monitor fishery catches and ensure compliance with the new management guidelines (P. Guerrero, pers. comm.). In addition, a full EPO stock assessment effort is currently underway in collaboration with IATTC (P. Guerrero, pers. comm.).

Scientific Advice: The NPOA stipulates for the formation of a scientific advisory panel to make recommendations to the government regarding the management of the fishery (SRP-MAGAP 2011). Key members of the advisory board include INP and WWF. Also, Ecuador has established strategic partnerships with several regional institutions, including CICIMAR (Mexico) and IATTC, for collaboration and analysis of fishery data.

Enforcement: Enforcement is carried out by SRP in concert with the Ecuadorian Navy. The aforementioned fisheries inspectors will be assessing whether fishers are complying with the NPOA regulations.

Track Record: Prior to the NPOA (2011) there was no management plan in place. The score for this sub factor accounts for the fact that the effectiveness of many of the recently implemented measures is not yet known.

Stakeholder inclusion: The stated goals of the NPOA include ensuring positive job creation and the sustained profitability of the artisanal fishing sector. To this aim the government has made fisher education and communication a key component of the mahi mahi management plan (P. Guerrero, pers. comm.). Fisher and trade groups (National Federation of Fisheries Cooperatives of Ecuador (Federación de Cooperativas Pesqueras del Ecuador, FENACOPEC) and the Whitefish Exporters Associations (Asociación de Exportadores de Pesca Blanca del Ecuador, ASOEXPEBLA)) also are represented on the NPOA’s advisory board.

Factor 3.2 Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species

Ecuador’s NPOA for the mahi mahi fishery aspires to a fleet-wide switch from J-hooks to circle hooks to mitigate sea turtle bycatch (SRP-MAGAP 2011, P. Guerrero pers. comm). Peru has no plan in place to manage turtle bycatch in this fishery. While Costa Rica mandates the use of circle hooks, there is little evidence of circle hook effectiveness in limiting sea turtle hooking in this fishery (Swimmer et al. 2005, 2010, 2011) and there are no guidelines in place to monitor the effects of these policies on turtle populations. In Guatemala circle hooks are routinely used in the mahi mahi fishery, although this use is not mandated by law and there are no measures in place to monitor this bycatch (R. Brittain, pers. comm.). Direct hunting has only recently been banned and nest poaching is widespread and remains legal. Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala all permit the legal landing of shark carcasses, with fins attached, but have enacted policies to limit or tax the export of shark fins. There are no management, research or monitoring plans to address the population consequences of the incidental capture of sensitive shark and sea bird species. There are however, very active NGOs (i.e. Pro Delphinus, PRETOMA, WWF, Wild Aid) conducting research on the various effects of fishery activities on turtle, shark and seabird bycatch.

Fishery All Critical? Mgmt Scientific Scientific Enforce. Management of Species strategy and research and advice bycatch species Retained? implement. monitoring Rank (Score)

Moderately Guatemala No No Effective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective High Concern (2) Moderately Costa Rica No No Effective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective High Concern (2) Very High Concern Peru No No Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective Ineffective (1) Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderate Concern Ecuador No No Effective Effective Effective Effective (3)

Detailed rationale:

Guatemala

Management Strategy and Implementation: Circle hooks are widely used in the Guatemalan longline fishery, although this use is not mandated by law (E. Villagrán, pers. comm.).

Scientific Research and Monitoring: There is no governmental monitoring program for bycatch of sensitive species for this fishery. WWF has recently conducted a comparative study of the effectiveness of circle hooks in reduction sea turtle bycatch in the Eastern Pacific Ocean longline fisheries targeting mahi mahi.

Fishers in Guatemala, Ecuador, Peru, Mexico, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Panama, Costa Rica and Colombia volunteered to substitute circle hooks for J-hooks to ascertain the effects of hook type on both turtle bycatch and mahi mahi landings. The use of circle hooks resulted in lower catch rates for both turtles and mahi mahi (Largarcha et al. 2005, Mug et al. 2008). While this research was supported by DIPESCA (formerly, UNIPESCA) in Guatemala, there is no evidence of proposed legislative action or additional fisheries restrictions as a result of the study’s findings.

Scientific Advice: N/A

Enforcement: Fisheries enforcement is carried out by the Guatemalan Navy, but there is indication that there are inadequate resources for the Navy to effectively patrol the coastline (Lemus-Guzman 2012). Recently DIPESCA enacted additional guidelines for administrative oversight of landings (Acuerdo Ministerial 108-2012) and requirements that fishing vessels carry tracking devices which transmit vessel ID, geographic location and other trip information (Acuerdo Ministerial 84-2012) as a means of reducing IUU fishing (Cifuentes-Velasco 2013), but it will be some time before the effectiveness of these measures is known.

Costa Rica

Management Strategy and Implementation: Circle hooks, as a means to mitigate turtle bycatch, are mandated by executive decree, although there is little oversight to ensure compliance; olive ridley bycatch rates remain some of the highest in the world (R. Arauz, pers. comm.).

Scientific Research and Monitoring: There is no governmental monitoring program for bycatch of sensitive species for this fishery. Research and monitoring is conducted jointly by WWF and INCOPESCA (R. Arauz, pers. comm.).

Scientific Advice: N/A

Enforcement: INCOPESCA is responsible for enforcing fisheries laws, although there is some concern as to effectiveness of this agency in policing the artisanal mahi mahi fleet (R. Arauz, pers. comm.).

Peru

Management Strategy and Implementation: At present there are no guidelines in place to reduce bycatch or to encourage the recovery of species of concern.

Scientific Research and Monitoring:

WWF has recently conducted an assessment of Peru’s mahi mahi fishery but the results of this study are not yet available.

Scientific Advice: See 3.1 Harvest Strategy above.

Enforcement: See 3.1 Harvest Strategy above.

Ecuador

Management Strategy and Implementation: Sea turtles are the primary bycatch stock of concern in this fishery. To address incidental captures the government is operating an ongoing hook exchange program to encourage fishers to switch from traditional J-hooks to circle hooks. Additionally, the tariffs on imported circle hooks have been reduced in order to increase the accessibility of modified hooks, with the goal of ultimately requiring the use of circle hooks in the artisanal longline fleet (SRP-MAGAP, 2011; P. Guerrero, pers comm.). Presently, Ecuadorian authorities are working to develop efficacious import mechanisms and establish distribution channels for circle hooks to maximize their availability. SRP is also operating an education initiative to familiarize fishers with proper turtle handling and de-hooking techniques.

Shark interactions with pelagic longliners in the EPO is of general conservation concern, although recent research has found shark captures in the Ecuadorian mahi mahi fishery to be uncommon (Andraka et al. 2013). There is no directed shark fishery in Ecuador but incidental catch is permitted provided carcasses are landed with fins naturally attached. Some species- specific protections are in place; capturing whale sharks (Rhincodon typus), basking sharks (Cetorhinus maximus), white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias), porbeagles (Lamna nasus) and spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) is prohibited (SUBPESCA 2007, SUBPESCA 2008). It is legal to export shark fins but there are regulations in place to ensure the traceability of shark products, including landing certification by fisheries inspectors (SUBPESCA 2008).

Scientific Research and Monitoring: See 3.1 Harvest Strategy above.

Scientific Advice: See 3.1 Harvest Strategy above.

Enforcement: See 3.1 Harvest Strategy above.

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

Guiding principles

• The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained. • Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts or reduction of genetic diversity.

Summary

Fishery Gear type and Mitigation of gear EBFM Criterion 4 substrate impacts Rank Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Rank (Score) Score Gear does not touch Needs improvement Yellow Guatemala N/A bottom (5) (2) 3.16 Gear does not touch Green Costa Rica N/A Moderate (3) bottom (5) 3.87 Gear does not touch Green Peru N/A Moderate (3) bottom (5) 3.87 Gear does not touch Green Ecuador N/A Moderate (3) bottom (5) 3.87

Justification

Factor 4.1 Impact of the fishing gear on the substrate Surface longlines do not impact the sea floor substrate.

Factor 4.2 Modifying factor: Mitigation of fishing gear impacts N/A

Factor 4.3 Ecosystem and Food Web Considerations Mahi mahi are considered to be a mid-trophic-level species (Polovina et al. 2009, SAFMC 2003). Removal of any component of a biological community can have cascading effects on a host of other species (Crowder et al. 2008). Meso-predators like mahi mahi undoubtedly play an important ecological role (i.e. Crooks and Soule 1999, Estes et al. 1998), however this report focuses on the effects of commercial fisheries on organisms considered to be of exceptional importance to ecosystem function and food web structure. This includes those species whose effects on ecological processes are greater than would be predicted by their biomass alone,

including top predators, ecosystem engineers and important primary producers (i.e. Sergio et al. 2008, Mumby et al. 2008). Apex predators (sharks) are captured and generally retained in the mahi mahi fisheries of Costa Rica, Peru and Ecuador but do not comprise a significant proportion of the catch during the austral summer months, when the majority of mahi mahi are landed.

In Guatemala, sharks are routinely landed alongside mahi mahi and, although precise estimates of landings are lacking, the scale of the Guatamalan fishery raises some concerns about the impact of shark harvest on ecosystem function. IATTC has recently addressed the broader ecosystem implications of some EPO fishing practices (i.e. IATTC 2013) and has supported several measures to reduce the impacts of longline fishers on shark populations. Among these, are a prohibition on the retention and sale of oceanic white tip sharks (Resolution C-11-10, 2011) and the soliciting for funding to support the development of technologies to allow for the release, and post-release monitoring of billfish, sharks and rays (Resolution C-04-05, 2006). Although members of IATTC, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Ecuador and Peru are each bound by these guidelines, whether this concern over ecological impacts of top predator removal translates into additional conservation measures at the national scale remains to be seen.

Overall Recommendation

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

The overall recommendation for the fishery is calculated as follows:

Best Choice = Final score ≥ 3.2 and scores for Criteria 1, 3 and 4 are all ≥ 2.2 and Criterion 2 subscore ≥ 2.2

Some Concerns = Final score ≥ 2.2 and Criterion 3 ≥ 2.2 and (Final score ≤ 3.2 or scores for Criteria 1 &4 ≤ 2.2 or Criterion 2 subscore ≤ 2.2)

Red= Final score < 2.2 or score for Criterion 3 < 2.2 or any one criterion has a critical score or two or more of the following are < 2.2: Criterion 1 score, Criterion 2 subscore, Criterion 4 score Impacts Impacts on Manage- Habitat and Stock Fishery on the Overall other Species ment Ecosystem Stock

Rank Lowest scoring species Rank Rank Recommendation (Score) Rank*, Subscore, Score Score Score Score

Acknowledgements

Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® would like to thank Randall Arauz, Sophie Whoriskey and two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

References

Abreu-Grobois A., P. Plotkin. 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.

Aires-da-Silva, A., C. Lennert-Cody, M. Maunder, C. Minte-Vera, J. Martinez, J. Carvajal 2013. Preliminary results from mahi mahi (dorado) collaborative research with IATTC member countries. Presentation given at 4th Meeting of the IATTC Scientific Advisory Meeting La Jolla, USA, 29 April – 3 May 2013. http://iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/MAHI-SAC4-presentation.pdf

Aires-da Silva, A., C. Lennert-Cody, M. Maunder. 2013. Stock status of the silky shark in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Presentation given at 4th Meeting of the IATTC Scientific Advisory Meeting La Jolla, USA, 29 April – 3 May 2013. http://iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/SAC-04-Silky-shark- presentation.pdf

Alfaro-Shigueto J. 2012. Pers. comm. Pro Delphinus Perú, Lima, Peru; School of Biosciences, University of Exeter, UK.

Alfaro-Shigueto J., P.H. Dutton, J. Mangel, D. Vega. 2004. First Confirmed Occurrence of Loggerhead Turtles in Peru. Marine Turtle Newsletter 103: 7-11.

Alfaro-Shigueto J., J.C. Mangel, F.Bernedo, P.H. Dutton, J.A. Seminoff, B. J. Godley. 2011. Small- scale fisheries of Peru: a major sink for marine turtles in the Pacific. Journal of Applied Ecology 48:1432-1440.

Alfaro-Shigueto J., J.C. Mangel, M. Pajuelo, P.H. Dutton, J. A. Seminoff, B.J. Godley. 2010. Where small can have a large impact: Structure and characterization of small scale fisheries in Peru. Fisheries Research 106: 8-17.

Anderson D.J., K.P. Huyvaert, V. Apanius, H. Townsend, C.L. Gillikin, L.D. Hill, F. Juola, E.T. Porter, D.R. Wood, C. Lougheed, H. Vargas 2002. Population size and trends of the waved albatross Phoebastria irrorata. Marine Ornithology 30: 63-69.

Anderson D.J., K.P. Huyvaert, J.A. Awkerman , C.B. Proaño, W.B Milstead, G. Jiménez-Uzcátegui, S. Cruz, J.K. Grace. 2008. Population status of the Critically Endangered waved albatross Phoebastria irrorata, 1999-2007. Endangered Species Research 5: 185-192.

Arauz, R. 2012. Pers. comm. Programa Restauración de Tortugas Marinas. San Jose, Costa Rica.

Arauz, R. 1999. Description of the Eastern Pacific High-Seas Longline and Coastal Gillnet Swordfish Fisheries of South America, Including Sea Turtle Interactions, and Management Recommendations. Sea Turtle Restoration Project, Turtle Island Restoration Network.

Arauz, R. 2000. Impact of high seas longline fishery operations on shark and sea turtle populations in the Economic Exclusive Zone of Costa Rica. Sea Turtle Restoration Project: Turtle Island Restoration Network.

ARCAS. 2011. Where We Are: ARCAS in Hawaii http://www.arcasguatemala.com/en/where- we-are/where-we-are-arcas-in-hawaii

Awkerman J.A., K.P. Huyvaert, J. Mangel, J. Alfaro-Shigueto, D.J. Anderson. 2006. Incidental and intentional catch threatens Galápagos waved albatross. Biological Conservation 133: 483- 489.

Baum J., S. Clarke, A. Domingo, M. Ducrocq, A.F. Lamónaca, N. Gaibor, R. Graham, S. Jorgensen, J.E. Kotas, E. Medina, J. Martinez-Ortiz, J. Monzini Taccone di Sitizano, M.R. Morales, S.S. Navarro. J.C. Pérez, C. Ruiz, W. Smith, S.V. Valenti, C.M. Vooren. 2007. Sphyrna lewini (Eastern Central and Southeast Pacific subpopulation). In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1.

BirdLife International 2012. Phoebastria irrorata. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1. http://www.iucnredlist.org. Accessed July 17, 2012.

Bonfil, R., A. Amorim, C. Anderson, R. Arauz, J. Baum, S.C. Clarke, R.T. Graham, M. Gonzalez, M. Jolón, P.M. Kyne, P. Mancini, F. Márquez, C. Ruíz, W. Smith. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1. .

Castillo, F. 2005. Carta del Procurador Constitucional Fernando Castillo Víquez del día 28 de julio del 2005, dirigida a Carlos Manuel Rodríguez, Ministro de Ambiente (Oficio 296 2005). Produraduría General de la República de Costa Rica.

Cifuentes-Velasco, B.S. 2009. The Guatemalan fishery and aquiculture general law versus international laws related to fishery and aquiculture. Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea. United Nations. 137pp.

Cifuentes-Velasco. B. 2013. National Regulations to Eliminate IUU Fishing in Guatemala. United Nations--Nippon Foundation Fellowship Alumni. http://www.unfalumni.org/index.php/2013/02/26/national-regulations-to-eliminate- iuu-fishing-in-guatemala/

CITES. 2006. Conservation and management of sharks. Twenty-second meeting of the animals committee, Lima (Peru), 7-13 July 2006.

Clarke S.C., M.K. McAllister, E.J. Millner-Gulland, G.P. Kirkwood, C.G.J. Michielsens, D.J. Agnew, E.K. Pikitch, H. Nakano, M.S. Shivji. 2006. Global estimates of shark catches using trade records from commercial markets. Ecology Letters 9: 1115-1126.

Clarke, S.C., M.K. McAllister, C.G J. Michielsens. 2005. Estimates of Shark Species Composition and Numbers Associated with the Shark Fin Trade Based on Hong Kong Auction Data. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 35: 453-465. doi:10.2960/J.v36.m488

CNDM. 2009. Migratorias y transzonales de interes comercial para el Ecuador y su importancia dentro de la adhesiòn a la COVEMAR: 6-64. http://www.cndm.gob.ec/.

Comisión Presidencial Para la Gobernanza Marina, 2012. Informe. Constituido Por la Presidencia de la República el 20 de diciembre del 2011 Informe entregado el 14 de junio del 2012. Casa Presidencial, Costa Rica.

de Jesús Ixquiac Cabrera M. 2008. Implementación de los Planes de Acción para la Ordenación y Conservación de los Tiburones en Guatemala. UNIPESCA. http://tiburon.viceministerioap.gob.ec/tiburon-ecuador/guatemala-69.html

FAO. 2000. Fishery Country Profile—Guatemala. http://www.fao.org/fi/oldsite/FCP/en/GTM/profile.htm.

FAO. 2004. Species Fact Sheet: Coryphaena hippurus. http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/3130/en.

FAO. 2011. FishStat J. http://www.fao.org/fishery/statistics/software/fishstatj/en.

Froese R., D. Pauly. 2012. Fishbase. http://www.fishbase.org.

Gilman E.L. 2011. Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. Marine Policy 35: 590-609.

Gonzales, A. 2012. Pers. comm. CeDe Pesca. Peru.

Guerrero, P. 2012. Pers. comm. World Wildlife Fund. Galápagos National Park, Ecuador.

Guerrero, P. 2010. Sustainable Management Plan in the Works for Mahi-Mahi. Galápagos and Eastern Pacific Newsletter December 2010.

Hayes, C.G. 2007. Investigating single and multiple species fisheries management: stock status evaluation of hammerhead (Sphyrna spp.) sharks in the western North Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico. Ph.D. Dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.

IATTC. 2013. Document SAC-04-08: Ecosystem Considerations. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission Scientific Advisory Committee 4th Meeting. La Jolla,CA. http://iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/SAC-04-08-Ecosystem- considerations.pdf

IATTC. 2011a. Catch by Species, Gear and Flag. http://www.iattc.org/Catchbygear/IATTC-Catch- by-species1.htm.

IATTC. 2011b. Fisheries status report No. 9: Tunas and billfish in the Eastern Pacific Ocean in 2010. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

IATTC 2013. 4th Meeting of the Scientific Advisory Committee Report. May 2013. Available online at http://www.iattc.org/Meetings/Meetings2013/MaySAC/Pdfs/SAC-04-Meeting- report-ENG.pdf

IUCN. 2011. The IUCN Redlist of threatened species. http://www.iucnredlist.org.

Jacquet J., J.J. Alava, G. Pramod, S. Henderson, D. Zeller. 2008. In hot soup: sharks captured in Ecuador’s waters. Environmental Sciences 5: 269-283.

Jahncke J., E. Goya, A. Guillen. 2001. Seabird by-catch in small-scale longline fisheries in northern Peru. Waterbirds 24: 137-141.

Jolon-Morales M.R., R. Sanchez-Castañeda, J.C. Villagrán-Colón, C. Mechel, H.A. Kinh. 2005. Estudio sobre los Recursos Pesqueros (de escama) en el Litoral Pacifico y Mar Caribe de Guatemala. Guatemala: UNIPESCA-AECI. 128 pp. http://www.scribd.com/doc/549298/Recursos-pesqueros-de-escama-en-Guatemala

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 470. Rome, FAO.

Klimley A.P, D.R. Nelson. 1981. Schooling behavior of scalloped hammerhead sharks, Sphryna lewini, in the Gulf of California. Fisheries Bulletin 79: 356-360.

Kyne P.M., J.K. Carlson, D.A. Ebert, S.V. Fordham, J.J. Bizzarro, R.T. Graham, D.W. Kulka, E.E.Tewes, L.R. Harrison, N.K. Dulvy (eds). 2012. The Conservation Status of North American, Central American, and Caribbean Chondrichthyans. IUCN Species Survival Commission Shark Specialist Group, Vancouver, Canada.

Largarcha E., M. Parrales, L. Rendón, V. Velasquez, M. Orozco, M. Hall. 2005. Working with the Ecuadorian fishing communitie to reduce the mortality of sea turltes in longlines: The First Year. March 2004-March 2005. WPRFMC. pp.57.

Lasso J., L. Zapata. 1999. Fisheries and biology of Coryphaena hippurus (Pisces: Coryphaenidae) in the Pacific coast of Colombia and Panama. Scientia Marina 63: 387-399.

Lemus-Guzman J.A. 2012. The Commanders Respond: Guatemalan Navy. Proceedings Magazine--United States Naval Institute. March

2012. http://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2012-03/commanders-respond- guatemalan-navy

Lewison R.L., L.B. Crowder. 2007. Putting longline bycatch of sea turtles into perspective. Conservation biology 21: 79-86.

Lewison, R.L., S.A. Freeman, L.B. Crowder. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species: the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7: 221-231.

Lopez Lopez J.L. 2006. Inter-American Convention for the Protection and Conservation of Sea Turtles Guatemala—2006 Annual Report. 17pp.

MAGA. Manual de organización (Funciones)—Unidad de Manejo de la Pesca y Acuicultura— UNIPESCA. Ministerio de Agricultura, Granadería y Alimentación.

McBride R.S., D.J.G. Snodgrass, D.H. Adams, S.J. Rider, J.A. Colvocoresses. 2012. An indeterminant model to estimate egg production of the highly iteroparous and fecud fish, dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus). Bulletin of Marine Science 88: 283-303.

Mortimer J.A., M. Donnelly. 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/details/8005/0.

Mug M., M. Hall, N. Vogel. 2008. Bycatch Initiative: Eastern Pacific Programme: A vehicle towards sustainable fisheries; Progress report of fishing experiments with modified gear (2004-2007). WWF/IATTC.

NMFS. 2009. Our living oceans. Report on the status of U.S. living marine resources, 6th edition. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-80, pp.369.

NMFS. 2010. Annual Landings. Fisheries Statistics Division. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/commercial/landings/annual_landings.html.

NMFS. 2011. Trade. Fisheries Statistics and Economics Division. http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st1/trade/index.html.

Oceana, 2010. The International Trade of Shark Fins. Endangering Shark Populations worldwide. http://www.oceana.org.

Olson R.J., F. Galván-Magaña. 1996. Food habits and consumption rates of common dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Ciencias Marinas 100: 279-298.

Patterson K.R., J. Martinez. 1991. Exploitation of the dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus L. off Ecuador: Analysis by length-based virtual population analysis. Fishbyte 9: 21-23.

Polovina, J.J., M. Abecassis, E.A. Howell, P. Woodworth. 2009. Increases in the relative abundance of mid-trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the subtropical North Pacific , 1996 – 2006. Fishery Bulletin: 523-531.

Pro Delphinus. 2006. Assessment of seabird bycatch in Peruvian artisanal fisheries. Final report to the British Petroleum Conservation Programme. http://www.prodelphinus.org

PRODUCE. 2010. Anuario estadístico del sector produccion – 2010. El Ministerio de la Producción. Lima, Peru.

Project GloBAL. n.d. Fishing effort and target species in the Eastern Tropical Pacific country report--Ecuador. http://bycatch.nicholas.duke.edu/.

Ruiz Alvarado C.L., N. Mijangos López. 1999. Estudio sobre la pesquería del tiburón en Guatemala. In: Case studies of the management of elasmobranch fisheries. Shotton, R. (ed.) FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 378 (1) Rome, FAO. 479pp. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x2097e/X2097E08.htm#ch6.

Sarti Martinez, A.L. (Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.1.

Schwenke K.L., J.A. Buckel. 2008. Age, growth and reproduction of dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) caught off the coast of North Carolina. Fisheries Bulletin 106: 82-92.

Sherman K., G. Hempel (editors). 2009. The UNEP Large Marine Ecosystem Report: A perspective on changing conditions of LMEs of the world’s Regional Seas. UNEP Regional Seas Report and Studies No. 182. United Nations Environment Programme. Nairobi, Kenya.

SRP. 2011. Acuerdo 070 Veda total del recurso dorado.

SRP-MAGAP. 2011. Plan de Acción Nacional para la Conservación y el Manejo del recurso Dorado en Ecuador (PAN Dorado)/Ecuadorian National Action Plan for dolphinfish management and conservation (NAP Dolphinfish). Martínez-Ortiz, J & P. Guerrero-Veruga (eds). SRP-MAGAP. Manta-Manabí-Ecuador. 102pp.

SUBPESCA. 2007. Decreto Ejecutivo 486. Minesterio de Agricultura, Granadería, Acuacultura y Pesca. http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/subpesca41-decreto-ejecutivo-486- tiburon.html

SUBPESCA. 2008. Decreto Ejecutivo 001. Minesterio de Agricultura, Granadería, Acuacultura y Pesca. http://www.viceministerioap.gob.ec/subpesca102-decreto-ejecutivo-001- regularizacion-de-la-pesca-incidental.html

Swimmer, Y., R. Arauz, B. Higgins, L. McNaughton, M. McCracken, J. Ballestero, R. Brill. 2005.

Food color and marine turtle feeding behavior: Can blue bait reduce turtle bycatch in commercial fisheries? Marine Ecology Progress Series. 295: 273–278.

Swimmer, Y., R. Arauz, M. Mccracken, L.M. Naughton, J. Ballestero, M. Musyl, K. Bigelow, R. Brill. 2006. Diving behavior and delayed mortality of olive ridley sea turtles Lepidochelys olivacea after their release from longline fishing gear. Marine Ecology Progress Series 323: 253-261.

Swimmer, Y., R. Arauz, J. Wang, J. Suter, M. Musyl, A. Bolaños, and A. López. 2010 Comparing the effects of offset and non-offset circle hooks on catch rates of fish and sea turtles in a shallow longline fishery. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. DOI: 10.1002/aqc.1108.

Swimmer Y., J. Sutter, R. Arauz, K.Bigelow, J. Wang, J. Ballestero, I. Zanela, A. Bolan, C. Boggs. 2011. Sustainable fishing gear : the case of modified circle hooks in a Costa Rican longline fishery. Marine Biology: 757-767.

Truilljo P., A.M. Cisneros-Montemayor, S. Harper, D. Zeller. 2012. Reconstruction of Costa Rica’s marine fisheries catches (1950-2008). Fisheries Centre (University of British Columbia) Working Paper Series 2012-03. pp.21.

Uchiyama J.H., C. Boggs. 2006. Length-weight relationships of dolphinfish, Coryphaena hippurus and wahoo, Acanthocybium solandri: Seasonal effects of spawning and possible migration in the Central North Pacific.” Marine Fisheries Review 68: 19-29.

Watts S.,V. Wu. 2005. At rock bottom: the decline of the sharks of the Eastern Tropical Pacific. WildAid.

Whoriskey S., R. Arauz, J.K. Baum. 2011. Potential impacts of emerging mahi-mahi fisheries on sea turtle and elasmobranch bycatch species. Biological Conservation 144 (6): 1841-1849.

Witzell, W.N. 1999. Distribution and relative abundance of sea turtles caught incidentally by the U.S. pelagic longline fleet in the western North Atlantic Ocean, 1992-1995. Fisheries Bulletin 97: 200-211.

Appendix A: All Species Included in Assessment

This table presents a first filter of all species caught in all fisheries assessed in this report. Stocks in blue are those for which this report provides a recommendation. A full assessment of each of these species can be found in Criterion 1. Species in red are those which likely score most poorly of the remaining species and so are fully evaluated under Criterion 2. The assessment text for only the lowest scoring species(s) is presented in the Criterion 2 section of this report. The assessment text for other low scoring species is provided in Appendix B. Species in black are those for which there is no recommendation provided and there is no particular concern over their status. They are not assessed further in this report.

Species/Stock Fishbase B/BMSY and/or F/FMSY and/or Fishery Sources vulnerability mgmt mgmt Specific score (fish classification classification Fishing only) Mortality (optional) Mahi mahi 39 Unknown Unknown Unknown NMFS 2009 Olive ridley sea Low Vulnerable IUCN turtle Resilience 2011 Green sea turtle Low Endangered IUCN Resilience 2011 Loggerhead sea Low Endangered IUCN turtle Resilience 2011 Leatherback sea Low Critically IUCN turtle Resilience Endangered 2011 Hawksbill sea turtle Low Critically IUCN Resilience Endangered 2011 Waved albatross Low Critically IUCN Resilience Endangered 2011 Pelagic sting ray 66 Least concern IUCN 2011 Silky shark 79 Near Threatened IUCN 2011 Thresher sharks 65-79 Vulnerable Unknown Unknown IUCN (multiple spp) 2011, NMFS 2009 Scalloped 81 Endangered Unknown High IUCN hammerhead 2011 Oceanic whitetip 75 Vulnerable Unknown Unknown IUCN shark 2011 Crocodile shark 54 Unknown Unknown Unknown Smooth 82 Vulnerable Unknown Unknown hammerhead Whitenose shark 58 Unknown Unknown Unknown

Blacktip shark 55 Unknown Unknown Unknown Tiger shark 64 Unknown Unknown Unknown Pelagic thresher 73 Unknown Unknown Unknown NMFS 2009 Shortfin mako Unknown Unknown Unknown NMFS 2009 Pacific sharpnose Unknown Unknown Unknown Kyne et shark al. 2012 Bull shark Near Threatened Unknown Unknown IUCN 2011 Great hammerhead Endangered Unknown Unknown Kyne et al. 2012 Sicklefin Least concern Unknown Unknown Kyne et smoothhound al. 2012 Nurse shark Unknown Unknown Unknown Kyne et al. 2012 Mexican hornshark Unknown Unknown Unknown Kyne et al. 2012 blue shark 67 B>BMSY FBMSY Feye 37 Unknown Unknown Unknown croaker (Guabina) Yellow fin mojarra 24 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Chavela) Amberjack spp. (Quinoga) Llorona Unknown Big eye scad 18 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Ojoton) Peruvian mojarra 24 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Pinchincha) Salema butterfish 25 Unknown Unknown Unknown

(Hoja) Black snook (Robalo) 43 Unknown Unknown Unknown Yellowfin snook 18 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Robalo) Brassy grunt 38 Unknown Unknown Unknown (Azucarero/Cachaco) Grunt spp. (Ronco) Unknown Unknown Unknown

Yellowfin tuna 46 B≈BMSY F>FMSY Unknown IATTC 2011b, NMFS 2009 Indo Pacific Sailfish 74 Unknown Unknown Unknown NMFS 2009

Skipjack tuna 39 B>BMSY F

swordfish 72 B>BMSY Focean sunfish 82 Unknown Unknown Unknown snake mackerel 63 Unknown Unknown Unknown

black skipjack 43 Unknown F

blue marlin 52 B≈BMSY F

Appendix B: Review Schedule There is little specific information available about forthcoming mahi mahi stock assessment or management actions in Ecuador, Peru, Costa Rica and Guatemala. Ecuador is currently working toward executing the actions set forth in its NPOA. These plans include a scientific oversight panel although it is unclear at what interval the current strategy will be reviewed. In addition, a collaborative effort is underway between SRP, CICIMAR and IATTC to develop abundance indicies for mahi mahi in the Eastern Pacific based on CPUE data. An assessment of the mahi mahi fishery in Peru was recently carried out by WWF (online sources date this effort to 2009, http://www.futurosostenible.org/recientes_marino.html). WWF is leading an effort to get the Peruvian mahi mahi fishery certified by the Marine Stewardship Council. This process is still in the early stages but there is a tentative goal to meet with stake holder groups to begin

formulating an action plan in early 2013. There does not appear to be any plans for a mahi mahi fishery assessment in Costa Rica or Guatemala.

About Seafood Watch®

Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices”, “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid”. The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices. Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

Disclaimer Seafood Watch® strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports are made possible through a grant from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems.

The following guiding principles illustrate the qualities that capture fisheries must possess to be considered sustainable by the Seafood Watch program:

• Stocks are healthy and abundant. • Fishing mortality does not threaten populations or impede the ecological role of any marine life. • The fishery minimizes bycatch. • The fishery is managed to sustain long-term productivity of all impacted species. • The fishery is conducted such that impacts on the seafloor are minimized and the ecological and functional roles of seafloor habitats are maintained. • Fishing activities should not seriously reduce ecosystem services provided by any fished species or result in harmful changes such as trophic cascades, phase shifts, or reduction of genetic diversity.

Based on these guiding principles, Seafood Watch has developed a set of four sustainability criteria to evaluate capture fisheries for the purpose of developing a seafood recommendation for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

1. Impacts on the species/stock for which you want a recommendation 2. Impacts on other species 3. Effectiveness of management 4. Habitat and ecosystem impacts

Each criterion includes: • Factors to evaluate and rank • Evaluation guidelines to synthesize these factors and to produce a numerical score • A resulting numerical score and rank for that criterion

Once a score and rank has been assigned to each criterion, an overall seafood recommendation is developed on additional evaluation guidelines. Criteria ranks and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide:

Best Choices/Green: Are well managed and caught or farmed in environmentally friendly ways.

1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.

Good Alternatives/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught or farmed.

Avoid/Red: Take a pass on these. These items are overfished or caught or farmed in ways that harm other marine life or the environment.