SCS Global Services Report

Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central

Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE)

MSC Full Assessment: Final Report Prepared for Tri Marine International PTE

10500 N.E. 8th Street Suite 1888 Bellevue, WA 98004 USA Client contact: Matt Owens www.trimarinegroup.com

DATE OF FIELD AUDIT February 23-27, 2015

Prepared by: Mr. Alexander Morison, Team Leader, Principle 1 and Principle 2 Mr. Kevin McLoughlin, Principle 2 and Principle 3

Sustainable Seafood Program +1.510.452.6392 [email protected]

2000 Powell Street, Ste. 600, Emeryville, CA 94608 USA +1.510.452.8000 main | +1.510-452-8001 fax www.SCSGlobalServices.com SCSglobalservices.com

Contents Contents...... ii Glossary ...... iv 1. Executive Summary ...... 6 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 8 Audit Team ...... 8 Peer Reviewers ...... 9 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 10 3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought ...... 10 3.1.1 Units of Assessment (UoA) and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 11 3.1.2 Final UoC(s) – Public Certification Report (PCR) ...... 13 3.1.3 Catch and Effort Data...... 14 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 17 3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 17 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 17 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 25 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 50 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 81 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 112 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 112 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 113 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 113 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 114 4.4.1 Site Visit ...... 114 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 115 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 116 5 Traceability ...... 118 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 118 5.2 Traceability ...... 118 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 121 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 122 6 Evaluation Results ...... 123 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 123 6.2 Summary of Scores ...... 123 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 124

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page ii Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

6.3.1 Recommendations ...... 124 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 124 (REQUIRED FOR PCR) ...... 125 References ...... 126 Appendices ...... 134 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 134 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 134 Principle 1 – Skipjack tuna ...... 134 Principle 1 - Yellowfin tuna ...... 152 Principle 2 ...... 174 Principle 3 ...... 205 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 234 National Marine Fisheries Letter of Support ...... 241 Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports ...... 243 Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions ...... 289 Stakeholder Responses to the Public Comment Draft Report ...... 291 MSC Technical Oversight Report and Assessment Team Responses ...... 334 Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency ...... 338 (REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY) ...... 338 Appendix 5. Client Agreement...... 339 (REQUIRED FOR PCR) ...... 339 Appendix 6 Objections Process ...... 340 (REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR) ...... 340 Appendix 7 Variation Request and Response: Unit of Assessment ...... 341 Appendix 8: Variation Request and Response: Silky Shark Scoring ...... 346

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page iii Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Glossary B Biomass Bcurrent Average total biomass for recent years BMSY Biomass at MSY C, Clatest Catch, Latest catch CCM WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories are termed CCMs CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CMM Conservation and Management Measure CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort EAFM Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ELAPS Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine (applies to U.S. vessels) ERA Ecological Risk Assessment EU European Union ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected F Fishing mortality FAD Fish Aggregating Device Fcurrent Average fishing mortality-at-age for recent years FFA Forum Fisheries Agency FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan FL Fork length FLIM Fishing Mortality Limit Reference Point FMSY Fishing Mortality at MSY FMP Fisheries Management Plan FSM Federated States of Micronesia HCR Harvest Control Rule HTMC Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission IFIMS Industry Fisheries Information Management System (for PNA) IPOA International Plan of Action ISC International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna like Species in the N. Pacific ISO International Standard Organization ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated IW International waters LRP Limit Reference Point MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MP Management Plan MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NFD Non-fishing day NGO Non-Government Organisation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page iv Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPOA National Plan of Action OFP Offshore Fisheries Program (of the SPC) P1, P2, P3 The three guiding Principles of the MSC PAE Party allowable effort PASAI Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions PCR Public Certification Report PI Performance Indicator PICT Pacific Island Country or Territory PIP Pacific Island Party (to the US Treaty) PITIA Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement PNAO Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office PNG Papua and New Guinea PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF Risk-Based Framework RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisations RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands ROP Regional Observer Program SB Spawning stock biomass SBcurrent Average spawning biomass over recent years SBMSY Spawning biomass at MSY SC Scientific Committee (of the WCPFC) SCS SCS Global Services SEAPODYM Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis SIDS Small Island Developing States SPC Secretariat to the Pacific Community SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme SPTT South Pacific Tuna Treaty (the U.S. Treaty) TAC Total Allowable Catch TAE Total Allowable Effort TCC Technical Compliance Committee of the WCPFC TEP Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species TMI Tri Marine International TRP Target Reference Point UNCLOS United Nations Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification US or USA United States of America VDS Vessel Day Scheme VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean WPRFMC Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page v Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

1. Executive Summary

SCS Global Services (SCS) is an independent third-party certification body that has undertaken a MSC assessment of the Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE) in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fisheries management. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements v1.3 (January 2013) and the guidance to the Certification Requirements v1.3 (January 2013).

The team selected to undertake the assessment is comprised of two team members that collectively meet the requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are:  Mr. Sandy Morison, SCS Team Leader, Principle 1 and Principle 2 Expert  Mr. Kevin McLoughlin, Principle 2 and Principle 3 Expert

The team met with fishery representatives, scientists and stakeholders in Pago Pago, American Samoa on February 23rd to 26th, 2015. Documents were presented by fishery representatives and fisheries scientists. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The original announcement for the assessment indicated that the Risk based framework (RBF) for data-limited fisheries would not need to be used and this was confirmed from information provided prior to and during the site visit. The assessment proceeded without the RBF.

The assessment covers the catches of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) caught by purse seine fishing by the US flagged vessels registered to the WCPFC Convention Area from unassociated sets (those not associated with floating objects or Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs)) undertaken within the following areas of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: the Effort Limit Area(s) for Purse Seine (ELAPs), comprised of all areas of high seas and US exclusive economic zones (EEZs) between 20 degrees north and 20 degrees south latitude in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Convention area; the exclusive economic zones (EEZs) of the Partners to the Nauru Agreement (PNA); and EEZs of Cook Islands, Tokelau, Fiji, Samoa and Vanuatu. Purse seine vessels of the Tri Marine Group, and other eligible fishers as invited by the client via certificate sharing, operating in these areas comprise the Unit of Certification (UoC).

The key strengths of the Tri Marine’s fishing operations include that they have largely operated under the management provisions imposed by the PNA and particularly the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS), as well as the Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)). The VDS scheme has proved to provide an effective cap on the levels of fishing effort in the Economic Exclusive Zones (EEZ) of PNA members. The PNA has also introduced a requirement that licensed purse seine vessels do not fish in two high seas pockets bounded by PNA EEZs. The Tri Marine purse seine operations include sets made on unassociated schools of tuna and sets made on floating objects and FADs. However, the assessed component of the fishery is confined to sets made on unassociated schools of tuna, avoiding the impacts on other species that are more prevalent with sets made on floating objects and FADs. A weakness of the assessed fishery historically has been that fishing outside PNA waters has not been as strictly controlled and the proportion of the catch in these waters may increase in future. WCPFC CMM 2014-01 has improved this situation with limits on fishing effort in high seas waters. In addition, recent agreement of the US Treaty arrangements for 2016 has established fishing day limits for non-PNA EEZs. However, the future of the US Treaty beyond 2016 is uncertain.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 6 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

In this report, we provide the detailed rationales for scores proposed for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum scoring level of 60 and the average scores for each Principle were 86.9 for Principle 1, 86.7 for Principle 2, and 85.3 for Principle 3 for skipjack and 84.4 for Principle 1, 86.7 for Principle 2, and 85.3 for Principle 3 for yellowfin (for more details see Section 6.2). These findings support the conclusion reached by the assessment team that both units of certification (skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna) are eligible for certification according to the Marine Stewardship Council Principles and Criteria for Sustainable Fisheries.

The rationales also provide details as to why four PIs scored below 80 and for which conditions have therefore been imposed for the certification: for PIs 1.2.1 (Harvest Strategy), 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rules and Tools), 2.1.2 (Management of Retained Species) and 3.2.3 (Fishery Specific Compliance and Enforcement).

Scores have been harmonized with other overlapping certified and under assessment fisheries where possible in accordance with MSC CRV1.3 Annex CI. Lower scores were assigned to PI 1.2.1 for skipjack (and a condition imposed) than were awarded for PNA skipjack based on recent guidance about requirements for harvest strategies. Lower scores were also assigned to PI 1.2.2 for both skipjack and yellowfin (and conditions imposed) than were awarded for PNA skipjack and have been proposed for PNA yellowfin based on different requirements in the applicable Certification Requirements with regard to shark finning.

Peer reviews of the assessment, and the team’s responses to their comments, are provided in Appendix 2. A summary of stakeholders contacted throughout the assessment, as well as stakeholder comments (received only during the Public Comment Draft Report stage) and the team’s responses are provided in Appendix 3.

Actions are required by the client to close the conditions set out in this report for those PIs which scored below 80. The client has proposed an action plan for meeting the conditions as detailed in Appendix 1.3.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 7 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Audit Team

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

Mr. Morison has participated as part of a team undertaking MSC pre-assessments for several fisheries and has been the Principle 1 expert for the MSC certification assessments or surveillance audits of assessments of the Heard Island and McDonald Islands (HIMI) Icefish Fishery, the HIMI Toothfish Fishery, the Macquarie Island Toothfish Fishery, the Kyoto Danish Seine Fishery, the Western Australian Rock Lobster Fishery, the Western Australia Peel Harvey Estuarine Fishery, the Western Australia Deep Sea Crab Fishery, the Lakes and Coorong Fishery, and the Northeastern Tropical Pacific Purse Seine Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna Fishery, . Mr Morison is also trained as a lead auditor for MSC assessments by SCS.

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

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

Mr Kevin McLoughlin, Team member Kevin is a fisheries specialist consultant based in Australia who worked for more than 20 years (until 2008) with the Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences as a Senior Fisheries Scientist engaged in a wide range of international and domestic fisheries issues, with close links to government policy. He represented ABARES on many committees and groups such as fishery assessment groups providing advice on a wide range of fisheries and species (including shark, various finfish, scallop, prawn and tuna). Work in these assessment groups involved assessment of target species, development of bycatch action plans and ecological risk assessments. Mr. McLoughlin represented Australia on scientific issues at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and was Chair of the IOTC Working Party on Bycatch from its inception, assisting to establish this group to investigate the ecological aspects of the Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. In 2006, he led Australia’s delegation to 2006 scientific meetings of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.

Relevant MSC experience includes being a member of a team that conducted a pre-assessment for Australia’s Commonwealth government-managed fisheries that included this fishery. He was a team

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 8 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

member for the full assessment of the Fiji albacore longline fishery, Australia’s blue grenadier fishery, as well as the Western Australia Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay prawn trawl fisheries. He was a peer reviewer for the New Zealand albacore troll fishery and for the North and South Pacific American Albacore Fishing Association fisheries and has undertaken surveillance audits for a number of fisheries.

Kevin also works outside of MSC on a range of fisheries sustainability issues. Recent work includes risk assessment of fishing gear used in fisheries off eastern Australia as a precursor to the development of marine protected areas, and review of World Wildlife Fund tuna sustainability assessments.

Peer Reviewers

Mr. Don Aldous – Don Aldous Consulting Limited Don Aldous has been involved in fisheries management issues in Canada and the Pacific Islands since 1977. He has experience at all levels of fisheries management from Fishery Officer to Commissioner of a Regional Fisheries Management Organization. In Canada, he achieved a Senior Advisor position in matters dealing with foreign and domestic fisheries management. He led teams of consultants preparing fisheries management plans for Fiji, Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands and has returned to conduct follow-up work in all three. On a regional scale, he has provided advice to FFA on issues related to fisheries management, development and MCS. Don is considered a P3 expert for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessments and has been involved with MSC certifications in eastern Canada and eastern USA as a P3 expert, assessment team leader and peer reviewer.

Dr. Neil Klaer- Fisheries consultant Neil has worked on fisheries policy advice to the Australian Federal Government and fisheries stock assessment for the past 25 years with the Australian Bureau of Rural Sciences to 1993 and CSIRO from 1993 to 2014. Between 1988 and 2004 he provided stock projections to the international Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, and managed the scientific team responsible for management strategy evaluation and stock assessment for the Southern Bluefin Tuna fishery. Since 2004 he has assisted with the implementation of a formal harvest strategy framework for the Australian demersal Southern and Eastern Scalefish and Shark Fishery, developed automated systems to facilitate the assessment of more than 30 quota species or groups in the fishery, and provided stock assessments for various quota species mostly using either stock synthesis or data-poor assessment methods. He has developed or assisted in the development of ecosystem models (Ecosim and Atlantis) for the SE Australian shelf region, and the Southern Australian Small Pelagic Fishery. Since 2007 he has undertaken 16 independent reviews of US national fisheries stock assessments for the Center for Independent Experts, participated as an invited expert by the Chilean Government in the development of stock biological reference points for all Chilean national fisheries and provided peer review of MSC certification for the NZ Hoki fishery and the PNA Yellowfin fishery. His peer-reviewed publications have concentrated on seabird bycatch from longline fisheries, multispecies aspects of trawl fisheries and management strategy evaluation of harvest strategies particularly for data-poor fisheries. He has been a private consultant since 2014.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 9 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

3. Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit(s) of Certification and scope of certification sought

Relevant sections of the FCR V1.3 (and of V2.0 for PI 1.2.2) have been considered to determine whether the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification:

Sections Assessment 27.4.1 The pre-assessment has been received and evaluated prior to confirming that the fishery is in scope 27.4.2 The unit of certification has been defined 27.4.4 The fishery does not engage in unilaterally exempt or destructive fishing practices such as using explosives, dynamite, or poisons and does not engage in shark finning. The fishery is in general compliance with both national and international requirements in this regard. 27.4.5 The fishery is not currently the subject of controversy or dispute (national or and international). Should the fishery become the subject of controversy or dispute 27.4.6 during the assessment process, the fishery has a dispute resolution mechanism in place. 27.4.7 N/A, This is the first full MSC assessment of this fishery. 27.4.8 Other eligible fishers are those U.S. flagged purse seine vessels that fish the same stock by the same method in the same area but are not part of the Tri Marine group. A letter with certificate sharing arrangements will be posted to the MSC website if certified. These are hereafter referred to as other U.S. vessels. 12.4.9-11 The catch is not considered inseparable or practically inseparable as the species are readily identifiable and sorted by species. 12.4.13 The fishery assessment has been harmonized as far as possible with the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) skipjack tuna assessment and expedited PNA P1 yellowfin tuna assessment, the Japanese Pole and Line Skipjack Tuna Fishery, Solomon Islands Purse Seine and Pole and Line Skipjack, and the Walker Seafoods Yellowfin Fisheries. The original PNA assessment utilized the MSC default assessment tree in FAM v2. This assessment has used the methodology found in CR v1.3, except (following recent advice from MSC) with respect to PI 1.2.2. The PNA expedited P1 assessment also used the assessment tree in CR v1.3. 12.4.14 N/A neither species is introduced to the area of assessment. 12.4.15 Based on the criteria above. The fishery (2 species) is found to be in scope for MSC full assessment.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 10 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

3.1.1 Units of Assessment (UoA) and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)

Table 1: Units of Assessment. This assessment considers two distinct units of assessment based on target species. For both species UoAs geographical area, gear, and management systems are the same.

Unit of Assessment 1 Species/Stock Western and Central Pacific skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), (27.4.2.1) Management System US flagged vessels registered to fish in the WCPFC convention area (vessels pursuing the fishing in the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine (ELAPS), comprised of all stock) areas of high seas and US exclusive economic zones (EEZs) between 20 (27.4.2.3) degrees north and 20 degrees south in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Convention area, as well as EEZs of PNA member countries; and EEZs of Cook Islands, Tokelau, Fiji, Vanuatu, and Samoa. Methods of capture Purse seine: Free school sets, unassociated with fish aggregating devices (gear type) (FADs; WCPFC definition – See Box below)1 (27.4.2.2)

Further Management Governed by: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission System Information (WCPFC), PNA (Vessel Day Scheme - VDS), U.S. Multilateral Treaty, U.S. Magnuson Stevens, U.S. Territories Legislation, National Legislation of Pacific Island Parties to the U.S. Multilateral Treaty. Limits on the number of fishing days are set annually. Mandatory 100% observer coverage. Logbooks. Catch reporting. Areas that are closed to fishing. Gear restrictions at times. Unit of Certification The Unit of Certification will be the portion of the Unit of Assessment captured by the client group: Cape Fisheries Holdings, LP; Tri Marine International, PTE (hereafter referred to as the Tri Marine fleet) and other eligible vessels as determined by the client group in accordance with a certificate sharing arrangement (to be shared on the MSC website upon posting of the Public Certification Report (MSC CRV1.3 27.20.2.1). Tri Marine will require that all such vessels demonstrate compliance the Tri Marine Traceability requirements via certification in its Group CoC Certificate (pending).

Unit of Assessment 2 Species/Stock Western and Central Pacific yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) (27.4.2.1) Management System US flagged vessels registered to fish in the WCPFC convention area (vessels pursuing the fishing in the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine (ELAPS), comprised of all stock) areas of high seas and US exclusive economic zones (EEZs) between 20 (27.4.2.3) degrees north and 20 degrees south in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Convention area, as well as EEZs of PNA member countries; and EEZs of Cook Islands, Tokelau, Fiji, Vanuatu, and Samoa.

1The assessment team evaluated all unassociated sets as determined in the SPC observer database, which are classified as either unassociated or feeding on bait fish at the beginning of the set. The Unit of Certification, and product eligible to carry label, is determined by a more restrictive definition of “unassociated” given in detail in the box below, whereby sets are determined to be unassociated, based on the verified absence of aggregating devices, at the end of the set. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 11 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Methods of capture Purse seine: Free school sets, unassociated with fish aggregating devices (gear type) (FADs; WCPFC definition – See Box below)2 (27.4.2.2)

Further Management Governed by: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission System Information (WCPFC), PNA (Vessel Day Scheme - VDS), U.S. Multilateral Treaty, U.S. Magnuson Stevens, U.S. Territories Legislation, National Legislation of Pacific Island Parties to the U.S. Multilateral Treaty. Limits on the number of fishing days are set annually. Mandatory 100% observer coverage. Logbooks. Catch reporting. Areas that are closed to fishing. Gear restrictions at times. Unit of Certification The Unit of Certification will be the portion of the Unit of Assessment captured by the client group: Cape Fisheries Holdings, LP; Tri Marine International, PTE (hereafter referred to as the Tri Marine fleet) and other eligible vessels as determined by the client group in accordance with a certificate sharing arrangement (to be shared on the MSC website upon posting of the Public Certification Report (MSC CRV1.3 27.20.2.1). Tri Marine will require that all such vessels demonstrate compliance the Tri Marine Traceability requirements via certification in its Group CoC Certificate (pending).

Other Eligible Fishers: Other eligible fishers include vessels within the UoA (US flagged purse seine vessels registered to fish in the WCPFC Convention Area) that are not part of the Tri Marine fleet or included in the UoC via certificate sharing.

2The assessment team evaluated all unassociated sets as determined in the SPC observer database, which are classified as either unassociated or feeding on bait fish at the beginning of the set. The Unit of Certification, and product eligible to carry label, is determined by a more restrictive definition of “unassociated” given in detail in the box below, whereby sets are determined to be unassociated, based on the verified absence of aggregating devices, at the end of the set. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 12 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Definition of a FAD The definition of a FAD to be used for this Certification follows that used by the WCPFC which has been developed as part of CMMs specifying FAD closure periods. CMM 2008-01 states that “For the purposes of these measures, the term Fish Aggregation Device (FAD) means any man-made device, or natural floating object, whether anchored or not, that is capable of aggregating fish.” This was expanded upon in CMM 2009-02 in defining the Rules for FAD Closures: “The definition of a FAD in footnote 1 to CMM 2008-01 shall be interpreted as including: ‘any object or group of objects, of any size, that has or has not been deployed, that is living or non- living, including but not limited to buoys, floats, netting, webbing, plastics, bamboo, logs and whale sharks floating on or near the surface of the water that fish may associate with’ 3. During the FAD closure period specified in CMM 2008-01, no purse seine vessel shall conduct any part of a set within one nautical mile of a FAD. That is, at no time may the vessel or any of its fishing gear or tenders be located within one nautical mile of a FAD while a set is being conducted. 4. The operator of a vessel shall not allow the vessel to be used to aggregate fish, or to move aggregated fish including using underwater lights and chumming. 5. A FAD and/or associated electronic equipment shall not be retrieved by a vessel during the period of a FAD closure unless: a. the FAD and/or associated electronic equipment are retrieved and kept on board the vessel until landed or until the end of the closure; and b. the vessel does not conduct any set either for a period of seven (7) days after retrieval or within a fifty (50) mile radius of the point of retrieval of any FAD. 6. In addition to paragraph 6, vessels shall not be used to operate in cooperation with each other in order to catch aggregated fish. No vessel shall conduct any set during the prohibition period within one nautical mile of a point where a FAD has been retrieved by another vessel within twenty four (24) hours immediately preceding the set. Codes to implement the above definition and to be used by observers to classify set types are listed in the WCPFC Regional Observer Program Minimum Standard Data Fields document (www.wcpfc.int/system/files/Table-ROP-data-fields-instructions.pdf). For “Purse seine free school association (tuna)” these may be either “unassociated” or “feeding on bait fish”. Purse seine associated school associations (i.e. FAD sets) include sets on “Drifting log, debris, dead animal; drifting raft; anchored raft; live whales/marine mammals; live whale shark; other floating object”. Set types are recorded by observers at the time a set commences but, on hauling, a whale shark or other object may be found to have been associated with the school. This occurs apparently because “the whale shark may be not visible at the time of setting and so the set is recorded as another set type (e.g. unassociated, feeding on baitfish)”. Subsequently, the observer discovers the animal in the net during the brailing process, and records it as an interaction” (WCPFC8 ‐ 2011‐IP‐01 (rev. 1)). For the purposes of this assessment, such functionally associated hauls, discovered at the end of the set, are defined post hoc to be associated and therefore may not to be within the Unit of Certification, or carry the MSC ecolabel, regardless of the set type initially recorded by an observer.

3.1.2 Final UoC(s) – Public Certification Report (PCR) [To be completed at PCR stage]

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 13 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

3.1.3 Catch and Effort Data The annual retained catch of skipjack and yellowfin tuna (2010 to 2013) from unassociated purse seine sets by the Tri Marine fleet, other US vessels and all other WCPFC fleets are shown in Table 2. The Tri Marine (UoC) catches are a small proportion of the total catch, firstly because of substantial catch by other fleets and also the high level of catches that are taken on FADs. The Tri Marine catch has mostly been taken from PNA waters over this period reflecting a similar distribution of effort (measured in number of fishing days) (Figure 1).

The total catch of tuna from the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and the total purse seine fishing effort continues to increase as the catch by purse seines has increased (Figure 2). In 2014 provisional estimates of both the total catch and purse seine catch in the WCP Convention Area broke current catch records at 2,860,648mt and 2,020,627mt, respectively (WCPFC 2014c5). The fishery as a whole has remained concentrated towards the western part of the area (Figure 3) but the U.S. fishes more towards the eastern part of the area (Figure 4). With the weak El Nino-type conditions prevailing in 2012, more of the fishing activity overall shifted eastwards.

Table 2. Annual retained unassociated purse seine catch (metric tonnes) of skipjack and yellowfin tuna by fishing location and year for the Tri Marine fleet (the UoC), other U.S. vessels (the remainder of the UoA) and other fleets, 2010- 13 (PNA = EEZs of countries who are PNA members; IW = International Waters; U.S. = EEZs of U.S. territories) (Summarised from data provided by SPC).

Fleet and Year Species Location Tri Marine Fleet Other U.S. vessels Other Fleets 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 Skipjack PNA 18,167 20,413 23,560 26,467 142,418 113,174 117,671 127,244 468,748 461,606 510,999 782,118 IW 2,985 3,501 8,990 7,503 5,260 6,189 15,757 9,573 25,039 15,812 16,903 27,074 Other 377 1,351 5,977 3,531 887 1,110 6,185 4,400 68

EEZ U.S. 300 1,098 925 455 164 2,014 1,102 1 TOTAL 21,529 25,565 39,624 38,426 149,020 120,637 141,627 142,319 493,787 477,486 527,902 809,193 Yellowfin PNA 2,019 3,008 3,310 3,253 27,681 21,924 24,204 15,703 144,660 130,336 142,158 224,044 IW 181 1,115 1,849 753 580 1,107 3,242 1,144 4,295 3,868 2,493 5,754 Other 69 102 621 542 237 57 905 464 1

EEZ U.S. 53 391 81 30 19 333 240 TOTAL 2,268 4,279 6,171 4,629 28,528 23,107 28,684 17,551 148,955 134,205 144,651 229,798

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 14 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Effort distribution by fleet 2010-13 100% 90% TMI Other US Other fleets 80% 70% 60% 50% 40%

Percent Percent days of 30% 20% 10% 0% PNA IW Other EEZ US Location fished

Figure 1. Distribution of unassociated purse seine fishing effort (days fished or searched) by fleet for 2010-13 (TMI = Tri Marine fleet; IW = International Waters; PNA = EEZs of countries who are PNA members; U.S. = USA fleets or territories) (From data provided by SPC).

Figure 2. Purse seine catch (mt) of bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin and estimated fishing effort (days fishing and searching) in the Western and Central Pacific Convention Area (Williams and Terawasi 2015).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 15 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 3. Distribution of purse-seine effort (days fishing – left; sets by set type – right), 2010–2013. (Blue–Unassociated; Yellow–Log; Red–Drifting FAD; Green–Anchored FAD). Pink shading represents the extent of average sea surface temperature > 28.5°C. ENSO periods are denoted by “+”: La Niña; “-”: El Niño; “o”: transitional period. (from Williams and T 2015)

Figure 4. Distribution of effort by the US purse seine fleet during 2012 and 2013. Lines for the equator (0° latitude) and 160°E longitude included (from Williams and Terawasi 2015).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 16 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries The products of this fishery are wild and not from an enhanced system. They are native to the area fished.

3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) Neither species has been introduced to the area of the assessment.

3.2 Overview of the fishery Purse seine fishing Purse seine fishing involves enclosing a school of fish, in this case skipjack and yellowfin tuna, with a curtain of netting. The top of the net is mounted on a float line and the bottom on a lead line which usually consists of a steel chain with steel rings, known as “purse rings”. The purse line which runs through the purse rings is made of steel and allows the pursing of the net. Once the fish are encircled by the net, the bottom of the net is closed underneath, which stops the fish from escaping (Figure 5). The net is then partially hauled, concentrating the fish near the boat and allowing them to be brought on board by being ‘brailed out’ (scooped out by a smaller net). A video of purse seine fishing can be viewed at http://www.trimarinegroup.com/operations/fleet.php.

Although specifications can vary, nets are typically made of nylon mesh around 1,500 meters long and 200 meters in depth. Mesh size ranges from 90 mm in the center (bunt), and 200 mm in the wings. The net lengths are divided into separate panels, which can be replaced when the nets are damaged. The first sets of the day usually commence at around 3 or 4 am and are usually completed at around 9 or 10 am. Depending on opportunities, there may be up to 3 sets in a day. Trip lengths may last from 3 weeks to 3 months (Banks et al., 2011).

The WCPFC, in Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2008-01, defines a Fish Aggregation Device (FAD) as “any object or group of objects, of any size, that has or has not been deployed, that is living or non-living, including but not limited to buoys, floats, netting, webbing, plastics, bamboo, logs, and whale sharks floating on or near the surface of the water that fish may associate with.” Schools of tuna may be found near man-made and natural or be unassociated with any such structures or organisms. The purse seine fishing under assessment here includes only sets which take place on unassociated schools of tuna (also called free swimming schools). During the one trip vessels may fish on schools that are either unassociated or associated with FADs but the product from both types of sets must be kept separate at all times (see section 5 on Traceability).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 17 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 5. Illustration of an unassociated tuna purse seine set (Source FAO).

History of Purse Seine Fishing in the Pacific Ocean The first substantive industrial fishing activities were those by the Japanese in the 1920s and 1930s in Micronesia but little industrial fishing development occurred until the early 1950s when Japanese fishing activity resumed in Micronesia. Both Japan and the United States of America became active in establishing tuna bases in several parts of the Pacific Islands area in the early 1960s and since then industrial tuna fisheries (purse-seining, longlining, and pole-and-line fishing) have produced about ten times the amount of fish being produced by all of the other fisheries of the region combined. (Gillett 2007).

By the late 1970s there were several fully commercial Japanese and American purse seine operations in the western equatorial area of the Pacific Islands. The number of purse seine vessels operating in the Pacific Islands increased rapidly during the early 1980s. The USA purse seine fleet moved in quickly from the eastern Pacific due to the very strong El Niño event of 1982–83 and pressure to reduce dolphin mortality in their traditional fishing grounds.

Figure 6. Catch (mt) of albacore, bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin in the WCP–CA, by longline, pole-and-line, purse seine and other gear types (from Williams and Terawasi 2015).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 18 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

During the period from the mid-1980s to 2003, the regional purse seine fleet expanded, albeit at a slower rate, and the national composition of the fleet became more diverse (Gillett 2007). The expansion included other Asian fishing nations, Taiwan, Korea, Philippines, followed by China and New Zealand and, more recently, the Latin fleets of Spain, El Salvador and Ecuador (Banks et al. 2010). Access for these groups of vessels is under various regional or bilateral fisheries partnership arrangements or agreements.

Gillett (2007) outlined some major events affecting purse-seining in the Pacific Islands region during the last two decades including:  Strong El Niño events, especially that of 1982–83, resulted in good purse seine fishing in the Pacific Islands and the opposite in the eastern Pacific. In general, during El Niño years the purse seine fishery moves to the east of its normal location between Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia.  The South Pacific Tuna Treaty (also known as the U.S.A. Multilateral Tuna Treaty or just the U.S. Treaty) was signed in 1987 and came into force in 1988. Since that time, the USA purse seine fleet has enjoyed access to most of the region except closed areas in some EEZs and high seas pockets.  There has been a general increase in the proportion of tuna caught by purse-seining relative to that by longline or pole-and-line. About 80 percent of the tuna in the region is presently caught by this gear.

Fishing by the Tri Marine and other U.S. Fleets The Units of Certification for this assessment cover Tri Marine-owned vessels fishing for skipjack and yellowfin tuna by setting purse seine nets unassociated with FADs. The fishery under assessment occurs in the WCPO in the EEZs of Papua New Guinea, Kiribati, Federal states of Micronesia, Solomon Islands, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau and Tuvalu (collectively knowns as Partners to the Nauru Agreement, PNA), in the EEZs of Cook Islands, Fiji, Samoa, Tokelau, Vanuatu, in U.S. Territories, and in adjacent High Seas areas (Figure 8). The total fishing area extends over 14.3 million square km and takes place between 20°N and 20°S. The distribution of recent fishing effort (Figure 1 ) and recent catch (Table 2) by the Tri Marine fleet, other U.S. vessels, and all other fleets from unassociated sets, indicates the importance of fishing within the EEZs of PNA party members’ EEZs for all fleets. This is important for understanding the leverage that the management measures introduced by PNA has on the whole fishery.

The assessment also includes other U.S.-flagged purse seine vessels that set on unassociated schools of tuna and catch the same species in the same waters as the Unit of Certification. The catch from these vessels may be purchased by the Tri Marine group for processing in its facilities. More information about the potential treatment of product from these vessels is provided in Section 5.3. These other U.S. vessels constitute the majority of the U.S. fleet in the WCPO. The number of United States and Participating Territories purse seine vessels operating in the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Statistical Area (Figure 7) were estimated as 39, 37, 37, 39 and 40 for the years 2009-2013, respectively (NMFS 2014a).

Tri Marine is a privately owned company, founded in Singapore in 1971 as a tuna trading company, eventually expanding operations and integrating activities throughout the tuna supply chain. Today Tri Marine is headquartered in the USA and has a global network of commercial offices in 14 countries, 15 tuna purse seiners under U.S. and Solomon Islands flags, 12 processing plants and

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 19 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

refrigerated carriers including operations in the Pacific Ocean. The company is affiliated with 15 purse seiners and 3 pole and line vessels operating under U.S. and Solomon Island flags. In addition to its own fishing fleets, Tri Marine has ongoing contracts of supply with other major fishing fleets. The Tri Marine US purse seine tuna fleet offload 50% or more of its catch at canneries in American Samoa.

The Tri Marine fleet that forms the Unit of Certification currently includes 10 American Samoa-based tuna purse seiners known as the Cape Fleet (Table 3), though other US-flagged purse seine vessels within the scope of the UoA may be considered ‘eligible fishers.’ In 2015 Tri Marine completed construction and commenced production at its new processing facility in American Samoa, Samoa Tuna Processors Ltd (STP). STP has a potential production capacity of 250mt/day (currently processing 80 mt/day), with 5,000mt cold storage.

Table 3. List of Unit of Certification Vessels (Numbers sourced from WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels)

Vessel Name VID IRCS Flag Reg Number Cape Ann 11250 WDH8357 USA 1257193 Cape Breton 4617 WDE2397 USA 1060977 Cape Cod 8725 WDD5547 USA 599831 Cape Elizabeth III 10087 WDF8203 USA 962922 Cape Ferrat 4487 WDE2398 USA 1074874 Cape Finisterre 4111 WDA4699 USA 610466 Cape Horn 10316 WDF9777 USA 939836 Cape May 4241 WDE2195 USA 645777 Cape San Lucas 8950 WDE3676 USA 1209784 Captain Vincent Gann 10317 WDG2517 USA 953794

Figure 7. The Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Eastern Pacific Ocean; the WCPFC Convention Area boundary (dashed lines); and the EEZs of Pacific Ocean countries (unshaded).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 20 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 8. The boundaries of the EEZs, areas of U.S. jurisdiction in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean and the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seines (ELAPS) that applies to U.S. vessels between latitudes 20 degrees N and 20 degrees S.

Management of the fishery Regional management of tuna fisheries in the WCPO is made up of a web of treaties, conventions and institutional frameworks that underlie regional cooperation. The WCPFC is the major Regional Fisheries Management Organization (RFMO), formed under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), and is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment. More than half of the world’s tuna catch is taken within the WCPFC Convention Area.

US purse seine vessels, including the Tri Marine fleet, operate within the WCPO under the US Treaty, more formally known as the Treaty on Fisheries between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America. This is a multilateral fisheries access agreement established between the US and 16 Pacific Island Parties (PIPs) (Figure 9). The US Treaty grants US-flagged purse seine vessels access to fish in the EEZs of any of the PIPs, under a single license and standard set of conditions. The Treaty is also referred to as the South Pacific Tuna treaty (SPTT).

Additional information on management of the fishery is given in Section 3.5 (Principle 3).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 21 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 9. Area of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT). Treaty Area (bounded by red, solid line) and exclusive economic zones of Pacific Island Countries party to the SPTT. The dashed lines indicate the broad area of the Treaty Area over which the U.S. WCPO purse seine fleet typically operates. Source: National Oceanic and. Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 2006.

Harvest Strategies MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include a Management Plan (MP) or an MP (implicit) and be tested by Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE)’ (MSC CR v1.3). These elements are considered below.

The WCPFC has progressed through a stepwise process for implementing the components of a harvest strategy.

Establishing a limit reference point (LRP) has involved initially agreeing to a hierarchical approach to identify LRPs for key target species (2011), adopting specific LRPs for skipjack tuna (2012), and agreeing to the time period over which the LRP would be calculated (2013). SC9 (noting the results in SC9-MI-WP-02) recommended that the time window (from start year t1 to end year t2) to be used for defining the LRP of 20% of unfished Spawning Biomass (SBF=0,t1-t2) satisfy the following criteria: a) have a length of 10 years; b) be based on the years t1=ylast-10 to t2=ylast-1 where ylast is the last year used in the assessment; and c) the approach used for calculating the unfished biomass levels be based on scaled estimates of recruitment according to the stock recruitment relationship.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 22 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

For a target reference point (TRP), WCPFC’s CMM 2014-01 (WCPFC 2014b) reiterated the general objective (contained in previous CMMs) that its management measures aim to ensure that stocks are maintained at a minimum, at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield. This was also expressed in the specific objective that the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than the Fishing Mortality (F) at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY) FMSY, i.e. F/FMSY ≤ 1. More specific candidate reference points for skipjack tuna (and other target species) are being considered through a series of Management Objectives Workshops but are not yet agreed (WCPFC-MOW 2014). Funding has been allocated to support this process in 2015 (WCPFC 2014a – Para 691).

The PNA Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) was introduced in 2007 and is currently the main form of harvest control. It applies to purse seine fishing within the EEZs of PNA countries, where the majority of purse seine fishery takes place within the WCPFC Convention Area. Furthermore, the Third Arrangement Implementing the Nauru Agreement prescribed closures to purse seine fishing, by vessels licensed to fish in PNA waters, of areas of the high seas from 1 January 2011 that were surrounded by the EEZs of PNA countries (from 10°N to 20°S latitude and 170°E to 150°W longitude, equating to an area of 4,555,000 sq. km) (PNA 2010, Banks et al. 2011). This scheme (described in detail in Banks et al. 2011) established a limit on the total number of fishing days (Total allowable Effort (TAE)) that could be fished in PNA members’ EEZs, with a system of tradable fishing days allocated to each of the PNA Parties as Party Allowable Effort (PAE). The VDS was established to replace the existing limit of 205 purse seine vessels set under the Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Purse Seine Fishery. This Arrangement was established in response to concerns over the status of yellowfin and bigeye tuna and a desire to reduce purse seine fishing effort in the WCPO (Dunn et al. 2006, Banks 2011). The VDS was also designed to conserve the target stocks and enhance the value of the purse seine fishery by creating greater competition for access as new foreign fishing partners not currently allocated licences under the 205 limit could enter the fishery. Since 2008, the VDS has been an important element of the WCPFC purse seine measures to conserve bigeye (CMM 2008-001). Currently, the scheme has aimed to limit the catch to 2010 levels by restricting effort of vessels within the scheme to less than 2010 levels (the reduction being intended to allow for increasing fishing efficiency). CMM 2014-01 reiterated the requirement (initially contained in CMM 2011-01 and subsequently carried over in CMM 2012-01, CMM 2013-01, and CMM 2014-01) that Coastal States within the Convention Area that are PNA members shall restrict the level of purse seine effort in their EEZs to 2010 levels through the PNA Vessel Days Scheme; and that WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) shall support the ongoing development and strengthening of the PNA VDS including implementation and compliance with the requirements of the VDS as appropriate. Catches from vessels outside the scheme have not been similarly constrained.

The basis of total number of fishing days allowed and its relationship to the scientific advice about stock status is not readily available. As Banks et al. (2011) noted “There does however, appear to be a lack of clarity and openness in PNA decision-making with respect to the establishment and operation of the VDS Total Allowable Effort, particularly with respect to links to the requirements of WCPFC CMM 2008-01 and the scientific advice”. This lack of clarity about the links between the scientific advice, VDS effort allocations, and CMM provisions persists.

CMM 2014-01 also specifies other management measures including a three months (July, August and September) prohibition of setting on FADs for all purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and high seas, and also high seas purse seine effort limits. The annual high seas limit for U.S. vessels through to 2017 is 1270 days. In addition to this, the U.S. NMFS has set a compatible limit of 558 fishing days per year with the U.S. EEZ, in accordance with CMM 2014-01 para. 23. These limits are applicable until 2017.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 23 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Further information on the effort limits due to the VDS and CMM 2014-01 is given in Section 3.5 (Principle 3).

Information and Monitoring of the Fishery

Data are provided according the guidelines and standards for the provision of scientific data to the WCPFC (i.e. a reporting obligation by CCMs) ("Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission", as revised by WCPFC10). This standard covers a range of matters including requirements for estimates of annual catches, numbers of vessels active, operational level catch and effort data, catch and effort data aggregated by time period and geographic area and size composition data. Annual catches are required to be provided for catches of bigeye, skipjack, yellowfin, albacore and Pacific bluefin tuna; blue marlin, striped marlin, swordfish and black marlin; blue shark, silky shark, oceanic whitetip shark, mako sharks, thresher sharks, porbeagle shark, hammerhead sharks (winghead, scalloped, great, and smooth) and whale shark. Length and/or weight composition data that are representative of catches by the fisheries are also required to be provided to the Commission at the finest possible resolution of time period and geographic area and at least as fine as periods of quarter and areas of 20° longitude and 10° latitude. Operational level catch and effort data (e.g., individual sets by longliners and purse seiners, and individual days fished by pole and line vessels and trollers) is required to be provided to the Commission, in accordance with the standards. Purse-seine and ringnet catch and effort data is required that is aggregated by periods of month, areas of 1° longitude and 1° latitude, and type of school association.

For U.S. vessels, there are also U.S. regulations for the completion of daily logbooks. NMFS scientists collect data for U.S. purse seiners in the central-western Pacific, as a requirement of the South Pacific Tuna Treaty that started in 1988. Logbook data, detailing daily activities of the fleet, and landings data are collected from 100% of the fleet. Catch length for yellowfin, skipjack, and bigeye tuna, and species composition data are taken by biological technicians in American Samoa, as vessels unload at the canneries.

CMM 2013-05 also requires that all vessels complete an accurate written or electronic log of every day spent at sea on the high seas of the Convention Area.

Observer Programs Observer programs are only one part of the system for monitoring, control and surveillance of the fishery (which are described more fully in section 3.5) but are particularly important for providing data on the impacts of the fishery on non-target species, including discards and threatened, endangered and protected species (TEPS).

In the WCPFC, there is a Regional Observer Programme (ROP) that is coordinated by the WCPFC. This program was established under CMM 2007-01 with the objective “to collect verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional information related to the fishery from the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission.”

The ROP is a collection of National and Regional observer programs that are required to be audited before being authorised join the ROP. They are required to comply with an agreed set of standards that cover minimum data fields, observer training, observer trainers, code of conduct, sea safety, placement/deployment, briefing and debriefing, debriefing training, equipment and materials, communications, performance of observers, dispute mechanism, authorisation process, coverage,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 24 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

vessel safety certificate, insurance, and CMM adherence. These standards are available at http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/wcpfc-regional-observer-programme-standards.

The individual programs have been subject to an audit (in 2010 to 2012) covering all 23 programs in place at that time (WCPFC 2012). The audit concluded that all programs were fully authorized, but that there needed to be a follow up audit in a couple of years’ time to ensure that all programs have improved their standards where required to be fully compliant with the Commission requirements for the ROP.

U.S. vessels fishing in the convention area are covered by different programs depending on the areas fished: by the U.S. program if operating in U.S. waters and high seas, by the Pacific Islands Regional Fisheries Observer Program (administered by FFA) when fishing in EEZs of the Pacific Island Parties (PIPs) under the US Treaty and high seas. When fishing in both the WCPFC and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) convention areas on the same trip, a cross-endorsed observer from WCPFC is used (again, administered by FFA). Data from all these programs are provided to the WCPFC

When the ROP was initiated there was a requirement for 5% coverage of the fishing effort in each fishery under the jurisdiction of the Commission. There is now a requirement for 100% observer coverage for purse seine fishing (first established under the PNA’s Third Implementing Arrangement in 2008; then under WCPFC’s CMM 2011-01).

The requirements with regard to WCPFC observers are described in Compliance Guides that are regularly issued by NOAA (NOAA 2015): “Vessel operators and crew must allow and assist WCPFC observers to do the following: embark at a place and time determined by NMFS or otherwise agreed to by NMFS and the vessel operator; have access to and use of all facilities and equipment on board as necessary; remove samples; disembark at a place and time determined by NMFS or otherwise agreed to by NMFS and the vessel operator; and carry out all duties safely. Vessel operators must provide WCPFC observers with food, accommodation, and medical facilities at no expense to the observer. Vessel operators and crew must not assault, obstruct, resist, delay, refuse boarding to, intimidate, harass or interfere with WCPFC observers in the performance of their duties, or attempt to do any of the same.”

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis)

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

Skipjack in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are considered to comprise one stock for assessment and management purposes. A substantial amount of information on skipjack movement is available from tagging programs, which have documented some large-scale movement within the Pacific (Figure 10). In general, skipjack movement is highly variable (Sibert et al., 1999) but is thought to be influenced by large-scale oceanographic variability (Lehodey et al. 1997). Skipjack tuna are also classified as a ‘highly migratory species’ and are listed as such in Annex I of UNCLOS. Analyses of the Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 25 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

tagging data have, however, indicated that the median lifetime displacement of skipjack ranges from 420 to 470 nautical miles (Sibert and Hampton 2003). Other studies (Hoyle et al. 2011, Lehody et al. 2011) also indicate that mixing rates appear to be fairly restricted, particularly between the equatorial and sub-tropical/temperate North Pacific.

Figure 10. Released and recaptured skipjack from the Regional Tuna Tagging Program (purple arrows) and Pacific Tuna Tagging Program (green arrow) tagging programs. Only recaptures >1,000 nautical miles shown (from Rice et al. 2014).

Biology: Skipjack are the smallest of the major commercial tuna species, generally not exceeding 20 kg. They form both free schools and schools associated with FADs or other floating objects. Monthly observer sampling of the catch indicates that, when fished as surface schooling adults, they are typically caught at 30 – 70 cm and 2-5 kg in size (Williams and Terawasi 2015). Depth distribution ranges from the surface to about 260 m during the day, but is limited to near surface waters at night.

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

Skipjack tuna reach maturity at about 40 cm fork length (FL) and within their first year. They spawn in batches throughout the year in equatorial waters, and from spring to early fall in subtropical waters, with the spawning season becoming shorter as distance from the equator increases. Fecundity increases with size but is highly variable, the number of eggs per season in females of 41 to 87 cm fork length ranging between 80 000 and 2 million. For the skipjack tuna stock assessment, maturity and fecundity at size were not included in the maturity parameter, so in this assessment the term ‘spawning biomass’ refers to the biomass of adult fish (age >3 years), rather than spawning potential as in other tuna stock assessments (Rice et al. 2014).

Skipjack growth is rapid compared to yellowfin and bigeye tuna. In the Pacific, approximate age estimates from counting daily rings on otoliths suggest that growth may vary between areas. At 150, 200, 300 and 400 days, fork lengths (FLs) of 30, 33, 40, and 46 cm were estimated for fish sampled mostly in the north Pacific (Tanabe et al. 2003), but growth estimates were faster (42, 47, 55, and 60 cm) for fish sampled close to the equator (Leroy 2000). Growth has been found to vary spatially in the eastern Pacific (Maunder 2001) and in the Atlantic (Gaertner et al., 2008), based on analyses of tagging data. Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 26 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Estimates of natural mortality rate have been obtained using a size-structured tag attrition model (Hampton 2000), which indicated that natural mortality was substantially larger for small skipjack (21-30 cm FL, M=0.8 mo‐1) compared to larger skipjack (51–70 cm FL, M=0.12-0.15 mo‐1). The longest period at liberty for a tagged skipjack was 4.5 years. Skipjack tuna reach sexual maturity at about 40 cm FL.

Stock assessments and stock status: Stock assessments for skipjack tuna have been conducted regularly since 2000. Furthermore, an independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al., 2012) had several recommendations for improvement that apply equally to the skipjack assessment, and these have been incorporated into the current assessment wherever possible. The assessment model uses MULTIFAN‐CL and is based mainly on catch and effort data for various fleets, size data and tagging data.

The main conclusions of the 2014 stock assessment (Rice et al., 2014) were as follows:  A fluctuating but consistently high level of recruitment since the early 1970s has supported a robust fishery in all regions. The analysis suggests that the regional declines in spawning potential, in all regions except region 1, are being driven primarily by the fishing impacts. Although the ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential is estimated to have declined, with some fluctuations, throughout the model period, the average total biomass of the last five years is estimated to be above the average total biomass of the first five years of the model.

 Latest catches slightly exceed MSY (Clatest/MSY = 1.08).  Fishing mortality for adult and juvenile skipjack tuna is estimated to have increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing, but fishing mortality still

remains below the level that would result in the MSY (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.62).  Recent levels of spawning potential are well above the level that will support the MSY.  The estimated 2011 level of spawning potential represents approximately 52% of the unfished level, and is well above the limit reference point (LRP) of 20%SBF=0 agreed by WCPFC.  Recent levels of spawning potential are in the middle of the range of candidate biomass related target reference points (TRPs) currently under consideration for skipjack tuna, i.e., 40-60% SBF=0.  Stock status conclusions were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding steepness and growth. However, the main conclusions of the assessment are robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored.

Results are also summarized in Figure 11, Figure 12, Figure 14, Figure 13, Figure 14 and Figure 15.

The stock assessment has also considered the potential impact of some fleets changing their reporting practices mentioned above such that some searching days are reported as non‐fishing transit days. “This practice essentially represents effort creep and we have not yet specifically corrected recent data to ensure consistency of reporting. Therefore the impact of this is not known, but it will be minimized by the practice of estimating frequent time‐based changes in catchability.” (Rice et al, 2014). The issue was not identified as a major source of uncertainty for the assessment.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 27 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

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

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

The assessment reports contain descriptions of structural assumptions, model parameterization and priors. These have been progressively developed over the years and the latest report generally only contains details of changes to these assumptions which may be more fully described in earlier versions. For the latest assessment (Rice et al. 2014), there were six main differences in the input data and structural assumptions compared to the reference case from the previous, 2011 assessment: i. Updated catch, size and tagging data to the end of 2012. ii. Expanded the number of regions from 3 to 5. iii. An additional 5 fisheries added to accommodate the 5 region structure, bringing the number to 23 from 18. iv. Updated CPUE indices derived from operational catch and effort data from Japanese pole-and‐line fisheries. v. Set‐based weighting of purse‐seine length frequency samples to enhance representativeness of these data. vi. Exclusion of the four terminal spatially‐aggregated recruitment deviates from the parameter estimation process. The impacts of each of these changes were examined in a stepwise development towards a new reference case model.

In addition to the reference case, a wide range of other model formulations were examined. The key uncertainties identified concerned the assumed steepness of the stock-recruitment relationship, the growth curve, the weighting of length samples and the tag mixing period. A grid of 36 combinations of the following factors: the steepness of the SRR (0.65, 0.80, or 0.95), and the growth model (2010 estimate, growth re-estimated or fixed growth curve externally estimated), and sample size weighting (20, 50), mixing period (1, 2 quarters). A separate model was run for each of the combinations in the grid.

A retrospective analysis has also been undertaken for the assessment, which involves rerunning the model after consecutively removing successive years of data to estimate model bias. The results of the retrospective analyses were the basis of a modification to the reference case whereby recruitment deviates for the last four quarters were not estimated and a better reference point developed for spawning potential depletion (the most recent year of the assessment).

For skipjack tuna an alternative model formulation was also explored using age‐ and season‐specific movement rates based on the ecosystem model SEAPODYM (Lehodey et al, 2001) to test the plausibility of using ecosystem model output in the place of internal estimation. The use of the SEAPODYM movement parameters greatly degraded the likelihood and so this model was not included in the uncertainty grid described above.

As noted above, draft stock assessments are reviewed by the SC, which includes scientists from member countries. These are external to SPC, the agency undertaking the assessments, but are part

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 28 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

of the internal WCPFC processes and we do not consider that this review constitutes an external review as intended by MSC requirements.

Figure 11. Left: Temporal trend in annual stock status of skipjack tuna, relative to SBMSY (x-axis) and FMSY (y-axis) reference points, for the period 1972-2011 from the reference case. The colour of the points is graduated from mauve to dark purple through time and the points are labelled at 5-year intervals. The white triangle (obscured behind pink circle) represents the average for the current (2008-2011) period and the pink circle the latest period (2011). Right: Summary of the latest stock status (2011) for the reference case (white dot) and the entire grid of sensitivities that were explored (from Rice et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 29 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 12. Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential of skipjack tuna for the WCPO for the reference case. The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line and the red circle represents the level of spawning potential depletion based on the agreed method of calculating SBF=0 over the last ten years of the model (excluding the last year) (from Rice et al. 2014).

Figure 13. Estimated annual average spawning potential for the WCPO for the reference case. The shaded areas indicate the approximate 95% confidence intervals (from Rice et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 30 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 14. Skipjack tuna: History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) compared with annual catch split into three sectors for the reference case (from Rice et al. 2014).

Figure 15. Skipjack tuna: An alternative representation of stock status of skipjack tuna as a potential step towards displaying stock status with target and limit reference points. The red zone represents spawning potential levels lower than the agreed limit reference point which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than FMSY (F=FMSY is marked with the black dashed line). The lightly shaded green rectangle covering 0.4‐ 0.6SBF=0 is the ‘space’ that WCPFC has asked for consideration of a TRP for skipjack. The white triangle represents the average for the current period (2008-2011) and the pink circle the latest period (2011) (from Rice et al. 2014).

History of fishing and management: The spatial distribution of catches in the WCPO over the past ten years is provided in Figure 16, and a regional breakdown by major gear category by year is provided in Figure 17 . A large proportion Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 31 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

(70%) of the recent catch by the Tri Marine fleet and especially by the UoA has been taken from PNA waters (Figure 18) reflecting the distribution of fishing effort (Figure 1). The catch of skipjack by the Tri Marine fleet and the UoA represent a relatively minor part of the total unassociated purse seine catch from PNA waters, a larger proportion of this catch from international waters, almost all the catch from other EEZs and, understandably, the entire catch from U.S. waters (Figure 19).

Catches in the northern region are highly seasonal, as are the domestic pole-and-line fisheries operating in the regions 2 and 3 (see Figure 17 for location of regions). A number of significant trends in the fisheries have occurred over the model period, specifically:  The development of the Japanese offshore purse seine fishery in region 1 since the mid- 1990s;  The virtual cessation of the domestic pole-and-line fisheries in Papua New Guinea and Fiji and the recent low catches from the Solomon Islands fishery;  The general decline in the Japanese distant-water pole-and-line fisheries in the equatorial regions, particularly region 3;  The development of the equatorial purse-seine fisheries from the mid-1970s and the widespread use of FADs since the mid-1990s, allowing an expansion of the purse-seine fishery in region 3;  Large changes in the purse seine fleet composition and increasing size and efficiency of the fleet.  The steady increase in catch for the domestic fisheries of Indonesia and the Philippines.

Skipjack tuna were not included in the earlier tuna specific Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) passed by the WCPFC because there were no concerns about the status of the species. They were first included in CMM 2012-01 and have been included in the later iterations of this CMM – CMM 2013-01 and 2014-01. CMM 2014-01 deals with skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna and includes the following requirements for purse seine effort control: Exclusive Economic Zones 20. Coastal States within the Convention Area that are Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) shall restrict the level of purse seine effort in their EEZs to 2010 levels through the PNA Vessel Days Scheme (VDS).

21. CCMs shall support the ongoing development and strengthening of the PNA VDS including implementation and compliance with the requirements of the VDS as appropriate.

22. Other coastal States within the Convention Area with effort in their EEZs exceeding 1,500 days annually over the period 2006-2010 shall limit effort in their EEZs to 2001-2004 average or 2010 levels.

23. Other coastal States within the Convention Area other than those referred to in paragraph 20 and paragraph 22 shall establish effort limits, or equivalent catch limits for purse seine fisheries within their EEZs that reflect the geographical distributions of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tunas, and are consistent with the objectives for those species. Those coastal States that have already notified limits to the Commission shall restrict purse seine effort and/or catch within their EEZs in accordance with those limits.

High Seas purse seine effort limits

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 32 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

25. For 2015, non-SIDS CCMs shall restrict the level of purse seine effort on high seas to the limits indicated in Attachment D.7 The Commission shall review these limits at its meeting in 2015 and agree on high seas purse seine effort limits to apply after 2015.

26. Notwithstanding any agreement that may be reached at its annual meetings in 2014, 2015 and 2016 on high seas purse seine effort limits the total effort level for non-SIDS CCMs shall not exceed the total level of effort in Attachment D.

Figure 16. Catch distribution (2003-2012) of skipjack tuna by 5 degree squares of latitude and longitude and fishing method: longline (green), purse-seine (blue), pole-and-line (red), and other (yellow). Overlayed are the subregions for the assessment model. Note there is in fact no break at 170 E in Region 1 (from Rice et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 33 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 17. Total annual catch (1000s mt) of skipjack tuna by fishing method and assessment subregion from the 2014 assessment’s reference case model (from Rice et al. 2014). Regions are the same as shown in Figure 16.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 34 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Skipjack 100%

80% US 60% Other EEZ 40% IW PNA 20%

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Skipjack 100%

80% US 60% Other EEZ 40% IW

20% PNA

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Figure 18. Proportion of the annual catch of skipjack tuna by the Tri Marine fleet (top) and the total UoA (bottom) taken in each fishing location (2010=13) (IW = International Waters; PNA = EEZs of countries who are PNA members; U.S. = USA territories) (From data provided by SPC).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 35 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Skipjack 100%

80% 2010 60% 2011 2012 40% 2013 20% 2010-13

0% PNA IW Other EEZ US All locations

Skipjack 100%

80% 2010 60% 2011 2012 40% 2013 20% 2010-13

0% PNA IW Other EEZ US All locations

Figure 19. Annual and total catch of skipjack tuna by the Tri Marine fleet (top) and the UoA (bottom) as a percentage of the total unassociated purse seine catch by fishing location (2010-13) (IW = International Waters; PNA = EEZs of countries who are PNA members; U.S. = USA territories) (From data provided by SPC).

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) Distribution: Yellowfin tuna are found worldwide in tropical and subtropical seas. The thermal boundaries of occurrence are roughly 18° and 31°C.

Although the distribution of yellowfin tuna in the Pacific is nearly continuous, lack of evidence for long-ranging east-west or north-south migrations of adults suggests that there may not be much exchange between the yellowfin tuna from the eastern and the central Pacific, nor between those from the western and the central Pacific. This suggests the existence of subpopulations. There is a large amount of tagging data (1989‐2012) which indicates extensive latitudinal movements among the equatorial regions but also a level of longitudinal movements to and from the sub‐tropical latitudes (Figure 20). For the purpose of WCPFC yellowfin stock assessments, the stock within the domain of the model area (essentially the WCPO, west of 210°E, Figure 21) has been considered as a discrete stock unit (Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 36 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 20. Long-distance (>1,000 nmi) displacements of tagged yellowfin in the Pacific Ocean from data available to SPC. The green arrows are data from the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (2008-current). The purple arrows are from earlier SPC tagging in the western Pacific (Regional Tuna Tagging Project, 1989-1992), the IATTC in the eastern Pacific and the University of Hawaii in the North Pacific around Hawaii (from Davies et al. 2014).

Figure 21. Yellowfin tuna: Regional structure of the reference case model (from Davies et al. 2014).

Biology: Yellowfin tuna start to mature at 5 years of age but when information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction are included, the reproductive output is found to peak between 10 and 15 years of age (Figure 22). Spawning occurs throughout the year in the core areas of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 37 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

distribution, but peaks are always observed in the northern and southern summer months respectively. Individuals may spawn every few days over the spawning period. Larval distribution in equatorial waters is transoceanic the year round but there are seasonal changes in larval density in subtropical waters.

Growth in length for yellowfin tuna is estimated to continue throughout their life (Figure 23). The estimated mean length of the final age‐class is 153.4 cm but maximum fork length is over 200 cm.

Figure 22. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (from Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 38 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 23. Yellowfin tuna: Estimated growth for the reference case. The black line represents the estimated mean length (FL, cm) at age and the grey area represents the estimated distribution of length at age (from Davies et al. 2014).

Yellowfin tuna feed on other fish, crustaceans and squid. Their trophic level has been estimated at 4.4  0.4 se.

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

Stock assessments and stock status: Stock assessments for yellowfin tuna have been conducted regularly and almost annually since 1999. Furthermore, an independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al., 2012) had several recommendations for improvement that apply equally to the yellowfin assessment, and these have been incorporated into the current assessment wherever possible. The assessment model uses MULTIFAN‐CL and is based mainly on catch and effort data for various fleets, size data and tagging data.

The main conclusions of the 2014 stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014) were as follows: 1. The new regional structure appeared to work well for yellowfin, and in combination with other modelling and data improvements, provided a more informative assessment than in the past.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 39 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

2. Spatially-aggregated recruitment was estimated to decline in the early part of the assessment, but there was no persistent trend post-1965. 3. There appeared to be confounding between the estimates of regional recruitment distribution and movement such that certain regions had very low recruitments. While adding complexity to the recruitment process of age 1 fish, this did not add to the uncertainty over the range of runs considered in this assessment.

4. Latest catches marginally exceeded the MSY (Clatest/MSY = 1.04). 5. Recent levels of fishing mortality were most likely below the level that will support the MSY

(Fcurrent/FMSY – 0.76). 6. Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely above (based on 2008-11 average and

based on 2012) the level which will support the MSY (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.37, SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.29). 7. Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely above (based on 2008-11 average and based on 2012) the limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 agreed by WCPFC. 8. Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely higher (by 1%, based on 2008-11 average) and lower than (by 2% based on 2012) the candidate biomass-related target reference points (TRPs) currently under consideration for skipjack tuna, i.e., 40-60%SBF=0. 9. Stock status conclusions were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the modelling of tagging data, assumed steepness and natural mortality. However, the main conclusions of the assessment were robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored.

Results are also summarized in Figure 24, Figure 25, Figure 26, Figure 27, Figure 28 and Figure 29. There has been a substantial decline in the estimate of MSY since 1970s (Figure 27). Prior to this time, the WCPO yellowfin fishery was almost exclusively conducted using longlines, with a low exploitation of small yellowfin but the increased development of fisheries that catch younger yellowfin has reduced MSY levels (Davies et al. 2014).

The stock assessment has also considered the potential impact of some fleets changing their reporting practices mentioned above such that some searching days are reported as non‐fishing transit days. “This practice essentially represents effort creep and we have not yet specifically corrected recent data to ensure consistency of reporting. Therefore, the impact of this is not known, but it will be minimized by the practice of estimating frequent time‐based changes in catchability” (Davies et al. 2014). The issue was not identified as a major source of uncertainty for the assessment.

The assessment for yellowfin follows a similar process to that for skipjack described above: it is undertaken by SPC’s OFP, uses MULTIFAN-CL, draft results of assessments are submitted to the SC for discussion and review, and a final report presented to the WCPFC plenary. For yellowfin there was also a pre-assessment workshop that reviewed the main input data sets and provided recommendations regarding the range of assessment model options and sensitivities to be included within the stock assessment.

The assessment reports contain descriptions of structural assumptions, model parameterization and priors. These have been progressively developed over the years and the latest report generally only contains details of changes to these assumptions which may be more fully described in earlier versions. For the latest assessment (Davies et al. 2014), aside from updating the input data (catch,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 40 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

effort, size frequencies, and standardised CPUE derived from aggregate and operational data), there were five main differences in the input data and structural assumptions of the current (2014) assessment compared to the 2011 assessment i. Spatial structure was expanded from six to nine regions. ii. Fishery structure has been expanded from 25 to 33 fisheries; and features the first inclusion of some Japanese and Vietnamese coastal fishery catches and consequent revisions to the definition of WCPO fisheries. iii. Incorporation of CPUE indices derived from either Japanese logsheet data, or all operational data from all fleets (combined flags) available to SPC. iv. A revised protocol for deriving the length‐ and weight size compositions for the principal longline fisheries. v. The correction of the purse‐seine length frequency data collected by observers to account for sampling bias and the inclusion of Pago Pago port sampling data, with all data weighted in respect of the set catch weight

The impacts of each of these changes were examined in a stepwise development towards a new reference case model.

In addition to the reference case a wide range of other model formulations were examined. The key uncertainties were identified and the effect of this uncertainty was explored through a grid of 48 combinations of model options:  Tag mixing period: 2 different levels  Steepness: Ref. Case (0.8), h_0.65 (0.65), h0.95 (0.95)  CPUE: 2 different series  Size data weighting: 2 options  Natural mortality: fixed values or estimated.

A separate model was run for each of the combinations in the grid.

A retrospective analysis has also been undertaken for the yellowfin assessment, which involves rerunning the model after consecutively removing successive years of data to estimate model bias. The results of the retrospective analyses were the basis of a modification to the reference case whereby recruitment deviates for the last four periods were not estimated.

As noted above, draft stock assessments are reviewed by the SC, which includes scientists from member countries. These are external to SPC, the agency undertaking the assessments, but are a part of the internal WCPFC processes and we do not consider that this review constitutes an external review as intended by MSC requirements.

The assessment team has also become aware of two reviews of the previous yellowfin tuna assessment (Haddon 2010 and Maguire 2010) which were commissioned by the USA through the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). A response to these reviews was provided by SPC to SC7 (SPC- OFP 2011) but there was no reference to the findings of this review or the response in the latest stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014). There is, however, extensive consideration of the results of the review of the bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al. 2012). The SPC response also notes that the review was not initiated by SPC or WCPFC and was conducted without the knowledge of SPC or any direct contact with SPC by either CIE or the reviewers.

History of fishing and management:

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 41 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Total annual catches by major gear categories for the WCPO are shown in Figure 30 and a regional breakdown is provided in Figure 31. The spatial distribution of catches over the past ten years in provided in Figure 32. The catch identified as “other” is dominated by the domestic fisheries of the Philippines and Indonesia, principally catching smaller fish using a variety of small‐scale gear types (e.g. pole‐and‐line, ringnet, gillnet, handline and seine net) but also including small to medium sized purse seines (Davies et al. 2014). As was the case for skipjack tuna, a large proportion of the recent catch of yellowfin tuna by the Tri Marine fleet and especially by the UoA has been taken from PNA waters (Figure 33; Figure 18) reflecting the distribution of fishing effort (Figure 1). The catch of yellowfin tuna by the Tri Marine fleet and the UoA represent a relatively minor part of the total unassociated purse seine catch from PNA waters, a larger proportion of this catch from international waters, almost all the catch from other EEZs and, understandably, the entire catch from U.S. waters (Figure 34; Figure 19).

Notes under skipjack tuna above about trends in the fisheries are also relevant to yellowfin tuna.

Yellowfin have been subject to the provisions of CMMs since CMM 2005-01 was passed which included the requirement that “CCMs shall take necessary measures to ensure that purse seine effort levels do not exceed either 2004 levels, or the average of 2001 to 2004 levels, in waters under their national jurisdiction, beginning in 2006.” The most recent measure is CMM 2014-01 and the purse seine effort control measures it contains are provided above under skipjack tuna.

Figure 24. Yellowfin tuna: Temporal trend in annual stock status, relative to SBMSY (x-axis) and FMSY (y-axis) reference points, for the period 1952–2011 from the reference case. The colour of the points is graduated from mauve to dark purple through time and the points are labelled at 5-year intervals. The white triangle represents the average for the current period and the pink circle the latest period (from Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 42 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 25. Yellowfin tuna: Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential, SB/SBF=0, for the WCPO for the reference case. The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line and the red circle represents the level of spawning potential depletion based on the agreed method of calculating SBF=0 over the last ten years of the model (excluding the last year) (from Davies et al. 2014).

Figure 26. Estimated annual average spawning potential for the WCPO for the reference case. The shaded areas indicate the approximate 95% confidence intervals (From Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 43 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 27. Yellowfin tuna: History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) compared with annual catch split into three sectors for the 2014 assessments’ reference case (Davies et al.2014).

Figure 28. Yellowfin tuna: Alternative portrayal of stock status with target and limit reference points. The red zone represents spawning potential levels lower than the agreed limit reference point which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than FMSY (F=FMSY is marked with the black dashed line). The Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 44 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

lightly shaded green rectangle covering 0.4- 0.6SBF=0 is the ‘space’ that WCPFC has asked for consideration of a TRP for skipjack (from Davies et al. 2014).

Figure 29. Yellowfin tuna: Plot of versus for the 48 model runs undertaken for the structural uncertainty analysis in black, and the reference case model by the large white circle (from Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 45 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 30. Total annual catch (1000s mt) of yellowfin tuna by fishing gear as used in the 2014 stock assessment’s reference case model (from Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 46 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 31. Total annual catch (1000s mt) of yellowfin tuna by fishing method and assessment region from the 2014 assessment’s reference case model (from Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 47 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 32. Catch distribution (1990-2010) for yellowfin tuna by 5 degree squares of latitude and longitude and fishing method: longline (green), purse-seine (blue), pole-and-line (red), and other (yellow). Overlaid are the regions for the 2014 assessment model (from Davies et al. 2014).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 48 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Yellowfin 100%

80% US 60% Other EEZ 40% IW

20% PNA

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Yellowfin 100%

80% US 60% Other EEZ 40% IW PNA 20%

0% 2010 2011 2012 2013 Total

Figure 33. Proportion of the annual catch of yellowfin tuna by the Tri Marine fleet (top) and the total UoA (bottom) taken in each fishing location (2010=13). (IW = International Waters; PNA = EEZs of countries who are PNA members; U.S. = USA territories) (From data provided by SPC).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 49 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Yellowfin 100%

80% 2010 60% 2011 2012 40% 2013 20% 2010-13

0% PNA IW Other EEZ US All locations

Yellowfin 100%

80% 2010 60% 2011 2012 40% 2013 20% 2010-13

0% PNA IW Other EEZ US All locations

Figure 34. Annual and total catch of yellowfin tuna by the Tri Marine fleet (top) and the UoA (bottom) as a percentage of the total unassociated purse seine catch by fishing location (2010-13) (IW = International Waters; PNA = EEZs of countries who are PNA members; U.S. = USA territories) (From data provided by SPC).

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 50 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The West and Central Pacific Ecosystem Oceanography (e.g. water temperatures, currents and productivity) and climate dynamics have major influences on fish population dynamics and fisheries (Lehodey et al., 2006) in addition to any fishery impacts. Ocean-climate linkages include the Northern Pacific Gyre Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and other sources of variability that operate at a range of spatial and temporal scales (Di Lorenzo et al. 2013). The decadal scale fluctuations in upwelling and water transport are in addition to the higher-frequency ENSO patterns, but both have basin-wide effects on the sea surface temperatures and patterns of water stratification. These affect marine productivity and fisheries in part through their effect on the strength of the current systems and the frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. These features affect the injection of nutrient into surface waters and the transport and distribution of the phytoplankton and the zooplankton it produces over large areas. The variations in oceanographic conditions drive similar variability in biological productivity of all trophic levels so that marine populations from zooplankton to high level predators such as tuna also exhibit significant natural fluctuations in abundance.

Ocean-climate systems have been shown to strongly influence tuna fisheries in the WCPO at various spatiotemporal scales and in different ways (Lehodey et al., 2003, Lehodey et al., 2006). Changes in oceanography may influence vertical and horizontal movements of tunas and other species, as well as eggs and larval survival. Individual tuna species display different preferences (e.g. preferred temperature) and thus will respond differently to changes in oceanography and climate (Fromentin and Fonteneau, 2001). Tuna catches are highest in the western equatorial Pacific warm pool, a region characterized by low primary productivity and the warmest surface waters of the world’s oceans. However, the WCPO displays remarkable dynamics in oceanography mostly linked to climatic changes such as El Niño Southern Oscillation, ENSO.

The western equatorial Pacific is characterized by low primary production and warmer surface waters (>28°C) that typically show little seasonal variability (<1°C). This water mass is referred to as the “warm pool”. In the eastern and central Pacific Ocean, an upwelling Tropical Convergence zone Warm pool Cold tongue extends westward along the equator from the coast of South America. The water mass is characterised by cold nutrient-enriched waters rising to the surface. This results in the formation of a large zonal band in which there is high chlorophyll concentration that correspond to the primary production. This band is commonly referred to as the “cold tongue” (Figure 35). The warmer, low nutrient, low salinity surface saline waters from the warm pool move seasonally eastwards under the influence of westerly wind events, and the area on the eastern edge of the warm pool which encounters the westward advection of cooler waters (cold tongue) is referred to as the tropical convergence zone. This is identified by a salinity front or more approximately by the 29°C isotherm. The location and extent of the convergence zone is determined by the relative movements of the warm pool and cold tongue waters, which are driven by equatorial winds, which in turn vary in direction and strength under different climate conditions.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 51 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 35. Sea surface temperature (AVHRR Pathfinder) in Western and Central Pacific Ocean detected by satellite in January 2000. Data source: http://oceanwatch.pifsc.noaa.gov/las/servlets/dataset

Ocean processes that induce movement of water masses play on tuna distribution. Areas of divergence or convergence of currents are of major importance as they induce physical phenomena (upwellings, thermal fronts, eddies) that enhance local productivity and create zones of forage availability. These, in turn, attract and concentrate tuna.

Tuna movement is linked to horizontal displacement of surface isotherms and vertical change in mixed layer depth that determine their surface habitat. In particular, east-west migration of the warm pool-cold tongue pelagic ecosystem is important. During El Niño conditions, the distribution of purse-seine catch in the western and central Pacific is generally displaced eastwards, indicating a spatial shift in the distribution of tuna. Conversely, during La Niña conditions there is a displacement of the fishery to the west.

Contraction or extension of the warm pool also has a major impact on tuna recruitment which varies among species. Results from statistical population dynamics modeling (Lehodey et al., 2004) and related analyses (e.g. Langley et al., 2006) point to a link between tuna recruitment, climatic fluctuations and oceanography. For tropical species, such as skipjack and yellowfin, El Niño events would favour recruitment through extension of warm water spawning habitat, whereas La Niña events would restrict the favourable spawning areas and reduce the recruitment.

Overview of Non-target Catch Data on the species caught in the fishery was obtained from logbook and observer reports submitted to WCPFC. There is 100% observer coverage in the fishery. Records from vessels in the Unit of Assessment were obtained for the period 2010 to 2013 but, at the time of the data analysis, the data for 2014 were incomplete and omitted from subsequent analyses.

Note that the data used for Unit of Assessment come from sets identified by observers as being unassociated at the start of the set. These data includes catches from some sets which, on hauling, were found to contain a whale shark or other object. Such objects may be not visible at the time of setting and the set type recorded by the observer is generally not amended. As described in Section 3.1, such sets would not be part of the Unit of Certification.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 52 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Retained (non-target) Catch Retained species are defined by MSC as bycatch species (i.e. in the MSC context the part of the catch not evaluated under Principle 1) which are kept on board and landed. ‘Main’ retained species are identified as those species which constitute over 5% of the total catch, or which can be considered as vulnerable, or of particularly high value, or if the total catch of the fishery is large, in which case even 5% may be a considerable catch.

The available information on retained species (other than the target species discussed above) was provided by the SPC from data submitted to SPC/WCPFC by national fisheries agencies (see section 3.2 on Information and Monitoring).

The retained species for the Tri Marine purse seine fleet and for other U.S. flagged vessels indicates that there no species (other than skipjack and yellowfin) that constitute 5% of the retained catch across the most recent four years for which data are available (

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 53 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 4). Even when the discarded catch is taken into account, the percentages remain low. Catches of bigeye tuna are the largest and approached 5% in 2011. We have considered bigeye as a 'main' retained species in this assessment as the catch is quite large and is a valuable component of the catch. All other retained species are ‘minor’ species. Rare instances of shark finning have been reported for this fishery, which requires special attention under the MSC Certification Requirements. The guidance for this (GCB3.5.2) specifies that “when a fishery trades shark fins, the shark will be considered a main retained species, even when sharks comprise less than 5% of the catch”. Silky sharks are the most commonly caught shark species, and are the species most likely to be involved in such instances. There are, however, non-retention requirements for silky shark that came into force in 2014 and the majority (98%) of the catch was discarded by the U.S. fleet in the four years prior to this. To classify silky sharks as a main retained species, when they are clearly a discarded species, would have been illogical. Under CB3.1.2 P2 species may also only be considered under one PI. Consequently, a variation request was submitted to, and approved by, MSC to score silky sharks under PI 2.2 as a bycatch species, but to consider the issue of shark finning under PI 2.1.2e, the only place where this is possible for a P2 species (Appendix 8).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 54 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 4. Annual retained catch by the Tri Marine (TMI) fleet and other U.S. vessels (t), as a percentage of the total U.S Fleet retained catch (2010-13) and as a percentage of retained plus discarded catch (2010-13 combined) (unassociated purse seine catches only). Species with a total of less than 1 tonne of retained catch over the 4 years have been excluded (From data provided by SPC).

% of U.S. Fleet Ret TMI Retained Catch (t) Other U.S. Retained Catch (t) % of U.S. Fleet Retained Catch Group Species + Disc catch 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010-13 Tunas Bigeye 476 1690 1225 3034 4847 7258 5829 4920 2.6% 4.9% 3.2% 3.8% 3.5% Frigate and bullet 0 2 0 0 2 7 21 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.01%

tuna Mahi 5 3 7 11 9 645 13 27 0.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Other fish mahi/dolphinfish Wahoo 2 3 9 6 6 292 49 8 0.0% 0.2% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Rainbow runner 10 7 6 10 36 132 43 29 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Bigeye scad 1 94 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Oceanic triggerfish 0 2 1 0 8 37 14 5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Amberjack 0 0 1 14 0 32 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Mackerel scad 2 0 0 0 2 28 7 6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Barracudas 1 0 1 2 1 6 2 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Drummer (blue 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 chub) Billfish Blue marlin 4 9 11 9 38 88 69 26 0.0% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% Black marlin 6 2 12 4 29 19 18 17 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Striped marlin 0 7 1 1 7 8 17 2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Swordfish 0 0 6 0 3 1 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Sailfish (indo-pacific) 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Short-billed spearfish 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1% Shark Silky shark 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% <0.1%

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 55 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus)

Biology Bigeye tuna inhabit the tropical and temperate waters of the Pacific Ocean between northern Japan (40°N) and the north island of New Zealand (40°S) in the west, and from 40°N to 30°S in the east, except near coastal waters of Central America between 5° and 20°N (Hampton et al., 1998). In the WCPO, logsheet and observer records exists between 40°N and 45°S (Molony, 2008).

Genetic analyses have failed to reveal significant evidence of widespread population subdivision in the Pacific Ocean (Grewe and Hampton, 1998). While these results are not conclusive regarding the rate of mixing of bigeye tuna throughout the Pacific, they are broadly consistent with the results of SPC’s and IATTC’s tagging experiments on bigeye tuna. Recent tagging work, however, has suggested that while bigeye tuna in the far eastern and western Pacific may have relatively little exchange, those in the central part of the Pacific between about 180° and 120°W may mix more rapidly over distances of 1000–3000 nautical miles (Figure 36). It is now clear that there is extensive movement of bigeye across the nominal WCPO/EPO boundary of 150°W. Nevertheless, stock assessments of bigeye tuna are routinely undertaken separately for the WCPO and EPO.

Juvenile bigeye tuna and small adults school at the surface in mono-species groups or mixed with other tunas, may be associated with floating objects. Adults stay in deeper waters. Bigeye tuna feed on a wide variety of fishes, cephalopods and crustaceans during the day and at night.

Figure 36. Bigeye tuna: Long-distance (>1,000 nmi) displacements of tagged bigeye in the Pacific Ocean from data available to SPC. The green arrows are data from the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (2008 – current). The purple arrows are from earlier SPC tagging in the western Pacific (Regional Tuna Tagging Project, 1989-1992), the IATTC in the eastern Pacific and the University of Hawaii in the North Pacific around Hawaii (from Harley et al. 2014a).

Available data for the WCPO indicate that bigeye tuna begin to be reproductively active from about 100 cm FL, and that 100% of individuals >120 cm FL are reproductively mature. Regional variation in maturity-at-length is suspected to occur, and bigeye tuna appear to be reaching maturity at larger sizes in the EPO. Bigeye tuna are multiple spawners that may spawn every 1 or 2 days over several months over periods of the full moon throughout the year in tropical waters. Eggs and larvae are pelagic.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 56 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Integrated analyses of tag recapture and age-at-length data for EPO bigeye (Aires-da-Silva et al. 2014) have estimated lengths (cm) at age (yr) of 1: 55, 2: 91, 3: 123, 4: 147, 5: 165, 6: 177, 7: 185, 8: 191, 9: 194, 10: 196. These mean lengths-at-age are larger than those estimated internally in bigeye WCPO stock assessments, based on fitting to size frequency data.

The natural mortality rate of bigeye tuna is likely to vary with size, with the lower rates of around 0.5/yr for bigeye >40 cm FL (Hampton 2000). Tag recapture data indicate that significant numbers of bigeye reach at least eight years of age (Hampton and Williams 2005). The longest period at liberty for a recaptured bigeye tuna tagged in the western Pacific at about 1-2 years of age is currently 14 years (SPC unpublished data). Natural mortality of female bigeye is hypothesised to increase at around the age of reproductive maturity, due to the physiological stresses of spawning, resulting in male-biased sex ratios at larger size. A more detailed summary of bigeye tuna biology is provided by Molony (2008).

Stock status The most recent stock assessment for bigeye tuna was undertaken in 2014 (Harley et al., 2014a). The main conclusions based on the results from the reference case model and with consideration of results from performed sensitivity model runs, are as follows:

1. The new regional structure, and modelling and data improvements appeared to have improved the current assessment with the previously observed increasing trend in recruitment much reduced and the fit to Coral Sea tagging data greatly improved. 2. Nevertheless there was some confounding between estimated growth, regional recruitment distributions and movement which, while having minimal impact on stock status conclusions, led to a complex solution surface and the presence of local minima.

3. Current catches exceeded MSY (Clatest/MSY = 1.45);

4. Recent levels of fishing mortality exceeded the level that will support the MSY (Fcurrent/FMSY = 1.57); 5. Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely at (based on 2008-11 average) or below

(based on 2012) the level which will support the MSY (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.94, SBlatest/SBMSY = 0.77); 6. Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely at (based on 2008-11 average) or below

(based on 2012) the limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 agreed by WCPFC (SBcurrent/SBF=0 =

0.2, SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.16); 7. Recent levels of spawning potential were lower than candidate biomass-related target reference points currently under consideration for skipjack tuna, i.e., 40-60% SBF=0; and 8. Stock status conclusions were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the modelling of tagging data and the longline CPUE series included, identifying these as important areas for continued research. However, the main conclusions of the assessment were robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 57 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

These results are also illustrated in Figure 37 and Figure 38. An estimate of the relative contribution of different gear types to the reduction in spawning potential of bigeye tuna (

Figure 39) indicates that purse seine fishing on free schools have relatively minor impact.

Figure 37. Bigeye tuna: Temporal trend in annual stock status, relative to SBMSY (x-axis) and FMSY (y-axis) reference points, for the period 1952–2011 from the reference case. The colour of the points is graduated from mauve to dark purple through time and the points are labelled at 5-year intervals. The white triangle represents the average for the current period and the pink circle the latest period (from Harley et al. 2014a).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 58 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Figure 38. Bigeye tuna: Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential, for the WCPO for the reference case. The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line and the red circle represents the level of spawning potential depletion based on the agreed method of calculating over the last ten years of the model (excluding the last year) (from Harley et al. 2014a).

Figure 39. Bigeye tuna: Estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing for the WCPO attributed to various fishery groups for the reference case (from Harley et al. 2014a).

Management CMM 2014-01 contains the latest management measures introduced by the WCPFC for bigeye tuna (and for skipjack and yellowfin). It indicates that the objective is for the fishing mortality rate for bigeye tuna to be reduced to a level no greater than Fmsy, (i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1) by 2017. It contains a range of measures designed to achieve this intended reduction in the mortality on bigeye tuna including a mandatory three-month closure on the use of FADs, a choice of an additional one month (for 2014) or two month (for 2015 and 2016) period of FAD closure or adhering to a country-specific limit on the total number of FAD sets. Catch limits for longline fishing by China, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei, and the USA are also specified.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 59 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Information Information available on bigeye tuna is generally the same as for the other target species and is collected mainly by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs as outlined in section 3.2 above. It includes data on catch weight and effort at an operation level for most fleets, size composition data from observers, tagging data and a range of biological data.

Bycatch

There are very few bycatch (or discards) in the unassociated purse seine fishery. The data provided to the team by SPC (summarized in

Table 5) showed that the total of all species discarded (excluding tunas) represents only 0.7% of the total catch (retained plus discards). Silky sharks are the species which represent the highest quantities and proportion of discards by the U.S. fleet (

Table 5) but these still represent a very small proportion of the total catch (retained plus discarded). The total quantity for the period 2010-13 (776 t) represents about 23 kg per day of fishing which is one or two individuals per day. Sharks in general, however, are considered to be a vulnerable group because of their often low fecundity and late maturity. Given the very low quantities of sharks caught silky sharks are not considered to be a main discarded species but their status, the information available on them, and their management are described below. As noted above, per a variation request granted by MSC, silky sharks are considered under PI 2.1.2e for shark finning considerations (Appendix 8).

There are about 200 other species that are caught and discarded but the total amounts recorded are very small (less than 25t per year in total). No other species meet the 5% criteria for main bycatch species.

Table 5. Discards (t) by the Tri Marine (TMI) fleet, other U.S. vessels and the percentage of the total catch by the U.S. fleet (2010-13). Species with less than 10 tonnes discarded in total over the 4 years have been excluded (From data provided by SPC).

Group Species TMI Discards (t) Other US Discards (t) % of Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 fleet catch Tunas Kawakawa 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 <0.01% Other Black triggerfish 0 0 2 0 1 <0.01% fish Pomfrets & ocean 0 0 2 0 0 0 <0.01% breams Amberjacks 0 1 1 2 0 1 <0.01% Ocean sunfish 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 <0.01% Bigeye trevally 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 <0.01% Sharks Silky shark 15 26 21 37 93 457 76 93 0.1% Blacktip shark 0 0 0 4 0 0 <0.01% Bigeye thresher 0 15 0 <0.01% Pelagic sting-ray 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 <0.01% Blue shark 0 1 0 6 0 <0.01%

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 60 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Silky shark (Carcharinus falciformis)

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

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

Silky sharks are viviparous, with a yolk-sac placenta and have 2 to 14 young per litter. There seems to be no pronounced seasonality in birth of young. The gestation period is not known. It is primarily a fish-eater, eating pelagic and inshore teleosts including sea catfish, mullet, mackerel, yellowfin tuna, albacore, and porcupine fish, but also squid, paper nautiluses, and pelagic crabs. It is associated with schools of tuna but is not a desirable species for tuna purse seiners because of the damage it does to nets. It reaches a maximum size of about 330 cm; males mature at about 187 to 217 cm and reach 270 to 300 cm; females mature at 213 to 230 cm and reach at least 305 cm; the size at birth is about 70 to 87 cm.

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

Stock Status Silky shark is listed on Annex I, Highly Migratory Species, of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The FAO considers that the species’ wide distribution and high abundance in most tropical shelves of the world suggests that presently there are no major concerns over the conservation of this species at the global level. It also notes, however, that there is a strong need to monitor the abundance of heavily fished stocks. The stock of silky sharks found in the WCPO is one of those stocks.

A stock assessment of silky sharks in the West and Central Pacific Ocean using Stock Synthesis (Rice and Harley 2013) concluded that:

• Overfishing was occurring because the estimated fishing mortality had increased to levels far

in excess of FMSY (FCURRENT/FMSY = 4.48) and across nearly all plausible model runs undertaken estimated F values were much higher than FMSY (the 5th and 95th quantiles are 1.41 and 7.96); and that • It was highly likely that the stock was in an overfished state because the estimated spawning

biomass had declined to levels below SBMSY (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.70) and for the majority of the

model runs undertaken, SBcurrent was less than SBMSY (the 5th and 95th quantiles are 0.51 and 1.23).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 61 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The assessment also estimated that catches by both the purse seine (associated sets) and longline sectors were important sources of fishing mortality but that the purse seine catch on unassociated sets was a minor contributor to the catch and fishing mortality (Figure 40). Silky shark catch rates are significantly higher on floating object sets (Leroy et al., 2013).

Based on this assessment we regard the WCPO stock of silky shark as not being within biological limits.

Figure 40. Annual estimated silky shark catch (in weight) in the WCPO by fleet (fishing method), 1995-2009 (from Rice and Harley 2013).

Management In addition to its general CMM for sharks (CMM 2010-07), WCPFC introduced a CMM specifically for silky sharks in 2013 (CMM 2013-08) which contained a variety of measures including the following: • a prohibition on retaining on board, transshipping, storing on a fishing vessel, or landing any silky shark caught in the Convention Area, in whole or in part, in the fisheries covered by the Convention. (CMM 2010-07 had permitted silky shark to be retained but not just their fins). • a requirement to release any silky shark that is caught in the Convention Area as soon as possible after the shark is brought alongside the vessel, and to do so in a manner that results in as little harm to the shark as possible. (This is stronger language than CMM 2010-07 which had indicated that “National Plans of Action or other relevant policies for sharks should include measures to minimize waste and discards from shark catches and encourage the live release of incidental catches of sharks). • a requirement for CCMs to estimate, through data collected from observer programs and other means, the number of releases of silky shark caught in the Convention Area, including the status upon release (dead or alive), and report this information to the WCPFC in Part 1 of their Annual Reports.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 62 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

This CMM only became effective in 2014 so it is too early to expect its impact on stocks to be detectable. Retained catches reported here up to 2013 are for a period when it was permissible to retain them.

The U.S.A. have also introduced domestic regulations to implement this CMM (NMFS 2015b).

Information Recent Annual Reports to the Commission (NFMS, 2014a, 2015a) by the United States and participating territories in the WCPFC Statistical Area, reported no retained catch of this species in the purse seine fishery between 2009 and 2014.

Even with bans on the retention of silky shark and the requirement for the early release of any sharks caught, reductions in fishing mortality are dependent on the level of survival among released animals. Poisson et al. (2014) found that for French purse-seine operations in the Indian Ocean overall mortality of silky sharks was 81%, after accounting for the initial mortality (72%) and the post-release mortality of animals that were released alive after having been either brailed on board (48% mortality) or entangled in the net (18% mortality). The assessment team is not aware of any information on whether similar levels of mortality are experienced by silky sharks caught by vessels in the WCPO purse seine fleet.

Shark finning Shark finning is prohibited by WCPFC and under U.S. legislation. Tri Marine also has a company Policy for its fleet that, among other measures, prohibits the practice of shark finning onboard its own vessels and those of its subsidiary companies3.

WCPFC’s CMM for sharks (CMM 2010-07) includes the following requirements: 6. CCMs shall take measures necessary to require that their fishers fully utilize any retained catches of sharks. Full utilization is defined as retention by the fishing vessel of all parts of the shark excepting head, guts, and skins, to the point of first landing or transshipment. 7. CCMs shall require their vessels to have on board fins that total no more than 5% of the weight of sharks on board up to the first point of landing. CCMs that currently do not require fins and carcasses to be offloaded together at the point of first landing shall take the necessary measures to ensure compliance with the 5% ratio through certification, monitoring by an observer, or other appropriate measures. CCMs may alternatively require that their vessels land sharks with fins attached to the carcass or that fins not be landed without the corresponding carcass. 8. As finer resolution data become available, the specification of the ratio of fin weight to shark weight described in paragraph 7 shall be periodically reviewed by the Scientific Committee (SC) and the SC will recommend any appropriate revisions to the Commission for its consideration. The SC and the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) are directed to consider if additional appropriate measures that give effect to paragraph 7 are required. 9. CCMs shall take measures necessary to prohibit their fishing vessels from retaining on board, transshipping, landing, or trading any fins harvested in contravention of this Conservation and Management Measure (CMM). 10. In fisheries for tunas and tuna-like species that are not directed at sharks, CCMs shall take measures to encourage the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally and are not used for food or other purposes.

The SC10 report noted that there were no specific documents to address the efficacy or effectiveness of this CMM and that the SC has not been able to assess the specification of the ratio of fins-to-carcass weight, as CMM 2010-07 required. Concerns had also been expressed at the TCC

3 Available at (http://www.trimarinegroup.com/resources/papers/Tri_Marine-Condemns-Shark-Finning.pdf) Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 63 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

(TCC10 2014) about ambiguity in a number of provisions in this CMM, particularly the fin-to-carcass ratio, that made it is impossible to determine compliance standards for the measure.

Banks et al. (2011) noted that the PNA had also raised the issue of finning through WP9 –Application of Management Arrangements for Sharks, submitted to the PNA 29th Special Meeting in February 2010; that at this meeting it was agreed to discuss the issue of shark finning at their Annual Meeting; and that it was suggested in WP9 that a prohibition on shark finning should be considered in a package of management arrangements for a fourth implementing arrangement. A fourth implementing arrangement has not yet been agreed so no measure regarding shark finning is yet in place through measures adopted by the PNA process, and CMM 2010-07 remains the key binding management measure.

Data provided by the SPC on the frequency with which observers report incidents of shark finning (Table 6) indicated that it is a rare event and that its frequency may have reduced in 2013 for the U.S. fleet as a whole.

Recent MSC advice with regard to shark finning is as follows: No systematic occurrence of shark finning is acceptable for an MSC certified fishery. MSC acknowledges that there are uncertainties associated with the methods used to verify whether shark finning is taking place, and has therefore defined various risk-based levels of acceptable confidence that shark finning is not taking place, based on different levels of information and management control. It has not previously considered the situation of very rare cases being detected and dealt with by compliance authorities.

MSC’s shark finning requirements (scoring issues 1.2.1e, 2.1.2d, 2.2.2d and related clauses SA2.4.3-7 in FCR v2.0) assess the level of certainty that shark finning is not taking place at the time that the fishery is certified. The requirements relate to how the regulations in place and the types of external validation work together to deliver the required confidence. If there are previous records (from years prior to the fishery being assessed) that state that shark finning has occurred in the past, that should not necessarily be taken to confirm that shark finning is still taking place at present.

If rare and isolated cases of shark finning are encountered in the most recent year (or the recent period considered in scoring the fishery, which should be no less than the last full season of landings), the team should evaluate the nature of such cases to determine whether further cases of shark finning could be happening in the fishery in a systematic way. If only one or two cases have been reported, for example, and the vessel/s involved have been appropriately sanctioned, then the team may still conclude that it is likely or highly likely that shark finning is not taking place in any significant way. If further such incidents are reported in the future, and the team determines that shark finning could be happening in a systematic way, the scoring decision should be reviewed, and suspension or a condition could then become appropriate. This could take place during scheduled surveillance audits and/ or during expedited audits if the team becomes aware of major changes in relation to the circumstances of the fishery, or of significant new information that may cause a major change. However, if these occurrences continue to appear not to be systematic, no change to the scoring may be needed.

Teams will need to use their expert judgment in scoring this requirement. Fisheries should not be perversely penalised, for example, for putting in place very good surveillance and enforcement systems that are proving effective and still detecting and quickly resolving the odd rare case.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 64 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The data available to the assessment team (Table 6) is regarded as evidence that shark finning is not taking place in any systematic way. The report of the TCC (TCC10 2014), however, suggests that no sanctions have been applied, in part because of difficulties in determining compliance with the measures contained in CMM 2010-07. It is not clear what form of sanctions is anticipated for this CMM.

Table 6. Frequency of observer records of shark finning events in the unassociated purse seine fishing fleet (2010-2013) (From data provided by SPC).

Year Tri Marine Fleet Other U.S. vessels Number of Finning Percent of Number of Finning Percent of sets events events sets events events 2010 354 0 0 2742 6 0.2% 2011 80 0 0 1167 5 0.4% 2012 288 2 0.7% 1764 6 0.3% 2013 305 0 0 2102 2 0.1%

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 65 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

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

The observer records of ETP species that have been caught and discarded by the Tri Marine fleet and other U.S. vessels indicate that very few cetaceans or turtles are caught but that larger numbers of oceanic whitetip sharks, mantas and devil rays, and whale sharks are caught (Table 7). No data are available on the status of any of these animals after they were caught. The assessment team was advised that that the observers do not record the life status on board purse seine vessels on the catch monitoring form, only the condition of species of special interest, but that these had not yet been processed for years 2010-2011 for the US Fleet. Observer data for 2007-2009 has previously been used to estimate mortality rates for whale sharks and cetaceans in the purse seine fishery (WCPFC 2012).

The most commonly caught members of each of these groups are considered separately below as is the potential for indirect effects of the fishery on ETP species, particularly seabirds.

Oceanic Whitetip Shark (Carcharhinus longimanus)

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

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

A stock assessment for oceanic whitetip sharks has been undertaken (Rice and Harley 2012a) from which some of the main conclusions were:

Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 66 of 350

 Notwithstanding the uncertainties inherent in the input data, the catch, CPUE, and size composition data all showed consistent declines over the period of the model (1995‐2009).

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

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

 Estimated fishing mortality had increased to levels far in excess of FMSY (FCURRENT / FMSY = 6.5) and

across all model runs undertaken estimated F values were much higher than FMSY (the 5th and 95th quantiles are 3 and 20). Based on these results it was concluded that overfishing was occurring.

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

and across all model runs undertaken SBCURRENT was much lower than SBMSY (the 5th and 95th quantiles are 0.082 and 0.409). Based on these results it was concluded that the stock was overfished.  The greatest impact on the stock was attributed to bycatch from the longline fishery, with lesser impacts from target longline activities and purse seining.

The assessment indicated that unassociated purse seine sets have a negligible contribution to the total fishing mortality (Figure 41).

Management In addition to its general CMM for sharks (CMM 2010-07), a specific CMM for oceanic whitetips (CMM-2011-04) came into force on January 1st, 2013. Specific measures include:

• Prohibition of vessels of members, co-operating non-members and participating territories (CCMs) to retain and store on-board, transship, or land, in part or whole, any oceanic whitetip in the fisheries covered by the Commission. • Their release from fishing gear, in a manner that causes the least amount of practicable harm. • To record the number of releases and status (dead or alive) in Part 1 of member states’ Annual Report to the Commission through observer programme data or other means.

It is too early to expect the impact of this recent CMM on stocks to be detectable.

The U.S.A. have also introduced domestic regulations to implement this CMM (NMFS 2015).

As detailed above under the section on silky sharks, there are complementary requirements of U.S. vessels through domestic regulations that prohibit the retention of oceanic whitetip sharks, and mandate the early release of any that are caught.

Information CMM 2011-04 requires information to be collected and reported on oceanic whitetip sharks. Rice and Harley (2012a) note problems with the data available, but an integrated assessment was still possible.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 67 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

CMM 2010-07 also contains requirements for CCMs to include information on “key shark species in their annual reporting to the Commission of annual catch and fishing effort statistics by gear type, including available historical data, in accordance with the WCPF Convention and agreed reporting procedures” and that “CCMs shall also report annual retained and discarded catches in Part 2 of their annual report”.

There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010.

The 2014 U.S. Annual Report to the Commission (NMFS, 2014a) reported that, based on the limited observer data that had been processed (~15%) in 2013, there were 13 releases of oceanic whitetip sharks but that no information was available on their status upon release. The 2015 report (NMFS 2015a) reported 58 releases of oceanic whitetip sharks.

Figure 41. Oceanic whitetip shark: estimated fishing mortality by fleet for the reference case over the model periods (from Rice and Harley 2012a).

Whale Sharks (Rhinocodon typus)

Status & biology The numbers of whale sharks recorded as having been caught in purse seines by the whole US fleet (an average 89 per year over the four years, Table 7) is indicative of occasions when whale sharks were encountered after a skipper made a set on what was initially thought to be a free school of tuna. It has been previously reported that more than two‐thirds of sets where whale sharks were encountered in the net (i.e. “interactions”) were not recorded as a “whale shark-associated” set type (WCPFC 2012). Whale sharks are listed under Appendix II of CITES, not Appendix 1 but qualify as

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 68 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

an ETP species under CR 1.3 because of the binding CMM (2012-04) for them in the WCPFC which is also reflected in U.S. regulations (NOAA 2015).

Whale sharks are globally distributed in tropical and warm temperate seas. Their populations are potentially part of a single, global meta-population (Sequeira et al. 2013). They are known to undertake multi-annual and very long-distance migrations including between different parts of the Pacific Ocean (Norman 2005). They are also known to be resident year round in some areas but to use a different habitat in different seasons, being visible on the surface at some times of year and swimming deeper and further away from shore at others, presumably in response to prey distributions (Cagua et al. 2015). Their life history is poorly known but they are known to be ovoviviparous and are reported as highly fecund (for a shark). Their life span has been estimated as 60 to over 100 years. Age at maturity has been variably reported as nine years (Norman 2005) and 30 years (Harley et al. 2013). Whale shark populations are reported as declining (Norman 2005). They have been considered likely to be a species with low population growth and therefore be vulnerable to fishing‐related mortality (Rice and Harley, 2012b). More details of the biology of this species are provided in Molony (2008). They have been the subject of some targeted fisheries and significant non‐tuna related fishing mortality is likely to have occurred historically, particularly in the coastal waters of the northwest Pacific Ocean (Rice and Harley, 2012b). Whale sharks are caught in purse seines and WCPFC records indicate that they are generally encountered anywhere significant amounts of fishing occur (Harley et al. 2013). The occurrence of whale sharks in free schools sets by purse seiners in the WCPO has been found to have been reduced by about half over the ten years up to 2012 which could be the result of improved identification of whale sharks prior to setting or a trend in abundance (Harley et al., 2013).

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

CMM 2010-07 includes the requirement that CCMs “shall implement, as appropriate, the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IPOA Sharks)” and that “CCMs shall advise the Commission (in Part 2 of the annual report) on their implementation of the IPOA Sharks, including, results of their assessment of the need for a National Plan of Action and/or the status of their National Plans of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks”

CMM 2010-07 also includes other requirements for key shark species, which include silky shark (covered above under retained species), mako sharks and oceanic whitetip sharks that are outlined in the section on shark finning above.

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

There are complementary regulations for U.S. vessels operating in the WCPO for whale sharks (NOAA, 2015) that include requirements that:  Owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States used for commercial fishing for HMS in the Convention Area shall not set or attempt to set a purse seine in the Convention

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 69 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Area on or around a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) if the animal is sighted at any time prior to the commencement of the set or the attempted set.  The crew, operator, and owner of a fishing vessel of the United States used for commercial fishing for HMS in the Convention Area must release any whale shark that is encircled in a purse seine net in the Convention Area, and take reasonable steps for its safe release, without compromising the safety of any persons. This paragraph does not apply to the territorial seas or archipelagic waters of any nation, as defined by the domestic laws and regulations of that nation and recognized by the United States.

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

CMM 2010-07 also contains requirements for CCMs to include information on “key shark species in their annual reporting to the Commission of annual catch and fishing effort statistics by gear type, including available historical data, in accordance with the WCPF Convention and agreed reporting procedures” and that “CCMs shall also report annual retained and discarded catches in Part 2 of their annual report”.

There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010.

There are also reporting requirements included in U.S. regulations for U.S. vessels operating in the WCPO (NMFS, 2015):  Whale shark encirclement reports. The owner and operator of a fishing vessel of the United States used for commercial fishing in the Convention Area that encircles a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) with a purse seine in the Convention Area shall ensure that the incident is recorded by the end of the day on the catch report forms maintained pursuant to § 300.34(c)(1), in the format specified by the Pacific Islands Regional Administrator. This paragraph does not apply to the territorial seas or archipelagic waters of any nation, as defined by the domestic laws and regulations of that nation and recognized by the United States.

Manta rays (Manta spp)

Status & biology The genus Manta is now split into two species, the Reef Manta Ray (Manta alfredi) and the Giant Manta Ray (Manta birostris) (Marshall et al. 2009). Most of the manta rays caught in WCPFC fisheries are not recorded to species level but those that are, have been identified as Giant Mantas (Table 7). Both species have worldwide distribution. Little is known about population size as actual populations seem to be sparsely distributed and highly migratory. The rate of population reduction appears to be as much as 80% over the last three generations (approximately 75 years), and globally a decline of 30% is strongly suspected (Marshall et al., 2011). Female mantas may be actively breeding for 30 years and the age at which 50% of total reproductive output is achieved would be approximately 24–25 years (Marshall et al., 2011). There have been no assessments of manta populations in the WCPFC.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 70 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Management There are no CMMs in place specifically for manta rays. The only provisions are the general matters contained in the Convention Text that apply to bycatch such as Article 5 that contains requirements that members of the Commission shall (emphasis added) - (d) assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on target stocks, non-target species, and species belonging to the same ecosystem or dependent upon or associated with the target stocks; (e) adopt measures to minimize waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, pollution originating from fishing vessels, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, (hereinafter referred to as non-target species) and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species and promote the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques; (f) protect biodiversity in the marine environment;

A good practice guide (Poisson et al., 2012) is available, which provides measures for the safe release of manta rays that have been caught in purse seine gear. No empirical data was available on the post-release survival rate of manta rays from purse seine gear in the SPC Convention Area

Information Most of the manta rays caught are not recorded to species level. The listing of manta rays under Appendix ii of CITES may prompt improved data collection on mantas. Data on the bycatch of manta rays is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in Section 3.2

Cetaceans There are 9 species of cetaceans that have been recorded as having been captured in purse seines set by U.S. vessels between 2009 and 2013 (Table 7) but none as having been caught by Tri Marine vessels.

Status None of the species of cetaceans are considered to be endangered by fishing activity. Sei whales are considered to be endangered by the IUCN but from a history of directed mortality in whaling activities.

The status of cetaceans within U.S. waters is reported by NMFS (2013) but only a minimal amount of the fishing effort of this fishery is expended within U.S. waters so these populations impacted by the fishery are likely to be different. Furthermore, populations of cetaceans frequently are comprised of many demographically-independent populations (for example, three have been identified among populations of false killer whales in Hawaiian waters, Caretta et al. 2013) and knowing this population structuring and the distribution of mortalities is important for assessing the impact of any mortalities. Across the whole of the fishery, the maximum number of caught (by the whole U.S. fleet) in one year of one species was 123 false killer whales but for this species has averaged 35 per year (Table 7). The detailed distribution of these mortalities is not known nor is the population structure. The numbers caught of all species are, however, quite small given the large area over which the fishery operates.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 71 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Management A CMM exists for cetaceans (CMM-2011-03) and came into force on January 1st, 2013. The requirements of the CMM include:

• CCMs shall prohibit their flagged vessels from setting a purse seine net on a school of tuna associated with a cetacean in the high seas and exclusive economic zones of the Convention Area, if the animal is sighted prior to commencement of the set. • CCMs shall require that, in the event that a cetacean is unintentionally encircled in the purse seine net, the master of the vessel shall: (a) Ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure its safe release. This shall include stopping the net roll and not recommencing fishing operation until the animal has been released and is no longer at risk of recapture; and (b) Report the incident to the relevant authority of the flag State, including details of the species (if known) and number of individuals, location and date of such encirclement, steps taken to ensure safe release, and an assessment 2 of the life status of the animal on release (including, if possible, whether the animal was released alive but subsequently died). • In taking steps to ensure the safe release of the cetacean, CCMs shall require the master of the vessel to follow any guidelines adopted by the Commission for the purpose of this measure. • CCMs shall include in their Part 1 Annual Report any instances in which cetaceans have been encircled by the purse seine nets of their flagged vessels. • The Secretariat shall report on the implementation of this conservation and management measure on the basis of observer reports, as part of the Annual Report on the Regional Observer Programme.

All marine mammals are protected from "take" under the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act. This Act states that the essential habitats used by marine mammals should be protected, and marine mammals should be protected from the harmful actions of man.

Information Data on the bycatch of cetaceans is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in Section 3.2

There is a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels.

Turtles A review of turtle bycatch in the WCPFC (Anon 2001) concluded that, for purse seine caught animals, in most cases, turtles are encountered alive in the net and are subsequently scooped up and released over the side and that observers had reported a 17% mortality rate in the WCPO purse seine fishery. The report indicated that mortalities are mostly due to drowning after entanglement in the net but that some are crushed during the process of loading the net onboard. The report also indicated that marine turtle encounters in the purse seine fishery appear to be more prevalent in the western areas of the western Pacific Ocean. Set type was the main factor affecting marine turtle encounters in the WCPO purse seine fishery and animal-associated, drifting log and anchored-FAD

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 72 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

sets had the highest incidence of marine turtle encounters, compared to drifting FAD and sets on free-swimming schools (unassociated sets).

Status The status of turtles encountered by fisheries in the WCPO have not been specifically examined by WCPFC. The status assigned to each species by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) is given in Table 9 including whether purse seine fisheries have been identified as a major threat. Purse seine fisheries have been only been identified as one of the types of fisheries that constitute a threat for Olive Ridley turtles but the relative contribution of the different gear types is not indicated.

Management The WCPFC has adopted CMM 2008-03 for sea turtles which requires CCMs to implement the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations and to ensure the safe handling of all captured sea turtles, in order to improve their survival. Best practice guidelines to ensure the survival of captured sea turtles is also outlined and obligatory to follow.

It also includes the requirements that purse seine vessels must “Ensure that operators of such vessels, while fishing in the Convention Area: (i) To the extent practicable, avoid encirclement of sea turtles, and if a sea turtle is encircled or entangled, take practicable measures to safely release the turtle. (ii) To the extent practicable, release all sea turtles observed entangled in fish aggregating devices (FADs) or other fishing gear. (iii) If a sea turtle is entangled in the net, stop net roll as soon as the turtle comes out of the water; disentangle the turtle without injuring it before resuming the net roll; and to the extent practicable, assist the recovery of the turtle before returning it to the water. (iv) Carry and employ dip nets, when appropriate, to handle turtles.”

For U.S. flagged vessels, following the adoption of CMM 2008-03 for turtles, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) issued regulations to owners and operators of U.S. fishing vessels equipped with purse seine gear that are used to fish in the Convention Area (NMFS 2009) that included requirements for:

• Carrying on-board and use specific gear • Following specific handling requirements in the course of interactions with sea turtles. • The encouragement, although not a requirement, to carry a turtle hoist to handle turtles. • Follow specific handling requirements in the course of interactions with sea turtles. • Prohibit the consumption or sale of any sea turtle, dead or alive. A sea turtle may be landed, offloaded, or kept below deck only if NMFS requests the retention of a dead sea turtle or a part thereof for research.

Information CMM 2008-03 details reporting requirements for CCMs, and includes the obligation to specifically report in CCM annual reports the progress of the implementation of the FAO Guidelines and this

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 73 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

CMM, including information collected on interactions with sea turtles in fisheries managed under the Convention.

Information available on the turtles is also collected by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs as outlined in section 3.2 above.

There has been a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010.

Seabirds Seabird mortalities from purse seine fishing are very rare. Nevertheless, there is the potential for the fishery to have indirect effects on seabirds. Foraging tuna drive small prey fish to the surface, providing foraging opportunities for plunge-diving species like boobies and terns. Reductions in the abundance of tuna may also reduce the number of such foraging opportunities. Pelagic and offshore foraging seabirds are particularly reliant on large predatory fish, such as tuna and mackerel (Scomberomorus spp.), to drive prey to the surface (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2012). In some areas, decreases in the abundance of sub-surface predators have been associated with declines in the availability of prey to pelagic foraging seabirds (Au and Pitman, 1986) and thought to contribute to their poor foraging success and reproductive output (Erwin and Congdon 2007) and subsequent poor recruitment and/or breeding participation two years later (Devney et al. 2009a). Correlations between tuna abundance and seabird foraging success do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship, however, as both seabirds (Catry et al. 2013, Devney et al. 2009b, Erwin and Congdon 2007, Weeks et al. 2013) and tuna (Lehodey et al. 1997, 2006) are known to be influenced by local or broad scale oceanographic events and changes in sea surface temperature.

The WCPFC Scientific Committee does give explicit consideration to the ecosystem impacts of tuna fishing (see below) but the potential impacts in seabird foraging in particular have not, to our knowledge, been explicitly considered.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 74 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 7. Numbers of ETP species caught and discarded in unassociated purse seine sets by the Tri Marine fleet and other U.S. vessels, 2010-13 (from data supplied by SPC).

Group Species Tri Marine Fleet Other US vessels Total 2010 2011 2012 2013 2010 2011 2012 2013 Sharks & Oceanic whitetip 95 128 14 51 605 308 79 29 1309 rays shark Manta rays 11 7 12 8 200 270 199 155 862 (unidentified) Mobula (Devil ray) 3 1 8 13 85 120 270 124 624 Giant manta 2 2 14 12 108 111 106 65 420 Whale shark 12 2 9 8 146 15 131 34 357 Hammerhead 94 1 2 97 sharks Short finned mako 0 14 2 16 Great hammerhead 4 2 6 Scalloped 2 1 1 4 hammerhead Smooth 2 2 hammerhead Cetaceans False killer whale 20 123 3 5 151 Rough-toothed 22 25 29 76 dolphin Indo-pacific 25 1 2 7 35 bottlenose dolphin Bottlenose dolphin 5 4 2 15 26 Short-finned pilot 1 1 5 7 whale Spinner dolphin 1 4 2 7 Spotted dolphin 2 2 Sei whale 2 2 Striped dolphin 1 1 Turtles Olive Ridley turtle 1 4 1 7 15 3 31 Green turtle 1 6 4 7 10 28 Loggerhead turtle 1 2 3 3 6 15 Hawksbill turtle 1 8 2 1 12 Flatback turtle 1 1 2 Leatherback turtle 1 1 2

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 75 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 8. IUCN status of elasmobranchs most commonly caught in the U.S. purse seine fishery and the fisheries threats that have been identified for them.

Species IUCN Status Threats from Fishing Silky shark Near Threatened Fished directly or as a bycatch in Carcharhinus falciformis (Bonfil et al., 2009) longline and purse seine (mainly FAD- based) fisheries Oceanic whitetip shark Vulnerable Larger animals are taken by pelagic Carcharhinus longimanus (Baum et al 2006) longline fisheries and driftnet fisheries; juveniles are also taken by purse seines Manta ray Vulnerable Fishing is the main threat to both Manta Spp (Marshall et al., 2011) Manta species, whether targeted or incidental Whale shark Vulnerable Some targeted fishing by harpoons. Rhincodon typus (Norman, 2005) Caught in purse seine, drift net and gill net fisheries Scalloped hammerhead Endangered Target and bycatch in wide range of Sphyrna lewini (Baum et al., 2007) fisheries including purse seines Great hammerhead Endangered Target and bycatch in tropical hook, S. mokarran (Denham et al., 2012) net and trawl fisheries Smooth hammerhead Vulnerable Target and bycatch in hook, net, purse S. zygaena (Casper et al., 2007) seine and trawl fisheries Short-finned mako Vulnerable Target and bycatch in hook and net Isurus oxyrinchus (Cailliet et al. 2009) fisheries

Table 9. IUCN status of species of marine turtles caught in the U.S. purse seine fishery and the fisheries that that have been identified for them.

Species IUCN Status Threats from Fishing Loggerhead turtle Endangered (Marine Turtle Rationale for listing not available Caretta Specialist Group 1996) Green turtle Endangered Fishing identified as a threat but not Chelonia mydas (Seminoff, 2004) purse seine fishing Flatback turtle Not yet assessed Not identified Natator depressus Leatherback turtle Vulnerable Incidental capture of marine turtles in Dermochelys coriacea (Wallace et al., 2013) fishing gear targeting other species Hawksbill turtle Critically endangered Entanglement in fishing gear but not Eretmochelys imbricate (Mortimer & Donnelly, 2008) purse seines Olive Ridley turtle Vulnerable Incidental capture in trawl fisheries, Lepidochelys olivacea (Abreu-Grobois & Plotkin, 2008) longline fisheries, purse seines, gill net and other net fisheries and hook and line fisheries

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 76 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 10. IUCN status of species of cetaceans caught in the U.S. purse seine fishery and the fisheries threats that have been identified for them.

Species IUCN Status Threats from Fishing False killer whale Data deficient Incidental takes of small numbers in gill Pseudorca crassidens (Taylor et al. 2008) nets in several places and in tuna purse seines in the eastern tropical Pacific Rough-toothed dolphin Least concern Small numbers are taken in a variety of Steno bredanensis (Hammond et al. 2012a) fisheries including purse seines. Indo-pacific bottlenose Data deficient Incidental catches in a number of fisheries dolphin (Hammond et al. 2012c) including gillnets and purse seines Tursiops aduncus Bottlenose dolphin Least concern Incidental catches in gillnets, driftnets, Tursiops truncatus (Hammond et al. 2012d) purse seines, trawls, long-lines, and on hook-and-line gear used in commercial and recreational fisheries Short-finned pilot whale Data deficient Small numbers are taken in a variety of Globicephala (Taylor et al. 2015) fisheries macrorhynchus Spinner dolphin Data deficient Entanglement in tuna purse seines in the Stenella longirostris (Bearzi et al. 2012) eastern tropical Pacific Ocean Sei whale Endangered None Balaenoptera borealis (Reilly et al. 2008) Spotted dolphin Least concern Entanglement in tuna purse seines in the Stenella attenuata (Hammond et al. 2012b) eastern tropical Pacific Ocean Striped dolphin Least concern Incidental catches in various types of fishing Stenella coeruleoalba (Hammond et al. 2008) gear, especially purse seines and gillnets, around the world.

Impacts on pelagic habitats

Status The WCPO purse seine fishery is undertaken in deep oceanic waters and does not physically interact with benthic habitat during its operation. Any impacts of the fishery will therefore be confined to direct or indirect effects on the surface waters in which the fishery operates. These habitats are essentially open ocean waters in which the ability to support the target fish populations is related to temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determine the productivity of the lower trophic levels. These are primarily driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their effect on the frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. Purse seine fishing is not considered capable of affecting these key habitat drivers at a broad scale or even local levels of productivity and no further consideration is given to this aspect of pelagic habitats.

Floating objects, however, are an additional component of pelagic habitats. Natural floating objects and Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs) are colonised or sought out by a range of marine creatures, including tuna, leading them to be an important component of some purse seine fishing operations. Purse seine fishing on floating objects (whether natural or FADs), therefore, has the potential to have an impact on these habitats and hence to affect the productivity of target species and communities that are associated with them. However, as this fishery does not target fish associated with floating objects, instead targeting free schools, no further impact is perceived for the habitat

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 77 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

communities for this fishery and it is appropriate that no particular management measures are in existence which are designed to avoid or mitigate impacts.

Impacts on ecosystem structure and function

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

Figure 42. Trends in total biomass for eight stocks of large predators in the Pacific Ocean (Source: Sibert et al., 2006)

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 78 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

in the Pacific Ocean.

Figure 42, (from Sibert et al., 2006) describes biomass trends of exploited populations of top level predators in the WCPO and the EPO and compares them to estimated biomass projections had the fishery never been exploited. The blue line represents the former case, the red line the latter. The single black line indicates the equilibrium biomass corresponding to maximum sustainable yield conditions, assuming current levels of recruitment and distribution of fishing mortality among fisheries.

The study found that the trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on the Pacific Ocean ecosystem were likely to be minor.

Many of the ecosystem-related studies focus on longline fisheries and FAD-associated purse seine fisheries. Leroy et al. (2013) evaluated changes in trophic structure following fishery exploitation. Although this analysis focuses on drifting and anchored FADs, it does comment on the effects of purse seining on unassociated sets. Unassociated sets have a much less pronounced impact on the ecosystem than FAD associated sets. For example, shark catch rates are lower overall, as are catches of juvenile bigeye and yellowfin tuna. Turtle catch is also on average an order of magnitude lower than those associated with megafauna or FAD sets.

A major consideration in the relationship between fishing and the ecosystem is the impact of climate change. Tuna stocks are particularly susceptible to the effects of environmental change. In addition to the seasonal, inter-annual and decadal variability in the WCPO (e.g. the El Niño Southern Oscillation - ENSO), projected changes in the marine environment over the coming decades include increases in sea surface temperature, sea level rise, ocean acidification and increases in precipitation. Recent climate change modelling predicts slight increases in skipjack tuna catch and biomass in the western and central Pacific until 2050, followed by biomass stabilisation and

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 79 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

subsequent decrease after 2060 as the catch plateaus (Lehodey et al., 2013a). A shift in feeding and spawning grounds is also anticipated to shift to more favorable conditions in the eastern Pacific Ocean away from the current western equatorial region, as well as an extension to higher latitudes (Lehodey et al., 2013a).

Allain et al. (2007) constructed a trophic mass-balance ecosystem model of the Warm Pool pelagic ecosystem (i.e. the area of the Western Pacific bounded by the 28°C sea surface temperature isotherm) using Ecopath with Ecosim software. This model indicated that the ecosystem responds to both top-down and bottom-up processes, and has the characteristics of a complex form of ‘wasp- waist’ structure where the majority of the system’s biomass is comprised of mid-trophic level groups. Significant complexity was further added through the effects of climate change, including increased sea surface temperature leading to changes in ocean stratification dynamics and changes in the depth of the thermocline. A combination of increased fishing and climate change produced complex trophic cascades, causing unpredictable increases and decreases in the biomass of groups representing all trophic levels, similar to unpredictable wasp-waist ecosystems in productive temperate ecosystems.

The available model-based predictions provide only indirect evidence of the trophic impacts associated with declining apex predator abundance, as there are difficulties applying detailed trophic models to open ocean systems in which ecological and fishery data uncertainties are large (Cox et al., 2002). However, the Sibert et al. (2006) study, suggests it is unlikely that the tuna harvested by the Tri Marine fleet in PNA waters is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning.

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

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 80 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Since 2005, the FFA has supported in-country work to generate EAFM reports intended to provide the basis for the development of operational and/or tuna management plans. To assist member countries implement EAFM, the FFA have developed a Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency EAFM Framework. This framework comprises a number of stages, which lead to the eventual identification and prioritization of issues related to the current state of tuna resources, environment and social- economics (Fletcher 2007). This then leads to the eventual programming of priority activities into operational framework and action plans. The process takes into account ecosystem considerations in the management of tuna fisheries. EAFM reports have been completed for the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Tonga and Vanuatu.

Under US legislation the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) authorizes fishery management councils to create fishery management plans (FMP). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS) is the US government agency responsible for all aspects of the conservation and management of U.S. fisheries. NOAA/NMFS is also responsible for carrying out the U.S. policies to manage and conserve marine protected resources. The MSFCMA has created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. The Councils develop fishery management plans and management measures for the US fisheries operating within their adjacent EEZs and for US-flagged fisheries operating on the high seas outside the EEZ. NOAA/NMFS approves and implements these plans and measures. The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) has developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as an FMP, consistent with the MSFCMA and the national standards for fishery conservation and management. The FEP for the Western Pacific Region: 1. Identifies the management objectives of the Pacific Pelagic FEP; 2. Delineates the boundaries of the Pelagic FEP; 3. Designates the management unit species included in the Pacific Pelagic FEP; 4. Details the federal fishery regulations applicable under the Pacific Pelagic FEP; and 5. Establishes appropriate Council structures and advisory bodies to provide scientific and management advice to the Council regarding the Pacific Pelagic FEP.

In addition, the FEP provides the information and rationale for these measures; discusses the key components of the Western Pacific Region’s pelagic ecosystem, including an overview of the region’s pelagic fisheries; and explains how the measures contained here are consistent with the MSFCMA and other applicable laws.

The WPFRMC has authority over the fisheries based in, and seaward of the State of Hawaii, the Territory of American Samoa, the Territory of Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Pacific Remote Island Areas (PRIA) of the Western Pacific Region.

Information As well as collecting data on target species taken in the WCPO fishery, there has been and continues to be collection of information for and assessments of a wide range of other components of the WCPO ecosystem, including: • data on the bycatch of large purse-seine vessels and other fishing operations; • data on the spatial distribution of the bycatch and the bycatch/catch ratios, collected for analysis of policy options to reduce bycatches; • information to evaluate measures to reduce bycatch, such as closures, effort limits; • assessment of habitat preferences and the effect of environmental changes.

This effort occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 81 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). Allain et al. (2011) discuss a number of projects which contribute to EAFM. These include but are not limited to:

• Regional Observer Programme: has the objective to collect verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional information related to the fishery from the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the CMMs adopted by the Commission. The Programme is based on the use of existing regional, sub-regional and national observer programmes already in place amongst WCPFC members. Although there have been problems with data obtained under this programme, including biases introduced through operational changes and historically low coverage, recent improvements in the Programme, including 100% coverage in the purse seine fishery from 2010 and a minimum of 5% coverage in the longline fishery from 2012 should improve the quantity and quality of data available. • data on species’ diet has been used to develop Pacific Ocean food-web models (Eastern Tropical Pacific, Central North Pacific, Pacific Warm pool, and the Australian Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fisheries) developed with the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) modelling tool. • the bycatch mitigation information system (BMIS) is the result of a WCPFC project to centralise and make information available on the mitigation and management of bycatch in WCPO. The database is a reference and educational tool that supports the Commission's responsibilities with regard to the sustainable management of non-target, or bycatch, species in WCPO fisheries targeting highly migratory species, including tuna and billfish (see http://bmis.wcpfc.int/index.php) (Fitzsimmons, 2011).

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

Additional focus on ecosystem information has been provided through Kobe By-catch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) which was established in 2009 with the aim of supporting, streamlining, and seeking to harmonize the by-catch related activities of Ecosystems/By-catch working groups across RFMOs. The KBTWG’s terms of reference include (from Nicol et al., 2013): • Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer by-catch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. Provide guidance for improving data collection efforts (e.g., information to be collected) and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among Tuna RFMOs; • Identify species of concern that, based on their susceptibility to fisheries and their conservation status, require immediate action across Tuna RFMOs. Review all available information on these species and identify their data needs; • Review and identify appropriate qualitative and quantitative species population status determination methods for by-catch species; • Review data analyses to identify all fishery and non-fishery (e.g. oceanographic and physical) factors contributing to by-catch, taking into account the confidentiality rules of each RFMO;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 82 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

• Review existing by-catch mitigation measures including those adopted by each Tuna RFMO and consider new mitigation research findings to assess the potential utility of such measures in areas covered by other Tuna RFMOs taking into consideration differences among such areas; and • Review and compile information on by-catch research that has been already conducted or is currently underway to delineate future research priorities and areas for future collaboration.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

Area of operation of the fishery, jurisdiction of fishing and management measures

The U.S. purse-seine fleet has operated mainly in areas between 10° N and 15° S latitude and 140° E and 160°W longitude in recent years. The number of US and Participating Territories’ purse seine vessels operating in the WCPFC Statistical Area for the years 2009-2013 was 39, 37, 37, 39 and 40, respectively (NMFS 2014). As can be seen in Figure 1, the majority of unassociated set purse seine fishing effort by the Tri Marine fleet and other U.S. vessels takes place within the EEZs of PNA party members’ EEZs (as does for overall effort in the WCPO).

Management of tuna fisheries across the WCPO involves a complex mix of national and international bodies and agreements. The key components of the regional and sub-regional governance arrangements and fishery management framework relevant to the Tri Marine purse seine fishery include:

• The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); • The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (the PNA Agreement); • The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement; • The United States Multilateral Treaty (UST) (also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, SPTT); and • The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (not a regulatory organisation but plays an important role in providing technical assistance to members). The main National legislation used to govern U.S. fishing fleets fishing in the Western Central Pacific Ocean, including on the high seas and in waters of other national jurisdictions, relevant to this assessment include:

• The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976; • The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act 2000; • The Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972; • The Endangered Species Act 1973; • The Lacey Act 1900. In addition, laws regulating fishing for Pacific fishing nations are implemented through the various National tuna management plans and arrangements. Banks et al. (2011) provides a detailed

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 83 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

description of arrangements in place for the PNA alliance within whose EEZs the majority of purse seine fishing effort takes place.

The following sections provide a brief overview for each of these arrangements.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) The Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean established the WCPFC in 2004 to conserve and manage migratory fishery resources in the WCPO. More than half of the world’s tuna catch is taken within the WCPFC Convention Area. The WCPFC is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment.

The WCPFC Secretariat is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and includes a ‘Scientific Committee’ (SC) and a ‘Technical and Compliance Committee’ (TCC). The WCPFC comprises member nations, participating territories and the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei. A ‘Northern Committee’ was established to deal with management and conservation issues to the north of 20° N. In addition to these three bodies specified in the Convention, the Commission may establish other subsidiary bodies (e.g., the Finance and Administration Committee) and also employs ad hoc working groups as required. Ad hoc working groups have been established for data-related issues, the Commission’s vessel monitoring system, the regional observer program, and other issues.

Scientists of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme (SPC- OFP) are responsible for leading much of the scientific research utilized by the Committees. WCPFC has a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the SPC to provide scientific services, including data management services. Under the MoU, the SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme collects, compiles, and disseminates fisheries data; undertakes regional stock assessments of key target and non-target species; conducts ecosystem analyses; and advises on the WCPFC’s observer program and other strategies to monitor and control fishing activities.

The SC is required to work closely with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, particularly in areas of overlap. Flag states in areas of overlap must nominate whether they will apply IATTC or WCPFC measures. The U.S. has chosen to apply WCPFC measures in such areas. The SC also works closely with the International Scientific Committee (ISC), which has certain responsibilities for scientific investigation of highly migratory species in the north Pacific in support of the Northern Committee.

The Convention incorporates provisions of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), in particular:

• The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2); • The general principles in Article 5 of UNFSA including the application of the precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines For The Application of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5); • The application of these principles by parties in their cooperation under the Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national jurisdiction, (Article 7);

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 84 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

• Compatibility of measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction (Article 8); • Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31); and • Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources (Article 30). The Convention provides a framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission. The Convention also provides recognition of the special requirements of developing States, in particular small island developing states (SIDS) and cooperation with other RFMOs whose respective areas of competence overlap with the WCPFC.

The Commission has 26 Members, of which most are SIDS. The current members are: Australia, Canada, People‘s Republic of China, Cook Islands, European Union (EU), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America (USA) and Vanuatu. Participating Territories include American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna. In addition, there are Cooperating Non-members consisting of Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Liberia, Vietnam, Panama and Thailand.

A list of the Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) relevant to the purse seine fishery can be sourced on the WCPFC website (www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures).

The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted (WCPFC 2004a; Rule 22). This voting provision has not been used for deciding on conservation and management measures. In addition, there are provisions for a decision to be reviewed by a review panel at the request of a Member (WCPFC 2000; Annex II). Decision-making is open, with the process, outcomes and basis for decisions recorded in detail in records of Commission sessions and publicly available papers. The subsidiary bodies of the Commission provide extensive, detailed reports to the Commission, including advice and recommendations (see meeting reports at http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings).

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

Article 30 recognizes special requirements for developing states in regards to high dependence on marine resources and the need to avoid adverse impacts on subsistence fishers and indigenous people. To this end, the Article established a fund to facilitate effective participation through provision of financial and technical resources and assistance to developing States.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 85 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The WCPFC allows participation by non-members and territories, with particular opportunities for cooperating non-Members. Observers are allowed to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the Scientific Committee, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee. As part of the conditions for Cooperating Non-Member status, applicants are required to provide annually a “a commitment to cooperate fully in the implementation of conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission and to ensure that fishing vessels flying its flag and fishing in the Convention Area and, to the greatest extent possible, its nationals, comply with the provisions of the Convention and Conservation and Management Measures adopted by the Commission.” (CMM 2009-11).

The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) The Nauru Agreement is a regional agreement made to facilitate cooperation in the management of fisheries resources of common interest. The Nauru Agreement is a binding Treaty-level instrument considered to be a sub-regional or regional fisheries management arrangement for the purpose of the UNFSA and the WCPFC Convention. The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau, commonly referred to as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), have worked collaboratively since 1982 to manage the tuna stocks within their national waters. Tokelau is not a member but in 2012 signed an agreement with the PNA countries to join the VDS. This is an alliance of Pacific island states whose EEZs collectively account for a significant bulk of the region’s tuna catch and the majority of the purse seine catch. The PNA coordinates the implementation of management measures with a view to enhancing economic benefits from the fishery. The PNA secretariat is located in Majuro in the Marshall Islands. Its objectives are to enhance regional solidarity and to promote economic control and participatory rights over the tuna resources in PNA waters, with a primary focus to:

• Develop strategic fisheries conservation and management initiatives; • Develop initiatives to maximise the sustained direct and indirect economic benefits to the Parties; and • Maximise the profitability of the fishery and ancillary industries within the PNA.

PNA’s functions include operating an access and management regime, which optimises revenue collection for the parties, as well as promoting the development of the Parties’ indigenous fishery sector.

The Nauru Agreement is implemented through binding Implementing Arrangements and associated Arrangements, which include:

• The 1st Implementing Arrangement, 1983, setting minimum licensing standards, including reporting, inspection and on-board observation, vessel identification and “good standing” on the FFA regional register; • The 2nd Implementing Arrangement, 1990, adding additional conditions relating to VMS, high seas reporting and a prohibition on transshipment at sea; • The Palau Arrangement, 1995, limiting the purse seine fishery, initially by limiting vessel numbers, but now through the VDS which is described separately in more detail below;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 86 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

• The FSM Arrangement: 1994, establishing arrangements for preferential access among the parties for vessels meeting certain standards for the provision of domestic economic benefits; • The 3rd Implementing Arrangement (3IA) 2008, applying a FAD closure, 100% observer coverage and catch retention/no tuna discards in PNA EEZs, and prohibition of fishing in high seas pockets for licensed vessels. The PNA Agreement is an important component of this assessment, as the unit of assessment encompasses PNA waters and because a large proportion of the Tri Marine fleet tuna catch is taken from within PNA waters.

The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS)

The Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Purse Seine Fishery in the Western and Central Pacific was developed by the Parties to the Nauru Agreement and entered into force in November 1995 (Banks et al. 2011). The Palau Arrangement is a multilateral treaty governing the operation of purse seine vessels in the national waters of the PNA. Its initial intent was to limit the number of vessels operating in the waters of the PNA. The Arrangement was originally a 205 limit to vessel numbers, which could be licensed by the Parties and allocated by fleet. This was replaced by the VDS, an input control framework which allows Parties to set a limit on the number of purse seine days to be fished. The VDS was established in response to scientific advice of overfishing, to allow new entrants to the fishery to create competition for access and in turn, increase PNA members’ control over the fishery and increase the value of fishing access (Dunn et al. 2006). The VDS was also introduced to better manage effort creep experienced under the 205 vessel limit. Under the VDS Scheme the PNA set the total number of days that can be fished in their combined waters and the apportionment of the total number of days between each country. These allocations of fishing days are set for 12 month periods and can be set up to 3-years in advance. Allocated fishing days are tradable as Party Allowable Effort (PAE). The most recent stock assessment information on the target species of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna and economic information relating to the maximization of economic returns and optimal utilization of the resource is used to assess the allocations of fishing days.

The VDS is now integral to management of the WCPO purse seine fishery in national waters, and has been adopted as a major component of the purse seine fishery management framework by the WCPFC, through CMM 2014-01 (para 20 and 21). Key features of the VDS are:

a) Parties set the Total Allowable Effort (TAE) in fishing days for each Management Year (calendar years); b) A fishing day is defined as any day or part of a day in the waters of a Party outside archipelagic waters unless prior notice is given of a vessel not fishing, e.g. for transit; c) Initially, allowances for the FSM Arrangement fleet effort and the US Treaty effort were deducted from the TAE. Current arrangements require individual PNA parties to contribute days from their PAEs into pools for the FSM Arrangements and the US Treaty; d) The adjusted TAE is allocated amongst the Parties as their PAE for each management year based on the distribution of estimated biomass and historical effort; e) Parties may transfer days freely between themselves within a single management year; days cannot be transferred and/or borrowed between management years;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 87 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

f) Each Party is required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the number of fishing days by purse seine vessels in its EEZ does not exceed that Party’s PAE or adjusted PAE in any management year; g) As a capacity adjustment, a fishing day of a small vessel (<50 m length overall (LOA)) is counted as half of a fishing day, and large vessels (>80 m LOA) one and a half fishing days; h) The VDS is overseen and reviewed by an Inter-Party VDS Committee, and reports to the annual meeting of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement. The role of the VDSC is to have oversight on the operational aspects of the VDS and provide recommendations as appropriate to the plenary meetings of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement, unless mandated to decide on certain operational aspects of the VDS.

The VDS is a very large management programme being applied by a group of developing countries of varying capacities. Taken together with the various other conservation and management measures, the VDS provides a central element in the management of the key target stocks and is also an important element in the regional strategy to conserve bigeye tuna. A summary of the VDS core strengths (Banks et al. 2011) include:

• Binding agreement on allocations of fishing effort; • Mechanisms to account for effort creep; • High-level political support in the PNA Leadership; • A long history of cooperative PNA management efforts; • An extensive consultative process with stakeholders directly involved; • Acceptance of the VDS by the WCPFC and its incorporation into CMM 2008-01 and later iterations of this CMM including CMM 2014-01; • Centralized monitoring of effort by VMS; • Support from the FFA VMS and the Regional Observer Programme; and • Monitoring (logsheet) and scientific support from SPC.

Some weaknesses identified in the VDS, documented by Banks et al. (2011) included the following:

• The lack of a clear link between the PAE and scientific advice on stock status; • PAE allocation has been unsettled, and difficulties have been addressed in part through increasing the TAE and individual PAEs through ad hoc adjustments; • Trading has been slow to develop ad hoc adjustments, lack of trading and high provisions for transfers between years resulted in high adjusted PAEs for 2010 and increased effort in 2010, including allowing the transfer, instead of removal, of effort from the closed high seas areas; • Some Parties have overrun their PAEs, and it is not clear that the sanctions in the Scheme for over-runs are being applied; • Limits have only been partially applied at national level; • There are inconsistencies in the treatment of non-fishing days, with apparently high provisions for non-fishing days for some Parties, while no provisions are made for other Parties; • The Scheme does not apply to archipelagic waters, and effort has increased substantially in archipelagic waters of the Parties since 2004; • The FSMA effort is capped at 3907 days but this looks likely to have been exceeded in 2010;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 88 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

• The need to bring U.S. effort under the VDS.

It should be noted that the VDS continues to evolve and a number of the above weaknesses have been addressed, for example the U.S. purse seine effort is now being accounted for as part of the VDS. The US fleet came under the VDS for part of 2013 and all of 2014 and 2015. Similarly, FSMA days are also accounted for under the VDS. It should also be noted that the PNA renewed its commitment to fully implement the VDS through a formal PNA Resolution in 2013 (PNA Resolution 01-2013).

Differing definitions of non-fishing days (NFDs) has been raised as a concern because it can result in “leakage” in the VDS. The 3rd MSC surveillance audit for the PNA fishery examined this issue (SCS 2014). The audit team reports that PNA acknowledged the problem of inconsistent application of the definition of NFDs and processing on NFDs. PNA have undertaken measures including the adoption of standard NFD definitions for all parties and improve the validation of NFDs to address this issue. The surveillance audit concluded that that “…this weakness in the VDS is not currently considered sufficient to compromise the effectiveness of the VDS as a tool for limiting fishing effort to the desired levels (SCS 2014).

Under the VDS, the TAE for 2014 and 2015 was set at a total of 44,625 VDS days; the 2016 TAE was set at 44,890 days (PNA 2015a). The Tri Marine purse fleet operates under the VDS, through fishing days allocated via the U.S. Treaty when fishing in PNA waters. The Tri Marine fleet comprises 10 purse seine vessels that fall within the 60-80m length category of the VDS, meaning that one day fished in PNA waters requires one VDS day. As indicated earlier, Tokelau is now part of the VDS although it is not a PNA member and not covered by the PNA TAE. It has its own TAE, which it brings to the VDS and which is transferable with PNA members. This was initially established at 1000 days and is adjusted proportionately with changes in the PNA TAE. The Tokelau TAE for 2014 and 2015 was 985 days, and 991 days respectively (resulting in total TAEs of 45,610 for 2014 and 2015, and 45,881 days for 2016). The US fleet has an allocation of 8000 fishing days in PNA EEZs in 2015, with the Tri Marine fleet’s annual allocation at 2000 VDS days (via the US Treaty) that may be fished within PNA waters.

In PNA waters, use of VDS days is tracked via the PNA ‘Fisheries Information Management System’ (FIMS), which is based in Australia. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has access to data captured in FIMS for the U.S. fleet and provides a monthly summary of VDS fishing day usage to the Executive Director of the American Tuna Boat Association (ATA), who in turn notify all of the U.S. vessels of their VDS usage. Tri Marine also keep a track of fishing days using internal company procedures involving use of real- time VMS and logbook data, which is submitted to the ATA. The Tri Marine company policy stipulates that when its fleet reaches its allocated share of VDS days, the vessels are required to stop fishing in PNA waters (pers. comm. with Tri Marine Fishing Company Management). Depending on the timing, the company may seek to access additional VDS days to continue fishing in PNA waters, through bilateral agreements or through trading with other companies in the U.S. fleet which also hold VDS days.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 89 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The effectiveness of the VDS is a key issue in this assessment because of the importance of the VDS as a tool for managing the WCPO tropical tuna fisheries, including the fisheries for skipjack. Information noted in Banks et al. (2011) indicated that the Scheme has not been fully implemented, and there have been difficulties and inadequacies in the early stages of implementation. The shortfalls in the performance were not considered to be reflective of a concern that the VDS is an inappropriate or ineffective tool, but rather that its full implementation is required. The Client Action Plan of the PNA fishery following MSC certification included a commitment by the PNA Parties to commission an external review of the integrity and effectiveness of the VDS. This independent review was commissioned and completed in 2014 (though it only became publicly available in mid- 2015).

The VDS review (PNA 2015b) concludes that the FIMS is a well-designed information system capable of providing timely information to the VDS-members and that the system has greatly increased the transparency of the VDS operation, including vessel location, fishing day use and trade, catches etc., to all its members. One aspect of the VDS examined by the review related to concerns about the lack of compliance with VDS rules by individual partners. These review found that the concerns most often mentioned were: (i) The way certain partners define "so-called" non-fishing days, i.e. subtract them from their PAEs; (ii) the failure of some partners to actually close the fishery in their EEZs when their PAE has been exhausted; and (iii), the willingness of certain partners to undercut the minimum benchmark price in their sales of days. The review concludes that interviews undertaken provided a general perception that compliance improved considerably in 2013 and continued to improve in 2014 and that there is some support for this perception from official documentation (PNA 2015b).

The review has compiled a long list of recommendations for consideration by the PNA (PNA 2015b). The terms of reference for the review required consideration of the VDS with regard to the broad headings: (i) governance and management; (ii) design objectives; (iii) allocation mechanisms; (iv) participation and management of substitutes (i.e. fishing outside the VDS); (v) trading arrangements; (vi) integrity of systems and processes; (vii) compliance with the rules; (viii) transparency; (ix) amount of fees; and (x) level of fishing effort (TAE).

A number of the recommendations of the review would further address concerns over the VDS if implemented. Some of the key recommendations include:  the formal adoption of a clear and simple objective for the VDS. The review suggests an appropriate objective would be “to maximize fee revenues from the tuna fisheries on a sustainable basis”;  the durability of vessel day rights held by Parties to the PA should be strengthened. In particular, there are great efficiency advantages in the Parties having a long term share in the TAE that would be unaffected by the fishing in their EEZ and their own trading in their PAE;  it is recommended that steps be taken to substantially increase transferability. In particular, trades of the PAE to other Parties should not affect future years PAE;  It is recommended that a study be undertaken into the costs and benefits of altering VDS to a system where the fishing rights are in terms of harvest volume rather than effort;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 90 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

 the current process of determining PAE be replaced with an allocation mechanism which gives long-term certainty to Parties regarding their entitlement to a share of the VDS and increased flexibility in the way in which VDs can be transferred to other Parties without a penalty in the form of reduced future PAE;  as long as an effort-based system is retained, it is vital to continue the efforts by the PNAO to address fishing effort creep by more closely relating individual vessel performance to its calculated use of a standard VD;  the PA be amended or provision made in a new integrated legal instrument allowing for a range of appropriate mechanisms to be integrated into the VDS to manage effort creep.  the VDS-partners should do their utmost to exclude fishing from the high seas pockets (doughnut holes) between or bordering their EEZs;  free trading of VDs between partners be formally allowed within the VDS-structure  the VDS rules should be as clear and complete as possible to minimize the room for alternative interpretation and loopholes;  the rules and/or applicable legal instruments should have clear statements of the process of dealing with infringements as well as the type and level recompense for violations;  a clear system of sanctions for deviations from VDS rules designed to make deviations unattractive should be set up;  there is a considerable uncertainty about both the short run and long run optimal level of vessel days. Bio-economic analysis undertaken for the review indicates that the fee revenue maximizing vessel days could be somewhat higher than those today, however, the evidence is not very conclusive. This suggests that a more careful bio-economic study should be conducted before the current vessel day policy is altered;  there should be a substantially enhanced role of the PNAO with added functions including facilitating trades of VD, overseeing auctions of VDs, bio-economic research, expanded VD registry.

PNA has subsequently developed a work plan to consider the key issues for implementation.

The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency’s was established through a treaty in 1979, with a mission “To drive regional cooperation to create and enable the maximum long term social and economic benefit from the sustainable use of our shared offshore fishery resources.”

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

FFA is an expertise based organisation providing advice, technical assistance and other support to its members who make sovereign decisions about their fisheries resources, especially their tuna resources, and participate in regional decision making on tuna management through organisations such as the WCPFC.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 91 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

In 1982, FFA established standardization of minimum terms and conditions of fisheries access throughout the Pacific region. Members agreed to adopt these minimum standards and conditions in licensing distant-water fishing nations’ fleets. They included the regional register of fishing vessels and conditions such as licensing procedures, rights of authorized law enforcement officers, requirements for reporting catch and maintaining logbooks, reporting requirements and procedures for entering and exiting zones and for identifying vessels.

These conditions are updated from time to time by the FFC by agreement of all member countries and territories. The Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions (HMTCs) are given national effect through vessel licensing conditions or by incorporation into national law as appropriate. The current HMTCs are as amended by FFC90 (30 June 2014) (available at http://www.ffa.int/system/files/MTC_FFC90_June%202014.pdf). The HMTCs constitute a key strategic tool for FFA members to regulate access to their waters and set standards to protect, as well as maximise the benefits from, their fisheries resources. The current HTMCs include:

• Compliance with national laws; • Vessels to carry Common Regional Licence Form on board at all times; • Vessels and operators to have good standing on the FFA Vessel Register; • Vessels to be registered on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels; • Transshipment: no purse seine vessel to transship at sea (except for group seiners), 72 hours notice to transship in port; submit full reports on transshipping; • Maintain and Submit Catch Logs in Zones and on High Seas; • Reporting: each Wednesday; within a reasonable time of entry into and departure from the zone; and entry into a port; • Observers to be allowed and assisted to undertake their duties; operators shall ensure 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels and at least 5% on longline vessels; • An agent to be appointed to receive and respond to any legal process; • Vessels in transit to have fishing equipment stowed or secured for fishing; • FFA members shall take measures through legislation or regulations and in accordance with international law to exercise powers of port State over fishing vessels in their ports; • Operators to comply with instructions and directions given by an authorised and identified officer; • Vessel monitoring system shall be implemented by the operator; • Fish Aggregating Devices to be clearly marked and identified; • Compulsory pre-fishing inspections to be carried out.

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 92 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The FFC meets annually through session involving Officials and Ministers, to review FFA performance, consider regional policies, the budget and the work programme of FFA. The development and operation of FFA’s Annual Work Plan and Budget is driven by the Statement of Intent, which is a rolling three year bridging arrangement to ensure achievement of the longer term Strategic Plan.

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

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

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

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

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 93 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976 (U.S.) The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1976 is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in U.S. federal waters. It was enacted to promote the U.S. fishing industry's optimal exploitation of coastal fisheries by “consolidating control over territorial waters” and establishing eight regional councils to manage fish stocks. The Act has been amended several times in response to continued overfishing of major stocks. In 1996, it was amended to mandate the use of annual catch limits and accountability measures to end overfishing, provide for widespread market- based fishery management through limited access privilege programs, minimize by catch, establish fishery information monitoring systems, protect fish habitat and promote increased international cooperation. As part of this reform, it was renamed the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA).

The reforms to the MSFCMA occurring in 1996 established an overarching approach that called on the Secretary of Commerce to work multilaterally through various fora, such as Regional Fishery Management Organizations (RFMOs), to address illegal, unregulated and unreported (IUU) fishing and bycatch of protected living marine resources. The NMFS is the implementing agency within the Department of Commerce for the authorities and responsibilities under the MSFCMA. The most recent version, authorized in 2007, includes seven purposes: 1. Acting to conserve and manage fishery resources; 2. Supporting implementation and enforcement of international fishing agreements; 3. Promotion of domestic commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management principles; 4. Providing for the preparation and implementation of fishery management plans (FMPs) which achieve optimal yield; 5. Establishing Regional Fishery Management Councils to steward fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revising of plans which; (a) enable stakeholders to participate in the establishment and administration of such plans; and (b) take into account social and economic needs of states; 6. Developing underutilized fisheries; and 7. Promotion of the protection essential fish habitats.

The MSFCMA established the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) as one of eight U.S. regional fishery management councils. WPRFMC decisions are based on the best available scientific information provided largely by the Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Centre and the Pelagic Fisheries Research Program and are provided to the Secretary of Commerce for approval. Management measures created by the Council and approved by the Secretary are implemented by the NMFS Pacific Islands Regional Office and enforced by the NOAA Office of Law Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard and local enforcement agencies.

The MSFCMA is the main overarching fisheries legislation governing management of fisheries operating in U.S. national waters and extends to U.S. fleets operating on the high seas. The WCPO purse seine fishery is also subject to the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, which governs the conduct of U.S. fishing vessels on the high seas, and under which a high seas fishing

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 94 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

permit is required for a U.S. fishing vessel to be used for commercial fishing anywhere on the high seas.

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act 2000 (U.S.) The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act is the legislation used to implement the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Convention) in the U.S. It authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to implement regulations needed to carry out the obligations of the U.S. under the WCPF Convention. It includes regulations applicable to owners and operators of U.S. vessels used to fish for highly migratory fish stocks in the WCPO, possibly including requirements to, among other things, obtain authorization to fish, carry position-fixing transmitters as part of the vessel monitoring system, accommodate observers from the WCPFC regional observer program, report fishing activity, accept boarding and inspection by authorized inspectors of other members of the Commission, and prohibit trans-shipping at sea from purse seine vessels. The Act also outlines details of U.S. representation at the WCPFC.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act 1972 (U.S.) The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted on October 21, 1972. All marine mammals are protected under the MMPA. The MMPA prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. The U.S. Congress passed the MMPA based on the following findings and policies (NOAA website http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/mmpa/):

• Some marine mammal species or stocks may be in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of human activities; • These species or stocks must not be permitted to fall below their optimum sustainable population level ("depleted"); • Measures should be taken to replenish these species or stocks; • There is inadequate knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics; and • Marine mammals have proven to be resources of great international significance.

The MMPA was amended substantially in 1994 to provide:

• Certain exceptions to the take prohibitions, including for small takes incidental to specified activities, when access by Alaska Natives to marine mammal subsistence resources can be preserved, and permits and authorizations for scientific research; • A program to authorize and control the taking of marine mammals incidental to commercial fishing operations; • Preparation of stock assessments for all marine mammal stocks in waters under U.S. jurisdiction; and • Studies of pinniped-fishery interactions.

The Endangered Species Act 1973 (U.S.) The Endangered Species Act 1973 (the ESA) provides for the conservation of species that are endangered or threatened throughout all or a significant portion of their range, and the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 95 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

conservation of the ecosystems on which they depend. The ESA replaced the Endangered Species Conservation Act of 1969 (NOAA website http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/). The ESA has been amended several times. A "species" is considered:

• Endangered if it is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range; • Threatened if it is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future.

Approximately 2215 species are listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA. Of these species, about 645 are foreign species, found only in areas outside of the U.S. waters (as at May 2015 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/laws/esa/). NOAA have jurisdiction over 125 endangered and threatened marine species, including 35 foreign species and work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to manage ESA-listed species. Generally, NOAA manage marine species, while USFWS manages land and freshwater species.

The Lacey Act 1900 (U.S.) The Lacey Act became the first U.S. federal law protecting wildlife when it was passed in 1900. It establishes civil and criminal penalties for the illegal trade of animals and plants. Today it regulates the import of any species protected by international or domestic law and prevents the spread of invasive, or non-native, species.

Under the Lacey Act, it is unlawful to import, export, sell, acquire, or purchase fish, wildlife or plants that are taken, possessed, transported, or sold: 1) in violation of U.S. or Indian law, or 2) in interstate or foreign commerce involving any fish, wildlife, or plants taken possessed or sold in violation of State or foreign law. The law covers all fish and wildlife and their parts or products, plants protected by CITES and those protected by State law.

Should any non-U.S. fishing vessels participating in the WCPFC Convention area call at American Samoa or Guam, the Lacey Act could be applied to sanction a clearly established violation of an RFMO conservation measure (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg87535/html/CHRG- 113hhrg87535.htm).

The United States Multilateral Treaty The U.S. Treaty, or more formally known as, the Treaty on Fisheries Between the Governments of Certain Pacific Island States and the Government of the United States of America, is a multilateral fisheries access agreement established between the U.S. and 16 Pacific Island Parties (PIPs). The U.S. Treaty grants U.S.-flagged purse seine vessels access to fish in the EEZs of any of the PIPs, under a single license and standard set of conditions. The Treaty is also referred to as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty (SPTT). As part of this Treaty there is also a development fund available to participating nations for the purposes of fisheries development

The U.S. Treaty was first implemented because U.S. legislation did not recognize national jurisdiction over trans-boundary fish stocks such as tuna, despite Pacific Island countries declaring their EEZs between 1977and 1984. U.S. legislation allowed sanctions to be imposed on coastal states that took action against U.S. vessels for breaching national laws. In order to ensure that U.S. vessels complied with national laws and to protect Pacific Island countries from trade sanctions, the Treaty was established in 1987. At this time, it was necessary to establish the Treaty with all Pacific Island

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 96 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Countries, not just those in the equatorial band with rich skipjack resources supporting purse seine fisheries. The Treaty was first enacted for a period of five years from 1988-1993. Since then it has been extended twice, spanning 25 years altogether. Following the completion of the latest 10-year agreement in 2013 there have been ongoing negotiations for a further agreement. An extension was made, expiring in December 2014. Each of the phases of the Treaty has involved variations and different monetary values associated with the access. The cost for access under the Treaty until May 2013 was US$24 million per year. From June 2013 to December 2014 the cost was US$42 million per year. A further extension has been agreed through to December 2015, providing for U.S. flagged purse seine vessels to fish 8300 days in the region in 2015 in return for a payment of US$90 million. Historically, the majority of these payments was made by the U.S. Government and the smaller component paid by industry. However, the industry component has increased markedly. U.S. Government funding of approximately US21 million is to meet an annual commitment under the Treaty and the associated Economic Assistance Agreement to support development in the region. The funds are paid to the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFFA) which then distributes funds to its member states. Of the total 8300 fishing days, 8000 days are allocated to U.S. flagged vessels in PNA waters and 300 days in non-PNA waters.

The U.S. Treaty is administered by the Pacific Islands FFA on behalf of PIPs. While U.S. purse seine vessels are licensed to fish in all PIP waters, the majority of fishing activity takes place within PNA waters. Over the first period of the U.S. Treaty (1988-2001), 97% of the U.S. fleet’s catch was taken within PNA waters. Over the first 20 years of the Treaty, the highest catch by the U.S. fleet was taken within Kiribati (43%) and PNG’s (23%) EEZs, followed by Tuvalu (13%). Catch in other PIP EEZs was minimal. Data for the period 2010-2013 (Table 2) shows that PNA catches of skipjack taken in PNA waters averaged approximately 70.5% of Tri Marine skipjack catches (18.2% in international waters; 9.5% in other EEZs and 1.8% in U.S, waters).

There is a maximum of 40 U.S. purse seine vessels permitted to operate under the U.S. Treaty. In the original text of the VDS, U.S. Treaty vessels were exempted from a limit on fishing days, unlike other fleets operating under bilateral access arrangements. Under the current arrangements, purse seine fishing days allocated to the U.S. fleet under the U.S. Treaty are now managed as part of the VDS. Under the current U.S. Treaty (noting it is under review at present), the 40 U.S. purse seine vessels are all allocated an even share of the VDS days provided under the U.S. Treaty (currently a total of 8300 VDS days). Total number of fishing days allocated to the fishing vessels included in the UoC is 2000 in 2014. Therefore, the 10 Tri Marine purse seine vessels are each allocated a total of approx. 200 VDS days to fish in PNA waters. Under an interim agreement for 2016 completed in August 20154 the US fleet will be afforded:

 5400 days in the EEZs of PNA members and Tokelau where the VDS is being applied, with the exception of Kiribati;

4 Subsequent to this agreement being reached the U.S. Government requested changes due to the economic situation for the U.S. fleet and their difficulty in paying the agreed fees. As a consequence of fees not being paid there was no fishing by the U.S. fleet in the first 2 months of 2016 and the U.S Government announced that it was withdrawing from the Treaty in 2017. By March 2016, subsequent negotiation led to a revised agreement for the remainder of 2016, with fewer fishing days to be made available. Further negotiations will be required for a new agreement for 2017.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 97 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

 300 days in the Kiribati EEZ;  250 days in the Cook Islands EEZ; and  300 days in the EEZs of Fiji, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu.  Additional days in waters covered by subparagraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d) above, subject to availability and at a negotiated rate.

The total for this further one-year agreement is again approximately US$90 million for fewer days than in 2015. The eight PNA members are to receive US$12,600 per fishing day, a 34% increase over the current US$9,360 per day. The U.S. Treaty is the key arrangement that facilitates access by U.S. purse seine vessels to the waters of other Pacific Island Countries and is fundamental to this assessment because of its linkage to the management of the purse seine fishery in PNA waters, through the VDS. An important issue for the PIPs is their ability to apply their own laws to the U.S. fishing fleet. Under the interim arrangements to December 2016, vessels are required to comply with the applicable national laws (see http://www.ffa.int/us_mtreaty_national_laws).

Effort limits on the high seas and within U.S.EEZ waters In addition to fishing days allocated to the US fleet in PIPs EEZs under the US Treaty, U.S. purse seine vessels have an allocation for high seas fishing and for fishing within the EEZ of U.S. territories. Six of the ten Tri Marine purse seine vessels are licensed to access U.S. national waters, which include the U.S. Territories of American Samoa, Guam, Hawaii and the Northern Mariana Islands. Information provided by SPC indicates that limited purse seine effort has been recorded in these waters (Table 2). The Tri Marine fleet also operates on the high seas under the allocation of U.S. high seas purse seine fishing days provided for in CMM 2014-01. Under para 25 of CMM 2014-01, the whole U.S. purse seine fleet has shared access to a competitive TAE of 1270 days fishing on the high sea. Table 2 indicates that high seas fishing is an important component of the Tri Marine and U.S. fleet’s operations at certain times and have become more important following the reduced number of days available in Kiribati waters under the US Treaty. The applicable limit for the U.S. EEZ is the same as that implemented by NMFS since 2009, which is 558 fishing days per year. The U.S. combines these amounts for high seas and EEZs of the Territories referred to above, as well as the US Pacific monuments of Palmyra Atoll, Howland and Baker Islands, and Kingman Reef, referring to this limit as the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine (ELAPS) (See Figure 7). In 2013, collectively the U.S. ELAPS limit for the U.S purse seine fleet was 2588 fishing days, applying between the latitudes of 20°N and 20°S in the Convention area. This total number of fishing days was reduced to 1828 fishing days in 2014, to conform to the new WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure (CMM 2014-01) (U.S. Federal Register/Volume.79, No. 143/Friday July 25, 2014). The same limit is in place for 2015 (NOAA 2015).

Fishing day usage on the high seas and in U.S. national waters is monitored using a logsheet system managed by the NMFS. NMFS monitors the number of fishing days spent in the ELAPS using data submitted in logbooks and other available information. If and when NMFS determines that the limit of 1,828 fishing days is expected to be reached by a specific future date, it will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that the purse seine fishery in the ELAPS will be closed starting on a specific future date and will remain closed until the end of calendar year 2015. NMFS will publish that notice at least seven days in advance of the closure date (NOAA 2015). On 8 June 2015, NFMS issued a notice announcing that the purse seine fishery in the ELAPS would close as a result of

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 98 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

reaching the limit of 1828 fishing days, effective 15 June 2015 until 31 December 2015 for all US purse seine fishing vessels. In response, the Tri Marine Management Company made a request that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days on the high seas and that NOAA issue a rule exempting from that high seas limit any US flag purse seine vessel which … delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa”. This request was subsequently denied by NOAA and the purse seine fishery in the ELAPs remained closed.

Effort limits in other PIP EEZ waters Under the U.S Treaty, U.S. purse seiners also gain access to fish in the EEZ waters of non-PNA PIPs (including Cook Islands, Tokelau, Fiji, Samoa and Vanuatu being assessed in this report). As indicated above, Tokelau is now incorporated into PNA VDS effort limits. Tri Marine has also signed an MOU with Tokelau to facilitate access. Non-PNA states are also covered by CMM 2014-01 in terms of effort limits. Coastal States within the Convention Area with effort in their EEZs exceeding 1500 days annually over the period 2006-2010 are required to limit effort in their EEZs to the 2001-2004 effort average or 2010 levels. Further to that, remaining coastal States within the Convention Area are required to “….establish effort limits, or equivalent catch limits, for purse seine fisheries within their EEZs that reflect the geographical distributions of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tunas, and are consistent with the objectives for those species.”

PNA Parties and other Pacific Island Parties national fisheries arrangements As Parties to the WCPF Convention and members of the WCPFC, PIPs are required to apply the precautionary approach in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 and Annex II of the UNFSA which is incorporated into the WCPF Convention by reference. The approaches to implementation of these requirements in national laws are broadly similar, reflecting the long period of collaboration of the Parties in tuna management through PNA, FFA and more recently, the WCPFC. Most WCPFC CMMs and PNA arrangements apply obligations to Parties or Members, rather than vessels. Implementing arrangements are then required at national level to legally bind boat owners and operators. These arrangements can take the form of legislation, regulations, Gazette Notices, Authority decisions (which in some cases have the power of regulations), access agreement provisions or licence conditions.

In addition to measures deriving from the various global and regional instruments, the Parties apply specific additional measures nationally. These are generally focused on managing interactions between large scale distant water fleets and local fleets, especially small scale fishers. There are relatively very few issues associated with traditional rights over offshore resources in the Pacific Islands region, compared with the extensive systems of rights over the resources of nearshore reefs and lagoons (Banks et al., 2011). Where offshore rights exist, they typically apply to the shallow water resources around offshore banks and reefs. For the purse seine fisheries, fishing is prohibited inside the 12-mile territorial seas, and in many cases inside a 50-mile radius around main islands. At national levels, tuna policies and decisions are the subject of extensive consultations of varying forms, particularly where there are established domestic interests in the tuna fisheries.

FFA Members have applicable fisheries legislation including the following features: definition of limits of national jurisdiction, definitions of fishing vessel types, fisheries management plans,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 99 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

licensing requirements, access agreements, transshipment restrictions (generally prohibited at sea), regulations on the use of gear such as FADs and conservation provisions such as prohibitions on the use of destructive fishing practices, closed areas and harmonisation with regional and international agreements. A general feature of national-level tuna management in the region is the use of tuna management plans (TMPs). FFA has played an important role in developing TMPs. The TMPs characteristically give a description of the current national tuna fisheries, the status of the tuna resources, overall government goals in the fisheries sector, specific objectives for the management of the fishery and the interventions used to obtain the objectives (Gillett 2010). As well as tuna resource sustainability, objectives in the TMPs typically relate to increasing employment, increasing access fees and creating and/or enhancing domestic tuna fisheries. Whilst TMPs have been developed for all national jurisdictions covered, several are out of date.

In addition to the measures emanating from the various global and regional instruments, Parties also frequently apply specific additional measures nationally, typically focused on managing interactions between large scale distant water fleets and local fleets, especially small scale fishers. At national levels, tuna policies and decisions are the subject of extensive consultations of varying forms, particularly where there are established domestic interests in the tuna fisheries.

As WCPFC Members, the Pacific Island nations provide Annual Reports in two parts to the WCPFC: Part 1. Research and Statistics – reports for 2015 available at http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/11th- regular-session-scientific-committee; Part 2. Management and Compliance. These reports are confidential to the WCPFC Secretariat and CCMs.

As described above, the U.S. Treaty or SPTT is a multilateral fisheries access agreement established between the U.S. and 16 Pacific Island Parties. The SPTT grants U.S.-flagged purse seine vessels access to fish in the EEZs of any of the PIPs, under a single licence and standard set of conditions. The SPTT is administered by the Pacific Islands FFA on behalf of PIPs. The FFA plays a major role in providing policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable management of tuna for its members and developing the capacity of members to sustainably harvest, process and market tuna to create livelihoods. FFA also provides support for monitoring, control and surveillance of fisheries as well as treaty administration, information technology and vessel registration and monitoring.

PNA Parties’ management arrangements The fisheries management arrangements in place vary across PNA national governments. The management of tuna fisheries is the responsibility of government departments for Kiribati, Palau, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu. In the other four PNA Parties (FSM, Nauru, PNG and Marshall Islands) fisheries management is the responsibility of statutory authorities.

All PNA members have legal, institutional and policy frameworks, including tuna management/development plans in place to manage purse seine fishing in PNA waters. National legal frameworks for offshore fisheries management are based on the implementation of global and regional instruments including UNCLOS, the UN Fish Stocks Agreement, WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures and other decisions, the Nauru Agreement and its subsidiary and associated arrangements, and the FFA Convention and subsidiary FFA arrangements including the Niue Treaty on Cooperation in Fisheries Surveillance and Law Enforcement adopted in 1993. As Parties to the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 100 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

UNFSA and the WCPF Convention, all PNA Parties have accepted the obligation to comply with the provisions of those Agreements, including the obligation to apply the principles in those agreements, including the precautionary approach, in their EEZs (Banks et al., 2011). Approaches to implementation of these instruments in national laws are broadly similar, reflecting the long period of collaboration of the Parties in tuna management through PNA, FFA and the WCPFC. A detailed summary of the national arrangements for PNA Parties is provided by Banks et al. (2011).

Cook Islands The Cook Islands Ministry of Marine Resources has the principal function of, and authority for the conservation, management, development of the living and non-living resources. Historically purse seine fishing has been conducted in the Cook Islands EEZ by US Treaty vessels only. The only purse seine licences issued in 2014 were for US vessels operating under the Treaty. TMI vessels fished for 272 days in the Cook Islands EEZ in 2012 and 92 days in 2013.

The Marine Resources Act, 2005 is the principle legislation governing fisheries conservation. The 2013 Offshore Fisheries Policy provides a general statement of policy objectives. The majority of tuna fishing in the Cook Islands is undertaken with longline fishing gear, managed via the Longline Fishery Management Plan. The Cook Islands EEZ South Pacific albacore longline fishery has gained MSC certification. There is a high level of cooperation between New Zealand and the Cook Islands, and New Zealand has provided assistance that includes support for TMPs in the Cook Islands.

Tokelau Tokelau adopted a new Fisheries Policy in 2011 and has subsequently developed an Offshore Fisheries Management Plan covering the tuna fisheries of the EEZ waters. Offshore fisheries are managed by the Department of Economic Development Natural Resources and Environment in collaboration with the New Zealand Government. Offshore fishing is undertaken by foreign fishing vessels of distant water fishing nations and neighbouring Pacific Island States. There are no Tokelau- flagged offshore fishing vessels. There are also no port and mooring infrastructure and facilities in Tokelau to cater for transshipment, port sampling or processing of large-scale tuna catches. All catches by foreign licensed vessels are offloaded outside Tokelau.

Tokelau has set an offshore limit of 1000 vessel days for purse seine fishing. To implement this limit Tokelau has become a Participant to the Palau Arrangement and joined the PNA’s VDS. US purse seine vessel have been the dominant fleet operating in Tokelau waters.

In December 2014, Tokelau and Tri Marine signed an MOU to increase the economic benefits of the tuna fishery to Tokelau. This involves a long-term development agreement intended to improve the overall management of Tokelau’s tuna fishery. One aspect of the agreement is that Tokelau will provide TMI purse seine vessels with fishing days over and above those provided under the SPTT, if necessary. TMI vessels fished 341 days in Tokelau waters in 2013 and 137 days in 2013.

Fiji The Department of Fisheries within the Ministry of Fisheries and Forests is responsible for portfolio policy initiatives for the conservation and sustainable management and development of the fisheries resources and the industry they support. The predominant tuna fishing in Fiji waters is for albacore taken on longline. The Fiji albacore longline fishery has attained MSC certification. Fiji does not have

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 101 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

a purse seine fleet but is a party to the SPTT and allows US vessels to fish in its waters under the Treaty. No purse seine fishing was reported to have occurred in 2014 in Fiji’s fisheries water by US vessels. TMI vessels fished 9 days in Fiji’s waters in 2012 and 15 days in 2013.

Fiji adopted updated fisheries legislation with the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree, passed in January 2013. This decree gives the Government of Fiji a comprehensive range of duties, responsibilities, functions and powers to regulate and sustainably manage offshore fisheries. The decree established robust licensing systems. The decree envisages that the most important fisheries will be managed through Fisheries Management Plans. There are also detailed monitoring, control and surveillance provisions that not only describe the powers of fisheries officers and the government, but also contain protection for fishers to ensure that the procedures are applied fairly. The Fiji Tuna Development and Management Plan 2014-2018 (TDMP) was officially approved and adopted by the Fiji Government in 2014. The scope of the Plan focuses on Fiji longline fishery.

Samoa The Samoan Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries is the principal organisation which provides regulatory and technical advice and support for the fishing industry. The Offshore Fisheries Section is responsible for the development and management of Samoa’s offshore marine resources. Activities carried out include provision of infrastructure support, conducting of research to assist the determination of key offshore fisheries resources status, and promotion of the involvement of stakeholders in the management of the commercial fisheries. The Commercial Fisheries Management Advisory Committee plays an active role in addressing issues hindering development and sustainability of the fishing industry.

Samoa’s tuna fishery is predominantly a tuna longline fishery targeting albacore tuna. Objectives for the offshore fishery are described in the Samoa Tuna Management and Development Plan. Historically, there has been relatively little foreign fishing activity in the Samoa zone, due to both the small size of the Samoan zone and the fact that the productive areas for purse seine fishing and longline fishing are located to the north and south, respectively. Foreign tuna catch has been mainly from US purse seiners transiting the zone between their base in nearby American Samoa and the fishing grounds to the northwest. TMI vessels fished for 23 days in 2012 and 6 days in 2013.

Vanuatu The Vanuatu Fisheries Department is the government body charged with the implementation and enforcement of fisheries management laws, policies, regulations and principles under the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Forestry, Fisheries and Biosecurity. The major legislation governing fisheries is the 2014 Fisheries Act No. 10. The development of a Tuna Fishery Management Plan is a requirement under the Act. The current Plan was developed in conjunction with FFA. The Plan focuses on strategies concerned with improved MCS and licensing systems with a particular emphasis on foreign vessels; managing Vanuatu-flagged vessels; strengthening linkages between organisations with common interests; maintaining catch and effort within the limits set under this Plan; and minimising or avoiding incidental catch of vulnerable or protected species including seabirds, sea turtles, sharks and other mammals. The Plan also addresses the need to both ensure good management of the resource and to examine ways of developing the local fishing industry. The

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 102 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

purpose of the Plan is to provide a clear statement of objectives and direction for managing and developing Vanuatu’s tuna fishing and fisheries. Vanuatu has also implemented a revised Monitoring, Control, Surveillance and Inspection Plan. This Plan incorporates a comprehensive set of goal in the areas of fishing vessel inspection, licensing and elimination of IUU activities (http://malffb.gov.vu/doc/fisheries/Vanuatu%20National%20MCS%20and%20Inspection%20Plan.pd f).

The majority of tuna fishing in Vanuatu’s EEZ is undertaken by longliners, with locally-based foreign and local licences being issued. Vanuatu does issue licences for purse seine vessels to operate in the WCPFC-CA. The number of licences which can be issued for the various fishing methods is detailed in the Tuna Fishery Management Plan. TMI undertook 6 fishing days in Vanuatu’s EEZ in 2012 and 5 days in 2013. Table 11 Summary of key arrangements in place. Additional information is available on the FFA website (www.ffa.int).

Table 11. Membership of WCPFC and FFA, signatories to UNFSA for jurisdictions relevant to the UoA.

PNA members WCPFC UNFSA FFA EAFM Management/Development Plan report FSM M   `  Kiribati M    Marshall Islands M    Nauru M    Palau M     PNG M     Solomon Islands M    Tuvalu M   

Other EEZ Cook Islands M     Tokelau P    Fiji M    Samoa M    Vanuatu M    

USA M  FEP US territories American Samoa P FEP Guam P FEP Northern Mariana Islands P FEP (Commonwealth) US possessions Howland and Baker FEP Palmyra FEP Wake Is FEP M=member; P=participating territory; EAFM=Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management; FEP=Fishery Ecosystem Plan

Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states and the committees formed under Commission control (SC and TCC) in relation to consultative processes. The Commission and its committees have well defined operating procedures

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 103 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

and terms of reference, and the roles and responsibilities of members and non-members are well defined in the Convention, in the Rules of Procedure and in relevant CMMs. The Commission Secretariat facilitates effective engagement by stakeholders including Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other interested parties. Attendance at Commission and related meetings (including SC and TCC) are comprehensive and meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management of the tuna fisheries.

Attendance at WCPFC meetings and through regional cooperation at FFC and the Southern Committee has expanded understanding of the functions, roles and responsibilities of national jurisdictions and WCPF Commission and the components of the management structure. The Commission is active in assisting and facilitating the regular and timely provision of fisheries information.

The Commission actively uses information from the fishery and its member states to inform fisheries management discussions and the formulation of management measures, as demonstrated by reports and outcomes of WCPFC meetings.

U.S. Government processes also enable a high level of consultation with stakeholders and interested parties.

National government tuna management plans often define consultation roles and responsibilities but this is not always the case. There are, however, extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the PNA, and FFA and other regional & international fora, including consultation with bilateral partners and domestic stakeholders. The Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA) is a representative body for national fisheries associations of FFA Pacific Island Countries (other than Australia, New Zealand and Tokelau). PITIA’s major role is representation of commercial interest to policy making forums. PITIA has observer status at several policy forums and is the recognized industry representative to Forum Fisheries Committee meetings.

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

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 104 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation, and the development of relevant scientific and technical capacities in developing country Commission members.

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

Objectives are also laid out in national plans, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS. The US Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) authorizes fishery management councils to create fishery management plans (FMP). Encompassing US Pacific purse seine fishing, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as an FMP, consistent with the MSFCMA and the national standards for fishery conservation and management.

Decision-making processes The decision-making processes adopted by WCPFC open, use the best available information and seek to apply the precautionary approach, and are well documented. Decision-making is by Commission Members is generally based on consensus during annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. In the context of regional fisheries management, the WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted relatively quickly in an extensive set of CMMs and strategies to respond to sustainability issues. However, the degree to which the decision making processes at the Commission result in measures that achieve fishery specific objectives could be questioned in respect of the control of fishing effort on bigeye tuna. Stock assessment and studies presented at the SC identify serious issues at regional level. These are addressed through regionally agreed CMMs.

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 105 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

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

The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted

Incentives for sustainable fishing The rights-based management framework of the VDS creates incentives for sustainable fisheries at the PNA and national government level and provides for the creation of a system of positive incentives at the enterprise level. The VDS includes elements designed to address the inherent tendency of effort limits to encourage effort creep. There is evidence that the incentive effects are considered, sometimes explicitly, within the management system to ensure that they do not undermine sustainability. However, Banks et al. (2011) identified weaknesses in the VDS that had the potential to reduce its effectiveness, hence limit the ability of the VDS to ensure sustainable fishing practices in future. Additionally, US purse seine effort was initially not included in the VDS. The 3rd MSC surveillance audit for the PNA fishery provides updated information on the VDS (SCS 2014). In 2013, WCPFC CMM-2013-01 restricted effort to 2010 levels (now replaced by CMM 2014- 01). The US fleet came under the VDS for part of 2013 and all of 2014. One aspect of the Client Action Plan for the PNA fishery following MSC certification was a commitment by the PNA Parties to commission an external review of the integrity and effectiveness of the VDS. This independent review has been undertaken but is not yet publicly available. However, SCS (2014) examined a confidential copy of the report. SCS (2014) notes that some of the draft recommendations of the review have already been implemented, that other recommendations, if implemented, would lead to a more robust, transparent and effective VDS.

The WCPFC does not have specific policies on incentives for sustainable practices. However, the conservation measures and policy statements make it clear that sustainable practices are a major focus for the Commission. Cooperation among members and orderly division of fishing rights among the various parties, laid down in various CMMs, act to reduce inherent competitive behaviour between fishing fleets, which in turn reduces the incentive for over-capitalisation, over-capacity and ultimately reduces the likelihood of over-fishing. These benefits extend to management of bycatch and other issues under Principle 2. WCPFC therefore provides the fundamental incentives for sustainable fishing.

In the MSC assessment of the PNA fishery, Banks et al. (2011) note that in the developing country context of the WCPO tropical fisheries, there are a number of financial and economic transfers that might be characterised as subsidies. An analysis of fuel costs in that report indicated fuel subsidies in French Polynesia, but not in PNA countries (Wilson and McCoy, 2009; cited in Banks et al., 2011). Concern has been raised over fisheries subsidies and incentives provided by the Peoples Republic of China to its distant water fishing fleets. This has led to a condition for the MSC certification of the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 106 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Cook Islands albacore longline fishery to demonstrate that these subsidies do not lead to perverse incentives inconsistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 (https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries- in-the-program/certified/pacific/cook-islands-tuna/assessment-downloads- folder/2719R07A_Public_Certification_Report.pdf).

Access fees levied by PNA represent a form of resource rent or payment for environmental services that can be expected to significantly reduce profits and provide a disincentive to investment in increasing effort in PNA waters (Banks et al. 2011). However, there is a lack of clarity in the links between the VDS decisions and the scientific advice and the need to limit efficiency creep in effort limits.

There are no apparent perverse incentives (e.g. subsidies) that would encourage U.S. licensed vessels to fish unsustainably. The US Government has eliminated loan programs that previously led to government‐funded overcapitalization of fisheries. The U.S. Government does provide funding to support the U.S. Treaty, however a major function of the U.S. Government contribution is to support development by PIPs. The U.S. industry has not historically paid what could be considered market rates for access rights, however, the amount paid by the U.S industry has increased markedly over recent years. The U.S. tuna industry will pay US$68,271,350 in 2016 and the U.S. Government will contribute US$ 21 million. The eight PNA members are to receive US$12,600 per fishing day, a 34% increase over the 2015 rate. U.S. fishing vessels do obtain an income tax credit on diesel fuel taxes as these taxes are levied for the purpose of highway construction, hence crediting fishing vessels with these taxes does not to appear to be a perverse incentive to sustainability.

Compliance and enforcement Regional (WCPFC and FFA) Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) systems includes Minimum Harmonized Terms and Conditions of Access (MHTC), a regional VMS system, Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels and a range or regional and international MCS cooperation programmes, including the Niue Treaty and the Agreed Minute of Cooperation in MCS between the USA and FFA member states. FFA has a regional MCS strategy (2010-2015) endorsed by Forum of Fisheries Committee Ministers, which includes regional operations and cooperation, a regionally agreed benchmark level of observer coverage, at sea and at port inspections. The PNA Agreement promotes regional cooperation between parties on MCS activities.

A range of sanctions exist to deal with non-compliance at regional level, notably though black listing of IUU vessels, and Port State Measures. Port inspection reports provide evidence that they are being applied. Logbook data are supplied as part of licence requirements; VMS and observer reports provide additional evidence of general compliance with the management system. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

The strengths and weaknesses of regional MCS arrangements were analysed by MRAG (2009) and reported on in Banks et al. (2011). MRAG (2009) identified the strengths in regional national fisheries licensing systems with good databases and good regional systems, most notably the Pacific VMS, but also others within FFA, WCPFC and SPC. Compliance risks identified with the region were as follows:  Under-reporting of catches in vessel logs or weekly reports;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 107 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

 Under-reporting of bycatches;  CCMs not reporting details on catch and effort to WCFPC;  Failure to inspect vessels on landing;  Landings into foreign ports;  Failure to implement pre fishing inspections to check licence and other details (e.g. ships master);  High observer turnover;  Observer reports of violations not acted upon;  Weaknesses in implementation of fisheries violations in some countries;  Weak system of information exchange and data base management.

Banks et al. (2011) concludes that purse seine non-compliance is extremely modest as compared to that for longliners. PNA Office implemented a series of changes to respond to the risks identified (including 100% catch retention for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin; Increasing purse seine observer coverage to 100%; prohibition on transshipping at sea; revision of penalty systems and prosecution laws; and joint initiatives in data exchange between countries, some of which are also covered under various WCPFC CMMS).

As described in Banks et al. (2011) the WCPFC has largely established and is implementing a comprehensive compliance programme, including the following elements:

 Requirements for vessels, including support vessels operating outside their own waters to be on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish (CMM 2009-11)  Responsibilities and process for Cooperating Non Members (CMM 2004-02)  Specifications, Markings and Identification of Vessels (CMM 2004-03)  High seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures (CMM 2006-08)  Regional largest observer programme (CMM 2006-07)  High seas Vessel Monitoring System (CMM2007-02) blacklist of IUU Vessels (CMM2007-03)  Regulation of Transshipment, including ban on purse seine vessels transshipping at sea (CMM 2009-06)  Charter Notification Scheme (CMM 2009-08)  Monitoring Landings of Purse Seine Vessels (CMM 2009-10)  Rules for Provision of Scientific Data and Data Dissemination  Additional measures have been introduced in recent years, including:  Conservation and Management Measure to establish a List of Vessels presumed to have carried out Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing activities in the WCPO (CMM 2010- 06)  Conservation and Management Measure on daily catch and effort reporting (CMM 2013-03)  WCPFC Implementation of a Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI) (CMM 2013-04)  WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorization to Fish (CMM 2013-10)  Conservation and Management Measure for Commission VMS (CMM 2014-02)  Standards, specifications and procedures for the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels (CMM 2014-03)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 108 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

 Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2014-07), to ensure compliance with obligations arising under the Convention and CMMs adopted by the Commission.

Several of the major elements of this programme, including the observer and VMS programmes, are founded on, and supported by FFA initiatives. Because most of the fishing taking place is in national waters, the broad strategy of the WCPFC compliance programme is to focus on controlling high seas fishing, strengthening the exercise of control by coastal state CCMs, and monitoring compliance with CCM obligations throughout the range of application of Commission measures (Banks et al. 2011).

FFA maintains a regional vessel register, coordinates the regional observer programme (and US Treaty vessels), operates the FFA centralised VMS and maintains several other databases on behalf of the FFA parties such as the violations and prosecutions database, and coordinates, through the FFA Regional Fisheries Surveillance Centre, Joint Deployment Actions.

MCS is also supported by the QUAD Operational Working Group. This group comprises the aerial and naval arms of Australia, France, New Zealand and the USA to provide aerial and surface assets to assist regional surveillance. FFA has the responsibility for facilitating the coordination of the surveillance assets provided by the QUAD nations in support of national and multilateral fishing surveillance and response activities.

At the national level, FFA provides policy and services to its members to build national capacity and regional solidarity to control fishing in the Pacific, including illegal, unreported and unknown fishing. As well as VMS, this includes technical expertise, information sharing and projects around monitoring activities, regional surveillance operations, the FFA Observer Program, FFA licence information and staff training and support.

An extensive VMS system is in operation, as well as a 100% observer programme for large scale purse seiners. Observers report data from catches in EEZ waters, with special provisions through a MoU to allow observers to operate in the waters of several EEZs.

A Catch Documentation Scheme (CDS) has not yet been adopted by the WCPFC. A working group was established in 2013 to progress discussion on a CDS. The scope of a potential CDS in terms of gears and species covered has not yet been agreed. An Intersessional Working Group met to discuss CDS adoption in September 2015, prior to the WCPFC TCC meeting. A discussion paper prepared for WCPFC recommends that a CDS should be as inclusive as possible and be applied to all major gear types (purse seine, longline, pole and line and troll) and include all main tuna target species (skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore tuna) during implementation (Knuckey and Koopman 2014).

The WCPFC TCC is tasked with examining compliance with CMMs adopted by the Commission. Members and CCMs submit a Part 2 Annual Report on the implementation of Commission measures. This leads to the development of a Compliance Monitoring Report. There is a lack of transparency with this reporting as much of the material is treated as confidential, including the Part 2 Annual Reports. Discussion of identified compliance issues are held in closed session. At the December 2014 WCPFC Commission meeting, CMM 2014-07 (Compliance Monitoring Scheme) was adopted with the stated purpose to ensure that CCMs implement and comply with obligations arising under the Convention and CMMs. This CMM (replacing CMM 2013-02) is in place for 2015 and is to be reviewed at the following Commission meeting. The CMM is designed to: (i) assess CCMs’ compliance with their obligations; (ii) identify areas in which technical assistance or capacity building may be needed to assist CCMs to attain compliance;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 109 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

(iii) identify aspects of conservation and management measures which may require refinement or amendment for effective implementation; (iv) respond to non-compliance through remedial options that include a range of possible responses that take account of the reason for and degree of non-compliance, and include cooperative capacity building initiatives and, in case of serious non-compliance, such penalties and other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to promote compliance with CMMs and other Commission obligations; and monitor and resolve outstanding instances of non-compliance.

Whilst there is progress at WCPFC in examining compliance information and the need for responses to non-compliance, this CMM does not address the lack of transparency. In contrast to other tuna RFMOs (ICCAT, IOTC, CCSBT and IATTC), observers are not allowed in the compliance working group meetings and no detailed information on infringements or responses to them are released publically. Minutes of the Commission meeting do provide a final Compliance Monitoring Report (WCPFC 2014a). This report present s a matrix of compliance with CMMs by CCM, identifying whether the CCM is “compliant”, non-compliant” or “priority non-compliant” (when the non- compliance had occurred for two or more consecutive years, or as members found appropriate by consensus). This matrix is useful but is not sufficiently transparent.

U.S. legislation to prevent IUU fishing requires that where the U.S is a member of a fishery management organization, including RFMOs such as WCPFC, actions be taken to improve their effectiveness (NOAA 2013), including:  Incorporate multilateral market-related measures against member or non-member governments whose vessels engage in IUU fishing;  Seek adoption of lists that identify fishing vessels and vessel owners engaged in IUU fishing;  Seek adoption of a centralized vessel monitoring system (VMS);  Increase use of observers and technologies to monitor compliance with conservation and management measures;  Seek adoption of stronger port State controls in all nations;  Adopt shark conservation measures, including measures to prohibit removal of any of the fins of a shark (including the tail) and discarding the carcass of the shark at sea; and  Adopt and expand the use of market-related measures to combat IUU fishing, including import prohibitions, landing restrictions, and catch documentation schemes.

The U.S. has developed partnerships with Pacific nations in the WCPO to assist with enforcement in that area. Nine “Shiprider” agreements have been signed enabling Pacific nations to place local law enforcement personnel on board U.S. Coast Guard vessels and give the Coast Guard authority to patrol their territorial waters and conduct vessel boardings. In FY 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard conducted 121 boardings under bilateral enforcement agreements with seven Pacific Island Nations: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, and Tuvalu, with 21 violations documented. Of these, four stemmed from WCPFC measures, while 17 were infractions of national laws applicable within the EEZ of Pacific Island Nations (NOAA 2013).

The NOAA website provides evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to U.S. vessels. For example, in 2013 the owner, operator and fishing master of a purse seine vessel (the American Triumph) were found guilty of conducting six sets on or within one nautical mile of a FAD and had deployed a FAD during the 2009 FAD closure in violation of the WCPF Convention Implementation

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 110 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Act (WCPFCIA) resulting in a fine of US$562,068. In another case, the owners, operators and fishing masters of several fishing vessels (Ocean Encounter, Ocean Conquest, Sea Honor, Sea Quest and Pacific Ranger) were charged with five counts of setting their purse seine net on whales, which is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and ten counts of setting on or within one nautical mile of a FAD and two counts of deploying FADs during the 2009 FAD closure in violation of the WCPFCIA. All seventeen counts were proven resulted in a civil penalty of US$953,054. These cases were the result of reports from FFA observers (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/newsroom/stories/13/04_090413_purse_seine_fad_case.html). None of these vessels are within the UoC for this assessment, however they are within the UoA.

On June 17, 2014, the USA released a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Establishing a Comprehensive Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud.” Among other actions the Memorandum established a Presidential Task Force, co-chaired by the Departments of State and Commerce and made up of a broad range of other federal agencies. The Task Force was directed to report to the President within six months with “recommendations for the implementation of a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud that emphasizes areas of greatest need.” The Task Force released its recommendations on December 18, 2014 for public comment. On March 15, 2015, the Task Force released its Action Plan (USA 2015). The plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement domestically and highlights ways in which the US will work with foreign partners to strengthen international governance, enhance cooperation, and build capacity to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud.

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

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

The VDS is overseen and regularly reviewed internally by VDS Committee and externally with advice and reviews of performance by the FFA. There have been a series of internal and external reviews of other key parts of the PNA processes, including the VDS. There are also regular internal reviews of national fisheries administration performance, and frequent, but ad hoc, external reviews of key features of national performance (Banks et al. 2011).

A 2013 report by the Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions (PASAI) examined fisheries management arrangements in nine Pacific island states (PASAI 2013): two Pacific Island Countries

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 111 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

and Territories (PICT 1 and PICT 2), the FSM, Fiji, Palau, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, Tonga and Tuvalu. The overview report examined the results of national audits for these nine states. PICT 1 and PICT 2 are not identified due to confidentiality reasons as their national audit had not been made public within their jurisdictions at the time of report release. The governments of the nine Pacific island countries are members of the FFA and the WCPFC. In addition, FSM, PICT 2, Palau, the Solomon Islands and Tuvalu are members of the PNA. The key findings were mixed. The report noted the positive outcome that in each jurisdiction audited there was a law to guide actions for the sustainable management of the country’s tuna fishery. However, only five of the nine audits reported that there was alignment between the national framework and international and regional obligations (PASAI 2013). In seven of the nine jurisdictions that had multiple agencies with fishery management responsibilities; five had co-ordination arrangements in place. However, in other jurisdictions, the 2013 report indicated that fisheries governance coordination arrangements were fragmented and incomplete and recommended improvements in this area. All jurisdictions have developed tuna management plans, however several are not up to date. The report also found that only five of the nine national audits reported that internal policies and procedures to support consistency in decision-making were in place.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 112 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 12. WCPFC binding conservation management measures (CMM) and Resolutions of particular relevance to the Units of Assessment. Purpose CMM

Bigeye, yellowfin & skipjack CMM 2014-01 (longline and purse seine fisheries) Pacific Bluefin CMM 2014-04 North Pacific Striped Marlin CMM 2010-01 Swordfish CMM 2009-03 Striped marlin in the West Pacific CMM 2006-04 Non-target species Resolution 2005-03 Silky shark CMM 2014-05; CMM 2013-08; CMM 2011-04; Oceanic whitetip shark CMM 2010-07; CMM 2012-04 Sharks Whale sharks (purse seines) Sea turtles CMM 2008-03 Seabirds CMM2012-07; CMM 2007-04 Cetaceans (purse seines) CMM 2011-03 Scientific observers CMM 2012-03; CMM 2007-01 Monitoring, control and surveillance activities CMM 2014-07; CMM 2014-03; CMM 2014-02; CMM 2013-10; CMM 2013-05; CMM 2013-04; CMM 2013-03; CMM 2010-06; CMM 2009-10; CMM 2009-09; CMM 2009-06; CMM 2004-03 High seas controls CMM 2013-01; CMM 2010-02; CMM 2009-02

Table 13. MSC Assessments (Public Certification Report – PCR), pre-assessments and reviews of fisheries in the WCPFC region to date (Sept.2014)

Year Species Stock Range Method Management system Type end 2009 Skipjack WCP WCPFC Pole & Line Japanese and WCPFC PCR 2011 Skipjack WCP WCPFC Purse seine, National Management PCR unassociated Plans, WCPFC, PNA and /non FAD free FFA, PCR schools 2011 Albacore SP WCPFC Troll NZ and WCPFC PCR 2012 Albacore NP NP Pole & Line WCPFC PCR 2012 Albacore SP SP Troll/jig USA and WCPFC Re-cert. 2012 Albacore SP WCPFC Pelagic longline Fiji and WCPFC PCR 2013 Yellowfin WCP WCPFC Pelagic longline Marshall Islands Central Pre- and and WCPFC assess. bigeye 2014 Yellowfin WCP WCPFC Pelagic longline Marshall Islands Central FIP and and WCPFC bigeye 2014 Albacore SP WCPFC Pelagic longline Cook Islands and WCPFC PCR 2014 Skipjack WCP WCPFC Purse seine, WCPFC and PNA Pre- unassociated assess.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 113 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

/non FAD free schools

4. Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

The fishery under assessment overlaps with one other fishery that has already been certified (PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack tuna) and four fisheries that are currently under assessment (PNA Western and Central Pacific yellowfin tuna; Walker Seafoods Australian albacore, yellowfin tuna and swordfish longline fishery; Japanese pole and line skipjack and albacore tuna; Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine and pole and line).

Efforts at harmonization were aided by overlaps in membership of the relevant assessment teams (shared membership between the surveillance audit team for the two PNA fisheries and the current fishery) which provided knowledge of these fisheries, assessment scores and rationales, and primarily took place prior to completion of the Client Draft of this assessment. Harmonisation discussions had also already taken place between the most recent PNA audit team and the Walker Seafoods assessment team. Final harmonization discussions therefore involved the current team and those assessing the Japanese pole and line fishery (Meiho Goygyo) and the Solomon Islands fishery. More information about the respective assessments, timelines, scoring and reports may be found at the hyperlinks above.

The process of harmonization has usually involved preliminary independent scoring of each fishery followed by discussions and sharing of scores and draft rationales through email exchanges and conference calls among team members. Points of difference have generally been resolved by alignment of scores and rationales, particularly so for Principle 1, so that there was consistency at least in whether or not a condition was imposed (Table 14 and Table 15). There are, however, some remaining differences in scores which are supported by demonstrable differences among the fisheries (particularly for Principles 2 and 3).

There was a particular focus in the harmonization discussions on the interpretation of current harvest strategies and harvest control rules (PI 1.2) given the recent advice from MSC about previous errors in the interpretation of these scoring issues.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 114 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 14. Proposed scores for skipjack tuna for the Tri Marine (TMI) fishery, and overlapping fisheries that have either been certified (PNA) or are in assessment (N/S = Not scored).

PI TMI PNA * Meiho Solomon Comments Gyogyo Is. 1.1.1 100 100 100 100 Harmonised 1.1.2 90 90 90 90 Harmonised 1.1.3 N/S N/S N/S N/S Harmonised 1.2.1 70 80 70 70 Difference reflects revised interpretation 1.2.2 60 60 60 60 Harmonised 1.2.3 90 85 90 90 Harmonised 1.2.4 95 95 95 100 Harmonised 2.1.1 80 80 n/a Harmonised 2.1.2 * 75 80 n/a Assessment tree difference* 2.1.3 85 80 n/a Harmonised 3.1.1 80 95 85 Harmonised 3.1.2 90 90 85 Harmonised 3.1.3 90 80 90 Harmonised 3.1.4 90 80 90 Harmonised 3.2.1 90 80 n/a n/a Harmonised 3.2.2 80 70 n/a n/a Shortcomings identified in the PNA assessment have been addressed 3.2.3 75 85 n/a n/a Difference reflects additional information on the application of sanctions. 3.2.4 90 90 n/a n/a Harmonised 3.2.5 80 80 n/a n/a Harmonised * Note the PNA fishery was assessed against a different tree which does not refer to shark finning.

Table 15. Proposed scores for yellowfin tuna for the Tri Marine fishery, and overlapping fisheries that are in assessment (N/S = Not scored) (P2 and P3 scores are the same as for skipjack above).

PI TMI PNA* Walker Solomon Comments Seafood Is. 1.1.1 90 90 90 100 Harmonised 1.1.2 90 90 90 90 Harmonised 1.1.3 N/S N/S N/S N/S Harmonised 1.2.1 70 70 70 70 Harmonised 1.2.2 60 65 65 60 Harmonised 1.2.3 90 90 80 90 Harmonised 1.2.4 95 95 85 100 Harmonised

4.2 Previous assessments

There are no previous assessments of this fishery.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies

This assessment has used the methodology found in CR V1.3, and the Default Assessment tree it contains except with respect to PI 1.2.2. For this PI, following the advice from the MSC regarding “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” (issued November 2014), the clarified requirements set out in PI1.2.2 version 2.0 have been used here. Scoring justifications have

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 115 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

also been made explicitly addressing paragraphs SA2.5.2-2.5.3 and SA2.5.5-2.5.7.1 and associated guidance from v2.0, as related to the scoring of the SG60 level in scoring issues (a) and (c). This change has also been adopted to enable harmonization with the other fisheries also currently under assessment (see Section 4.1 above). The decision to adopt this change to the Assessment Tree was made during the process of harmonization and, with the agreement of MSC, has been made without the normal requirements of notice to stakeholders and a 30 day consultation period. Because this change follows the updated requirements introduced by the MSC in CR V2.0, no further analysis or justification of the change is provided.

This report uses MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3, issued 14 January 2013 as modified by SCS Global Services (version 1.3) October 2013.

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visit

The itinerary for the site visit is outlined in Table 16.

Table 16. Overview of itinerary for the site visit to Pago Pago, American Samoa.

Date Location People contacted Activities Feb 24, 2015 Motel Mr. Matt Owens, Initial client meeting; client representative; outline of assessment Glenda Isiderio process; finalization of itinerary West Pacific Mr. Nate Ilaoa and Discussions regarding the Fisheries Regional Mr. Silop Hong assessment Office Tri Marine Office Mr. Matt Owens Update on progress and plans Feb 25, 2015 Motel Mr. Matt Owens and Discussions regarding the Mr. Malo Huskens assessment and briefing (SPC) on SPC data collection systems. Cook Islands Mr. Isaiah Hunkin and Discussions regarding the Fisheries Office Mr. Malo Huskens assessment and involvement of the Cook Islands Fisheries Office Pago Pago Harbour Mr. Matt Owens and Visit to Cape San Lucas to Ms. Glenda Isiderio view the unloading of skipjack catch to carrier vessel. NOAA Office Mr. Gordon Yamasaki Discussions regarding the (NOAA) assessment and involvement of NOAA staff in the observer program Tri Marine Cannery Mr. Matt Owens Tour of new cannery

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 116 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Feb 26, 2015 Motel Mr. Matt Owens Final meeting with client representative; update on progress NOAA Offices Mr. Michael Marsik Discussions regarding the and Mr. Steve assessment and Kostelnik, (American involvement of NOAA Samoa Observer staff in the observer Program) program. Department of Ms. Selaina Tuimavave Discussions regarding the Marine Wildlife assessment, the role of Resources Dep’t Marine Wildlife Resources and other local governance arrangements

4.4.2 Consultations

In addition to the people interviewed during the site visit (identified above), a list of other stakeholders individually contacted is contained in Table 17. For a full list of stakeholders emailed with regular updates on the fishery assessment and consultation opportunities, see Appendix 3.

Table 17. Stakeholders contacted during the assessment (via email unless otherwise indicated).

Dates Name Organisation Purpose or information obtained

Jan 21, 2015 A wide range of Various Advice to Stakeholders about the stakeholders were assessment and site visit. advised of the assessment via posting to the MSC website and direct email. A list is provided in Appendix 3. Feb 23, 2015 Mr Ray Clark (Phone NOAA (Honolulu Invite comment, questions regarding call) office, Hawaii) data provision requirements, observer programs, VMS arrangements, jurisdictional issues for U.S. fleet, the U.S. South Pacific Tuna Treaty Feb 25, 2015 Mr Peter Williams SPC Advice about data request process, & later request for data on UoA fleet, clarification of data provided Feb 25, 2015 Mr Graham Pilling SPC Advice about shark finning events & later Feb 27, 2015 Mr Wez Norris FFA Advice about process for obtaining & later data on the UoA May 15, WCPFC Secretariat; Ms WCPFC Clarification on application of 2015 Lara Manarangi-Trott, national management measures now Ms Ana Toholo incorporated into P3 text.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 117 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

June 8, 2015 Mr Bill Holden MSC regional Advice about the fishery including & later representative potential species identification issues.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

One of the most significant, and difficult, aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team acquires a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest fishery, this is no easy task as the assessment team typically needs information that is fully supported by documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures.

Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to any and all scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested, or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location.

In addition to information provided by the client and information gained during the site visit, the assessment team gathered information using a range of methods. The website of the WCPFC (www.wcpfc.int) was a key source of documentation about the target species, other retained species, CMMs and other management arrangements. The PNA website (www.pnatuna.com) was also used to source information relevant to fishing in PNA waters. Direct approaches were made to the SPC for data on the fishery including data from logbooks and observers. The pre-assessment report (a draft copy of which was provided to the assessment team) was used as background. Individuals contacted during the assessment are listed above in Table 17.

Stakeholders were informed primarily via announcements posted on the MSC website, and via direct email outreach. See Appendix 3 for a list of stakeholders contacted. Enquiries were also made during the site visit as to the existence of any local stakeholder groups that should be approached and made aware of the assessment. None were identified.

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

The scoring elements considered under each of the Principles are outlined in Table 4.3. None were considered data deficient and requiring the use of the RBF for the assessment.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 118 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 4.3 Scoring elements considered in assessing the fishery. Component Scoring elements Main/not main Data-deficient or not Target species Skipjack tuna N/A Not data deficient Yellowfin tuna N/A Not data deficient Retained species Bigeye tuna Main Not data deficient Bycatch species Silky shark Not main Not data deficient ETP species Sharks and rays (10 N/A Not data deficient species) Cetaceans (9 species) N/A Not data deficient Turtles (6 species) N/A Not data deficient Seabirds (various) N/A Not data deficient Habitats Pelagic habitats N/A Not data deficient

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 119 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

5 Traceability 5.1 Eligibility Date The Target Eligibility Date (TED) is defined in V1.3 of the standard as “the date from which product form a certified fishery may be permitted to bear the MSC Ecolabel.” This definition is incomplete, as the TED is the “the date from which product from a fishery in assessment may be retroactively permitted to bear the MSC Ecolabel, once it is certified”: such fish in V1.3 is termed UMAF product.

Also, according to CR 27.6.1.2.b the TED may be “any date prior to the certification of the fishery up to a maximum of six months prior to the publication of the most recent Public Comment Draft Report. This date should be linked to: b the start of the fishing season in which the Public Comment Draft Report is published”. In this fishery, the start of the 2016 Tri Marine fishing season and the TED is named as March 1, 2016. The Actual Eligibility date will be named in the Public Certification version of the report.

5.2 Traceability The risk of mixing certified and non-certified product appears high among wells and among vessels (transhipment), and derives from three key issues: 1. Multiple set types occurring on the same vessel on the same trip 2. Fishing location (within/outside UoA waters) 3. Transshipment

Tenders are not used to transport product between fishing vessels and shore. Processing does not take place on-board fishing vessels.

Tri Marine currently has vessels conducting MSC trips under the PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna fishery. In order for product caught by Tri Marine vessels within the scope of this certificate to be eligible for the MSC ecolabel under PNA’s fisheries certificate, Tri Marine joined the PNA Group CoC certificate, which covers fish from harvest to the first point of landing. This required Tri Marine to develop an internal CoC policy in line with PNA’s MSC CoC requirements for fishing vessels and carriers to ensure traceability is in place, control for risks of substitution and mislabelling, and maintain records demonstrating the effectiveness of those controls.

It is now required that equivalent policies be employed to cover the catch from this UoC and a valid CoC certificate is in place before any product may be landed or otherwise enter into the market with an MSC-certified claim from this assessment. Tri Marine is currently in the process of preparing the Chain of Custody procedure under this fishery certificate. Procedures proposed by the fishery to operationally separate MSC and non-MSC eligible fish are presented below.

The fishery assessment team has an obligation to identify and describe the controls proposed by Tri Marine to address the risks related to segregation and substitution of product from outside the UoA entering the UoC, such that it would be eligible to carry the MSC label. The assessment team has not performed verification of these procedures and controls, which will be undertaken, and properly so, by qualified CoC auditors. The MSC CoC requirements, as written, mandate that the content and substance of a CoC report is confidential and explicitly not in the public domain, other than the resulting CoC scope. If stakeholders feel that such information, or requirements further than those in relevant versions of the fishery standard, should be in the public realm, this is a policy issue to address with MSC as the standard holder.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 120 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

In the assessment team’s interest of both meeting the spirit of the standard as well as relevant traceability requirements (27.12.1.1-7, V1.3), we provide below a description of the risks the team has identified and how the client intends (and/or has done so for operations in the PNA fishery) to address those risks. The following is not to be taken as the team’s approval or validation of the proposed controls. These are to be audited during the Chain of Custody audit, and a recommendation for CoC certification shall be made by competent and qualified CoC auditor(s).

Traceability risks and associated intended Tri Marine procedures within the Fishery In a single trip, vessels may fish with different gear sets and also in multiple zones both within and outside the UoA. Hence, traceability risks in this fishery begin at the initiation of a set which may take place in association with FADs (not MSC-eligible) or on free-swimming schools (i.e. unassociated/FAD-free) (MSC eligible) and inside the geographic area covered by the scope of the UoA (eligible) or outside (not eligible). Therefore, the Chain of Custody (CoC) traceability system must likewise start during fishing operations at the set level. Information needed to start the traceability system includes:  the determination and verifiable record for each set as to whether or not it was made on an unassociated school of tuna;  a record of the MSC-eligible status of tuna in each well and which set number it is derived from; and, a record of the estimated quantity of such product by species.  geo-referenced information by set number

Verification that a set was unassociated can only be completed reliably post-set when the net is retrieved and the catch is inspected because some objects (e.g. floating logs, whale sharks) may not be visible at the time the net is set. Only product from sets confirmed as unassociated will be considered MSC-eligible. Hence, under Tri Marine’s CoC management system, sets will be defined as MSC-eligible versus not MSC-eligible during net hauling and/or brailing by the vessels captain (monitored by an onboard observer), in accordance with TM’s definition of FAD-free.5 This definition is consistent with that of the WCPFC while providing the additional precaution against night setting, as unassociated sets are to occur during daylight hours when schools of fish unassociated with FADs are easily identifiable. If an object is found in the net at any time after deployment, product from the set will be disqualified from MSC-eligibility. (Note: This categorization and the necessary records required will be assessed by CoC auditors). Once tuna are brailed from the main net, they are transported down a chute to the fish wells for freezing. MSC-eligible catches will kept physically separate at all times from non-MSC catches on-board the fishing vessel and will be stored in separate, MSC-labelled wells. MSC wells will be opened and unloaded separately from non-MSC wells at the conclusion of the fishing trip, in the presence of an observer.

Under existing legal requirements, all fishing masters must complete an official logbook which records information about the fishing vessel’s activities including inter alia set location, type of set,

5 Only skipjack and yellowfin tuna caught on free schools (i.e. not caught on FADs) in the WCPO (FAO statistical area 71 and 77) shall be eligible under this certificate. For the purpose of the scheme, a FAD shall be defined as: “Any object or groups of objects, of any size, man-made or natural, anchored or not, that has or has not been deployed, that is living or non-living, including but not limited to buoys, floats, netting, webbing, plastics, bamboo, logs and whale sharks, floating on or near the surface of the water, and including the fishing vessel itself, that fish may associate with. No tuna caught at night (dusk to dawn) shall be considered eligible. Also, no tuna caught within 1 nautical mile of the location of a FAD, or within 1 nm from which a FAD was removed or repositioned will be considered eligible.”

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 121 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

catch volumes by species and well numbers. For MSC trips, in addition to the official logbook, vessels will be required to complete an MSC traceability logsheet which will include specific details related to MSC-eligible sets for ease of traceability and auditing. A well chart is completed for each trip which identifies which wells catches are stored in, with MSC wells clearly indicated. These three documents will be used to trace MSC-eligible catches back to individual sets and will be completed by the vessel captain for submission to Tri Marine’s MSC Program Manager at the conclusion of the fishing trips. These will also be made available on request to the CoC auditor.

All vessels will carry observers who have been trained in relevant CoC requirements for trips in order to land tuna as MSC-eligible. The observers will monitor all net sets, brailing, transfer into wells and unloading of MSC-eligible catches (in addition to their usual duties). Tri Marine intends to continue to operate with 100% observer coverage and in compliance with the Regional Observer Programme requirements stated in CMM 2007-01.

Most tuna from the UoC will be offloaded directly to Samoa Tuna Processors (STP), Tri Marine’s cannery in Pago Pago, American Samoa. Wells containing MSC tuna will be unloaded separately from non-MSC tuna to avoid mixing when transferred into the canneries’ clearly labelled fish bins prior transferring to cold storage. Where purse seiners unload their catch directly to the cannery, well numbers form the beginning of the onward chain of custody. STP has been MSC CoC certified since 2014, with staff already trained and experienced in handling MSC-certified fish under other existing MSC fisheries certifications. STP’s traceability software allows for tracking from the fish well onboard the vessel (fish lot) to individual fish bins in cold storage and then through processing into canned product. Unloading will be monitored by an MSC observer. An MSC offload checklist will be also completed by a TM representative which will record well numbers and tonnages of MSC-eligible fish unloaded from the fishing vessels.

Occasionally, tuna is transferred from fishing vessels to refrigerated carrier vessels for transport to processing facilities outside of American Samoa. Carriers can contain both MSC and non-MSC fish from vessels under the UoC, as well as non-MSC catches from vessels not covered under the UoC. Hence, there is some level of risk associated with mixing MSC and non-MSC catches onboard carriers. These risks have been described in the fisheries assessment report for the PNA skipjack tuna fishery (Banks et al. 2011). That assessment also described the measures required to ensure that non-certified products do not enter the MSC processing chain. Similar measures will be adopted under Tri Marine’s MSC CoC management system. MSC wells will be unloaded separately from non- MSC wells onto carriers. Where MSC and non-MSC fish are stored within the same carrier hatch, double-separation netting will be used to ensure no mixing occurs. MSC transhipments will require supervision by an authorized TM representative and will be monitored by an MSC observer. For traceability purposes, an MSC offload checklist will be completed which will record key operational information about the transhipment and link carrier catches back to fishing vessel wells. The carrier captain will also prepare a dedicated MSC Mate’s Receipt. When the carrier is unloading, MSC fish will be unloaded separately from non-MSC fish into dedicated MSC trucks for delivery to the processing facility’s cold storage, at which point CoC responsibility will transfer to the processor.

Final outturn weight of MSC-eligible catches will be determined after MSC lots are fully sorted by species and sized at the recipient cannery, provided the CoC has been fully maintained in terms of both documentation and physical separation of MSC and non-MSC catches.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 122 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Conclusion The scope of the fishery certificate shall only include product caught from unassociated sets, which are defined by the scope of the UoC as eligible to carry the MSC label, also called “MSC-eligible” by Tri Marine. The assessment team has determined that the required manner in which to identify this is to consider as UoC product, only that which has been verified ‘FAD-free’ or un-associated after the catch has been cleared from the net. Therefore, from a traceability standpoint, the fishery certificate will terminate at the point of onboard landing of eligible product. As describe above, chain of custody will begin at the set level at the point of landing on board the vessel, and must include a process to verify sets as associated or un-associated after the set haul, as well as geographically within or outside of the geographic scope of the certificate, and must be able to demonstrate the ability to maintain separation during transshipment to the next link in the chain of custody (processing). Tri Marine has established and implemented CoC procedures (as referenced above) for the PNA MSC certification that are compliant with MSC CoC and is in the process of finalizing the CoC procedures for use with any certificate issued. The UoA for this fishery includes vessels that are not Tri Marine-owned and not all vessels in the UoA have PNA MSC CoC certification. A MSC Chain of Custody certification specific to the UoC of this fishery is necessary to ensure that traceability systems are sufficient, and the chain is defined to begin at the point of set and at the point when catch is brailed onboard and can be determined as unassociated according to the TMI CoC manual criteria. This group chain of custody certificate must be held by any vessels in the UoA, in order for it to be included in the UoC. (CRV1.3 27.12.2.1c)

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody Product from the client’s fleet will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody once there is a certified chain of custody program specific to the UoC in place. The initial chain of custody needs to commence from the point at which product is taken on board vessels in the UoC for all products derived from the fishery. MSC chain of custody certifications will need to be undertaken on a separate and individual basis for those entities that may wish to identify and/or label products derived from the fishery. All traceability and chain of custody procedures described above shall be set forth in a documented Tri Marine CoC policy. This evaluation does not represent an audit of such policies applicable to this certification and traceability systems beyond the extent of the requirements germane to the fishery certificate: the client fishery will require separate chain of custody assessment. Measures presented here are used to describe traceability risks in this fishery, recognizing procedures that have already been developed and implemented by the client for use related to the PNA certificate and/or are in development for use under this certificate, to mitigate those risks. It is further noted that other eligible fishers (e.g. US flagged purse seine vessels not part of the TMI Cape Fleet) in the UoA may not be part of the PNA certificate, and may not have the required chain of custody systems already in place. Therefore, in order for other eligible fishers (US flagged purse seine vessels) to join the UoC, they must first be invited to the vessel list by the client, and then also be trained in Tri Marine’s MSC CoC procedures for physical segregation and traceability of MSC-eligible catches from non-MSC eligible catches.

A chain-of-custody certificate may be obtained after a successful evaluation from an accredited Certification Assessment Body such as SCS. Entities wishing to use the MSC blue eco-label are encouraged to contact the Tri Marine Group for arrangements to join both the fishery and group CoC certificates.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 123 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody Tuna species tend to swim in single species schools but mixed species schools are not uncommon, particularly for sets on FADs. With high volume fisheries like the purse seine fishery, where individual fish are not handled during the catching process separation of the catch by species is not feasible. Therefore, the catch of all species is usually stored together in the holds on purse seine vessels and on carrier vessels.

It has been recognised for many years that the catches of the individual species – skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna – are not accurately specified on logsheets by all fleets and that, in particular, most fleets do not separate yellowfin and bigeye on logsheet entries because of the difficulties of identifying and quantifying the usually small amounts of bigeye tuna in purse seine catches (Hampton and Williams 2011). Sampling protocols and statistical treatments have been developed to address the stock assessment implications of these inaccuracies (Hampton and Williams 2015) and the data used to prepare this report have been subject to those bias correction procedures. From an MSC perspective, there is the question of the extent to which product that enters the processing chain may contain species are not part of the UoC.

The main concern would be the potential for the inclusion of bigeye tuna whose stock status is poor. For this fishery, the team has been advised (Bill Holden WWF, pers. comm., 24 June 2015) that the potential for mixing of species is only an issue for juvenile tuna and is less of an issue for free school sets. Free school yellowfin tend to be larger fish and quite easy for crew to differentiate. Free school skipjack often have some amount of juvenile yellowfin and bigeye but the percentages and volumes of juvenile bigeye would be small.

The product of the fishery under assessment is destined for canning and species and sizes are sorted when unloaded at the processing facilities. There are also commercial incentives to separate species in the catch. Large bigeye tuna have a higher market value than other species if handled and stored carefully. MSC catches will be 100% sorted and graded by species (and size) when unloaded at processing facilities to ensure that any bigeye tuna are removed from the processing line. Given this advice, the assessment team has concluded that there are no issues of IPI stocks for this fishery.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 124 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

7 Evaluation Results

7.1 Principle Level Scores

Table 6.1: Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle Score Skipjack Score Yellowfin (SKJ) (YFT) Principle 1 – Target Species 86.9 84.4 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 86.7 86.7 Principle 3 – Management System 85.3 85.3

7.2 Summary of Scores

Principle Component PI No. Performance Indicator (PI) Skipjack Yellowfin

One Outcome 1.1.1 Stock status 100 90 1.1.2 Reference points 90 90 1.1.3 Stock rebuilding Management 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 70 70 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 60 60 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 90 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 95 95 Two Retained species 2.1.1 Outcome 80 80 2.1.2 Management 75 75 2.1.3 Information 85 85 Bycatch species 2.2.1 Outcome 80 80 2.2.2 Management 85 85 2.2.3 Information 85 85 ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome 95 95 2.3.2 Management 80 80 2.3.3 Information 80 80 Habitats 2.4.1 Outcome 100 100 2.4.2 Management 100 100 2.4.3 Information 100 100 Ecosystem 2.5.1 Outcome 80 80 2.5.2 Management 85 85 2.5.3 Information 90 90 Three Governance & policy 3.1.1 Legal & customary framework 80 80 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibility 90 90 3.1.3 Long term objectives 90 90 3.1.4 Incentives for sustainable fishing 90 90 Fishery specific mgt. 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 90 90 3.2.2 Decision making processes 80 80 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 75 75 3.2.4 Research plan 90 90 3.2.5 Mgt. performance evaluation 80 80

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 125 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

7.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 6.3: Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number Indicator previously raised condition? (Y/N/N/A) 1 Skipjack: Demonstrate that the harvest strategy 1.2.1a N/A for skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Skipjack: Demonstrate that well defined harvest 1.2.2a, b & c N/A control rules are in place for skipjack tuna that 2 are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Yellowfin: Demonstrate that the harvest strategy 1.2.1a N/A for yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest 3 strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Yellowfin: Demonstrate that well defined harvest 1.2.2a, b & c N/A control rules are in place for yellowfin tuna that 4 are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark 2.1.2e N/A finning is not taking place or that, if rare cases 5 are reported, that measures are taken to address the issue. Demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non- 3.2.3b N/A 6 compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

7.3.1 Recommendations No recommendations have been made.

7.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement With the information available, the Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna fishery meets the minimum requirements for being awarded certification which includes meeting the SG60 for all Performance Indicators and an average score of 80 or greater for all three Principle scores. The team discussed the merits and shortfalls of the fishery and by consensus recommended certification for the fishery. The SCS Certification Board reviewed the report, Performance Indicator rationales, peer reviews and stakeholder comments and agreed with the Assessment Team’s recommendation.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 126 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

In accordance with MSC Certification Requirements, the findings will be made open to objection by interested parties for a period of 15 working days from publication of the Final Report with the Certification Determination. Contingent upon the actual posting date of the Final Report on the MSC website, it is therefore expected that the objection period will close on May 24, 2016 at 1700 GMT.

(REQUIRED FOR PCR) 1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification action taken by the CAB’s official decision-makers in response to the Determination recommendation.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 127 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

References Allain V., Griffiths S., Bell J. and Nicol S. 2015. Monitoring the pelagic ecosystem effects of different levels of fishing effort on the western Pacific Ocean warm pool. Issue-specific national report. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia. Allain V., Nicol S., Essington T., Okey T. Olson R.J. & Kirby D. 2007. An Ecopath with Ecosim model of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean warm pool pelagic ecosystem. Third regular session of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 13-24 Aug. 2007. Honolulu, USA. WCPFC-SC3 – EB SWG/IP-8: 1-42. Allain, V., Nicol, S.; Polovina, J.; Coll, M.; Olson, R.; Griffiths, S.; Dambacher, J.; Young, J.; Molina, J.J.; Hoyle, S.; Lawson, T. 2011. International workshop on opportunities for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9220-z. Au, D.W.K. and Pitman, R.L. 1986, Seabird interactions with dolphins and tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific, The Condor 88: 304-317. Anon. 2001. A review of turtle bycatch in the western and central Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. Report prepared for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) by the Oceanic Fisheries Program, SPC. Anon. 2012. Review of the Performance of the WCPFC. WCPFC8-2011/12. 28 February 2012. In Report to Commission Eighth Regular Session. Tumon, Guam, USA. 26-30 March 2012. Banks R., Clark L., Huntington T., Lewis T. and Hough A. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 23 July 2015. Baum, J., Clarke, S., Domingo, A., Ducrocq, M., Lamónaca, A.F., Gaibor, N., Graham, R., Jorgensen, S., Kotas, J.E., Medina, E., Martinez-Ortiz, J., Monzini Taccone di Sitizano, J., Morales, M.R., Navarro, S.S., Pérez-Jiménez, J.C., Ruiz, C., Smith, W., Valenti, S.V. & Vooren, C.M. 2007. Sphyrna lewini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 23 July 2015. Berger, A.M., Pilling, G.M., Kirchner, C. and Harley, S.J. (2013). Determination of appropriate time- windows for calculation of depletion-based limit reference points. WCPFC-SC9-2013/MI-WP-02. Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Hammond, P.S., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y. , Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012. Stenella longirostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015 Bonfil, R. (2008). The biology and ecology of the silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis. pp. 114–127. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds M.D. Camhi, E.K. Pikitch and E.A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M., Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 23 July 2015.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 128 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Cagua, E. F., Cochran, J. E., Rohner, C. A., Prebble, C. E., Sinclair-Taylor, T. H., Pierce, S. J., & Berumen, M. L. 2015. Acoustic telemetry reveals cryptic residency of whale sharks. Biology letters, 11(4), 20150092. Carretta, J.V., E. Oleson, D.W. Weller, A.R. Lang, K.A. Forney, J. Baker, B. Hanson, K. Martien, M.M. Muto, A. J. Orr, H. Huber, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, D. Lynch, L. Carswell, R. L. Brownell Jr., and D. K. Mattilal. 2013. U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2013. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum, NMFS-SWFSC-532. 406 p. Casper, B.M., Domingo, A., Gaibor, N., Heupel, M.R., Kotas, E., Lamónaca, A.F., Pérez-Jimenez, J.C., Simpfendorfer, C., Smith, W.D., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A. & Vooren, C.M. 2005. Sphyrna zygaena. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 21 July 2015. Catry, T., Ramos, J. A., Catry, I., Monticelli, D. and Granadeiro, J. P. (2013). Inter-annual variability in the breeding performance of six tropical seabird species: influence of life-history traits and relationship with oceanographic parameters. Marine Biology. 160 (5) 1189-1201. Cox, S.P.; Essington, T.E.; Kitchell, J.F.; Martell, S.J.D.; Walters, C.J.; Christofer Boggs, C.; Kaplan, I. 2002. Reconstructing ecosystem dynamics in the central Pacific Ocean, 1952–1998. II. A preliminary assessment of the trophic impacts of fishing and effects on tuna dynamics. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 59: 1736–1747. Davies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J. and McKechnie, J. 2014. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-04. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Devney, C.A., Short, M. and Congdon, B.C. 2009a. Cyclonic and anthropogenic influences on tern populations, Wildlife Research 36: 368-378. Devney C.A., M. Short & B.C. Congdon 2009b. Sensitivity of tropical seabirds to El Niño precursors Ecology 90: 1175-1183. Di Lorenzo, E., V. Combes, J.E. Keister, P.T. Strub, A.C. Thomas, P.J.S. Franks, M.D. Ohman, J.C. Furtado, A. Bracco, S.J. Bograd, W.T. Peterson, F.B. Schwing, S. Chiba, B. Taguchi, S. Hormazabal, and C. Parada. 2013. Synthesis of Pacific Ocean climate and ecosystem dynamics. Oceanography 26(4):68–81, http://dx.doi.org/10.5670/oceanog.2013.76. Dunn, S., Rodwell, L. and Joseph, G. (2006). The Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Pacific Purse Seine Fishery - Management Scheme (Vessel Day Scheme). Conference paper presented at “Sharing the Fish 2006”. March 2006, Perth Western Australia. http://www.fishallocation.com/papers/pdf/papers/GlenJoseph.pdf Erwin, C.A. and Congdon, B.C. 2007, Day-to-day variation in sea-surface temperature reduces sooty tern Sterna fuscata foraging success on the Great Barrier Reef, Australia, Marine Ecology Progress Series 331: 255-266. Fitzsimmons. 2011. Bycatch mitigation information system. SC 7. 9-17 August 2011 Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-IP-03. Fletcher, W.J. 2007. A Guide to Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) within the Western and Central Pacific Region. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Fromentin, J.M., Fonteneau, A. 2001. Fishing effects and life history traits: A case study comparing tropical versus temperate tunas. Fish. Res. 53:133–150.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 129 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Gascoigne, J., Kolody, D., Sieben, C. and Cartwright, I. 2015. MSC Public Certification Report. The SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. Gaertner, D., Gado de Molina, A., Ariz, J., Pianet, R., and Hallier, J.P. 2008. Variability of the growth parameters of the skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) among areas in the eastern Atlantic: analysis from tagging data within a meta‐analysis approach. Aquat.Living Resour. 21: 349‐356. (Cited in Rice et al. 2014). Gillett, R. 2007. A short history of industrial fishing in the Pacific Islands, Rap Publication 2007/22. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai001e/ai001e00.pdf. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority, (2012). A Vulnerability Assessment for the Great Barrier Reef. Offshore and foraging pelagic seabirds. GBRMPA 32 pp. Available at: http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/21730/gbrmpa-VA- OffshorePelagicSeabirds-11-7-12.pdf Grewe, P.M., and Hampton, J. 1998. An assessment of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) population structure in the Pacific Ocean based on mitochondrial DNA and DNA microsatellite analysis. SOEST 98‐05, JIMAR Contribution 98‐330; Hampton et al. 1998. Haddon, M. (2010). Review Stock Assessment of Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. CIE Review. Available at http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/do/peer_reviews/wcpo_yellowfin_tuna_stock_assessment_2010_08.ph p Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012a. Steno bredanensis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015. Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012b. Stenella attenuata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015. Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y. , Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012c. Tursiops aduncus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015. Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012d. Tursiops truncatus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015 Hampton, J., Bigelow, K. and Labelle, M. 1998. A summary of current information on the biology, fisheries and stock assessment of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the Pacific Ocean, with recommendations for data requirements and future research. Technical Report No. 36. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. 58 pp. Hampton, J. 2000. Natural mortality rates in tropical tunas: size really does matter. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2000, 57(5): 1002-1010, 10.1139/f99-287. Hampton, J., and Williams, P. 2005. A description of tag‐recapture data for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. SCRS 2004/058. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 57(2), 85‐93. Hampton, J. and Williams, P. 2011. Misreporting of purse seine catches of skipjack and yellowfin- bigeye on logsheets. WCPFC-SC7-2011/ST-WP-02. Hampton, J. and Williams, P. 2015. Annual estimates of purse seine catches by species based on alternative data sources and a review of current purse-seine catch estimation issues and future plans. WCPFC-SC11-2015/ST WP-2.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 130 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Harley S., Davies N., Hampton J. and McKechnie. 2014a. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Programme. WCPFC‐SC10‐2014/SA‐WP‐01 Rev1 25 July. Harley S., Williams P., Nicol S., Hampton J. 2014b. The Western and Central Pacific tuna fishery: 2012 Overview and stock status. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Programme. Tuna Fisheries Assessment Report No. 13. Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Harley, S., and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. No. WCPFC‐SC7‐2011/SA‐WP‐04 REV1. Ianelli, J., Maunder, M., and Punt, A. E. 2012. Independent review of the 2011 WCPO bigeye tuna assessment. WCPFC SC8‐SA‐WP‐01, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7‐15 August 2012. Kirby, D. And Hobday, A. 2007. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. WCPFC-SC-EB SWG/WP-1. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Third Regular Session, 13-24 August, 2007. Honolulu, USA. Kitchell JF, Boggs C, He X, Walters CJ. 1999. Keystone predators in the Central North Pacific. Proceedings of the Wakefield Symposium on Ecosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management. University of Alaska Sea Grant. P 665–83 850 pp. Knuckey, I. and Koopman, M. (2014). Towards a Standard Catch Documentation Scheme for Western and Central Pacific Tuna Fisheries – Discussion Paper. Report to the WCPFC Catch Documentation Scheme Intersessional Working Group. 94pp. Langley, A., Williams, P. and Hampton, J. 2006. The Western and Central Pacific tuna fishery: 2005 overview and status of stocks. Tuna Fisheries Assessment Rep. 7, Noumea, New Caledonia. Lehodey P. 2004. Climate and fisheries: an insight from the Central Pacific Ocean, in: Stenseth, N.Ch. et al. (Ed.) 2004. Marine ecosystems and climate variation. The North Atlantic: a comparative perspective. pp. 137-146. Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A., and Picaut, J. 1997. El Niño Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389: 715-718. Lehodey, P. 2001. The pelagic ecosystem of the tropical Pacific Ocean: dynamic spatial modelling and biological consequences of ENSO. Progress in Oceanography 49: 439‐468. Lehodey P., F. Chai and J. Hampton. 2003. Modelling climate-related variability of tuna populations from a coupled ocean-biogeochemical-populations dynamics model. Fisheries Oceanography, 12 (4- 5): 483–494. Lehodey P., J. Alheit, M. Barange, T. Baumgartner, G. Beaugrand, K. Drinkwater, J.-M. Fromentin, S. R. Hare, G. Ottersen, R. I. Perry, C. Roy, C. D. van der Lingen, and F. Werner. 2006. Climate variability, Fish and Fisheries. Journal of Climate, 19: 5009-5030. Lehodey, P.; Senina, I.; Murtugudde, R. 2008. A spatial ecosystem and populations dynamics model (SEAPODYM) – Modelling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Progress in Oceanography. 78: 304-318. Lehodey, P.; Senina, I.; Calmettes, B.; Hampton, J.; Nicol, S. 2013a. Modelling the impact of climate change on Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. Climatic Change. Volume 119 (1), pp95-109. Lehodey P., Nicol S., Hampton J., Caillot S., Williams P.G. 2013b. Project 62: SEAPODYM applications in WCPO [EB WP 03]. [Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia]: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Scientific Committee Regular Ninth Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. 6‐14 August 2013.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 131 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Leroy, B. 2000. Preliminary results on skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) growth, SCTB13 Working Paper, SKJ‐1. 13th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish. 13. 2000. 5‐7‐2000. (Cited in Rice et al. 2014). Leroy, B.; Phillips, J.S.; Nicol, S.; Pilling, G.M.; Harley, S.; Bromhead, D.; Hoyle, S.; Caillot, S.; Allain, V.; Hampton, J. 2013. A critique of the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse- seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Aquatic Living Resources. Volume 26, pp 49-61. Levine, SA. And S. Allen 2009. American Samoa as a fishing community. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Tech memo. NOAA-TM-NMFS-PIFSC-19, 74p. Lewis, A. and Scott, I. 2012. Surveillance Report (1st audit). PNA Western & Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery. Intertek Moody Marine, UK. Maguire, J-J. (2010). Report on yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. CIE Review. Available at http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/do/peer_reviews/wcpo_yellowfin_tuna_stock_assessment_2010_08.ph p Maunder, M.N. 2001. Growth of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the eastern Pacific Ocean, as estimated from tagging data. Bulletin. Inter‐American Tropical Tuna Commission La Jolla CA.Vol.22 (cited in Rice et al. 2014). Medley P.A.H. and Powers J.E. 2015. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 3). ISSF Technical Report 2015‐04. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA. Molony, B. 2008. Fisheries biology and ecology of highly migratory species that commonly interact with industrialised longline and purse-seine fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC4-2008/EB-IP-6. Muir, J., Filmalter, J., Forget, J., Dagorn, L., Holland K. and Restrepo, V. 2013. Summary of Research Activities and Results of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation’s (ISSF) Second Bycatch Project Cruise WCPO-2 in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). WCPFC‐SC9‐2013/EB‐ WP‐07. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Purse Seine Environmental Assessment Compliance Guide. WCPFC5. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. U.S. Department of Commerce. Available at: http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/IFD/AX60%20WCPFC5%20Purse%20Seine%20EA%20Compliance %20Guide.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014a. Annual Report to the Commission Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research, and Statistics WCPFC-SC10-AR/CCM-27. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014b. 2014 Shark Finning Report to Congress. Pursuant to the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (Public Law 106-557). Available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/.../shark_finning_report_2014.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015a. Annual Report to the Commission Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research, and Statistics WCPFC-SC11-AR/CCM-27 Rev 1. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015. Compliance Guide Fishing Restrictions related to the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, the Silky Shark and the Whale Shark. 2015. Downloaded from http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/IFD/BD44-Final-2.19.2015.pdf NOAA 2006. Biological Opinion on the U.S. WCPO Purse Seine Fishery, November 1, 2006. NOAA/NMFS.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 132 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

NOAA 2013. Improving International Fisheries management, January 2013. Report to Congress. NOAA 2015. Compliance Guide Fishing Effort Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2015, May 2015. NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Regional Office. Norman, B. 2005. Rhincodon typus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. . Downloaded on 19 July 2015 PASAI 2013. Pacific Regional Report of the Cooperative Performance Audit: Managing Sustainable Fisheries. Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions. Pilling, G., Harley, S., Davies, N., Rice, J. and Hampton, J. (2014a). Status quo stochastic projections for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas. WCPFC‐SC10‐2014/SA‐WP‐06. Pilling, G., Harley, S. and Hampton, J. 2014b. Evaluation of risks of exceeding limit reference points for south Pacific albacore, bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tunas with implications for target reference points: a case study using south Pacific albacore. WCPFC‐SC10‐2014/MI‐WP‐01. PNA 2004. PNA 2010. A Third Arrangement Implementing the Nauru Agreement Setting Forth Additional Terms and Conditions of Access to the Fisheries Zones of the Parties. PNA 2015a. Parties to the Palau Arrangement. 20th Annual Meeting, 6 - 7 March 2015, Yap, FSM Revised, PS VDS TAE for 2015-2017. PNA 2015b. Review of the PNA Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme - Final Report. Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office, Majuro, Marshall Islands (July 2015). Independent review of the PNA purse seine vessel day scheme undertaken by Hagrannsoknir sf, completed 30 October 2014. Poisson, F., J. D. Filmalter, A.-L. Vernet and L. Dagorn. 2014. Mortality rate of silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) caught in the tropical tuna purse seine fishery in the Indian Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2014, 71(6): 795-798, 10.1139/cjfas-2013-0561. Poisson, F.; Séret, B.; Vernet, A.L.; Dagorn, L. 2012. Good Practices to Reduce the Mortality of Sharks and Rays Caught Incidentally by the Tropical Tuna Purse Seiners. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012. Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/ EB-IP-12. Powers, J.E. and P.A.H. Medley. 2013. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria. ISSF Technical Report 2013-01. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2008. Balaenoptera borealis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015 Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012a. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC‐SC8‐2012/SA‐WP‐06 Rev 1. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012b. Assessment of the whale shark as a key shark species. WCPFC-SC8- 2012/EB-WP-04. Rice, J. and S. Harley. 2013. Updated stock assessment of silky sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Scientific Committee WCPFC-SC- 2013/SA-WP-03. Rice, J., Harley, S., Davies, N. and Hampton, J. 2014. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 133 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

SC10-2014/SA-WP-05 Rev 1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Scott, I. and Stokes, K. 2013. Annual Surveillance Report 2. PNA Western & Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery. Intertek Moody Marine, UK. SCS 2014. 3rd Annual Surveillance. The PNA Western and Central Pacific Unassociated Purse Seine Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Fishery. SCS Global. December 2014. Sequeira, A.M.M., Mellin, C., Meekan, M.G., Sims, D.W., and Bradshaw, C.J.A. 2013. Inferred global connectivity of whale shark Rhincodon typus populations. Journal of Fish Biology (2013) 82, 367–389. doi:10.1111/jfb.12017. Sibert, J. and J. Hampton. 2003. Mobility of tropical tunas and the implications for fisheries management. Marine Policy 27: 87 – 95. Sibert, J.R., Hampton, J., Fournier, D.A., and Bills, P.J. 1999. An advection‐diffusion‐reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 925‐938. Sibert, J.; Hampton, J.; Kleiber, P.; and Maunder, M. (2006) Biomass, Size, and Trophic Status of Top Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science. 314: 1773-1776 SPC-OFP (2011). SPC-OFP response to the CIE review of the 2009 yellowfin tuna assessment WCPFC- SC7-2011/IP-05. SPC-OFP 2014. Consideration of acceptable levels of risk of exceeding Limit Reference Points for the four main tuna stocks: uncertainty and implications for Target Reference Points and Harvest Control Rules. MOW3-WP/02. Tanabe, T., Kayama, S., and Ogura, M. 2003. Precise age determination of young to adult skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) with validation of otolith daily increment. 16th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 916 July 2003, Mooloolaba, Australia. Working Paper SKJ8. 2003. 2003. (Cited in Rice et al. 2014). Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Pseudorca crassidens. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015. Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. and Pitman, R.L. 2011. Globicephala macrorhynchus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 20 July 2015. USA. 2015. Presidential Task Force on Combating IUU Fishing and Seafood Fraud Action Plan for Implementing the Task Force Recommendations. (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ia/iuu/taskforce.html). WCPFC 2000 Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Available at https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/text.pdf. WCPFC 2012. Summary of Regional Observer Programme Audits. WCPFC‐SC8‐2012/ ST‐IP‐03. WCPFC 2007. Conservation and Management Measure for the Regional Observer Programme, Conservation and Management Measure 2007-01, Fourth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, USA 2–7 December 2007. Available from http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/cmm-2007-01/conservation- andmanagement-measure-regional-observer-programme.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 134 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

WCPFC 2014a. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Eleventh Regular Session Apia, Samoa 1-5 December 2014. Summary Report. WCPFC 2014b. Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2014-01. WCPFC 2014c. Overview of Tuna Fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Including Economic Conditions – 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1. WCPFC 2015. Overview of Tuna Fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Including Economic Conditions – 2014. WCPFC-SC11-2014/GN WP-1. WCPFC CMM. Conservation and Management Measures. https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and- management-measures. WCPFC-MOW 2014. WCPFC Third Management Objectives Workshop Faleata Sports Complex, Apia, Samoa 28th November 2014 Report on the Third Management Objectives Workshop 3 December 2014. WPRFMC 2009. Fishery Ecosystem Plan for Pacific Pelagic Fisheries of the Western Pacific Region. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council, September 2009. Weeks S. J., C. Steinberg, B.C. Congdon (2013). Oceanography and seabird foraging: within-season impacts of increasing sea surface temperature on the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series doi: 10.3354/meps10398 Williams, P. and Terawasi, P. 2014. Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 135 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendices Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

Principle 1 – Skipjack tuna

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of certainty is above the point where stock is above the point that the stock is above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would where recruitment would be impaired. be impaired. impaired.

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes Yes The reference case from the 2014 stock assessment (Rice et al. 2014) estimated that the spawning potential of the stock was at 48% of unfished levels in 2011. MOW3-WP/02 (SPC-OFP 2014) indicated that a biomass of this level for skipjack tuna had a greater than 95% likelihood of being above the limit reference point of 20% of unfished levels. A stock above this limit reference point is considered to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Furthermore, Pilling et al. (2014a) used stochastic projections under status quo conditions to estimate that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the skipjack stock would fall below

either the limit reference point level or SBMSY level by 2032, or that fishing mortality will increase above FMSY levels, under either future recruitment assumption. There is, therefore, a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which meets the requirements of scoring issue a at the SG

Justification 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

b The stock is at or There is a high degree of certainty fluctuating around its that the stock has been fluctuating target reference point. around its target reference point, or has been above its target

Guidepost reference point, over recent years. Met? Yes Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 136 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing There is no explicit target reference point for skipjack tuna but there is considered to be an implicit target of BMSY. The 2014 stock assessment estimates that “recent levels of spawning potential are well above the level which will support the MSY”. Thus, the best estimate is that the stock is above its (default) target reference point which meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 80 level. For the SG 100 scoring issue, the question is then about the level of certainty that the stock has been above this target reference point over recent years. The 2014 assessment provides estimates of recent and current spawning biomass relative to that which would support MSY for the selected stock assessment models and the structural uncertainty analysis. These include estimates for the ‘current’ biomass which is the average over the period 2008‐2011 and ‘latest’ which is 2011. The grid medians and 95% confidence intervals for SBcurrent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY were 2.27 (1.63 – 3.67) and 2.14 (1.53 – 3.61) respectively (Table 7, Rice et al. 2014), indicating that there is much less than a 5% chance of the stock being below BMSY over recent years (2008-2011). This finding indicates that the stock would clearly meet the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 100 level. Although we have not considered this in our current scoring, we note that the stock was also estimated to be above the range of alternative candidate reference points that are all higher than the default BMSY target.

Justification Pilling et al. 2014a; Rice et al. 2014; SPC-OFP 2014 References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Target BMSY SBMSY = 1,683,000 t SBcurrent = 3,260,579 t or reference 1.94 X SBMSY point SBlatest = 3,052,995 t or 1.81 X SBMSY

Limit 20% SBF=0 0.2X SBF=0 = 1,260,672 t SBcurrent = 2.59 X LRP reference SBlatest = 2.42 X LRP point

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 137 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and target Reference points are

reference points are appropriate for the stock based on justifiable and and can be estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the

Guidepost species category. Met? Yes Yes CMM 2014-01 reiterated the general objective that its management measures aim to ensure that stocks are maintained at a minimum, at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield. This was also expressed in the specific objective that the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than FMSY, i.e. F/FMSY ≤ 1. Although not formally labelled as such, MSY is essentially the TRP for this fishery.

WCPFC has adopted 20%SBF=0 as a limit reference point for the skipjack stock where SBF=0 is calculated as the average over the period 2002‐2011. These reference points are appropriate for the stock and can be estimated, meeting the SG

Justification 60 and SG 80 requirements. b The limit reference point The limit reference point is set

is set above the level at above the level at which there is which there is an an appreciable risk of impairing appreciable risk of reproductive capacity following impairing reproductive consideration of precautionary

Guidepost capacity. issues. Met? Yes Yes

The limit reference point (20% of the unfished biomass, estimated as the average over the period 2001-2010) is consistent with international best practice as is set above the point at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. This meets the requirement at the SG 80 level. We note that the paper SC8-2012/MI-WP01_rev1 that evaluated potential LRPs specifically considered “the uncertainty in stock status in relation to various reference points on indicators relating to fishing mortality, spawning biomass relative to equilibrium virgin levels, and spawning biomass relative to the levels predicted to exist presently in the absence of fishing”. Furthermore, it was considered that the assessments were instances of where there had been a thorough examination of model sensitivity. The most recent assessment of skipjack tuna identified a number of uncertainties of which alternative assumptions regarding steepness and growth were the most important. However the main conclusions of the assessment were robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored. The main uncertainties were also considered in the recent evaluation of the risks of breaching the LRP (SPC-OFP 2014). We are therefore of the view that relevant precautionary issues have been considered and that the requirements of both SG 80 and SG 100 have been met.

Justification

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 138 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

c The target reference The target reference point is such point is such that the that the stock is maintained at a stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some level consistent with BMSY measure or surrogate with similar

or some measure or intent or outcome, or a higher surrogate with similar level, and takes into account intent or outcome. relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock

Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? Yes No

BMSY is the default target reference point (as indicated by CMM 2014-01) and this clearly meets the requirements of the SG 80 level. Precautionary issues have not been considered with a high degree of certainty in the choice of this default reference point. The requirements of this scoring issue at the SG 100 level is therefore not met.

Justification d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock.

Guidepost Met? Not relevant

Skipjack tuna is not a low trophic level stock.

Justification References Rice et al. 2014, SPC-OFP 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: The SG 60 scoring issue, the three SG 80 scoring issues and one of the two SG 100 90 scoring issues are met, therefore a score of 90 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 139 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted,

depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to be strategies, which have a rebuilding stocks continuously and reasonable expectation there is strong evidence that of success, are in place. rebuilding will be complete within

Guidepost the specified timeframe. Met? N/A N/A Not scored- Stock is not depleted

Justification b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is specified depleted stock that is stock that is the shorter which does not exceed one the shorter of 30 years of 20 years or 2 times its generation time for the depleted or 3 times its generation generation time. For stock. time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less than 5 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 timeframe is up to 5 years. years.

Guidepost Met? N/A N/A N/A

Not scored- Stock is not depleted

Justification c Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that determine whether the they are rebuilding rebuilding strategies are stocks, or it is highly likely effective in rebuilding based on simulation

the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified

Guidepost timeframe. Met? N/A N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 140 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Not scored- Stock is not depleted

Justification References Not scored- Stock is not depleted Not OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: scored

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 141 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is responsive expected to achieve responsive to the state of to the state of the stock and is stock management the stock and the designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in elements of the harvest management objectives reflected the target and limit strategy work together in the target and limit reference

reference points. towards achieving points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference

Guidepost points. Met? Yes No Not scored The harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack has several contributing components, with WCPFC, PNA and national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. There are, however, no formal harvest control rules. The conservation and management measures applied to skipjack tuna and the elements they contain are assessed as being expected to achieve stock management objectives meeting the requirements of the SG 60 level. The skipjack stock is well above levels that would raise concerns about potential impairment of recruitment, so measures to reduce the catch have not been required to date. Nevertheless, the absence of agreed harvest control rules within WCPFC or PNA for any other tuna species, and the record of failing to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna so that they have now become overfished (see PI 2.1.1), reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy would be responsive to the state of the stock or that the elements will work together when required to do so to achieve the management objectives. The original PNA skipjack assessment (Banks et al. 2011) scored that fishery as meeting the SG 80 level on the basis that “the Commission responded to the change in the results of the skipjack assessment and the more cautionary tone of the scientific advice in 2010 by deciding to address the management of skipjack explicitly in the preparation of a CMM to replace CMM 2008-01 beyond 2011.” At the time of that assessment the specific measures to be contained in the CMM had not been agreed or adopted. CMM 2012-01 (and subsequent tuna CMMs) do contain measures to restrict purse seine fishing effort but there is no explicit linkage to stock status of any species.

These concerns prevent the conclusion that the elements of the strategy are working together to achieve stock management objectives. Skipjack tuna is therefore considered to meet the SG 60 level of this scoring issue but not the SG 80 or SG 100 levels.

Justification b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the harvest

likely to work based on not have been fully strategy has been fully evaluated prior experience or tested but evidence and evidence exists to show that it plausible argument. exists that it is achieving is achieving its objectives including its objectives. being clearly able to maintain

Guidepost stocks at target levels.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 142 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

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

Met? Yes Yes Not scored

The skipjack stock is assessed as being above its target and the status quo stock projections undertaken concluded that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the skipjack stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014). Furthermore, the most recent stock assessment (Rice et al. 2014) indicates that fishing mortality for skipjack tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the

harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. The harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. Therefore skipjack tuna is considered to meet the requirements of both the SG 60 and SG 80 of this scoring issue.

Justification c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Guidepost Met? Yes

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

Justification d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Guidepost Met? Not scored

Not scored as not all SG 80 requirements are met.

Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place.

Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 143 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

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

Sharks are not a target species of this fishery. This PI is therefore not relevant. Shark

finning is addressed, however, under PI 2.1.2.

Justification Rice et al. 2014 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: The three SG 60 scoring issues are met and one of two SG 80 scoring issues are met 70 indicating a score of 70 is warranted and a condition is required. CONDITION NUMBER 1:

Demonstrate that the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 144 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 Recent advice from MSC about the scoring of this PI has suggested that the clarified requirements and guidance from CR V2 be used to avoid potentially conflicting assessment conclusions among overlapping fisheries for Scoring Issues a and c. Text from V2.0 has therefore replaced the V1.3 text for these scoring issues below.

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest The HCRs are expected to keep harvest rules are in place control rules are in place the stock fluctuating at or above a that are consistent with that are consistent with target level consistent with MSY, the harvest strategy and the harvest strategy and or another more appropriate level which act to reduce the ensure that the taking into account the ecological

exploitation rate as limit exploitation rate is role of the stock, most of the time. reference points are reduced as limit approached. reference points are

Guidepost CR v2.0: Generally approached. understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. Met? Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 145 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” issued on 24th November PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (a) is scored here using CR v2.0 provisions for SG60 scoring. The revised wording is shown above. The wording of the SG80 scoring issue does not change. A generally understood HCR is taken here to mean one that is not well defined, as otherwise there is no distinction between requirements at the SG60 and SG80 levels. This PI is also assessed taking account the guidance for scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 containing in CR V2.0 SA2.5.2, SA2.5.3 and SA2.5.5. The first option for scoring ‘available’ HCRs is intended to cover the situation where even generally understood HCRs are not yet clearly in place for a fishery. For WCPFC fisheries, including skipjack tuna, there are measures for controlling fishing effort through closures, limits on fishing capacity and, for vessels involved, through limits on fishing days under the VDS. There are expectations about responses and examples of how actions have been implemented for species such as bigeye tuna, but there is no clear linkage or explicit process that links changes in stock status to emergent associated management actions. Therefore we do not consider that there are even generally understood HCRs that are also “in place” ; the options for ‘available’ HCRs are therefore evaluated below. The second question to address, is whether there are HCRs that meet the requirements for being considered as ‘available’. The guidance in SA2.5.2a indicates that teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs in cases where, “…Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2 generation times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within the next 5 years”. As noted at PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the 2014 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (Rice et al, 2014). The stock assessment estimates spawning biomass for skipjack tuna, SB, to be at 48% of unfished levels (SBF=0) and 1.81 times the implicit, and MSC default, TRP of SBMSY The stock is estimated to have never been reduced to SBMSY and

Justification has hence been above SBMSY in all years. According to WCPFC (2014a), paragraph 48, “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) was robust to assumptions on future recruitment. Under either assumption, spawning biomass remained relatively constant and it is exceptionally unlikely (0%) for the stock to become overfished (SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or for the spawning biomass to fall below SBMSY, and it is exceptionally unlikely (<1%) for the stock to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY).” An estimate of the generation time of skipjack tuna using the MSC definition (Box GSA4 in CR v2.0) is not available but SPC have produced an estimate of 2 years by a different method (Berger et al. 2013) and by any method of estimation 2 generation times will be much less than the 20 years used in the projections mentioned above. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are therefore considered to be ‘available’. The third question to address is whether these available HCRs meet the requirement for reducing the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The guidance in SA2.5.3 requires that “Teams shall recognise ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where, a. HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control of the same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; or b. An agreement or framework in place that requires the management body (in this case WCPFC) to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below Bmsy”. There are CMMs that are in place for a range of tuna species within the WCPFC (including skipjack) that contain a range of management measures that are designed to constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, none are considered to be more highly

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 146 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

developed than the measures currently in place for skipjack tuna and therefore they do not offer an example of effectiveness in reducing exploitation as the PRI is approached. Option a. is therefore not considered to be met. Option b. examines plans for the introduction of an effective HCR. WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2014-06 (WCPFC, 2014) sets out definitions of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The Commission agreed to adopt a work plan at its 2015 annual meeting, with potential revision in 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules is already well underway through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. We note that there is no specific requirement in CMM 2014-06 linking implementation of the HCRs to stock projections. Nevertheless, given that skipjack tuna are projected to remain well above BMSY for many years and that the process CMM 2014-06 describes has already been initiated – considered in place - we have considered that the requirements of Option b. SA2.5.3b are met. The requirements of the SG60 level are therefore considered to be met. In summary, generally understood HCRs are not in place. Skipjack is a stock that has not previously been reduced below MSY, which has always been maintained well above the TRP and has an improbably low likelihood of becoming overfished or to experience overfishing. Therefore this stock meets the requirements to be considered against "availability" requirements. In the WCPF, HCRSs are not effectively used in any other WCPFC-managed UoAs. However, there is a framework that is in place, expected to develop further that will require the WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any detectable, projected risk that skipjack stock status could decline below BMSY.

b The selection of the The design of the harvest control harvest control rules rules takes into account a wide takes into account the range of uncertainties.

Guidepost main uncertainties. Met? No Not scored

The ‘available’ harvest control rules are not sufficiently articulated to allow an evaluation of the extent to which they take uncertainties into account. When well-defined HCRs are developed they can be evaluated as to whether the main uncertainties have been taken into account.

Justification The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met. c There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the that tools used to indicates that the tools in tools in use are effective in implement harvest use are appropriate and achieving the exploitation levels control rules are effective in achieving the required under the harvest control appropriate and exploitation levels rules.

effective in controlling required under the exploitation. harvest control rules. There is some evidence

Guidepost that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Met? Yes No Not scored

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 147 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” issued on 24th November PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (c) is also scored here using CR v2.0 provisions for SG60 scoring. There is also additional guidance in v2.0 and two specific requirements. Firstly, when teams have recognised ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached under SA2.5.3b (see scoring issue (a) above), CR v2.0 SA2.5.5b requires that teams shall include in their rationale a description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs. The agreement is contained in CMM 2014-06 whose objective is “To agree that the Commission shall develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for each of the key fisheries or stocks under the purview of the Commission according to the process set out in this conservation and management measure.” This CMM contains general principles (including a description of a harvest strategy) and principles and elements of the proposed harvest strategies (which are consistent with the MSC definitions). The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules (or “harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The specified timelines are that: “The Commission shall agree a workplan and indicative timeframes to adopt or refine harvest strategies for skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, South Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin and northern albacore tuna by no later than the twelfth meeting of the Commission in 2015. This workplan will be subject to review in 2017.” Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated before this CMM was passed through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process and requires no additional trigger for their development. The requirements of SA2.5.5b are therefore considered to be met. Furthermore, CR v2.0 SA2.5.6 requires that, in scoring issue (c) for “evidence” teams shall include consideration of the current levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available. The most recent stock assessment for skipjack tuna (Rice et al. 2014) and the status quo projections (Pilling et al. 2014a) provide some evidence that the tools in use (the VDS and WCPFC effort limits) are effective in controlling exploitation of skipjack tuna and achieving the exploitation levels that are required. As noted above, these indicate that fishing mortality for skipjack tuna has always been below the FMSY level, that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY and that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality will increase above the FMSY level by 2032. The current levels of exploitation are therefore acceptable and the requirements of SA2.5.6 are met. This meets the requirements of the SG60 level. The HCRs are only regarded as being ‘available’ in scoring issue (a) and not ‘in place’, so we have considered that it is not possible to score more than 60 for issue (c) since the SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery and not the tools ‘in use or available’. In any case, not all available evidence indicates that current exploitation is adequately contained by the existing main tools (VDS and WCPFC effort limits) as catches of skipjack are still

increasing and, although fishing mortality remains below the FMSY level, it has increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing. So the effectiveness of the CMM 2014-01 for restricting fishing mortality to previous levels is not well demonstrated. The requirements of the SG80 level are therefore not clearly met.

Justification

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 148 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Berger et al. (2013), Pilling et al. 2014a, Rice et al. 2014, WCPFC 2014a (Science report), References WCPFC 2014 (CMM for HCRs).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60

CONDITION NUMBER: 2 SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined harvest control rules are in place for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules shall take into account the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 149 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is available composition and other fishery removals and other

to support the harvest data is available to information such as strategy. support the harvest environmental information), strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current

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

Justification This is considered to meet the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. b Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by the fishery removals are fishery removals are harvest control rule is monitored monitored and at least regularly monitored at a with high frequency and a high one indicator is available level of accuracy and degree of certainty, and there is a and monitored with coverage consistent with good understanding of inherent sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, uncertainties in the information support the harvest and one or more [data] and the robustness of

control rule. indicators are available assessment and management to and monitored with this uncertainty. sufficient frequency to support the harvest

Guidepost control rule. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 150 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Stock abundance and removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage that is sufficient to support the harvest control measures in place. There is not, however, a high degree of certainty about all the information required. Delays in the finalization of data from the most recent year prevented the most recent data being used in the assessment and, particularly for a short lived species such as skipjack tuna, this could lead to a mismatch between estimates of stock status from the assessment, management actions, and the actual stock status on the water (Rice et al. 2014). Furthermore, standardised CPUE from the Japanese pole-and-line fishery, which is the key index that drives estimated abundance trends, represents less than 4% of the total catch and even less in the main equatorial zone (Rice et al. 2014). These authors also report that there is a limited understanding of the factors driving the patterns observed in these data which are the basis for the key index that drives estimated abundance trends. Nevertheless, the accuracy and coverage of the estimates of removal and abundance have been shown to be sufficient to support an assessment and harvest strategy. Operational level data are also not provided by some WCPFC members (although some who do not provide it to WCPFC make their country’s data available for assessment purposes).

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

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

c There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Guidepost Met? Yes

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

Justification also met for this fishery. Banks et al. 2011; Lewis and Scott 2012; Rice et al. 2014; Scott and Stokes 2013 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 151 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Both SG 60 scoring issues, all three SG 80 scoring issues, and the first of the SG 100 scoring issues are considered to be met. The second scoring issue at SG 100 is not considered to be met. Meeting one of two scoring issues at the SG 100 level indicates a score of 90 is appropriate.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 152 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate for appropriate for the stock the stock and for the harvest

and for the harvest control rule and takes into control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Yes Yes The most recent assessment applied to skipjack tuna (Rice et al. 2014) is an integrated, model-based assessment that is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment program at the SPC. It takes into account major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the fishery. It therefore meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue.

Justification

b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points.

Guidepost Met? Yes

The assessment reports provide a wide range of estimates of stock status relative to

indicators of interest to management including the reference points. This therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue.

Justification

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

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes Yes

The assessment of skipjack tuna has provided explicit commentary on the major sources of

uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue.

Justification

d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been

Guidepost rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 153 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

There is an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and approaches by the staff in the SPC-OFP. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required.

Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data and a suite of sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. The assessment for skipjack tuna has been shown to be robust and therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue. We note that there has been no simulation testing of the model but such testing is not

Justification necessary to meet the requirements.

e The assessment of stock The assessment has been status is subject to peer internally and externally peer review. reviewed.

Guidepost Met? Yes No

Internal reviews are undertaken by SPC and there has been an external review of the assessment of Bigeye tuna (Ianelli et al. 2012) which provided recommendations that were also applicable to other similar assessments such as for skipjack tuna. Many of those recommendations have been addressed with the latest skipjack assessment. There have also been external reviews commissioned of different aspects of the data analyses that feed into the skipjack and other tuna assessments. There is also a level of external review provided by submission to the scientific committee of the WCPFC, at which experienced scientific staff from several countries attend, but we consider this to be internal to WCPFC processes. Therefore, there has been no external review of the skipjack tuna stock assessment and we

Justification consider that this scoring issue is met at the SG 80 level but not at the SG 100 level. Ianelli et al. 2012, Rice et al. 2014 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Principle 1 - Yellowfin tuna

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 154 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing

a It is likely that the stock It is highly likely that the There is a high degree of certainty is above the point where stock is above the point that the stock is above the point recruitment would be where recruitment would where recruitment would be impaired. be impaired. impaired.

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes Yes The 2014 stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014) estimated that the stock was at 38% of unfished levels in 2012. MOW3-WP/02 (SPC-OFP 2014) indicated that a biomass of this level for yellowfin tuna had a greater than 95% likelihood of being above the limit reference point of 20% of unfished levels. A stock above this limit reference point is considered to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Furthermore, Pilling et al. (2014) used stochastic projections under status quo conditions to estimate that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032, and dependent upon the future recruitment assumption, it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%; long-term recruitment deviate assumption) or very unlikely (<10%; recent recruitment assumption) to fall below BMSY. There is, therefore, a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which meets the requirements of scoring issue a at the SG

Justification 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

b The stock is at or There is a high degree of certainty fluctuating around its that the stock has been fluctuating target reference point. around its target reference point, or has been above its target

Guidepost reference point, over recent years. Met? Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 155 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing There is no explicit target reference point for yellowfin tuna but, as for skipjack tuna, there is considered to be an implicit target of BMSY (supported by CMM 2014-01). The 2014 stock assessment estimated that “recent levels of spawning potential are most likely above (based on 2008‐11 average and based on 2012) the level which will support the MSY”. Thus the best estimate is that the stock is above its (default) target reference point which meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 80 level. For the SG 100 scoring issue, the question is then about the level of certainty that the stock has been above this target reference point over recent years. The 2014 assessment provides estimates of recent and current spawning biomass relative to that which would support MSY for the selected stock assessment models and the structural uncertainty analysis. These include estimates for the ‘current’ biomass which is the average over the period 2008‐2011 and ‘latest’ which is 2012. The grid medians and 95% confidence intervals for SBcurrent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY were 1.37 (0.97 – 1.82) and 1.29 (1.0 – 1.69) respectively (Table 7, Davies et al. 2014), indicating that there is a slightly greater than 5% chance of the stock being below BMSY over recent years (2008-2011). This finding indicates that the stock would not meet the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 100 level. Guidance about this PI (CB2.2.2.1) indicates that “At SG 80, there shall be evidence that the stock is at the target reference point now or has fluctuated around the target reference point for the past few years” and that (CB2.2.2.2) “At SG 100, there shall be evidence that the stock has fluctuated around the target reference point for longer periods”. This is clearly intended to apply a higher degree of certainty at the SG 100 level than at the SG 80 level. We consider, however, that in the case of a steadily declining biomass trend as is seen for yellowfin tuna, the 2008-2011 period, although only representing the past few years, is an appropriate duration to use for assessment against the SG 100 requirements. In this instance, including a longer time period in the biomass window would not be as hard a test as the last few years as it would then include years when the biomass had been higher (but still declining) and this approach would not be consistent with the intention of requiring more certainty at the SG 100 level. Although we have not considered this in our current scoring, we also note that the stock was also estimated to be below the range of alternative candidate reference points that

Justification are all higher than the default BMSY target. References Davies et al. 2014; Pilling et al. 2014a; SPC-OFP 2014

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Target BMSY SBMSY = 728,300 t SBlatest = 899,496 t reference or 1.24 SBMSY point

Limit 20% SBF=0 0.2X SBF=0 = 473,711 t 1.90 X LRP reference point OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: The SG 60 scoring issue and both SG 80 scoring issues are met; the first scoring 90 issue at SG 100 is met but not the second, therefore a score of 90 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 156 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 157 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.2

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generic limit and target Reference points are

reference points are appropriate for the stock based on justifiable and and can be estimated. reasonable practice appropriate for the

Guidepost species category. Met? Yes Yes CMM 014-01 reiterated the general objective that its management measures aim to ensure that stocks are maintained at a minimum, at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield. This was also expressed in the specific objective that the

fishing mortality rate for yellowfin tuna is not greater than Fmsy, i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1.

WCPFC has adopted 20%SBF=0 as a limit reference point for the yellowfin stock where SBF=0 is calculated as the average over the period 2002‐2011. These reference points are justifiable, appropriate for the stock and can be estimated.

Justification b The limit reference point The limit reference point is set

is set above the level at above the level at which there is which there is an an appreciable risk of impairing appreciable risk of reproductive capacity following impairing reproductive consideration of precautionary

Guidepost capacity. issues. Met? Yes Yes

The limit reference point (20% of the unfished biomass, estimated as the average over the period 2001-2010) is consistent with international best practice as is set above the point at which there is an appreciable risk of impairing reproductive capacity. This meets the requirement at the SG 80 level. We note that the paper SC8-2012/MI-WP01_rev1 that evaluated potential LRPs specifically considered “the uncertainty in stock status in relation to various reference points on indicators relating to fishing mortality, spawning biomass relative to equilibrium virgin levels, and spawning biomass relative to the levels predicted to exist presently in the absence of fishing”. Furthermore, it was considered that the assessments were instances of where there had been a thorough examination of model sensitivity. The most recent assessment of yellowfin tuna identified a number of uncertainties of which alternative assumptions regarding the modelling of tagging data, assumed steepness and natural mortality were the most important. However the main conclusions of the assessment were robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored. The main uncertainties were also considered in the recent evaluation of the risks of breaching the LRP (SPC-OFP 2014). We are therefore of the view that relevant precautionary issues have been considered and that both the SG -80 and SG 100 scoring issues have been met

Justification

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 158 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 1.1.2 Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock

c The target reference The target reference point is such point is such that the that the stock is maintained at a stock is maintained at a level consistent with BMSY or some level consistent with BMSY measure or surrogate with similar

or some measure or intent or outcome, or a higher surrogate with similar level, and takes into account intent or outcome. relevant precautionary issues such as the ecological role of the stock

Guidepost with a high degree of certainty. Met? Yes No

BMSY is the default target reference point and this clearly meets the requirements of the SG 80 level. Precautionary issues have not been considered with a high degree of certainty in the choice of this default reference point. The requirements of this scoring issue at the SG 100 level are therefore not met.

Justification d For key low trophic level stocks, the target reference point takes into account the ecological role of the stock.

Guidepost Met? Not relevant

Yellowfin tuna is not a low trophic level stock.

Justification Davies et al. 2014, SPC-OFP 2014 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: The SG 60 scoring issue, the three SG 80 scoring issues and one of the two SG 100 90 scoring issues are met, therefore a score of 90 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 159 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.3 Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Where stocks are Where stocks are depleted,

depleted rebuilding strategies are demonstrated to be strategies, which have a rebuilding stocks continuously and reasonable expectation there is strong evidence that of success, are in place. rebuilding will be complete within

Guidepost the specified timeframe. Met? N/A N/A Not scored- Stock is not depleted

Justification b A rebuilding timeframe A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable is specified for the specified for the depleted rebuilding timeframe is specified depleted stock that is stock that is the shorter which does not exceed one the shorter of 30 years of 20 years or 2 times its generation time for the depleted or 3 times its generation generation time. For stock. time. For cases where 3 cases where 2 generations is less than 5 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 timeframe is up to 5 years. years.

Guidepost Met? N/A N/A N/A

Not scored- Stock is not depleted

Justification c Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that determine whether the they are rebuilding rebuilding strategies are stocks, or it is highly likely effective in rebuilding based on simulation

the stock within a modelling or previous specified timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the stock within a specified

Guidepost timeframe. Met? N/A N/A

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 160 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Where the stock is depleted, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.3 specified timeframe Not scored- Stock is not depleted

fication

Justi

References

Not OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Not relevant scored

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 161 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1

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

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is responsive expected to achieve responsive to the state of to the state of the stock and is stock management the stock and the designed to achieve stock objectives reflected in elements of the harvest management objectives reflected the target and limit strategy work together in the target and limit reference

reference points. towards achieving points. management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference

Guidepost points. Met? Yes No Not scored The harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin has several contributing components, with WCPFC, PNA and national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. There are, however, no formal harvest control rules. The measures applied to yellowfin tuna take the same form as those applied to skipjack tuna and the elements are similarly assessed as being expected to achieve stock management objectives meeting the requirements of the SG 60 level. Given the greater level of depletion of yellowfin tuna than for skipjack tuna, its continued decline, the absence of agreed harvest control rules within WCPFC or PNA for any other tuna species, and the record of failing to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna so that they have now become overfished (see PI 2.1.1), reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy would be responsive to the state of the stock or that the elements will work together when required to do so to achieve the management objectives The original skipjack assessment also noted that it was not clear that coherent management actions are applied throughout the range of the stock, particularly in Indonesia and the Philippines. Similar concerns apply to yellowfin tuna and prevent the conclusion that the strategy is designed to achieve stock management objectives. Yellowfin tuna is therefore considered to meet the SG 60 level of this scoring issue but not the SG 80 or SG 100 levels.

Justification b The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the harvest

likely to work based on not have been fully strategy has been fully evaluated prior experience or tested but evidence and evidence exists to show that it plausible argument. exists that it is achieving is achieving its objectives including its objectives. being clearly able to maintain

Guidepost stocks at target levels. Met? Yes Yes Not scored

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 162 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

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

Yellowfin tuna are in a more depleted condition than skipjack tuna but it is still assessed as being above its target and the status quo stock projections undertaken indicate that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014a). Furthermore, the most recent stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014) indicates that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. Therefore, as for skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna is considered to meet both the SG 60 and SG 80 levels of this scoring issue.

Justification c Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

Guidepost Met? Yes

The same monitoring is also in place for yellowfin as for skipjack tuna and SG 60 requirements are also met for yellowfin tuna.

Justification d The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Guidepost Met? Not scored

Not scored as not all SG 80 requirements are met.

Justification e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place.

Guidepost Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 163 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

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

Sharks are not a target species (or even a main retained species) of this fishery. This PI is

therefore not relevant.

Justification References Davies et al. 2014; Pilling et al. 2014a OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: The three SG 60 scoring issues are met and one of two SG 80 scoring issues are met 70 indicating a score of 70. CONDITION NUMBER 3:

Demonstrate that the harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 164 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 Recent advice from MSC about the scoring of this PI has suggested that the clarified requirements and guidance from CR V2 be used to avoid potentially conflicting assessment conclusions among overlapping fisheries for Scoring Issues a and c. Text from V2.0 has therefore replaced the V1.3 text for these scoring issues below. There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Generally understood Well defined harvest The HCRs are expected to keep harvest rules are in place control rules are in place the stock fluctuating at or above a that are consistent with that are consistent with target level consistent with MSY, the harvest strategy and the harvest strategy and or another more appropriate level which act to reduce the ensure that the taking into account the ecological

exploitation rate as limit exploitation rate is role of the stock, most of the time. reference points are reduced as limit approached. reference points are

uidepost

G CR v2.0: Generally approached. understood HCRs are in place or available that are expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment (PRI) is approached. Met? Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 165 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” issued on 24th November PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (a) is scored here using CR v2.0 provisions for SG60 scoring. The revised wording is shown above. The wording of the SG80 scoring issue does not change. A generally understood HCR is taken here to mean one that is not well defined, as otherwise there is no distinction between requirements at the SG60 and SG80 levels. This PI is also assessed taking account the guidance for scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 containing in CR v2.0 SA2.5.2, SA2.5.3 and SA2.5.5. This options for scoring ‘available’ HCRs is intended to cover the situation where even generally understood HCRs are not yet clearly in place for a fishery. For WCPFC fisheries, including yellowfin tuna, there are measures for controlling fishing effort through closures, limits on fishing capacity and, for vessels involved, through limits on fishing days under the VDS. There are expectations about responses and examples of how actions have been implemented for species such as bigeye tuna, but there is no clear linkage between changes in stock status and the management actions. Therefore we do not consider that even generally understood HCRS are in place and the options for ‘available’ HCRs are therefore evaluated below. The first question to address is whether there are HCRs that meet the requirements for being considered as ‘available’. The guidance in SA2.5.2a indicates that teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs in cases where, “…Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2 generation times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within the next 5 years”. As noted at PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the 2014 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and, as for skipjack, has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (Davies et al, 2014a). The stock assessment estimates spawning biomass for yellowfin tuna, SB, to be at 38% of unfished levels in 2012 (SBF=0) and 1.24 times the implicit, and MSC default, TRP of SBMSY. The stock is estimated to have never

Justification been reduced to SBMSY and has hence been above SBMSY in all years. According to WCPFC (2014a), paragraph 37, “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) depends upon assumptions on future recruitment. When spawner-recruitment relationship conditions are assumed, spawning biomass is predicted to increase and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished (SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or to fall below SBMSY, nor to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY). If recent (2002-2011) actual recruitments are assumed, spawning biomass will remain relatively constant, and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished or to become subject to overfishing, and it was very unlikely (2%) that the spawning biomass would fall below SBMSY.” An estimate of the generation time of yellowfin tuna using the MSC definition (Box GSA4 in CR v2.0) is not available but SPC have produced an estimate of 5 years by a different method (Berger et al. 2013) and by any method of estimation 2 generation times will be much less than the 20 years used in the projections mentioned above. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are therefore considered to be ‘available’. The second question to address is whether these available HCRs meet the requirement for reducing the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The guidance in SA2.5.3 requires that “Teams shall recognise ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where, a. HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control of the same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; or b. An agreement or framework in place that requires the management body (in this case WCPFC) to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below Bmsy”.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 166 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

There are CMMs that are in place for a range of tuna species within the WCPFC (including yellowfin) that contain a range of management measures that are designed to constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, none are considered to more highly developed than the measures currently in place for yellowfin tuna and therefore they do not offer an example of effectiveness in reducing exploitation as the PRI is approached. Option a. is therefore not considered to be met. Option b. examines plans for the introduction of an effective HCR. WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2014-06 (WCPFC, 2014) sets out definitions of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The Commission agreed to adopt a work plan at its 2015 annual meeting, with potential revision in 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules is already well underway through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. We note that there is no specific requirement in CMM 2014-06 linking implementation of the HCRs to stock projections. Nevertheless, given that yellowfin tuna are projected to remain well above MSY for many years and that the process it describes has already been initiated, we have considered that the requirements of SA2.5.3b are met. The requirements of the SG60 level are therefore considered to be met. In summary, generally understood HCRs are not in place. Yellowfin is a stock that has not previously been reduced below MSY that has always been maintained well above the default TRP and, based on projections provided, is unlikely to become overfished or to experience overfishing. Therefore this stock meets the requirements to be considered against "availability" requirements. In the WCPF, HCRSs are not effectively used in any other WCPFC-managed UoAs. However, there is a framework that is in place, expected to develop further that will require the WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any detectable, projected risk that yellowfin stock status could decline below BMSY.

b The selection of the The design of the harvest control harvest control rules rules takes into account a wide takes into account the range of uncertainties.

Guidepost main uncertainties. Met? No Not scored

The ‘available’ harvest control rules are not sufficiently articulated to allow an evaluation of the extent to which they take uncertainties into account. When well-defined HCRs are developed they can be evaluated as to whether the main uncertainties have been taken into account.

Justification The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 167 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

c There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows that the that tools used to indicates that the tools in tools in use are effective in implement harvest use are appropriate and achieving the exploitation levels control rules are effective in achieving the required under the harvest control appropriate and exploitation levels rules.

effective in controlling required under the exploitation. harvest control rules. There is some evidence

Guidepost that tools used or available to implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. Met? Yes No Not scored

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 168 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” issued on 24th November PI 1.2.2 scoring issue (c) is also scored here using CR v2.0 provisions for SG60 scoring. There is also additional guidance in v2.0 and two specific requirements. Firstly, when teams have recognised ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached ‘available’ under SA2.5.3b (see scoring issue (a) above), CR v2.0 SA2.5.5b requires that teams shall include in their rationale a description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs. The agreement is contained in CMM 2014-06 whose objective is “To agree that the Commission shall develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for each of the key fisheries or stocks under the purview of the Commission according to the process set out in this conservation and management measure.” This CMM contains general principles (including a description of a harvest strategy) and principles and elements of the proposed harvest strategies (which are consistent with the MSC definitions). The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules (or “harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The specified timelines are that “The Commission shall agree a workplan and indicative timeframes to adopt or refine harvest strategies for skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, South Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin and northern albacore1 tuna by no later than the twelfth meeting of the Commission in 2015. This workplan will be subject to review in 2017.” Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated before this CMM was passed through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process and requires no additional trigger for their development. The requirements of SA2.5.5b are therefore considered to be met. Furthermore, CR v2.0 SA2.5.6 requires that, in scoring issue (c) for “evidence” teams shall include consideration of the current levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available. The most recent stock assessment for yellowfin tuna (Davies et al. 2014) and the status quo projections (Pilling et al. 2014a) provide some evidence that the tools in use (the VDS and WCPFC effort limits) are effective in controlling exploitation of skipjack tuna and achieving the exploitation levels that are required. As noted above, these indicate that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level, that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY and that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032. The current levels of exploitation are therefore acceptable and the requirements of SA2.5.6 are met. This meets the requirements of the SG60 level. The HCRs are only regarded as being ‘available’ in scoring issue (a) and not ‘in place’, so we have considered that it is not possible to score more than 60 for issue (c) since the SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery and not the tools ‘in use or available’. In any case, not all available evidence indicates that current exploitation is adequately contained as

catches of yellowfin are still increasing and fishing mortality has increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing. So the effectiveness of the CMM 2014-01 for restricting fishing mortality to previous levels is not well demonstrated. The requirements of the SG80 level are therefore not met.

Justification

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 169 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place

Berger et al. (2013), Davies et al. 2014, Pilling et al. 2014a, WCPFC 2014a (Science report), References WCPFC 2014 (CMM for HCRs).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4 SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined harvest control rules are in place for yellowfin tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.

SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules shall take into account the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 170 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of information related to information related to information (on stock structure, stock structure, stock stock structure, stock stock productivity, fleet productivity and fleet productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, composition is available composition and other fishery removals and other

to support the harvest data is available to information such as strategy. support the harvest environmental information),

epost strategy. including some that may not be directly related to the current

Guid harvest strategy, is available. Met? Yes Yes Yes The information and monitoring system that is in place for skipjack tuna catches is also applicable to yellowfin tuna. Therefore the same rationale and scores also applicable to yellowfin tuna. There is a comprehensive range of information collected related to the fishery including the elements required to meet the SG 100 level.

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

control rule. indicators are available assessment and management to and monitored with this uncertainty. sufficient frequency to support the harvest

Guidepost control rule. Met? Yes Yes No

The information and monitoring system that is in place for skipjack tuna catches is also applicable to yellowfin tuna. Therefore the same rationale and scores also applicable to yellowfin tuna. As noted in the original assessment for skipjack tuna (Banks et al. 2011) stock abundance and removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage that is sufficient to support the harvest control measures in place. There is not, however, a high degree of certainty about all the information required, with operational level data not provided for some parts of the fishery.

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

c There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock.

Guidepost Met? Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 171 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

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

Justification requirements of the SG 80 level are also met for yellowfin tuna. References Davies et al. 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Both SG 60 scoring issues, all three SG 80 scoring issues, and the first of the SG 100 scoring issues are considered to be met. The second scoring issue at SG 100 is not 90 considered to be met. Meeting one of two scoring issues at the SG 100 level indicates a score of 90 is appropriate.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 172 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The assessment is The assessment is appropriate for appropriate for the stock the stock and for the harvest

and for the harvest control rule and takes into control rule. account the major features relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the

Guidepost fishery. Met? Yes Yes The type of assessment applied to yellowfin tuna is practically identical to that used for skipjack tuna. It is an integrated, model-based assessment that is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment program at the SPC. It takes into account major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the fishery. It therefore meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue.

Justification

b The assessment estimates stock status relative to reference points.

Guidepost Met? Yes

The assessment reports provide a wide range of estimates of stock status relative to

indicators of interest to management including the reference points. This therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue.

Justification

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

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes Yes

As for skipjack tuna, the assessment of yellowfin tuna has provided explicit commentary on

the major sources of uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue.

Justification

d The assessment has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been

Guidepost rigorously explored. Met? Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 173 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

There is an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and approaches by the staff in the SPC-OFP. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required.

Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data and a suite of sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case.

The assessment for yellowfin tuna has been shown to be robust and therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue. We note that there has been no simulation testing of the model but such testing is not

Justification necessary to meet the requirements.

e The assessment of stock The assessment has been status is subject to peer internally and externally peer review. reviewed.

Guidepost Met? Yes No

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

Justification 100 level. References Ianelli et al. 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All scoring issues are considered to be met at all levels indicating that a score of 100 95 is warranted

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 174 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 175 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Principle 2 The fisheries for skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna are considered to have identical impacts on P2 species so separate evaluation tables are not presented.

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main retained species Main retained species are There is a high degree of certainty are likely to be within highly likely to be within that retained species are within biologically based limits biologically based limits biologically based limits and (if not, go to scoring (if not, go to scoring issue fluctuating around their target

Guidepost issue c below). c below). reference points. Met? No No Bigeye tuna is the only main retained species. The most recent assessment (Harley et al.

2014b) indicates that the stock is close to the limit reference point and continues to decline. This does not meet the requirements for the SG 60 level and therefore see scoring issue c below.

Justification

b Target reference points are defined for retained species.

Guidepost Met? Not scored

Not scored.

Justification c If main retained species If main retained species are outside the limits are outside the limits there are measures in there is a partial strategy

place that are expected of demonstrably effective to ensure that the management measures fishery does not hinder in place such that the recovery and rebuilding fishery does not hinder

Guidepost of the depleted species. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 176 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the PI 2.1.1 retained species and does not hinder recovery of depleted retained species

As described in the background text and illustrated in Figure 6, the catch of bigeye tuna by the UoC is quite minor and continues to represent only a very small proportion of the total fishing mortality on this species. The fishery is therefore not hindering the recovery and rebuilding of the depleted species, which meets the requirements of the SG 60 level.

Purse seine fishing for yellowfin tuna on Fish Aggregating Devices and longline fishing are responsible for the majority of the catch of bigeye tuna. Fishing using purse seines on free schools, the specified method for the UoC, does not catch many bigeye tuna. The use of this fishing method is therefore effective in ensuring that the fishery will not hinder the

Justification recovery of bigeye tuna. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 level. d If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected

to result in the fishery not causing the retained species to be outside biologically based limits

Guidepost or hindering recovery. Met? Not scored

Not scored. The status of bigeye tuna is not poorly known.

Justification References Harley et al. 2014b

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

No condition required

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 177 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing retained species. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main retained the main retained species species at levels which at levels which are highly are highly likely to be likely to be within

within biologically based biologically based limits, limits, or to ensure the or to ensure the fishery fishery does not hinder does not hinder their their recovery and recovery and rebuilding.

Guidepost rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Not scored The main measure that ensures that the fishery does not hinder the recovery of bigeye tuna is the prescribed fishing method for the UoC. Very few bigeye tuna are caught in unassociated purse seine sets. There is also a range of additional measures in CMM 2014- 01 that are mainly aimed at fishing on FADs and longline fishing. This meets the requirements for the SG 60 level. No other measures are necessary but there is ongoing monitoring of the status of bigeye tuna and the proportion of the total catch that the UoC represents. This system of ongoing monitoring and assessment, which includes observer coverage, is considered to constitute a strategy for the management of the impact of the fishery on bigeye tuna. At present this strategy is effective in minimising the marginal contribution of the fishery

cation to the total mortality of bigeye tuna, which is not currently within biologically based limits, predominantly because of the catch by other gears and fishing methods.

Justifi This meets the requirements of the SG 80 level. b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based

work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g., general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or

Guidepost fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Yes Yes Not scored

The measures have been shown to keep the catch of bigeye tuna at a minor level (Harley

n et al. 2014a). The results of the periodic assessments of bigeye tuna provide an objective basis for confidence that fishing by the UoC will remain a negligible contributor to total fishing mortality of this species and will continue to not hinder the species recovery. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

Justificatio c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully.

Guidepost

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 178 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to PI 2.1.2 ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained species Met? Yes Not scored

The level of catch of bigeye tuna by the UoC remains small compared to other fishing methods and gears. This represents evidence that the strategy used in the management of fishing by the UoC is being implemented successfully. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 level.

Justification d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.

Guidepost Met? Not scored

Justification

e It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of certainty finning is not taking shark finning is not taking that shark finning is not taking place. place. place.

Guidepost Met? Yes No Not scored

The low levels of shark finning that have been recorded with 100% observer coverage (0% for the Tri Marine fleet and 0.1% of sets for other U.S. vessels in 2013) and the measures contained in CMM 2010-07 lead us to conclude that it is likely that shark finning is not taking place in any systematic way. This meets the requirements of the SG 60. We do not, however, consider that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place given the concerns expressed by the TCC about the level of reporting, the ambiguity of the

n fin-to-carcass ratio method for monitoring compliance, the subsequent inability of the WCPFC to determine compliance with this measure, and the lack of any clear sanctions for the few reported cases on non-compliance. The requirements of the SG 80 level are therefore not considered to be met.

Justificatio Harley et al. 2014a References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 Three of four SG 80 issues are met therefore a score of 75 is warranted CONDITION NUMBER 5: Demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place or that, if rare cases are reported, that measures are taken to address the issue.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 179 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable

is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main retained information are available catch of all retained species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. retained species taken by affected populations.

Guidepost the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No The information available on the catch of bigeye tuna is comparable to that available for skipjack tuna. It is based upon logbooks and observer records. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. The information is partially dependent, however, on records of species composition from observer sampling which are used to provide final catch estimates. The accuracy of the catch data, although not strictly verifiable, is sufficient to have allowed the consequences of the fishery for the status of bigeye tuna to be reliably estimated. The same cannot be said about all other retained species. Data are collected by the observer programs and logbooks but the consequences for their populations (although likely to be minor) have not been evaluated.

Justification This does not meet the requirements of the SG 100 level.

b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to to qualitatively assess to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with a high degree of respect to biologically biologically based limits. certainty.

Guidepost based limits. Met? Yes Yes No

The information on bigeye tuna has been used to produce a coherent quantitative assessment of it status. The main conclusions of the assessment are considered robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored and therefore there is a high degree of certainty about the status of bigeye tuna.

The information available on other retained species is also regarded as sufficient to quantitatively estimate their outcome status but not with the same high certainty as for bigeye tuna. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Justification c Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to

to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage manage main retained strategy to manage main retained species, and evaluate species. retained species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving

Guidepost its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 180 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Information on the nature and extent of retained species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage retained species Bigeye tuna is the only main retained species. The information that is available on bigeye tuna is quite comprehensive and is clearly sufficient to support a sophisticated quantitative stock assessment. It is therefore also sufficient to support a complete strategy for the management of bigeye tuna and to evaluate how successful this strategy is. Information available on other retained species is considered adequate to support a partial strategy but not sufficient to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether such a strategy is achieving its objective.

Justification This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level. d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of retained species is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk level assess ongoing mortalities to all (e.g. due to changes in retained species.

the outcome indicator score or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost strategy) Met? Yes Yes

The data that have been used in the monitoring and assessment of bigeye tuna, and are collected on other retained species, continue to be collected and the data collection systems are being continually improved. The data are sufficient to detect any increase in risk level and are collected in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortality of all retained species. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Justification Harley et al. 2014a References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All scoring issues are met at the SG 80 level and one of four are met at the SG 100 85 level, so a score of 85 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 181 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main bycatch species are Main bycatch species are There is a high degree of certainty likely to be within highly likely to be within that bycatch species are within biologically based limits biologically based limits biologically based limits. (if not, go to scoring (if not, go to scoring issue

Guidepost issue b below). b below). Met? Yes Yes No There are no main bycatch species therefore the fishery meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

There is not a high degree of certainty about the status of all bycatch species that are caught in this fishery even though its contribution to their total mortality is likely to be minimal. The requirements of the SG 100 level are therefore not considered to be met.

Justification b If main bycatch species If main bycatch species are outside biologically are outside biologically based limits there are based limits there is a mitigation measures in partial strategy of

place that are expected demonstrably effective to ensure that the mitigation measures in fishery does not hinder place such that the recovery and rebuilding. fishery does not hinder

Guidepost recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes

There are no main bycatch species therefore the fishery meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

Justification c If the status is poorly known there are measures or practices in place that are expected

to result in the fishery not causing the bycatch species to be outside biologically based limits

Guidepost or hindering recovery. Met? Not scored

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 182 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the bycatch PI 2.2.1 species or species groups and does not hinder recovery of depleted bycatch species or species groups There are no main bycatch species therefore this scoring issue is not scored.

Justification

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met but not the one SG 100 requirement. A 80 score of 80 is therefore warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 183 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing and minimizing bycatch. are expected to maintain is expected to maintain the main bycatch species the main bycatch species at levels which are highly at levels which are highly

likely to be within likely to be within biologically based limits, biologically based limits, or to ensure the fishery or to ensure the fishery does not hinder their does not hinder their

Guidepost recovery and rebuilding. recovery and rebuilding. Met? Yes Yes Yes There are no main bycatch species so no measures are required for their management and

the requirements of SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met. There is a strategy in place for minimizing the bycatch group of most concern in the form of CMMs concerning sharks in general (CMM 2010-07). This meets the requirements for the SG 100 level.

Justification b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based

work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on some fishery and/or species involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or

Guidepost fisheries/species). species involved. Met? Yes Yes No

The measures in place are considered likely to ensure that the fishery continues to pose no risk of serious or irreversible harm to any bycatch species based on the currently low levels of bycatch and 100% observer coverage for the fishery. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 level. The data from the observer programmes provide an objective basis for confidence about the strategy and provide information directly about the fishery. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 level. There has been no formal testing of the strategy and there is not high confidence that it will work for all bycatch species because of the issues noted for uneven levels of reporting among CCMs, a consequent problem for determining levels of compliance with the measures, and a lack of information about the application of sanctions in cases of non- compliance with CMMs. The requirements of the SG 100 level are not considered to be met.

Justification

c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully.

Guidepost

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 184 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There is a strategy in place for managing bycatch that is designed to ensure PI 2.2.2 the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to bycatch populations Met? Yes No

The data from the observer programmes provides evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully, which meets the requirements of the SG 80 level. There is not clear evidence, however, that the strategy is being implemented successfully for all bycatch species. As noted above, the reporting by CCMs is uneven and levels of compliance have not been clearly determined by the TCC. The requirements of the SG 100 level are not considered to be met.

Justification

d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its overall objective.

Guidepost Met? No

The overall objective is to keep bycatch levels sufficiently low so as to keep the species within biologically based limits. The failure of CMMs for silky sharks to keep this species within such limits, however, provides evidence that this objective is not being met (for this species at least). The requirements of the SG 100 level are not considered to be met.

Justification References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met and one of four SG 100 level requirements are 85 met. Therefore a score of 85 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 185 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Qualitative information Qualitative information Accurate and verifiable

is available on the and some quantitative information is available on the amount of main bycatch information are available catch of all bycatch species and species taken by the on the amount of main the consequences for the status of fishery. bycatch species taken by affected populations.

Guidepost the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No There are no main bycatch species so no measures are required for their management and the requirements of SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met.

The regional observer program that has been established and the use of 100% observer coverage for the fleet is deemed to be sufficient to provide accurate and verifiable information on the catch of all bycatch species. There are over 200 species that have been recorded as bycatch including those shown in

Table 5. The consequences of this catch for the status of the affected populations are known for some (e.g. silky shark), but not all, of the bycatch species.

Justification The requirements of the SG 100 level are therefore not met.

b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is sufficient to to broadly understand to estimate outcome quantitatively estimate outcome outcome status with status with respect to status with respect to biologically respect to biologically biologically based limits. based limits with a high degree of

Guidepost based limits certainty. Met? Yes Yes No

The information available is sufficient to estimate outcome status but not quantitatively with a high degree of certainty for all (over 200) bycatch species. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Justification c Information is adequate Information is adequate Information is adequate to

to support measures to to support a partial support a strategy to manage manage bycatch. strategy to manage main retained species, and evaluate bycatch species. with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving

Guidepost its objective. Met? Yes Yes No

There are no main bycatch species so the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels are met.

Information available on other bycatch species is considered adequate to support a partial strategy but not sufficient to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether such a strategy is achieving its objective for all the >200 bycatch species. The requirements of the SG 100 level are therefore not met.

Justification

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 186 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Information on the nature and the amount of bycatch is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage bycatch d Sufficient data continue Monitoring of bycatch data is to be collected to detect conducted in sufficient detail to any increase in risk to assess ongoing mortalities to all main bycatch species bycatch species. (e.g., due to changes in

the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectively of the

Guidepost strategy). Met? Yes Yes

There are no main retained species so no measures are required for their management

and the requirements of SG 80 level are met. Given the 100% coverage by the regional observer programme there is sufficient data to assess the mortalities of all bycatch species, meeting SG 100.

Justification

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All scoring issues are met at the SG 60 and SG 80 levels and one of four are met at 85 the SG 100 level, therefore a score of 85 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 187 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Known effects of the The effects of the fishery There is a high degree of certainty fishery are likely to be are known and are highly that the effects of the fishery are

within limits of national likely to be within limits within limits of national and and international of national and international requirements for requirements for international protection of ETP species. protection of ETP requirements for

Guidepost species. protection of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Sharks and rays Sharks are not commonly caught in the fishery and there are requirements (from both the WCPFC and the U.S. government) prohibiting the retention and mandating the quick release of whale sharks and Oceanic whitetip sharks. There are also provisions (in both WCPFC CMMs and U.S. regulations) prohibiting the intentional setting of purse seines on whale sharks. Oceanic whitetip sharks are the only shark species considered under this PI which are considered overfished but the most recent assessment of their status (Rice and Harley 2012a) indicates that unassociated purse seine catches do not contribute significantly to the mortality of this species. The bycatch of all other shark species, which is monitored by 100% observer coverage, is quite low and therefore there is a high degree of certainty that the effects on populations from this fishery would be within national and international limits for protection.

Cetaceans There are several species of cetaceans for which interactions have been recorded but the number of individuals involved is very small. As noted above, there is 100% observer coverage and therefore a high degree of certainty that the effects on populations from this fishery would be within national and international limits for protection.

Turtles There are several species of turtles for which interactions have been recorded but the number of individuals involved is very small. As noted for the other groups, there is 100% observer coverage and therefore a high degree of certainty that the effects on populations from this fishery would be within national and international limits for protection. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels for all the elements

Justification that need to be considered here.

b Known direct effects are Direct effects are highly There is a high degree of unlikely to create unlikely to create confidence that there are no unacceptable impacts to unacceptable impacts to significant detrimental direct ETP species. ETP species. effects of the fishery on ETP

Guidepost species. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 188 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species and does not hinder recovery of ETP species

The low numbers of individuals that are involved for all groups which are determined from 100% observer coverage of the fleet, provides a high degree of certainty that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the fishery on any ETP species. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Justification c Indirect effects have There is a high degree of been considered and are confidence that there are no thought to be unlikely to significant detrimental indirect create unacceptable effects of the fishery on ETP impacts. species.

Guidepost Met? Yes No

Indirect trophic effects of fishing for tuna on sharks and rays, cetaceans and turtles, and other components of the ecosystem have been considered through a variety of modelling approaches (Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007) and, although the impacts are not negligible, they have not been considered irreversible and no particular impacts on ETP species have been identified. In addition to sharks and rays, cetaceans and turtles, for which there are known direct effects and potential indirect effects of the fishery, there is also the potential for indirect effects on seabirds. Indirect effects of the fishery include the potential for the reduced abundance of tuna to foraging opportunities for seabirds and hence their subsequent reproductive output (Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2012), and for there to be other trophic impacts from the reduction in the abundance of these predators in the ecosystem. It is quite plausible that the tuna fishery may have an impact on seabirds because there is a well-known association between feeding seabirds and tuna (Au and Pitman 1986) and evidence of positive correlations between CPUE in a tuna fishery and seabird foraging (see background section of the report). A causal linkage has not been demonstrated, however, nor has a level of decline in a seabird population been linked to the indirect effect of reductions in tuna populations from fishing, as opposed to shifts in the distribution of tuna in response to changed oceanographic conditions.

The indirect effects have thus been considered and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on any ETP species but the level of evidence is insufficient to assign a high degree of confidence to this conclusion. The requirements of the SG 80 level but not of the SG 100 level are therefore considered

Justification to be met for each of the elements. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority 2012, Au and Pitman 1986, Kitchell et al. 1999, References Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007, Rice and Harley 2012a.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All SG 60 and SG 80 scoring issues are met and 2 of 3 SG 100 issues, so a score of 95 95 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 189 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a comprehensive strategy place that minimise place for managing the in place for managing the fishery’s mortality of ETP species, fishery’s impact on ETP impact on ETP species, including and are expected to be species, including measures to minimise mortality, highly likely to achieve measures to minimise which is designed to achieve national and mortality, which is above national and international

international designed to be highly requirements for the protection of requirements for the likely to achieve national ETP species. protection of ETP and international species. requirements for the

Guidepost protection of ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No The CMMs (and matching U.S. regulations) that are in place are listed and described in the background sections. These require measures to reduce mortality of sharks generally (CMM 2010-07), CMMs with specific measures for silky sharks (2013-08), oceanic whitetip sharks (CMM 2011-04) and whale sharks (CMM 2012-04), as well as CMMs for cetaceans (2011-03), and for turtles (CMM 2008-03). These are considered to constitute a comprehensive strategy to manage the fishery’s impact of ETP species. The design of this strategy is considered highly likely to achieve the national and international requirements for protection. It is not, however, assessed as being designed to achieve above these requirements. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not the SG 100 level for each of these elements. For the potential effects of purse seine fishing on seabirds, no direct management strategy is required because interactions are so rare and the potential effects are indirect. Seabird measures of WCPFC are directed at longline fishing, where direct mortalities occur, not purse seine. The management measures that aim to maintain tuna populations at levels that also account for their role in the ecosystem indirectly should also account for the potential for indirect effects on seabirds.

Justification b The measures are There is an objective The strategy is mainly based on considered likely to basis for confidence that information directly about the

work, based on plausible the strategy will work, fishery and/or species involved, argument (e.g., general based on information and a quantitative analysis experience, theory or directly about the fishery supports high confidence that the comparison with similar and/or the species strategy will work.

Guidepost fisheries/species). involved. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 190 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. The measures contained in the various CMMs listed above are based on information obtained from observers and others involved in the fishery or with experience with the species involved. The results of ongoing monitoring of interaction rates by the fishery for each of the elements considered also provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy for each group is likely to work. The quantitative analyses that have been undertaken for some species (e.g. oceanic whitetip sharks: Clarke 2011, Rice and Harley 2012a) provide information on current population status but even if these cases do not provide evidence that allows there to be a high level of confidence that the relevant strategy will work. Many species in other groups have not been assessed at all.

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

c There is evidence that There is clear evidence that the the strategy is being strategy is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully.

Guidepost Met? Yes No

There is evidence that the most requirements of the strategy are being implemented successfully through the data collected from the observer programs (with 100% observer coverage) and through the information on mortalities contained in the National Reports to the WCPFC. The lack of transparency about Part 2 reports to the WCPFC, that contain details of compliance with CMMs means that there is not clear evidence of their successful implementation. This applies to the CMMs that address the direct impacts on sharks and rays, on cetaceans and on turtles. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 level but not of the SG 100 level.

For the potential indirect impacts on seabirds, the strategy is indirect and the evidence of successful implementation would also be indirect, in the form of the implementation of the tuna CMMs. This would also meet at least the SG 80 level.

Justification

d There is evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Guidepost Met? No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 191 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery has in place precautionary management strategies designed to:  Meet national and international requirements; PI 2.3.2  Ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious harm to ETP species;  Ensure the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and  Minimise mortality of ETP species. Despite there being 100% observer coverage, there are limited data on the life status of released species and their subsequent survival, so it is uncertain whether the overall objectives are being achieved. Survival rates are also likely to vary among groups depending on a range of factors. There are four parts to the evaluation of objectives as outlined in the CR: meeting national and international requirements; ensuring that the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ETP species; ensuring that the fishery does not hinder recovery of ETP species; and minimizing the mortality of ETP species. For Oceanic whitetip sharks it is too early to expect the impact of CMM 2011-04 to be detectable. For whale sharks the frequency of interactions has been reduced by half over the 10 years up to 2012 but this may be due to better avoidance of them or reduced abundance (Harley et al. 2013). For cetaceans, although the numbers of interactions are low their distribution relative to population structures are not known. For turtles it is likely that the fishery meets all four of the requirements as the number of mortalities are low, post-release survival is likely to be good and therefore the fishery is unlikely to hinder recovery. Good evidence for these results, however, is not easily found.

Justification Overall, however, across all the elements this scoring issue is not considered to be met. Clarke 2011, Rice and Harley 2012a References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All SG 60 and SG 80 scoring issues are met but none of the SG 100 scoring issues, 80 so a score of 80 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 192 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is sufficient Sufficient information is Information is sufficient to

to qualitatively estimate available to allow fishery quantitatively estimate outcome the fishery related related mortality and the status of ETP species with a high mortality of ETP species. impact of fishing to be degree of certainty. quantitatively estimated

Guidepost for ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No The information collected by the observer program has been used to provide quantitative estimates of the observed fishery related mortality of all the different elements that are scored as ETP species, which are reported in the background sections of the report. These data are currently not sufficient, however, to estimate outcome status for all ETP species with a high degree of certainty with a few exceptions that are either clearly very depleted (e.g. oceanic whitetip sharks) or are known to be still abundant (e.g. some cetaceans).

Justification This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level. b Information is adequate Information is sufficient Accurate and verifiable

to broadly understand to determine whether information is available on the the impact of the fishery the fishery may be a magnitude of all impacts, on ETP species. threat to protection and mortalities and injuries and the recovery of the ETP consequences for the status of

Guidepost species. ETP species. Met? Yes Yes No

The information collected by the observer program provides accurate and generally verifiable information on the level of direct mortalities and is sufficient to determine the level of threat posed by the fishery to ETP species, including sharks, cetaceans and turtles. The information collected does not, however, include life status on release and so does not provide estimates of the level of injuries that may be sustained, which may lead to the later deaths of some animals. As outlined in the background section, individuals are also frequently not identified to species level. It cannot be said, therefore, that all mortalities and all impacts are covered.

Justification This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level. c Information is adequate Information is sufficient Information is adequate to to support measures to to measure trends and support a comprehensive strategy

manage the impacts on support a full strategy to to manage impacts, minimize ETP species. manage impacts on ETP mortality and injury of ETP species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a

Guidepost strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 193 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Relevant information is collected to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. The information is clearly sufficient to support the current strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. There are, however, remaining issues with the data collected. Potential indirect effects and problems with species identification have been mentioned under scoring issue a above. For cetaceans in particular, although mortalities are not common, there is also a need to understand population structure and to be able to attribute mortalities to particular demographically-independent populations. Collectively these

ication issues are considered sufficient to prevent the conclusion that there is a high degree of certainty about whether the objectives are being achieved for all ETP species.

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

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: All SG 60 and SG 80 scoring issues are met but no SG 100 issues are met so a score 80 of 80 is warranted.

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 194 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure, PI 2.4.1 considered on a regional or bioregional basis, and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery

reduce habitat structure unlikely to reduce habitat is highly unlikely to reduce habitat and function to a point structure and function to structure and function to a point where there would be a point where there where there would be serious or serious or irreversible would be serious or irreversible harm.

Guidepost harm. irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes Yes This purse seine fishery is undertaken in deep oceanic waters and does not physically impact the seafloor during operations. In addition, as the fishery under assessment targets free schools of skipjack, it is highly unlikely that there will be impacts on habitat. The unassociated fishery has no impact on habitats that would reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm, hence SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met for this performance indicator.

Justification

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 195 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy in place for

place, if necessary, that in place, if necessary, that managing the impact of the are expected to achieve is expected to achieve fishery on habitat types. the Habitat Outcome 80 the Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance. level of performance or

Guidepost above. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Purse seine unassociated sets do not interact with any seafloor habitat during fishing operations. No management strategy is therefore required; however 100% observer coverage provides confidence that catches are being appropriately reported by set type. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

Justification b The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high confidence considered likely to basis for confidence that that the strategy will work, based

work, based on plausible the partial strategy will on information directly about the argument (e.g. general work, based on fishery and/or habitats involved. experience, theory or information directly comparison with similar about the fishery and/or

Guidepost fisheries/habitats). habitats involved. Met? Yes Yes Yes

Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as the sea areas where the fleet operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant impacts on seabed habitats from the fishery. In 2010, the WCPFC adopted measures for 100% coverage of purse seine vessels operating between 20°N and 20°S. This enables monitoring of the reporting of catches by set type, providing high confidence on

Justification information from the fishery and meeting SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements. c There is some evidence There is clear evidence that the that the partial strategy is strategy is being implemented being implemented successfully. successfully.

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes

VMS records for the fleet are available to monitor that purse seine operations are not

carried out in shallow waters where there is a risk to gear or the seabed. Evidence is available from the observer programs that unassociated sets are correctly identified and required data are reported. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

Justification

d There is some evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective.

Guidepost Met? Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 196 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the fishery does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to habitat types The fishing strategy is to catch tuna in the surface layers of the ocean. Evidence is available

from the observer program that unassociated sets are correctly identified and required data are reported. SG 100 requirements are met.

Justification References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 197 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There is basic The nature, distribution The distribution of habitat types is understanding of the and vulnerability of all known over their range, with

types and distribution of main habitat types in the particular attention to the main habitats in the area fishery are known at a occurrence of vulnerable habitat of the fishery. level of detail relevant to types. the scale and intensity of

Guidepost the fishery. Met? Yes Yes Yes

The fishery takes place in the epipelagic habitat and so does not interact with benthic habitat during its operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial range within which the fishery operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Western Pacific Ocean. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

Justification b Information is adequate Sufficient data are The physical impacts of the gear to broadly understand available to allow the on the habitat types have been the nature of the main nature of the impacts of quantified fully. impacts of gear use on the fishery on habitat the main habitats, types to be identified and including spatial overlap there is reliable

of habitat with fishing information on the gear. spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of

Guidepost use of the fishing gear. Met? Yes Yes Yes

The physical, chemical and biological properties of the WCPO are regularly monitored. Physical impacts of the client fishery on pelagic habitat are highly unlikely to occur and quantification of the impact is not required. The fishery meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Justification c Sufficient data continue Changes in habitat distributions to be collected to detect over time are measured. any increase in risk to habitat (e.g. due to

changes in the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of

Guidepost the measures). Met? Yes Yes

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 198 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to habitat types by the PI 2.4.3 fishery and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on habitat types For the unassociated fishery, the habitat under consideration is the pelagic water column and no hard substrate is impacted by the fishery. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the WCPO are regularly monitored. The client vessels all operate under a VMS scheme and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

Justification

References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 199 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 The fishery does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery is unlikely to The fishery is highly There is evidence that the fishery disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the is highly unlikely to disrupt the key

underlying ecosystem key elements underlying elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to ecosystem structure and structure and function to a point a point where there function to a point where where there would be a serious or would be a serious or there would be a serious irreversible harm.

Guidepost irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No Sibert et al. (2006) analysed available data from Pacific tuna fisheries for the period 1950– 2004 to examine fishery impacts on population biomass and size structure. This study suggests it is unlikely that the client fishery is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The study found that fish larger than 175 centimeters fork length decreased from 5% to approximately 1% of the total population. The trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on top-level predators in the Pacific Ocean were substantial but that ecosystem impacts were likely to be minor. Although catches have increased since the study by Sibert et al., available evidence suggests the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Ecopath with Ecosim modelling (Allain et al. 2015) suggests that the structure of the warm pool ecosystem is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community).Direct studies of current fishery removal impacts at the ecosystem level could improve the score. Overall, SG80 requirements are met.

Justification Sibert et al. 2006; Allain et al. 2015 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 200 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are measures in There is a partial strategy There is a strategy that consists of

place, if necessary. in place, if necessary. a plan, in place.

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes No At the regional level, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is used as the framework for sustainable fisheries for an “Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM)”. Tuna are important predatory species in the Pacific Ocean. The WCPFC’s application of the FAO code extends to the highly migratory fish species including tuna through Conservation and Management Measures such as CMM 2014-01 on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack, as well as to the management of non-target species, in particular through Resolution 2005-03 on Non-Target Fish Species and CMMs to

improve the protection of sharks. Although not specifically designed to manage impacts on the ecosystem, the range of measures in place is considered to represent a partial strategy that works to achieve the intended outcome, meeting the requirements of the SG 60 and 80 levels However, the lack of an overall ecosystem management plan for the WCPO prevents SG 100 requirements being met.

Justification b The measures take into The partial strategy takes The strategy, which consists of a account potential into account available plan, contains measures to impacts of the fishery on information and is address all main impacts of the key elements of the expected to restrain fishery on the ecosystem, and at ecosystem. impacts of the fishery on least some of these measures are the ecosystem so as to in place. The plan and measures achieve the Ecosystem are based on well-understood Outcome 80 level of functional relationships between performance. the fishery and the Components and elements of the ecosystem.

This plan provides for

development of a full strategy that restrains impacts on the ecosystem to ensure the fishery does not cause serious or

Guidepost irreversible harm. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 201 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function WCPFC and national measures which form the partial strategy take into account the available information with the expectation that impacts on the ecosystem are restrained. The 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries has been developed as a reference framework for sustainable fisheries addressing ecosystem considerations, principles and goals needed for an EAFM. The FAO code states that fisheries management should ensure the conservation not only of target species, but also sympatric non-target species. This approach is explicit in WCPFC Convention, although tuna fisheries remain managed on single-species basis and there does not does not appear to be integrated domestic and international strategies to manage the ecosystem components of this fishery. WCPFC has adopted measures relating to highly migratory fish species extending to the management of non-target species, in particular through Resolution 2005-03 on Non-Target Fish Species, as well as CMM-2012-01 on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack (including achievement of MSY, seasonal FAD closures for purse seine fishery). Mechanisms to reduce interactions with both target and non-target species include the preparation of Ecological Risk Assessments at regional level (e.g. Kirby and Hobday, 2007). In addition, the FFA started in-country EAFM work in 2005 to generate EAFM reports that will provide the basis for the development of operational and/or tuna management plans. To assist member countries implement EAFM, the FFA have developed a Pacific Islands Forum Fishery Agency EAFM Framework. This framework comprises a number of stages, which lead to the eventual identification and prioritization of issues related to the current state of tuna resources, environment and social-economics. Within the US, there is the Ecosystem Principles Advisory Panel, as mandated by the Sustainable Fisheries Act amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 1996. Overall, there is a partial strategy in place that takes into account available information and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem, meeting SG 80 requirements. Measures in place do not constitute a plan that provides for a full strategy that restrains ecosystem impacts, hence SG 100 is not met.

Justification c The measures are The partial strategy is The measures are considered considered likely to considered likely to work, likely to work based on prior

work, based on plausible based on plausible experience, plausible argument or argument (e.g., general argument (e.g., general information directly from the experience, theory or experience, theory or fishery/ecosystems involved. comparison with similar comparison with similar

Guidepost fisheries/ecosystems). fisheries/ecosystems). Met? Yes Yes No

The regional stock assessments indicate that current harvest strategies and management measures have been successful in maintaining target species about the BMSY level, with the

exception of bigeye tuna. The partial strategy considers the significant sources of fishery related risks to the WCPO ecosystem, namely the removal of target species, risks associated with impacts of bycatch and discarding of a wide range of non-target species. Overall, the partial strategy is considered likely to work and the fishery meets the requirements of SG 60 and 80 levels, but additional examination of ecosystem impacts is

Justification needed to meet the SG 100 level.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 202 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There are measures in place to ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function d There is some evidence There is evidence that the

that the measures measures are being implemented comprising the partial successfully. strategy are being implemented

Guidepost successfully. Met? Yes Yes

As previously indicated, regional stock assessments show that current harvest strategies and management measures have largely been successful in maintaining target species at MSY about the B level. Available ecosystem modelling suggests it is unlikely the client fishery is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The introduction of 100% observer coverage for the purse seine fisheries provides a valuable mechanism for gathering information relevant to monitoring ecosystem impacts. Overall, there is evidence that measures are being implemented successfully. SG 80 and SG 100

Justification requirements are met. Allain et al. 2007; Fletcher 2007; Kirby and Hobday 2007 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 203 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information is adequate Information is adequate to identify the key to broadly understand elements of the the key elements of the

ecosystem (e.g., trophic ecosystem. structure and function, community composition, productivity pattern and

Guidepost biodiversity). Met? Yes Yes A number of organisations are collecting data to improve the knowledge of the structure of the Pacific Ocean pelagic ecosystem. This occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). The adoption of 100% observer coverage for the purse seine fleet will improve the availability of relevant data. However, trophic analyses and mid-trophic level sampling are conducted on a project-by-project basis and are not continuous in space and time. Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, meeting SG 80.

Justification b Main impacts of the Main impacts of the Main interactions between the fishery on these key fishery on these key fishery and these ecosystem

ecosystem elements can ecosystem elements can elements can be inferred from be inferred from existing be inferred from existing existing information, and have information, and have information and some been investigated. not been investigated in have been investigated in

Guidepost detail. detail. Met? Yes Yes No

Trophic structure of pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific, including the WCPO, has been characterised using Ecopath and Ecosim models based on diet data (Allain et al. 2007). SEAPODYM is a dynamic system model developed for investigating spatial tuna population dynamics under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects (Lehodey et al., 2013b). The continued development and application of the SEAPODYM model to the work of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, including its application to tuna and billfish fisheries in the South Pacific, is facilitated through the multi-agency Project 62 which affiliates the

independently funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013b). A list of current projects is given in Lehodey et al. (2013b). Main impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail, though not to the extent to meet SG 100. SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met.

Justification c The main functions of the The impacts of the fishery on

Components (i.e., target, target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP Bycatch, Retained and species are identified and the ETP species and Habitats) main functions of these in the ecosystem are Components in the ecosystem are

Guidepost known. understood.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 204 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

Met? Yes Yes

Information on target and non-target species (bycatch and ETP species) is gathered by the SPC through logbook data and the regional observer programme, as well as being available via a number of historical research projects. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of species that are impacted and to determine their respective roles e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats. In order to improve the availability of data, the Kobe Bycatch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim to Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. The KBTWG provides guidance for improving data collection efforts and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among tuna RFMOs. These data will improve future analysis of ecosystem functions. The information gathered is sufficient to identify species impacted and understand the

Justification main functions of the ecosystem components. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. d Sufficient information is Sufficient information is available available on the impacts on the impacts of the fishery on

of the fishery on these the Components and elements to

ost Components to allow allow the main consequences for some of the main the ecosystem to be inferred. consequences for the

Guidep ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Yes Yes

Data are collected on the key target and non-target tuna and billfish species taken by the fishery through logbooks. The observer programme provides support for the collection of retained and non-retained species data. Coverage for the purse seine fishery is 100% of fishing operations. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components and allow the main

Justification consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. SG 80 and SG 100 are met. e Sufficient data continue Information is sufficient to to be collected to detect support the development of any increase in risk level strategies to manage ecosystem (e.g., due to changes in impacts.

the outcome indicator scores or the operation of the fishery or the effectiveness of the

Guidepost measures). Met? Yes No

As indicated above, data are collected on the key target and non-target tuna and billfish species taken by the fishery through logbooks and the regional observer programme. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components. SG 80 is met, however, in the absence of a comprehensive strategy for ecosystem management which incorporates the collection of broader ecosystem information than existing systems, SG 100 is not met.

Justification References Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2011, Lehodey et al. 2013

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 205 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the fishery on the ecosystem

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 206 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Principle 3

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective national legal national legal system national legal system and system and binding procedures and a framework for organised and effective governing cooperation with other cooperation with other cooperation with other parties which delivers parties, where management outcomes consistent

parties, where necessary, necessary, to deliver to deliver management with MSC Principles 1 and 2. management outcomes outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2 Guidepost Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 207 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. At the regional level, as described by Banks et al. (2011) and Medley and Powers (2015), the WCPFC Convention, the Nauru Agreement, relevant national fisheries laws and national tuna management plans are consistent with the provisions of UNCLOS and UNFSA (although the U.S. itself has not ratified UNCLOS). The precautionary approach is incorporated into national jurisdiction laws and national tuna management plans. All WCPFC Members, including the US are legally bound to apply the precautionary approach as parties to the WCPFC Convention (Article 5 & 7). The WCPF Convention draws on many of the provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. It also is designed to reflect the regional political, socio‐economic, geographical and environmental characteristics of the WCPO. The conservation, management and development of US fisheries, including US fishing fleets operating in US waters and on the high seas, is comprehensively governed by the suite of legislation referred to earlier in the background section of this report, in particular, the MSFCMA and the WCPF Convention Implementation Act. PASAI (2013) reviews fisheries management arrangements in nine FFA-member Pacific island states following performance audits of each of these states. The key findings noted that although there were problems with the implementation of fisheries governance, in each jurisdiction audited there was a law to guide actions for the sustainable management of the country’s tuna fishery. Overall, arrangements in place provide a system for effective co‐operation among the parties. WCPFC procedures and U.S. Government systems can apply binding measures consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2. PIPs have varying degrees of strength of legislation, however all are bound by WCPFC requirements. An important issue for the PIPs is their ability to apply their own laws to the U.S. fishing fleet. U.S. legislation requires U.S. flagged vessels to comply with the applicable laws and requirements of other nations when operating in areas under the jurisdiction of other nations. SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met by all parties involved in management. SG100 is potentially met at the WCPFC and U.S. Government levels, however, binding arrangements are not in place across all

jurisdictions. These jurisdictions are identified in PASAI (2013). For example, PASAI (2013) identifies that national fisheries laws for FSM and Samoa do not align with international and regional obligations. All PIP jurisdictions have tuna management plans, however PASAI (2013) indicated that several of these were out of date. FSM, Fiji and Solomon Islands have since updated tuna management plans. Samoa is reviewing its Tuna

Justification Management and Development Plan 2011-2015. b The management system The management system The management system incorporates or is incorporates or is subject incorporates or subject by law to a subject by law to a by law to a transparent transparent mechanism for the mechanism for the mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is resolution of legal resolution of legal appropriate to the context of the disputes arising within disputes which is fishery and has been tested and

the system. considered to be proven to be effective. effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the

Guidepost context of the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 208 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The two primary management systems under which dispute resolution may be required for this UoC fall under the WCPFC and United States National Government. The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. The UNFSA dispute settlement mechanism applies to the Nauru Agreement, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS. The Palau Arrangement sets out a dispute settlement mechanism in Article 8 for issues related to the purse seine fishery and the VDS. Annex 2 of the WCPF Convention allows for the establishment of a Panel to review decisions of the Commission (Art. 20 & 31), but the assessors did not find evidence that this mechanism has been tested (July 2015). The Convention prescribes peaceful settlement of all disputes (Article 31). In accordance with the Convention, the Commission holds a regular meeting every year. WCPFC members and observers can have representatives at meetings. The Commission can, on the basis of scientific evidence and of other relevant information, adopt binding measures and non-binding resolutions. Negotiations on these occur both at technical and political levels. Conservation and Management Measures and Resolutions are proposed by members of the Commission, and are presented to the Commission for adoption at the annual meeting (Medley and Powers 2015). Non-parties to the Convention can apply to become Co-operating Non‐members, which implement the measures and requirements set by WCPFC. This system is transparent in that it makes sure that all members are fully informed of the issues under consideration and are able to participate in informed discussion. Under Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission is required to promote transparency in its decision‐making processes and other activities. Independent observers, including NGO and IGOs, are present at such meetings and would observe any resolutions and justifications that are presented. The Convention states that “Such intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations shall be given timely access to pertinent information subject to the rules and procedures which the Commission may adopt”. Observers are allowed to make presentations to members, subject to approval of the chairperson. Disputes resolved in this way would still not necessarily be entirely transparent in the sense that how a resolution is reached may not be fully reported (Medley and Powers 2015). WCPFC systems meet SG60 and SG80 requirements, however SG100 is not met because the WCPFC management system has not been tested. U.S. management and legal systems incorporate transparent consultative and dispute resolution mechanisms. The U.S. treaty outlines processes for dispute resolution. The NOAA website publishes the outcomes of violations. U.S. systems provide transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes appropriate to the context of the fishery. These systems have been tested and proven to be effective, meeting SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements. The FFA website provides information on PIP national laws applying in SPTT partner jurisdictions (http://www.ffa.int/us_mtreaty_national_laws). The SPTT incorporates dispute settlement mechanisms. The major mechanism for PIPs in the context of the UoA is their commitment to WCPFC requirements.

Justification

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 209 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Overall, the management system incorporates transparent mechanisms for the resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues and that is appropriate to the context of the fishery, meeting SG60 and SG80 requirements. Because the WCPFC management system has not been tested, the overall management system does not meet SG100 requirements.

d The management system The management system The management system has a has a mechanism to has a mechanism to mechanism to formally commit to generally respect the observe the legal rights the legal rights created explicitly legal rights created created explicitly or or established by custom of explicitly or established established by custom of people dependent on fishing for by custom of people people dependent on food and livelihood in a manner

dependent on fishing for fishing for food or consistent with the objectives of food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner MSC Principles 1 and 2. manner consistent with consistent with the the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC

Guidepost Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 210 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. The WCPFC Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within its framework for sustainability. The Convention further requires that the needs of SIDs, territories and possessions, and coastal communities dependent on stocks including those taken in the fishery be recognised in the allocation of catch or effort (Art 10 (3) and Resolution 2008-01) and their capacity strengthened (see CMM 2013-06 Conservation and Management Measure on the criteria for the consideration of conservation and management proposals and CMM 2013-07 Conservation and Management Measure on the special requirements of Small Island Developing States and Territories). Article 30 of the Convention further provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC. To date, the Commission has not allocated fishing rights but has sought and received external advice on allocation mechanisms and options. Further, Article 30 of the Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC Convention. The Convention explicitly recognizes the rights of artisanal and subsistence fishers and the dependence of coastal States and States fishing on the high seas on the stocks concerned. WCPFC has an explicit relationship with the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, which represents the interests of the independent island States in the region. These interests demonstrably protect their people’s traditional rights to these resources. The recent performance review identified the ambiguity in the Convention concerning consistent management throughout oceanic, territorial and archipelagic waters and a lack of criteria for allocating fishing quotas as legal issues to resolve (Medley and Powers 2015). National fisheries legislation and management strategies contained in tuna management plans for PNA members have strong mechanisms to protect the interests of traditional and small-scale fishers, as described by Banks et al. (2011). Commitment to the interests of traditional and small-scale fishers is also evident in the management systems of non-PNA PIPs. However, fisheries legislation implementation is variable across the PIPs. In the U.S., under the MSFCMA, Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) must define and pay close attention to the needs of dependent fishing communities (Levine and Allan 2009). The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) has developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as a FMP, consistent with the MSFCMA and the national standards for fishery conservation and management (WPRFMC 2009). This FEP incorporates consideration of community participation and includes an Indigenous Program encouraging participation in Council processes. FEPs have also been developed for American Samoa, the Mariana Archipelago, Hawaii and the Pacific Remote Island Area (Baker, Jarvis, Wake and Howland Islands, Kingman Reef, and Johnson and Palmyra Atolls). U.S. Government arrangements comply with SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements. WCPFC has an intention and has a management system that observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Therefore the international management system meets the requirement for SG 60 and SG 80. However, SG100 is not met as there is not clear evidence of mechanisms formally committing to legal rights at the WCPFC level.

Justification An overall score of 80 is achieved across all levels of responsibility. UNCLOS (Part V); UNFSA; WCPFC Convention; U.S. Treaty; WPRFMC 2009; FFA Convention; References Nauru Agreement; Levine and Allen 2009; Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; PASAI 2013; National plans and laws

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 211 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it:  Is capable of delivering sustainable fisheries in accordance with MSC PI 3.1.1 Principles 1 and 2; and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 212 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and individuals individuals involved in individuals involved in involved in the management the management the management process process have been identified. process have been have been identified. Functions, roles and identified. Functions, Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly

roles and responsibilities responsibilities are defined and well understood for are generally explicitly defined and all areas of responsibility and understood. well understood for key interaction. areas of responsibility

Guidepost and interaction. Met? Yes Yes Yes Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction at the WCPFC, PNA and national levels, as well as support organisations FFA and SPC. The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states (in particular, Articles 23 and 24) and the committees formed under Commission control (Scientific Committee and Technical and Compliance Committee). Key areas include providing catch and monitoring data to the Secretariat, taking part in various meetings sharing information and making decisions, meeting the requirements for conservation and other recommendations for WCPFC and applying appropriate levels of control and surveillance. There are extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the WCPFC, PNA, and FFA and other regional & international fora and national levels, including consultation with bilateral partners and domestic stakeholders. FFA plays an important role as a conduit for Pacific nations. The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) is one of eight US regional fishery management councils established to prevent overfishing, minimize by catch and protect fish stocks and habitat. The roles and responsibilities of these regional councils are well defined under US legislation. Whilst roles and responsibilities are generally well defined, WCPFC has had a number of problems with flag states not applying appropriate controls to all their vessels, and in some cases there appear to be conflicts between requirements for confidentiality and the responsibilities to provide information necessary for management (Medley and Powers 2015). These problems are not in key areas in the sense that they do not prevent WCPFC completing its primary tasks, however they undermine its overall effectiveness and increase risks to sustainability. For example, while stock assessments provide estimates of stock status up to the current year, the SC has noted that the incomplete submission of

data increases uncertainty in the assessments and encourages all members to provide data in accordance with the WCPFC data rules. The assessors found no evidence that these comments apply to the client fishery. At national and international levels the functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations involved in the management processes are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility. SG 60, SG 80 and SG

Justification 100 requirements are met.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 213 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties b The management system The management system The management system includes includes consultation includes consultation consultation processes that processes that obtain processes that regularly regularly seek and accept relevant relevant information seek and accept relevant information, including local from the main affected information, including knowledge. The management

parties, including local local knowledge. The system demonstrates knowledge, to inform management system consideration of the information the management demonstrates and explains how it is used or not system. consideration of the used.

Guidepost information obtained. Met? Yes Yes No

The WCPFC holds an annual regular meeting, which follows the annual meetings of the SC, the TCC and the Northern Committee (which deals with management and conservation issues to the north of 20ºN). There are also extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes through the PNA, FFA and other regional & international fora and national levels. Other organisations have access to all the main management bodies as formal observers or informally. These processes seek and accept information, and demonstrate consideration of the information. Scientific reports state exactly what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information which is rejected. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. For example, WCPFC tuna management measures CMM‐2008-01 (replaced by 2012-01, 2013-01 and 2014-01) and CMM‐2010‐05 attempt to restrict fishing effort and therefore fishing mortality on bigeye, yellowfin and albacore. However, limits are vague, and public information may not be available that clearly justifies the limits applied when the decision was made (Medley and Powers 2015). In addition, while the WCPFC processes explain how information is used or not used, Banks et al. (2011) note that other components of the management system (i.e. PNA and VDS) are not as transparent. The US Treaty is the key arrangement facilitating access by US purse seine vessels to the waters of other Pacific Island Countries. Information on negotiations for the Treaty is not transparent. The WPRFMC is supported by several advisory bodies which provide opportunities for consultation and transfer of information. The extent of consultation at the PIP national government level in seeking local knowledge is not transparent in all cases. For example, the Cook Islands albacore longline MSC assessment indicates that there is a lack of evidence of consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information (Gascoigne et al. 2015). SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met by WCPFC and U.S. Government processes. However, SG 100 is not met because the management system cannot demonstrate consideration of all the information or explain how it uses such information in decisions

Justification across all responsible jurisdictions. c The consultation process The consultation process provides

provides opportunity for opportunity and encouragement all interested and for all interested and affected affected parties to be parties to be involved, and involved. facilitates their effective

Guidepost engagement.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 214 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Met? Yes Yes

The WCPFC has a comprehensive governance structure which, in addition to member participation, allows participation by non-members and territories, with particular opportunities for Cooperating non-members, and allows observers to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the SC, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee. All relevant Small Island Developing States are members through the participation of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency or cooperating non-members. Attendance at Commission and related meetings are comprehensive, and logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance, meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management. Participation in PNA meetings is open to Nauru agreement parties, to FFA members and observers, including industry partners and NGOs, on application to the PNA Secretariat. The WPRFMC supports extensive consultation processes. The client fishery is represented at WCPFC meeting by US Government delegates; the client also participates in these meetings as members of the US delegation. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act 2000 spells out the structure of the delegation representing the U.S. at WCPFC meeting. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that all interested parties have the opportunity and are encouraged to participate in consultation processes. Formal arrangements in place facilitate engagement. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met at the international and

Justification U.S. Government levels. References WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure; Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; Gascoigne et al. 2015. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 215 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria, and incorporates the precautionary approach Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Long-term objectives to Clear long-term Clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, objectives that guide guide decision-making, consistent consistent with the MSC decision-making, with MSC Principles and Criteria Principles and Criteria consistent with MSC and the precautionary approach,

and the precautionary Principles and Criteria are explicit within and required by approach, are implicit and the precautionary management policy. within management approach are explicit policy within management

Guidepost policy. Met? Yes Yes Partial The WCPF Convention provides clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. These are explicit within applicable WCPFC CMMs, and management policy as set out in the Palau Arrangement, the VDS and national laws and plans of the US and PNA members. However, the Nauru Agreement, the core PNA instrument, does not explicitly require objectives consistent with the precautionary approach and the other important principles required to be applied by the WCPFC Convention (Banks et al. 2011). While the precautionary approach is a stated requirement for WCPFC, in practice it is less clear that the precautionary approach is applied over all policy. Stock assessments in 2010, 2011 and 2014 indicated that bigeye fishing mortality exceeded levels consistent with MSY. While precautionary limit reference points have been set and CMMs updated, precautionary action that has sufficiently reduced exploitation levels is not yet evident. As indicated in Banks et al. (2011), the Nauru agreement (the core PNA instrument) does not explicitly require objectives consistent with the precautionary approach and other important principles required to be applied under the WCPF Convention. U.S. management policies have explicit long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. The U.S. management system meets SG60, SG80 and SG 100 requirements. Overall, clear explicit objectives incorporating the precautionary approach and ecosystem‐

based management meet the MSC Principles and Criteria, meeting SG 60, SG 80 and the first part of SG 100 across relevant jurisdictions. However, there are elements of the management system where it is not yet clear that the precautionary approach is applied in practice across all policy for all stocks (see comments above in relation to the Nauru agreement). This and the shortcomings in management indicated at 3.1.1a suggest that SG

Justification 100 is only partially met. WCPFC Convention; Nauru Agreement; national plans; Banks et al. 2011 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.4

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 216 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The management system The management system The management system provides provides for incentives provides for incentives for incentives that are consistent that are consistent with that are consistent with with achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and

expressed by MSC expressed by MSC 2, and explicitly considers Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2, and incentives in a regular review of seeks to ensure that management policy or procedures perverse incentives do to ensure they do not contribute

Guidepost not arise. to unsustainable fishing practices. Met? Yes Yes Partial

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 217 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing WCPFC does not have specific policies on incentives for sustainable practices. However, the conservation measures and policy statements make it clear that sustainable practices are a major focus for the Commission. Cooperation among members and orderly division of fishing rights among the various parties, laid down in various CMMs, act to reduce inherent competitive behaviour between fishing fleets, which in turn reduces the incentive for over-capitalisation, over-capacity and ultimately reduces the likelihood of over-fishing. These benefits extend to management of bycatch and other issues under Principle 2. WCPFC therefore provides the fundamental incentives for sustainable fishing. The rights-based management framework of the VDS also creates incentives for sustainable fisheries at the PNA and national government level and provides for the creation of a system of positive incentives at the enterprise level. The VDS includes elements designed to address the inherent tendency of effort limits to encourage effort creep. There is evidence that the incentive effects are considered, sometimes explicitly, within the management system to ensure that they do not undermine sustainability. However, Banks et al. (2011) identified weaknesses in the VDS that had the potential to reduce its effectiveness, hence limit the ability of the VDS to ensure sustainable fishing practices in future. Additionally, US purse seine effort was initially not included in the VDS. The 3rd MSC surveillance audit for the PNA fishery provides updated information on the VDS (SCS 2014). In 2013, WCPFC CMM-2013-01 restricted effort to 2010 levels (now replaced by CMM 2014-01). The US fleet came under the VDS for part of 2013 and all of 2014. One aspect of the Client Action Plan for the PNA fishery following MSC certification was a commitment by the PNA Parties to commission an external review of the integrity and effectiveness of the VDS. This independent review has been undertaken but is not yet publicly available. However, SCS (2014) examined a confidential copy of the report. SCS (2014) notes that some of the draft recommendations of the review have already been implemented, that other recommendations, if implemented, would lead to a more robust, transparent and effective VDS. There are no apparent perverse incentives (e.g. subsidies) that would encourage U.S. licensed to fish unsustainably. The US Government has eliminated loan programs that previously led to government‐funded overcapitalization of fisheries. The U.S. Government does provide funding to support the U.S. Treaty, however a major function of the U.S. Government contribution is to support development by PIPs. The U.S. industry has not historically paid what could be considered market rates for access rights, however, the amount paid by the U.S industry has increased markedly over recent years. U.S. fishing vessels do obtain an income tax credit on diesel fuel taxes as these taxes are levied for highway construction. Overall, the management system, particularly the rights-element of the VDS and the inclusion of U.S purse seine fishing days within this, provides for the creation of incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and there is evidence that the management system seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise within the UoA (meeting SG 60, SG 80 and the first part of SG 100). However, further evidence is required to show that there is explicit consideration of incentives in a

regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices, thus SG 100 is only partially met. In terms of the UoA, it should be noted that extension of the U.S. Treaty is subject to ongoing negotiation, with a current extension to the end of 2015. Any future surveillance audit should examine changes that may occur in under a re-negotiated treaty, including potential impact of this

Justification on the effectiveness of the VDS and WCPFC measures. Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; SCS 2014 References

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 218 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The management system provides economic and social incentives for PI 3.1.4 sustainable fishing and does not operate with subsidies that contribute to unsustainable fishing

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 219 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and measurable broadly consistent with objectives, which are short and long-term objectives, achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving which are demonstrably

expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed consistent with achieving the Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 and outcomes expressed by MSC’s implicit within the 2, are explicit within the Principles 1 and 2, are explicit fishery’s management fishery’s management within the fishery’s management

Guidepost system system. system. Met? Yes Yes Partial There are clear objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach in the WCPF Convention. Fishery-specific objectives relating to P1 and P2 outcomes are set out in various WCPFC CMMs related to target fish stocks (including CMM 2014-01; CMM 2014-04; CMM 2014-07), sea turtles (CMM 2008-03), seabirds (CMM2012-07), sharks (CMM 2014-05; CMM 2013-08; CMM 2011-4; CMM 2010-07), whale sharks (CMM 2012-04), cetaceans (CMM 2011-03). Objectives are also laid out in national plans, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS. WCPFC members also report against a number of indicators as part of their obligations through Part 2 Annual Reporting. These include short and long term conceptual and operational objectives. The US Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) authorizes fishery management councils to create fishery management plans (FMP). Encompassing US Pacific purse seine fishing, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as a FMP, consistent with the MSFCMA and the national standards for fishery conservation and management. This FEP is consistent with MSC Principles 1 & 2. Some objectives (particularly in some earlier CMMs) are not well defined enough to be operational or measurable. To date, the WCPFC has not yet formally adopted precautionary and ecosystem-based target reference points for all major tuna and billfish species. However, recent CMMs for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna explicitly incorporate FMSY as the default target reference point. During the full MSC assessment of the PNA fishery, concerns were raised about the lack of clear and measurable objectives for the skipjack purse seine fishery, the linkages of these to the VDS and the scientific processes that inform TAE setting processes under the VDS. The PI was initially scored as meeting SG 80 requirements, however following an objection the score was revised to 70 and a condition was placed on this PI requiring that the fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The PNA 2nd surveillance audit (Scott and Stokes 2013) reported that the 32nd annual meeting of PNA explicitly covered the issue of MSC and the need for short term objectives:

“55. The Parties endorsed a specific recommendation on short term objectives relating to bycatch and ecosystem management, noting that the PI 3.2.1 SG 80 short and long term objectives, which are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the fishery’s management system, taking into account

Justification that:

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 220 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes PI 3.2.1 expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2

a. short term objectives to achieve the desired outcomes for non-target species (Principle 2), are guided by the results of scientific data analysis and assessment. These analyses identify whether main non-target species (retained, bycatch, endangered, threatened and protected species) are highly likely to be within biologically based limits or if outside such limits support a short term objective of identifying and implementing mitigation measures and strategies consistent with ensuring that the unit of certification does not hinder recovery and rebuilding, or create disruption to the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. b. the PNA management system must include an explicit undertaking to work closely with relevant scientific bodies to ensure emerging issues in non‐target species of relevance to the unit of certification are promptly identified. In turn, the PNA will actively collaborate with scientific monitoring activities that underpin such studies. Where serious or other important issues are identified in this research and monitoring of relevance to the unit of certification, appropriate management actions are to be taken in the short term to reduce impacts. These actions will be adapted where necessary on the basis of further scientific advice. c. objectives within CMM2012‐01 encompass all tropical tuna species, and hence include yellowfin and bigeye tuna”. The surveillance audit concluded that the fishery met the single scoring issue at SG 80 of PI 3.2.1 and the condition was closed (Scott and Stokes 2013). CMM 2014-01 (the Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean), includes explicit and measurable operational objectives for all three key tuna species. Available information suggests that the main concerns raised during the PNA assessment of this PI, have been largely overcome. CMM 2014-01 also incorporates high seas purse seine effort limits and requires the establishment of limits for non-PNA PIPs. U.S. Government Fishery Ecosystem Plans contain clear objectives consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2, though these are long-term rather than short-term. National government tuna management plans contain objectives, however, as indicated in PASAI (2013) performance measures for these objectives are not in place for some jurisdictions. WCPFC management systems are the major provider of objectives for the fishery. WCPFC short and long term objectives are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements. SG100 requirements are partially met, for example with the explicit incorporation of FMSY as a measurable default

target reference point in recent CMMs. WCPF Convention; WCPFC CMMs; Palau Arrangement; National plans; Banks et al. 2011; References Scott and Stokes 2013; PASAI 2013

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 221 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a There are some decision- There are established

making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery-

Guidepost specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Yes Yes At the WCPFC level, decision-making processes are open, seek to apply the precautionary approach and use the best available information and are well documented. Consensus is the general rule for decision-making by Commission Members during the annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. The decision-making processes are operationalised through the processes of the Scientific Committee, the Technical and Compliance Committee and the Commission itself. The information used to inform decision making is published. Conservation and Management Measures are binding, but Resolutions are non-binding. All management measures apply equally inside EEZ and on high seas. Flag states enforce management measures on their own vessels and coastal states within their own EEZ. The U.S. WPFRMC has established decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve specific objectives. The Council decision-making processes, as specified in the MSFCMA, fishery ecosystem plan for the Western Pacific region, as well as FEPs for American Samoa, the Mariana Archipelago, Hawaii and the Pacific Remote Island Area (Baker, Jarvis, Wake and Howland Islands, Kingman Reef, and Johnson and Palmyra Atolls). The plans contain a suite of management regulations to achieve the objectives. Decision-making processes of the WPRMC rely on the Council’s Scientific and Statistical Committee, Advisory Panels, Plan teams and Workgroups. Public hearings identify issues of concern for fishery managers to address. As mandated by the MSFCMA, the processes must be open and transparent, with supporting documents, minutes of meetings, and testimony published on the Council’s website. PNA also has well-established decision-making processes which have resulted in measures and strategies contributing to, and in important respects, underpinning effective management of the WCPO purse seine fisheries. PASAI (2013) reports that, except for Fiji, the PIP jurisdictions examined decision making is aided through the use of SPC/WCPFC reports. Fiji’s 2014-2018 Tuna Management and Development Plan indicates that SPC/WCPFC information plays an important role in decision making. Available information (management plans, fisheries department websites) indicate that other non-PNA jurisdictions also have decision-making processes to achieve stated objectives. Regional and national decision‐making processes are in place that result in measures and

Justification strategies to achieve objectives, meeting SG 60 and SG 80.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 222 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. b Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making processes processes respond to processes respond to respond to all issues identified in serious issues identified serious and other relevant research, monitoring, in relevant research, important issues evaluation and consultation, in a monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant transparent, timely and adaptive and consultation, in a research, monitoring, manner and take account of the transparent, timely and evaluation and wider implications of decisions.

adaptive manner and consultation, in a take some account of transparent, timely and the wider implications of adaptive manner and decisions. take account of the wider

Guidepost implications of decisions. Met? Yes Yes No

WCPFC decision-making processes allow consideration of serious and important issues through its committees (SC and TCC) and at the Commission itself. Stock assessments and studies presented at the SC (predominantly by SPC) identify serious issues, such as overfishing (e.g. Bigeye tuna) at the regional level. These issues are addressed through regionally agreed CMMs. A series of measures to control catch and effort within the WCPF Convention area were taken in 2013. The system allows Commission members to be fully informed of the issues under consideration and enable participation in informed decision- making. US Government processes also respond to important issues and allow consultation and participation. The Commission can be shown to react to important issues in a transparent manner. The timeliness of decision-making is less clear, however, in the context of regional fisheries management, the WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted relatively quickly in a suite of CMMs and strategies to respond to sustainability issues and to achieve the specific objectives in the purse seine fishery. As indicated above, the U.S Government and PNA have also established effective decision- making processes which respond to issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation. Non-PNA jurisdictions also typically identify decision-making processes in tuna management plans. Responses to serious issues are generally undertaken via implementation of WCPFC CMMs. Information on fishing vessels and IUU activities from FFA is used in decision making on the issuing or renewal of permits. The U.S. Government has sophisticated and comprehensive decision-making processes and extensive reporting requirements and the results are readily accessible to stakeholders through searchable web‐based facilities (potentially meeting SG 100 requirements).

Overall, decision‐making processes at regional and national levels are adequate for the stocks being considered, dealing with serious and important issues and meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements. These decision making processes use a precautionary approach, and are based on best available scientific information, but WCPFC processes do not clearly respond to all issues and do not provide formal transparent and accountable reporting as

Justification to why decisions are or are not taken. SG 100 is not met. c Decision-making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

Guidepost

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 223 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Met? Yes

The WCPFC Convention requires that the members of the Commission, directly and through the Commission, apply the precautionary approach. The Convention requires that Commission be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and does not use the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (Medley and Powers 2015). In all cases, decisions are required to be based on the best scientific information available, and the Commission makes adequate provision for this to be achieved. Banks et al. (2011) concluded in the PNA MSC assessment that at the PNA level it is clear that the best available information is used for decision-making, but there is a lack of clarity in the links between decisions on the VDS and the requirements of WCPFC CMM 2008-01 and the best available scientific information. A condition was set in relation to this issue. The 2nd surveillance audit for the PNA fishery (Scott and Stokes, 2013) examined progress against this condition and concluded that the Client Action Plan had sufficiently addressed this shortcoming and that SG 80 requirements are met for that fishery. The basis for this conclusion was: provision of a description of the decision making process and development of an approach to improved operation of the VDS; and provision of information on the VDS scheme to improve clarity on the way the scheme works. The surveillance audit also cited the presence of representatives of the Pew Foundation and Greenpeace at the PNA 8th Annual Meeting as indicative that the PNA process is open and transparent. PIP tuna management plans typically commit to the precautionary approach. U.S. Government processes also require that decision‐making is based on the best available information. The MSFCMA contains a set of ten National Standards for fishery conservation and management. National Standard 1 instructs fisheries Councils and the NMFS to apply the precautionary approach when setting control rules in a fishery. National Standard 2 of the MSFCMA mandates that ‘conservation and management measures shall be based on the best available scientific information’ There is sufficient information to conclude that decision‐making processes for the regional and U.S elements of the management system are based on the best available information

Justification and the precautionary approach, meeting SG 80. d Some information on Information on fishery Formal reporting to all interested fishery performance and performance and stakeholders provides management action is management action is comprehensive information on generally available on available on request, and fishery performance and request to stakeholders. explanations are management actions and provided for any actions describes how the management or lack of action system responded to findings and associated with findings relevant recommendations

and relevant emerging from research, recommendations monitoring, evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation

Guidepost and review activity. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 224 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Information and recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation and performance review are published formally. Reports of WCPFC plenary sessions are published formally and are publicly available. Annual (Part 1) reports are submitted by members providing detailed reporting on catch, fleet size and other issues relating to the fishery. The WPPFC SC and TCC papers and reports on the web provide a high level of public access and transparency, showing how scientific information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission. This reporting represents good practice. However, while reports are available, it is not clear that they represent all information that is used in decision making. There is no formal, detailed explanation linking the information provided to the decision that results. In an international context it is recognized that it is very difficult to give full explanations for all decisions, since this might undermine co‐operation. Decisions are often negotiated outcomes with the trade-offs not always apparent. At the WCPFC level, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met. Banks et al. (2011) concluded that this is not always the case at the PNA level for actions, or lack of action associated with relevant findings and recommendations. As a result, the PNA assessment undertaken by Banks et al. (2011) resulted in a condition requiring that within 5 years of the certification PNA must be in a position to demonstrate that the SG 80 requirements are met (certification was valid from 21 December 2011). The 2nd surveillance audit for the PNA fishery (Scott and Stokes, 2013) concluded that the Client Action Plan had sufficiently addressed the shortcomings and that SG 80 requirements are met: This conclusion was based on the adoption of CMM 2012‐01 (objectives and general rules, interim measures 2013 and measures for 2014 ‐17) being sufficient to meet the third and fourth issues of the PI (i.e. decision‐making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information; and formal reporting to all interested stakeholders describes how the management system responds to findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity). The adoption of subsequent CMMs, replacing CMM 2012-01, provide similar outcomes for all PIPs. U.S. Government processes also provide a high level of reporting to interested parties. NMFS provide explanations for management actions through formal and informal meetings and regional management councils provide opportunities for reporting to stakeholders. Overall, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met at WCPFC and U.S. Government levels, however, information is not comprehensive for all elements of the management system

Justification and SG100 is not met. e Although the The management system The management system or management authority or fishery is attempting fishery acts proactively to avoid or fishery may be subject to comply in a timely legal disputes or rapidly to continuing court fashion with judicial implements judicial decisions challenges, it is not decisions arising from any arising from legal challenges. indicating a disrespect or legal challenges. defiance of the law by

repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the

Guidepost fishery.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 225 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, PI 3.2.2 and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery under assessment. Met? Yes Yes No

The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. WCPFC (the Commission) has not been subject to any court challenges as of 2015. There is no evidence that other entities flout the law, with the notable exception of particular fishing companies and fishing vessels, which are listed on the IUU fishing list (Medley and Powers 2015). Excluding these, WCPFC and its members meet SG 60 and SG 80 requirements. WCPFC members are party to all decisions at the WCPFC level, including participation in the Scientific Committee, and WCPFC general sessions where regional level final decisions are taken. Disputes/disagreements are typically resolved through WCPFC meetings (being members of WCPFC and agreeing to abide by WCPFC provisions) and the members have avoided legal disputes. The management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes at the regional level by the prompt incorporation of CMMs into national legislation and the implementation of measures to support such legislation. The 2015 extension to the U.S. Treaty includes a requirement that the U.S is to assist PIPs to investigate and prosecute breaches of national laws relating to the mistreatment, assault or obstruction of observers and authorized officers. There is increasing potential for legal challenges (e.g. in relation to resource allocation) but no evidence as yet of proactive actions so the requirements of SG 100 are not considered to be met. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met at the WCPFC, U.S. and national government levels.

Justification Banks et al. 2011, Scott and Stokes 2013; Medley and Powers 2015; PASAI 2013 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 226 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive monitoring, surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has control and surveillance system exist, are implemented been implemented in the has been implemented in the

in the fishery under fishery under assessment fishery under assessment and has assessment and there is and has demonstrated an demonstrated a consistent ability a reasonable expectation ability to enforce relevant to enforce relevant management that they are effective. management measures, measures, strategies and/or rules.

Guidepost strategies and/or rules. Met? Yes Yes Not scored

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 227 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

At the regional level, the WCPFC seeks to ensure compliance through VMS, IUU vessel list, port state controls, flag state responsibilities, observers, logbooks and transshipment monitoring. There have been a number of positive developments since 2006 which apply to all RFMOs: a legally binding instrument on Port State Measures to prevent, deter and eliminate IUU fishing (“Port State Measures Agreement”); the work of FAO to develop a global record of fishing vessels and to develop criteria to assess the performance of flag States (Medley and Powers 2015). The WCPFC’s Technical and Compliance Committee is also continuing consideration of port State measures, chartering arrangements, catch/statistical documentation, the control of nationals, and compliance monitoring and reporting. The WCPFC relies largely on the IUU vessel listing process as an incentive for compliance. WCPFC established a Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS) with CMM 2010- 03 which was implemented from 2011-2014 as initial trials. A further CMM (CMM 2014-07) is again being implemented as a trial, largely dependent on the submission by members of information in annual reports. FFA has a regional MCS strategy (2010-2015) endorsed by Forum Fisheries Committee Ministers, which includes regional operations and cooperation, a regionally agreed benchmark level of observer coverage (100% for the purse seine fishery since 2010), at sea and at port inspections. MCS is also supported by the QUAD Operational Working Group. This group comprises the aerial and naval arms of Australia, France, New Zealand and the U.S. to provide aerial and surface assets to assist regional surveillance. FFA has the responsibility for facilitating the coordination of the surveillance assets provided by the QUAD nations in support of national and multilateral fishing surveillance and response activities. At the national level, FFA provides policy and services to its members to build national capacity and regional solidarity to control fishing in the Pacific, including illegal, unreported and unknown fishing. As well as VMS, this includes technical expertise, information sharing and projects around monitoring activities, regional surveillance operations, the FFA Observer Program, FFA licence information and staff training and support. The PNA Agreement and Te Vaka Moana Agreement promote regional cooperation between parties on MCS activities. Regional (WCPFC and FFA) MCS systems includes harmonized Terms and Conditions of Access, a regional VMS system, Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels and a range or regional MCS cooperation programmes, including the Niue Treaty and the Agreed Minute of Cooperation in MCS between the US and FFA member states. On June 17, 2014, the USA released a Presidential Memorandum entitled “Establishing a Comprehensive Framework to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing and Seafood Fraud.” Among other actions the Memorandum established a Presidential Task Force, co-chaired by the Departments of State and Commerce and made up of a broad range of other federal agencies. The Task Force was directed to report to the President within six months with “recommendations for the implementation of a comprehensive framework of integrated programs to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud that emphasizes areas of greatest need.” The Task Force released its recommendations on December 18, 2014 for public comment. On March 15, 2015, the Task Force released its Action Plan (USA 2015). The plan identifies actions that will strengthen enforcement domestically and highlights ways in which the US will work with foreign partners to strengthen international governance, enhance cooperation, and build capacity to combat IUU fishing and seafood fraud. The observer scheme is proven to have worked effectively, with a number of safeguards in place to ensure that non-compliance and inaccurate reporting are identified. Sanctions to

deal with non-compliance exist. In the MSC assessment of the PNA purse sine fishery, Banks et al. (2011) suggest that some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. The NOAA website provides evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to U.S. vessels. As indicated in

Justification the background information, in 2013 for example, the owners, operators and fishing

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 228 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with masters of purse seine vessels were found guilty of conducting sets in violation of the WCPF Convention Implementation Act resulting in fines of approximately US$1.5 million. These cases were the result of reports from FFA observers (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/newsroom/stories/13/04_090413_purse_seine_fad_case. html).

The MSC assessment of the PNA purse seine fishery (Banks et al. 2011) provided a recommendation for the PNAO to undertake a biennial review of MCS arrangements in the purse seine fishery, using the MRAG national/regional study (MRAG 2009) as a benchmark. Surveillance audits for the fishery do not indicate whether this has yet occurred. A problem among many fisheries management systems, and tuna is no exception, is monitoring transshipment to prevent illegal catch entering the legal market. Transshipment at sea is prohibited (CMM 2009-06) and there is monitoring of in port transshipment. WCPFC is also developing a Catch Documentation Scheme which should reduce the opportunities for IUU fishing and complement the vessel register. Port State Measures have been implemented to an extent, but significant gaps remain. However, these initiatives are in the process of being fully implemented. FFA proposed a CMM to improve port state measures at WCPFC in 2014. However, there was no consensus to adopt this proposal and FFA members advised the Commission of their commitment to continuing the development of port State measures, and will consider implementing this proposal through their internal processes (WCPFC 2014a). Some States have taken action to make it a violation of their domestic laws for their nationals to engage in activities that conflict with the fisheries laws of other countries. Perhaps the most powerful example is the Lacey Act in the USA, which is directed at the illicit trade in illegally caught fish and wildlife. USA prosecutors have used the Lacey Act’s provisions to deal with importations of illegally caught fish. In Guam and American Samoa, important ports for offloading tuna, the Lacey Act has been used to deal with violations of the laws of a number of Pacific island states (Medley and Powers 2015). At the national level, many of the CMMs established by WCPFC put clear obligations on parties as the flag states. Ultimately, it is the flag State that is responsible to the relevant RFMO for any failure to ensure that its measures are implemented and for the resulting violations of those measures by that State’s vessels. The combination of MCS and compliance mechanisms at WCPFC, PNA and US and other national levels creates a strong system of MCS measures across all relevant management levels, meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements.

b Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with non- non-compliance exist non-compliance exist, are compliance exist, are consistently and there is some consistently applied and applied and demonstrably provide evidence that they are thought to provide effective deterrence. applied. effective deterrence.

Guidepost Met? Yes No Not scored

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 229 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with A range of sanctions exist to deal with non-compliance at the regional level. Conservation measures are set by WCPFC, but enforcement is carried out by national authorities. There are some capacity differences between nations, but weaknesses are addressed through joint initiatives and support from FFA Regional coordination. The blacklisting of non‐ member vessels (IUU lists) has become a widespread practice among all RFMOs including WCPFC. There are no trade sanctions against nation states, although theoretically these may be possible (Medley and Powers 2015). Sanctions are only applied to fishing entities, such IUU vessels and vessels that are detected as being non-compliant with CMMs. WCPFC notifies Flag States of non‐compliant vessels, which the Flag States should order to withdraw from Commission Area. These sanctions appear to be applied consistently. The extent of IUU fishing is difficult to quantify. IUU fishing continues to be a problem, although tightening of port state controls and implementing a Catch Documentation Scheme should further reduce the problem (Medley and Powers 2015). A formal compliance monitoring system is being developed, while the TCC discusses compliance issues based on available information of infringements from observers and other sources. Responses to transgressions are discussed at the TCC and reported on in the Compliance Monitoring Report. However, discussion of compliance issues at the TCC is held in closed session. This is not the case with other tuna RFMOs. A Compliance Monitoring Report is provided to the Commission meeting (WCPFC 2014a; Attachment H). This provides a matrix of compliance with CMMs by CCM but the report does not provide information to judge whether non-compliance is dealt with consistently. There is clear evidence of legal requirements being enforced by US authorities and transcripts of legal proceedings provide evidence of sanctions which result. The NOAA website provides evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to U.S. vessels (see background information on MCS and 3.2.3a above), prohibitions, landing restrictions, and catch documentation schemes. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. The U.S. has developed partnerships with Pacific nations in the WCPO to assist with enforcement in that area. Nine “Shiprider” agreements have been signed enabling Pacific nations to place local law enforcement personnel on board U.S. Coast Guard vessels and give the Coast Guard authority to patrol their territorial waters and conduct vessel boardings. In FY 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard conducted 121 boardings under bilateral enforcement agreements with seven Pacific Island Nations: Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, and Tuvalu, with 21 violations documented. Of these, four stemmed from WCPFC measures, while 17 were infractions of national laws applicable within the EEZ of Pacific Island Nations (NOAA 2013). Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is evidence that they are applied, cation meeting SG 60. As indicated above, U.S. systems meet SG 60 and SG 80 requirements. However, the lack of transparency in WCPFC dealing with non-compliance prevents

Justifi judgement as to whether sanctions are consistently applied. SG 80 is not met. c Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers comply the management system comply with the with the management system for the fishery under management system under assessment, including, assessment, including, under assessment, providing information of

when required, including, when required, importance to the effective providing information of providing information of management of the fishery. importance to the importance to the effective management of effective management of

Guidepost the fishery. the fishery.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 230 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s PI 3.2.3 management measures are enforced and complied with Met? Yes Yes Not scored

WCPFC has a permanent working group on compliance (the TCC) with a role to review and monitor compliance with WCPFC management measures. The working group also recommends measures to promote compatibility among the national fisheries management measures, addressing matters related to compliance with fisheries management measures, analyse information on compliance and report the findings to the WCPFC, which will in turn inform the members and non-‐‐members. An annual report is produced as part of the compliance review. Identified infringements are reported. Not all fisheries comply and clearly there is some non•compliance by some vessels as reported by the TCC. However, reporting on compliance is not as complete as other RFMOs, at least in the public domain (Medley and Powers 2015).

Logbook data are supplied as part of licence requirements; VMS and observer reports provide additional evidence of general compliance with the management system, meeting SG 60. WCPFC reports indicate that the compliance is adequate in the fisheries considered here, meeting SG 80. As indicated above, there is evidence of sanctions being implemented by the U.S. Government for some purse seine vessels for a low level of non-compliance,

Justification also suggesting SG 80 requirements are met.

d There is no evidence of systematic non- compliance.

Guidepost Met? Yes

While issues have been identified, there is no evidence that they are widespread or systematic.

Justification Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; FFA Strategic MCS Plan (2010); WCPFC 2014a; References WCPFC TCC minutes; NOAA 2013

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 6. Demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 231 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Research is undertaken, A research plan provides A comprehensive research plan as required, to achieve the management system provides the management system the objectives consistent with a strategic approach with a coherent and strategic with MSC’s Principles 1 to research and reliable approach to research across P1,

and 2. and timely information P2 and P3, and reliable and timely sufficient to achieve the information sufficient to achieve objectives consistent the objectives consistent with with MSC’s Principles 1 MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Guidepost and 2. Met? Yes Yes No The WCPFC Strategic Research Plan 2012-2016 addresses four overall research and data collection priorities: monitoring of fishing activities through the collection, compilation and validation of data from the fishery; monitoring and assessment of target stocks; monitoring and assessment of non-target species and of the pelagic ecosystems of the WCPO; and evaluation of existing CMMs and of potential management options. WCPFC employ two scientific staff, but most of the research is carried out by third party organizations, such the Secretariat of the Pacific Community. Nevertheless, WCPFC co- ordinate such research through the Scientific Committee. The strategic plan, combined with SPC, FFA and national plans associated with research and monitoring provide a strategic approach to ensuring reliable and timely information is available to inform management decisions. WCPFC has also adopted a Shark Research Plan to evaluate the status of key shark species and to establish better datasets to support future assessments. The U.S. and PIP governments contribute to the development of the WCPFC Strategic Research Plan through participation in WCPFC processes. The U.S. also identifies research priorities through its own NMFS and WPRFMC processes. In relation to Principle 3, research includes evaluation of compliance and management performance but this component is not addressed strategically in the research plan.in the same way as research for P1 and P2 issues. Research priorities for the fishery are predominantly generated through WCPFC processes. Overall, SG 60 and SG 80 are met; however, given there is no comprehensive research plan

Justification across P3, SG 100 is not met. b Research results are Research results are Research plan and results are available to interested disseminated to all disseminated to all interested parties. interested parties in a parties in a timely fashion and are timely fashion. widely and publicly available.

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes Yes

WCPFC and SPC plans and results are available to all interested parties in a timely fashion.

Research results are published through routine as well as special reports and articles reflecting research and monitoring which has taken place over the years. These reports are published through the WCPFC and SPC web sites. US NOAA/NMFS research plans and results are also widely and publicly available. Apart from information which is confidential to members, information from all responsible jurisdictions is disseminated widely and in a

Justification timely fashion. SG 100 is met.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 232 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The fishery has a research plan that addresses the information needs of PI 3.2.4 management

References WCPFC Strategic Research Plan 2012-2016; WCPFC Commission and SC working and information papers and meeting reports; SPC OFP reports OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 233 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.5

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a The fishery has in place The fishery has in place The fishery has in place

mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate mechanisms to evaluate all parts some parts of the key parts of the of the management system. management system. management system

Guidepost Met? Yes Yes No WCPFC has mechanisms in place to evaluate all parts of the management system as demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. The WCPFC Secretariat submits a report on compliance of members with the reporting provisions of the Commission (CMM 2013-02). Progress with implementation of CMMs is monitored through the reporting provisions within the CMMs themselves, or the members Annual Reports to the Commission. Stock assessments conducted by the SPC are subject to peer review by other members of the Scientific Committee and occasional external review. Commission meetings provide an overall review of processes and outcomes. U.S. processes also incorporate extensive mechanisms to evaluate key parts of the management system. The PNA’s VDS is overseen and regularly reviewed internally by a VDS Committee. Advice and external reviews of performance are provided by the FFA. There have also been a series of internal and external reviews of other key parts of the PNA processes (Banks et al. 2011). Recently developed tuna management plans for several jurisdictions, including Fiji and Vanuatu, indicate ongoing evaluation of management systems, however, as indicated by PASAI (2013) management plans for some PIP jurisdictions are not up to date. SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met for national and international jurisdictions with responsibility for the fishery. SG100 is not met because is the shortcomings in management in some national jurisdictions identified in PASAI (2013) and discussed at 3.1.1 indicate that there are not mechanisms s in place to evaluate all parts of the management system.

Justification

b The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific management management system is management system is system is subject to regular subject to occasional subject to regular internal and external review. internal review. internal and occasional

Guidepost external review. Met? Yes Yes No

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 234 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives PI 3.2.5 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system WCPFC has undertaken an independent review of its performance, consistent with the Kobe Course of Actions for the period 2011 to 2013 (Anon. 2012). As a result, the Commission established several working groups to address the different recommendations of the report, which can be found on the WCPFC website. The review panel was comprised of four external experts and three internal members form the EU, Nauru and the Philippines. There is a high level of internal review through WCPFC processes. CMMs are often reviewed and updated, for example CMM 2008-01 (for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna) which has been strengthened and replaced by further CMMs. An independent review (MRAG, 2009) has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the SC and adoption of a peer review process and other changes to the data and science functions. The VDS is overseen and regularly reviewed internally by VDS Committee and externally with advice and reviews of performance by the FFA. There have been a series of internal and external reviews of other key parts of the PNA processes, including the VDS. There are also regular internal reviews of national fisheries administration performance, and frequent, but ad hoc, external reviews of key features of national performance (Banks et al. 2011). U.S. fisheries management systems also have systems in place that enable regular review, in particular through regional management councils. Overall, key parts of U.S. and regional management systems are subject to regular internal review. There has been an external performance review WCPFC but it is not clear that

Justification there is a commitment to this being regular. SG 60 and SG 80 are met. Anon. 2012; Banks et al. 2011; MRAG 2009; WCPFC TCC 10; PASAI 2013 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 235 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 1.3 Conditions The client action plan described below has been accepted by SCS following the provision of a letter of support from NMFS (See: National Marine Fisheries Letter of Support below) which complies with the requirements of FCR 27.11.3 as NMFS is the key agency in the US Government with responsibility for fisheries within the WCPO.

Table A1.3.1: Condition 1 Performance PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Indicator Score 70

Rationale

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Skipjack tuna SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for Condition skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that the harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving the management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Score 70. Milestones At the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. Score 80.

Year 1:

1. Tri Marine will actively support the adoption of a WCPFC Harvest Strategy Workplan, which establishes a process and timeframes to adopt a harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack tuna (in line with WCPFC CMM 2014-06).

2. Tri Marine will advocate for a harvest strategy that includes management action responses to changes in skipjack stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining the WCPO skipjack stock at or near target reference points (in line with Client action plan WCPFC CMM 2014-06).

Years 1-3:

3. Tri Marine will actively support work towards the development and adoption of a harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack that includes management action responses to changes in skipjack stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining the WCPO skipjack stock at or near target references points.

Year 4:

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 236 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

4. A harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack will be adopted that includes management action responses to changes in skipjack stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining the WCPO skipjack stock at or near target reference points.

Tri Marine’s support and advocacy will largely be through active participation in WCPFC meetings as part of the US, American Samoa and Solomon Islands delegations. Such participation will include communicating specific desired policies to support meeting this condition. The client will consult and coordinate with NMFS, the US, American Samoa and Consultation on Solomon Islands WCPFC delegations, other WCPFC delegations, including FFA/PNA condition members, SPC, ISSF and environmental NGOs as appropriate.

Table A1.3.2: Condition 2 Performance PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 60

Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Skipjack tuna

SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined harvest control rules are in place for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.

Condition SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules shall take into account the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that well defined harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score 60. Milestones

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

Year 1:

1. Tri Marine will actively support the adoption of a WCPFC Harvest Strategy Workplan which establishes a process and timeframes to adopt a harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack tuna (in line with WCPFC CMM 2014-06).

Client action plan 2. Tri Marine will advocate for a harvest strategy that includes well defined harvest

control rules taking into account the main uncertainties for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.

3. If a target reference point for skipjack is not adopted by WCPFC12, Tri Marine will actively support PNA (and/or other WCPFC members’) ongoing efforts for the adoption of a target reference point.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 237 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Years 1-3:

4. Tri Marine will actively support work towards the development and adoption of a harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack that includes management action responses to changes in skipjack stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining the WCPO skipjack stock at or near target references points.

5. Tri Marine will advocate that PNA establish more explicit linkages between total allowable effort (TAE) of the VDS and the harvest strategy (effort limited to that which maintains the stock at target reference point), including reductions in PAE as the limit reference point is neared.

Year 4:

6. Tri Marine will demonstrate that the WCPFC has well defined and effective harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for skipjack that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.

Tri Marine’s support and advocacy will largely be through active participation in WCPFC meetings as part of the US, American Samoa and Solomon Islands delegations. Such participation will include communicating specific desired policies to support meeting this condition.

The client will consult and coordinate with NMFS, the US, American Samoa and Consultation on Solomon Islands WCPFC delegations, other WCPFC delegations, including FFA/PNA condition members, SPC, ISSF and environmental NGOs as appropriate

Table A1.3.3: Condition 3 Performance PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Indicator Score 70

Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Yellowfin tuna

SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for Condition yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that well defined harvest control rules are in place for yellowfin tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score 70. Milestones

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

Client action plan Year 1:

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 238 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

1. Tri Marine will actively support the adoption of a WCPFC Harvest Strategy Workplan, which establishes a process and timeframes to adopt a harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin tuna (in line with WCPFC CMM 2014-06).

2. Tri Marine will advocate for a harvest strategy that includes management action responses to changes in skipjack stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining the WCPO yellowfin stock at or near target reference points (in line with WCPFC CMM 2014-06).

Years 1-3:

3. Tri Marine will actively support work towards the development and adoption of a harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack that includes management action responses to changes in yellowfin stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining the WCPO skipjack stock at or near target references points.

Year 4:

4. A harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack will be adopted that includes management action responses to changes in yellowfin stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining the WCPO yellowfin stock at or near target reference points.

Tri Marine’s support and advocacy will largely be through active participation in WCPFC meetings as part of the US, American Samoa and Solomon Islands delegations. Such participation will include communicating specific desired policies to support meeting this condition. The client will consult and coordinate with NMFS, the US, American Samoa and Consultation on Solomon Islands WCPFC delegations, other WCPFC delegations, including FFA/PNA condition members, SPC, ISSF and environmental NGOs as appropriate

Table A1.3.4: Condition 4 Performance PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules in place Indicator Score 60

Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Yellowfin tuna

SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined harvest control rules are in place for skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Condition SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules shall take into account the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that well defined harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for skipjack tuna that are Milestones consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score 60.

By the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that well defined and harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 239 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

skipjack tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score 80.

Year 1:

1. Tri Marine will actively support the adoption of a WCPFC Harvest Strategy Workplan which establishes a process and timeframes to adopt a harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin tuna (in line with WCPFC CMM 2014-06).

2. Tri Marine will advocate for a harvest strategy that includes well defined harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties for yellowfin tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.

Years 1-3:

3. Tri Marine will actively support work towards the development and adoption of a harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin that includes management action responses to changes in yellowfin stock status and harvest control rules aimed at maintaining Client action plan the WCPO skipjack stock at or near target references points.

4. Tri Marine will advocate that adoption of additional WCPFC management measures for yellowfin.

Year 4:

5. Tri Marine will demonstrate that well defined and effective harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for yellowfin that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached.

Tri Marine’s support and advocacy will largely be through active participation in WCPFC meetings as part of the US, American Samoa and Solomon Islands delegations. Such participation will include communicating specific desired policies to support meeting this condition.

The client will consult and coordinate with NMFS, the US, American Samoa and Consultation on Solomon Islands WCPFC delegations, other WCPFC delegations, including FFA/PNA condition members, SPC, ISSF and environmental NGOs as appropriate

Table A1.3.5: Condition 5 PI 2.1.2 There is a strategy in place for managing retained species that is designed to Performance ensure the fishery does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to retained Indicator species Score 75

Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2

SI e) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark Condition finning is not taking place or that, if rare cases are reported, that measures are taken

to address the issue. At the first surveillance audit and subsequent audits, the client will provide evidence Milestones that it has taken all reasonable precautions to ensure that shark finning is not taking

place on its vessels. If isolated incidents are reported, the client will provide evidence

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 240 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

that the incidents have been fully investigated and that the offending vessel and/or crew members have been sanctioned appropriately.

Years 1-4:

1. Tri Marine will ensure that all vessel officers and crews are fully aware of its existing public policy prohibiting shark finning through crew briefings and physically displaying the policy in the vessel.

2. Employee contracts will continue to clearly stipulate that shark finning is prohibited and any crew taking part in shark finning will be immediately dismissed. Client action plan 3. Vessel captains will be responsible for immediately reporting any shark finning incidents to the General Manager of Tri Marine Fishing Management, LLC.

4. If incidents are reported by authorities, Tri Marine will fully cooperate in any investigations conducted. Similarly, Tri Marine will conduct its own internal investigation of the incident.

5. All vessel masters will annually complete ISSF’s skippers’ training in best-practice by-catch handling, including sharks.

Consultation on Tri Marine will consult with the relevant authorities if any alleged cases of shark finning condition arise.

Table A1.3.6: Condition 6 Performance PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the fishery’s Indicator management measures are enforced and complied with Score 75

Rationale Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3

Condition SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that sanctions to deal with non- compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working towards the development of sanctions to deal with non-compliance. Score 75 Milestones By the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that responses to non- compliance exist, are complied with and thought to provide effective deterrence. Score 80.

Years 1-3:

1. Tri Marine will advocate for the development of a process to complement WCPFC’s Compliance Monitoring Scheme which identifies a range of responses to non- compliance including cooperative capacity-building initiatives, more transparent Client action plan decision-making processes for dealing with non-compliance and the imposition of

penalties, and other actions necessary to promote compliance with WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures.

2. Tri Marine will advocate for the adoption of responses to non-compliance, including cooperative capacity-building initiatives and, as appropriate, penalties and other

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 241 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

actions necessary to promote compliance with WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures.

Year 4:

3. Tri Marine will fully support the consistent application of responses to non- compliance which provide effective deterrence.

Tri Marine’s support and advocacy will largely be through active participation in WCPFC meetings (particularly TCC which is responsible for the Compliance Monitoring Scheme and annual reviews and the Intersessional Working Group on Responses to Non- Compliance) as part of the US, American Samoa and Solomon Islands delegations. Such participation will include communicating specific desired policies to support meeting this condition.

The client will consult and coordinate with NMFS, the US, American Samoa and Consultation on Solomon Islands WCPFC delegations, other WCPFC delegations, including FFA/PNA condition members, SPC, ISSF and environmental NGOs as appropriate

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 242 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

National Marine Fisheries Letter of Support

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 243 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 244 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 2. Peer Review Reports Peer Reviewers’ Overall Opinion Overall Opinion of the Report Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes No appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? (Yes/No) Peer Reviewer Justification The evidence provided in the report supports I disagree that the stock assessments for both the conclusion that the fishery should be skipjack and yellowfin have been tested and certified. The action plan provided by the shown to be robust. In particular, the client should be strengthened to increase assessment does not appear to have been confidence that the milestones are met. simulation-tested with regards to those species, and I could not see evidence of simple robustness tests such as retrospective analyses. Further detail is provided in my review below, and in the other comments section. Certification Body Response See below for the response. Additional material has been added to the background sections and rationales to support the assigned score. Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes & No Yes appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? (Yes/No) Peer Reviewer Justification a) The conditions 1,2,3,4 and 6 follow the The conditions raised directly address reasons wording of the scoring guide and will achieve for lower scoring, and will improve scores if the SG80 outcome if the milestones are implemented.

Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 245 of 350

achieved.

Condition 5 is unnecessary since the score for PI 2.1.2 should be at least 80. Evidence provided in the report by the SPC suggests that is it already highly unlikely that shark finning is taking place in this fleet. Certification Body Response a) The MSC requirements to pass at the SG80 level for PI2.1.2e or are that not only must there be no systematic finning but also that rare or isolated examples of finning must have been appropriately sanctioned. We agree that there is evidence that shark finning is not happening systematically but there is not yet evidence that the rare examples are followed by appropriate sanctions. It is this second requirement that leads to a score of <80 and the need for a condition.

Client Action Plan Comments Client Action Plan Comments (if included) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Do you think the client action plan is No Yes sufficient to close the conditions raised? (Y/N) Peer Reviewer Justification a) Conditions 1,2,3 4 and 6 require significant Implementation of a harvest strategy with consultation with the WCPFC scientific and explicit target and limit reference points, as management committees and are beyond the well as demonstration that the harvest control of the client to implement. The strategy is effective will improve relevant milestones require the client to provide scores to at least SG80 for both skipjack and evidence of advocating for the required yellowfin. outcomes but this does not provide any confidence of success in achieving the Improved demonstration that shark finning is

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 246 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

milestones. This confidence would be increased not taking place and that best practice policy if there was a commitment from the WCPFC to is being followed by all vessels will improve work toward the outcomes of these conditions the relevant score to SG80. within the time frame. This letter of commitment should be added to the report. The development of a transparent system of decision-making for dealing with non- compliance and the imposition of penalties to ensure the effectiveness of fishery management measures will improve the relevant score to SG80.

b) I was surprised to see that life status data are not being collected by observers, particularly on release of ETP species. I suggest (rather than recommend) that perhaps this might also be considered under the action plan. Certification Body Response a) We agree that this is one of the inherent problems of all conditions for RFMO fisheries. The Commission is unable to make commitments ahead of agreement by its members. Where such commitments have already been made (such as for the further refinement of harvest strategies) we have acknowledged this in the background material and scoring rationales.

We are also seeking some form of commitment from relevant staff in the relevant US agency and acceptance of the CAP and certification is conditional on receiving evidence to comply with the requirements of 27.11.3 concerning the involvement of involvement, funding and/or resources of fisheries management or research agencies, authorities or regulating bodies that might have authority, power or control over management arrangements, research budgets and/or priorities.

b) As noted below, data on life status are recorded for what are considered ‘species of special

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 247 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

interest’ but these were not available at the time of the assessment.

Peer Reviewers General Comments Peer Reviewer General Comments (optional) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 None. None.

Certifying Body Response N/A

Peer Reviewers Comments Related to Scores and Rationales Principle 1

With the exception of PI1.1.2, scoring issue (a), justifications and responses are uniform for both yellowfin (YFT) and skipjack (SKJ) tuna. For PI1.1.2a the different justifications for YFT and SKJ are noted.

Performance Indicator 1.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 248 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Peer Reviewer Justification Although there is no explicit target reference 1.1.1a. There is a high degree of certainty that point for Skipjack or Yellowfin, the assessment the stock is above the point at which team makes a rational argument and a logical recruitment would be impaired given the very conclusion. low probability that the stock is below the limit reference point of 20% of SBF=0, so SG100 is justified.

1.1.1b. There is no explicit target reference point. The SBMSY level estimated by the base case stock assessment provides a default biomass target. Taking that default target at face value leads to the SG100 score arrived at by the assessors. However, some caution is necessary – see comments under 1.1.2.

Certification Body Response No Response Required

Performance Indicator 1.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 249 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 1.1.2a. Technically the limit and target information into account and correctly scored reference points are appropriate and can be this PI. estimated, satisfying SG80.

1.1.2b. The limit reference point is precautionary, being set at 20%SBF=0 (and not SBMSY/2), satisfying SG100.

1.1.2c. The target reference point satisfies SG80, but is uncertain and does not take into account precautionary issues.

a) SKJ: Reference point values from the base stock assessment show that SBMSY is 24.3% of SBF=0. For a stock that has essentially been through one fish-down to perhaps 48% of SBF=0, there is little doubt that the productivity characteristics of the stock are uncertain and therefore also any MSY estimates. In these circumstances, the normal situation (e.g. in Australian and US national fisheries) is to set a proxy biomass target – often in the range of 40-60% SBF=0, as alluded to for this fishery in Figure 16 of the draft MSC assessment report, and apparently asked by WCPFC for consideration as a potential target range. Using such a target range, the base assessment shows that the stock is at or fluctuating around its target reference point, but not with a high degree of certainty (with catches on an increasing trend). If such a proxy target were implemented, the scoring under

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 250 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

1.1.1 would need revision. b) YFT: Reference point values from the base stock assessment show that SBMSY is 30.1% of SBF=0. For a stock that has essentially been through one fish-down to perhaps 38% of SBF=0, there is little doubt that the productivity characteristics of the stock are uncertain and therefore any MSY estimates. In these circumstances, the normal situation (e.g. in Australian and US national fisheries) is to set a proxy biomass target – often in the range of 40-60% SBF=0, as alluded to for this fishery in Figure 29 of the draft MSC assessment report, and apparently asked by WCPFC for consideration as a potential target range. Using such a target range, the base assessment shows that the stock is just below such a target range, but not with a high degree of certainty (with catches on a slightly increasing trend). If such a proxy target were implemented, the scoring under 1.1.1 would need revision.

Certification Body Response a&b) The uncertainty is noted and the need for future monitoring of stock status against reference points is acknowledged. This would be re-examined at any surveillance audits.

Performance Indicator 1.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been NA NA

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 251 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to NA NA score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification NA NA Certification Body Response NA

Performance Indicator 1.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s Yes Yes performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 1.2.1a. The SG60 score is justified primarily as information into account and correctly scored it has not been demonstrated that elements of this PI. the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives. There are no formal harvest control rules.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 252 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

1.2.1b. There is evidence that the harvest strategy is currently meeting objectives but has not been fully tested, satisfying SG80.

1.2.1c. Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 1.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the Yes Yes fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification I would have thought that this fishery would be 1.2.2a. I agree that SG60 is met (under scored against the V1.3 text and the other similar revision CR v2.0) as a generally understood fisheries would be harmonized at their next harvest rule is not in place, but is available fishery audit against the new requirement. should the stock approach the point of However, the team has made the right decision recruitment impairment, that the stock has following MSC guidance. It is that guidance that I never been estimated to have fallen below the question. SBMSY level, and is exceptionally unlikely to become overfished or fall below SBMSY under

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 253 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

2012 status quo projections within the next 5 years.

1.2.2b. SG80 requirements are not met because available harvest control rules have not been fully specified for this fishery, so it is unknown how well they account for uncertainties.

1.2.2c. Similarly, SG60 is met because there is some evidence of the effectiveness of available HCRs, but they are yet to be fully specified. Certification Body Response No Response Required

Performance Indicator 1.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification Although I would be concerned about the 1.2.3a. There is a comprehensive range of deficiencies of data from Indonesia and the monitoring information collected (including Philippines and the conclusion drawn with logbook, VMS and 100% observer coverage),

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 254 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

respect to SI c, I understand the need to as well as supplementary environmental data harmonize with existing assessments. useful for explaining shifts in the population distribution that meets the SG100 level.

1.2.3b. Stock abundance and fishery removals are regularly monitored at a level that supports the harvest control rule and trends in catch and abundance are sufficient to support an assessment and harvest strategy at the SG80 level. There is not a high degree of certainty about stock abundance or the robustness of the assessment to this uncertainty to meet a higher SG level.

1.2.3c. Data is of good quality from most source countries and there have been recent improvements in data quality from Indonesia and the Philippines allowing the SG80 level. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 1.2.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes No used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to No No score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 255 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification a) I suggest the SG100 “e” scoring issue has 1.2.4a. The integrated model-based been met with the evidence of both internal assessment is appropriate for the stock and and external reviews. There is no wording in for the harvest control rule and takes into the SI for a “formal review” as required by the account the major features relevant to the assessment team. biology of the species and the nature of the Reference to the 2014 assessment document fishery, meeting the SG100 requirements. should be made in the Justification for SIb as well as SIc. 1.2.4b. The assessment estimates stock status relevant to reference points.

1.2.4c. The assessment has explicitly examined major uncertainties and the probability of the stock performance in relation to reference points has been examined, meeting SG100 requirements.

b) 1.2.4d. I disagree with the assessors views here that SG100 is achieved. I don’t believe that the assessment has been simulation tested in relation to this stock (ideally in combination with a HCR). Also, alternative model structural assumptions (e.g. in relation to interpretation abundance indices, alternative stock recruitment relationships) have not been rigorously explored. I don’t have the information available, but suspect that retrospective model behaviour may not have been examined as I see no mention of it.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 256 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

1.2.4e. The assessment has been thoroughly internally scrutinised but not formally externally reviewed, meeting SG80.

Certification Body Response a) We have amended the wording to refer to external reviews rather than formal reviews. Since preparing the draft report we have also become aware of reviews of the earlier yellowfin assessment. This was not initiated by WCPFC or SPC and there is no acknowledgment of it in the latest yellowfin assessment. Given the manner of its initiation and the lack of a clear response in the subsequent assessment we are inclined to take a conservative approach in still not considering scoring the last scoring issue to have been met at the SG 100 level.

We note that the other peer reviewer was also of the opinion that issue e was not met at the SG100 level although they were also probably unaware of the existence of the earlier review.

b) The reviewer is correct that simulation testing has not been undertaken for the skipjack assessment but note that undertaking such testing is not a requirement for passing scoring issue d at the 100 level. There have, however, been a range of model assumptions explored and retrospective analyses have been undertaken. We have added more detail about the range and nature of these explorations to provide better evidence to justify the score given.

Principle 2 Performance Indicator 2.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 257 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has correctly scored this PI 2.1.1a. Bigeye tuna is the only main retained according to information provided. species. The most recent assessment indicates that the bigeye stock is close to the limit reference point and continues to decline. This does not meet the requirements for the SG 60 level and therefore see scoring issue c below.

2.1.1b. Not scored.

2.1.1c. The UoC catches of bigeye tuna are a minor portion of the total for the stock, and the unassociated free school purse seine fishing does not catch many bigeye. The SG80 level is met as the UoC fishing method is effective in not hindering recovery and rebuilding of bigeye.

2.1.1d. Not scored. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been No Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to No Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 258 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Will the condition(s) raised improve the A condition is not necessary. Yes fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification a) Third party observers on 100% of the client’s 2.1.2a. The management measure that ensures vessels have recorded 0% finning. This would the fishery does not hinder bigeye recovery is the support a “highly unlikely” conclusion for the fishing method of the UoC that catches very few SG80e Scoring Issue. The comments regarding bigeye. This measure, along with ongoing the TCC level of reporting may be attributable to monitoring and assessment is considered to the fleet as a whole and should be scored under constitute a strategy in relation to this PI, and compliance PI 323. meets the requirements of SG80.

2.1.2b. The strategy has been shown to keep catches of bigeye at minor levels, and continued confirmation through the bigeye stock assessment that the UoC does not hinder bigeye recovery meets the requirements of SG80.

2.1.2c. UoC minor catches of bigeye provide evidence of the success of the strategy, meeting SG80 requirements.

2.1.2d. Not scored.

2.1.2e. Low levels of shark finning have been detected by observers, but it is likely that it is not taking place in a systematic manner, meeting SG60.

b) Scoring under this PI is unusual in that SG100 was not scored except in relation to shark finning. I agree with the scoring arrived at, but the reason for not scoring the SG100 levels

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 259 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

should be given. Certification Body Response a) There has been some level of finning observed as indicated in Table 6.

The MSC requirements to pass at the SG80 level for PI2.1.2e or are that not only must there be no systematic finning but also that rare or isolated examples of finning must have been appropriately sanctioned. We agree that there is evidence that shark finning is not happening systematically but there is not yet evidence that the rare examples are followed by appropriate sanctions. It is this second requirement that leads to a score of <80 and the need for a condition.

b) SG100 was not scored for any scoring issues. This is now clarified in the report.

Performance Indicator 2.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 260 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.1.3a. Quantitative information on main information into account and correctly scored retained species taken by the fishery is this PI. adequate as input for stock assessment, but not for all retained species, meeting SG80.

2.1.3b. Information is available to determine the outcome status of bigeye with a high degree of certainty, meeting SG80. Outcome status can also be determined for other retained species, but not with the same high degree of certainty.

2.1.3c. While information available for bigeye is sufficient to support a quantitative assessment and the application and evaluation of a complete management strategy, the information available on other retained species is not sufficient to evaluate management strategies with a high degree of certainty, satisfying SG80.

2.1.3d. Monitoring of retained species is in sufficient detail to assess ongoing mortalities of all retained species, meeting SG100. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 261 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.2.1a. There are no main bycatch species information into account and correctly scored (guidance v1.3 says comprising >5% of the total this PI. catch weight). As there is a small non-negligible bycatch component and there is not a high degree of certainty that bycatch species are within their biological limits, this meets the SG80 requirements.

2.2.1b. There are no main bycatch species so this meets SG80.

2.2.1c. Not scored. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 262 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.2.2a. There are no main bycatch species so no information into account and correctly scored measures are required for their management. this PI. There is a strategy in place for sharks to minimise bycatch, so meets SG100.

2.2.2b. Information from observer programs supports confidence in the strategy to ensure low bycatch levels, but it has not been formally tested, so meeting SG80.

2.2.2c. There is evidence from observer programs that the strategy is successful, however the reporting by CCMs is uneven and levels of compliance have not been clearly determined by the TCC, meeting SG80.

2.2.2d. The failure of CMMs for silky sharks to keep them within biologically based limits means that the SG100 requirements are not met. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been No Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 263 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification a) The justification should mention the bycatch 2.2.3a. There are no main bycatch species, and species that are not well understood and the effects on some but not all bycatch species therefore are a concern to the scoring of the populations can be determined, meeting SG80. SG100a, b and c issues. 2.2.3b. Available information is sufficient to estimate outcome status but not quantitatively with a high degree of certainty for all bycatch species, meeting SG80.

2.2.3c. There are no main bycatch species and available information is considered adequate to support a partial strategy, but not sufficient to evaluate it with a high degree of certainty, meeting SG80.

2.2.3d. As observer coverage is 100%, all bycatch species are monitored in sufficient detail to meet SG100. Certification Body Response a) A cross reference has been added to the rationale to the table where some of the bycatch species are listed to provide additional information on which species are being referred to.

Performance Indicator 2.3.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 264 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.3.1a. The effects of the fishery are within information into account and correctly scored national and international requirements for the this PI. protection of ETP species that are known to have interacted with the fishery: sharks and rays, cetaceans and turtles, meeting SG100.

2.3.1b. The low number of individuals involved from all groups as confirmed by the observer program meets SG100.

2.3.1c. Modelling of indirect trophic effects have shown them to be non-negligible but also not irreversible. Indirect effects have been considered and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on any ETP species but the level of evidence is insufficient to assign a high degree of confidence to this conclusion, meeting SG80.

Certification Body Response No response required

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 265 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Performance Indicator 2.3.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.3.2a The various CMMs in place for ETP information into account and correctly scored species are considered to be highly likely to this PI. achieve national and international requirements for their protection, meeting SG80.

2.3.2b. Ongoing monitoring provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work, but quantitative analyses have only been undertaken for some ETP species, meeting SG80.

2.3.2c. Available data (observer and National reports to WCPFC) provide evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented. The lack of transparency about Part 2 reports to the WCPFC, that contain details of compliance with CMMs means that there is not clear evidence of their successful implementation, meeting SG80.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 266 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

2.3.2d. There is not good supporting evidence that the strategy is achieving its objective for all ETP species (except perhaps for turtles), and too early to evaluate the impact of some CMMs, so SG100 is not achieved. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.3.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.3.3a.The observer program data allows the information into account and correctly scored quantification of fishery-related mortality and this PI. the impact of fishing on ETP species, but not outcome status for all ETP species, meeting SG80.

2.3.3b. The observer program data are sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, but do not comprehensively cover all mortalities and impacts, meeting SG80.

2.3.3c. There is some uncertainty due to

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 267 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

remaining issues with the data collected in relation to potential indirect effects and species identification. For cetaceans in particular, although mortalities are not common, there is also a need to understand population structure and to be able to attribute mortalities to particular demographically-independent populations, meeting SG80. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.4.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.4.1a. The purse seine fishery is deep oceanic information into account and correctly scored and does not affect the sea floor. The this PI. unassociated fishery has no impact on habitat that could cause serious or irreversible harm, meeting SG100.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 268 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.4.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 269 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.4.2a. As there is no risk of harm to habitats, information into account and correctly scored no management strategy is required. this PI. Observers provide on-going monitoring to confirm no risk for the unassociated fishing method of the UoC, meeting SG100.

2.4.2b. Monitoring by observers provide high confidence that there is no habitat risk, meeting SG100.

2.4.2c. Clear evidence from observers of operations of the UoC vessel unassociated sets confirms no habitat risk, meeting SG100.

2.4.2d. Evidence from observers of operations of the UoC vessel unassociated sets confirms the management objective of no habitat risk, meeting SG100.

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.4.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 270 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.4.3a. The distribution of the epipelagic information into account and correctly scored habitat in which the fishery operates is known, this PI. meeting SG100.

2.4.3b. Physical impacts of the gear on the epipelagic habitat are negligible, not requiring quantification, meeting SG100.

2.4.3c. No on-going risk of habitat damage is expected, and changes in the distribution over time of the epipelagic habitat are monitored, meeting SG100.

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.5.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 271 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 2.5.1a. An ecosystem study in 2006 found that information into account and correctly scored while the tuna fishery effects on top-level this PI. predators is substantial, the ecosystem effects are likely to be minor. Available evidence suggests that the fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure or function. However there are no direct studies of current fishery removals effects, so SG80 requirements are met.

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 2.5.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been No Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to No Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification a) The justification is silent on SG100 b. A 2.5.2a. Although not designed specifically to statement should be included referring to the manage ecosystem effects, the range of lack of a plan. measures (WCPFC and national) in place is considered to be a partial strategy, meeting SG80.

2.5.2b. A number of steps towards an ecosystem approach to fisheries management have been adopted, comprising a partial strategy, meeting

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 272 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

SG80.

2.5.2c. The partial strategy considers the significant sources of fishery related risks to the WCPO ecosystem, namely the removal of target species, risks associated with impacts of bycatch and discarding of a wide range of non-target species. Overall, the partial strategy is considered likely to work, meeting SG80 requirements.

2.5.2d. The regional stock assessments indicate that current harvest strategies and management measures have been successful in maintaining target species about the BMSY level, with the exception of bigeye tuna (not caught in significant quantities by the UoC). Given that the fishery is highly unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure or function, and there is good monitoring provided by the observer program, SG100 requirements are met.

b) The definition of SG100 for 2.5.2d seems ambiguous to me. See my comments. May require further guidance/revision? Certification Body Response a) Comments in relation to SG 100 have been added.

b) We have interpreted this as concerning a partial strategy and scored accordingly.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 273 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Performance Indicator 2.5.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been No Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to No Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification a) The scoring justification for SG100e misses the 2.5.3a. Available studies are sufficient to broadly point. This is an information PI and the question understand key elements of the ecosystem, is whether there is sufficient information to meeting SG80. support development of a strategy, not whether the strategy exists. 2.5.3b. There have been ecosystem studies of the pelagic ecosystems of the WCPO and the development and application of a dynamic system model to the work of the WCPFC, meeting SG80.

2.5.3c. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of target, Bycatch, Retained and ETP species that are impacted and to determine their respective roles e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats, meeting SG100.

2.5.3d. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components and allow the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 274 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred, meeting SG100.

2.5.3e. Sufficient data are available to detect increases in risk level, but there is no comprehensive strategy for ecosystem management in the region, meeting SG80. Certification Body Response a) Additional comments in relation to the collection of information have been included. Principle 3 Performance Indicator 3.1.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been No Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to No Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA) Peer Reviewer Justification a) There is no evidence presented to support the 3.1.1a. Arrangements in place provide a system score for SG100a. The team should name the for effective co‐operation among the parties and national jurisdictions where binding agreements can apply binding measures consistent with MSC are not in place. principles 1 and 2 particularly at the WCPFC and US government levels. Binding arrangements are not in place across all jurisdictions, meeting SG80.

3.1.1b. The WCPFC has a consensus-based and transparent decision-making process, and the UNFSA dispute settlement mechanism applies to the Nauru Agreement, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS. US management and legal systems

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 275 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

incorporate transparent consultative and dispute resolution mechanisms that have been tested. However, the WCPFC and INFSA management systems are untested, meeting SG80.

b) 3.1.1c. Seems to be missing, or 3.1.1d is mis- numbered.

3.1.1d. WCPFC has an intention and has a management system that observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Therefore the international management system meets the requirement for SG 60 and SG 80. However, SG100 is not met as there is not clear evidence of mechanisms formally committing to legal rights at the WCPFC level. Certification Body Response a) Comments in relation to national jurisdictions have been added.

b) The scoring follows the Certification Requirements v1.3 used in the assessment. Scoring issue 3.1.1c is no longer used.

Performance Indicator 3.1.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 276 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 3.1.2a. Organisations and individuals involved in information into account and correctly scored the management process have been identified. this PI. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction at the WCPFC, PNA and national levels, as well as support organisations FFA and SPC, meeting SG100. Whilst roles and responsibilities are generally well defined, WCPFC has had a number of problems with flag states not applying appropriate controls to all their vessels.

3.1.2b. The WCPFC and US government management systems includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management systems demonstrate consideration of the information obtained, meeting SG80. A higher score is not achieved because the management system cannot demonstrate consideration of all the information or explain how it uses such information in decisions across all responsible jurisdictions.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 277 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

3.1.2c. All interested parties have the opportunity and are encouraged to participate in consultation processes, meeting SG100. Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 3.1.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to No Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification a) SG100a: This requires some evidence of Clear long-term objectives that guide decision- where the policy is not applied. making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach are explicit within management policy for both there WCPFC and US government. In practice it is unclear whether the precautionary approach is consistently applied within the WCPFC, particularly in relation to maintaining fishing mortality at or below those that would achieve MSY for bigeye tuna. The SG80 level is fully met, and the SG100 level is partially met.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 278 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Certification Body Response a) Additional comments have been included.

Performance Indicator 3.1.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant Overall, the management system, particularly information into account and correctly scored the rights-element of the VDS and the inclusion this PI. of US purse seine fishing days within this, provides for the creation of incentives that are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC Principles 1 and 2, and there is evidence that the management system seeks to ensure that perverse incentives do not arise within the UoA (meeting SG 60, SG 80 and the first part of SG 100). However, further evidence is required to show that there is explicit consideration of incentives in a regular review of management policy or procedures to ensure they do not contribute to unsustainable fishing practices, thus SG 100 is only partially met.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 279 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 3.2.1 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant Short and long-term objectives, which are information into account and correctly scored consistent with achieving the outcomes this PI. expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are explicit within the WCPFC and US fishery management systems meeting SG80. Some objectives are not well defined enough to be operational or measurable. The PNA recently explicitly covered the issue of MSC and the need for short term objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. The 2014 CMM for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean includes explicit and measurable operational objectives for all three key tuna species. SG100 is partially met.

Certification Body Response No response required

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 280 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Performance Indicator 3.2.2 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 281 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 3.2.2a. Regional and national decision‐making information into account and correctly scored processes are in place that result in measures this PI. and strategies to achieve objectives, meeting SG60 and SG80.

3.2.2b. The WCPFC, US government and PNA have established effective decision-making processes which respond to issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, meeting SG80. WCPFC processes do not clearly respond to all issues and do not provide formal transparent and accountable reporting as to why decisions are or are not taken.

3.2.2c. There is sufficient information to conclude that decision‐making processes for the regional and U.S elements of the management system are based on the best available information and the precautionary approach, meeting S80.

3.2.2d. For the WCPFC and US government, information on fishery performance and management action is available on request, and explanations are provided for any actions or lack of action associated with findings and relevant recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, meeting SG80. Information is not comprehensive for all elements of the management system and SG100 is not met.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 282 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

3.2.2e. The management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes at the regional level by the prompt incorporation of CMMs into national legislation and the implementation of measures to support such legislation. However, there is increasing potential for legal challenges (e.g. in relation to resource allocation) but no evidence as yet of proactive actions so the requirements of SG80 are met at the WCPFC and US government levels, but SG100 are not considered to be met.

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 3.2.3 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no) Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 283 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Will the condition(s) raised improve the Yes Yes fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The preparation of a compliance sanctions 3.2.3a. The combination of MCS and scheme for an RFMO is a difficult hill to climb compliance mechanisms at WCPFC, PNA and since agreement of all parties is necessary at US and other national levels creates a strong every stage of development of the policy. It is, system of MCS measures across all relevant however, necessary for build credibility of the management levels, meeting SG60 and SG80 compliance measures. requirements.

3.2.3b. Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is evidence that they are applied, meeting S60. US systems meet SG60 and SG80 requirements. However, the lack of transparency in WCPFC dealing with non- compliance prevents judgement as to whether sanctions are consistently applied, so SG 80 is not met for WCPFC.

3.2.3c. WCPFC reports indicate that the compliance is adequate in the fisheries considered here, meeting SG80. There is evidence of sanctions being implemented by the US government for some purse seine vessels for a low level of non-compliance, also suggesting SG80 requirements are met.

3.2.3d. While non-compliance issues have been identified, there is no evidence that they are widespread or systematic, meeting SG80.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 284 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 3.2.4 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to Yes Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no) Will the condition(s) raised improve the fishery’s NA NA performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification The assessment team has taken relevant 3.2.4a. The SCPFC strategic research plan, information into account and correctly scored combined with SPC, FFA and national plans this PI. associated with research and monitoring provide a strategic approach to ensuring reliable and timely information is available to inform management decisions sufficient to achieve the objectives consistent with MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, meeting SG80. The US government contributes to the development of that plan. Principle 3 is not addressed as strategically as P1 and P2 in the plan.

3.2.4b. Apart from information which is confidential to members, information from all responsible jurisdictions is disseminated widely and in a timely fashion, meeting SG100.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 285 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Certification Body Response No response required

Performance Indicator 3.2.5 Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 Has all the relevant information available been Yes Yes used to score this indicator? (yes/no)

Does the information and/or rationale used to No Yes score this indicator support the given score? (yes/no)

Will the condition(s) raised improve the NA NA fishery’s performance to the SG80 level? (yes/no/NA)

Peer Reviewer Justification a) SG100a: What mechanisms are not in place to 3.2.5a. The WCPFC, US government and the evaluate all parts of the management system? PNA processes incorporate mechanisms to What’s missing such that the fishery did not meet evaluate key parts of the management system, the SI? meeting SG80 requirements. A higher score is not indicated because it is not evident that systems are in place to evaluate all parts of the management system.

3.2.5b. Key parts of US and regional management systems are subject to regular internal review. There has been an external performance review WCPFC but it is not clear that there is a commitment to this being regular, meeting SG80.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 286 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Certification Body Response a) Additional comments have been included to address this issue.

Any Other Comments (optional) Peer Reviewer 1 Peer Reviewer 2 a) Harmonization of assessments is a difficult b) I am necessarily limited to the text of the review task and the report has done a good job on report in making my comments, which assumes that scoring but it would be help to include a the report contains all of the necessary details from section comparing the conditions already in background documents to score performance place with other relevant certified fisheries indicators. As I do not look at those background and fisheries under assessment with the documents, I am unable to comment on what might conditions proposed here, particularly lining be missing. An example is in relation to the up the timing of any similar milestones so the robustness of the stock assessments. To my mind, management body is able to respond to one robustness of a stock assessment refers to stability, set of requirements within a common even when some incorrect structural assumptions timeline. may have been made. Such assumptions may be about, for example, time-invariant natural mortality, or particular partitioning of the spatial distribution of the stock. I don’t see detail in the peer review report about the robustness of the stock assessment to alternative structural assumptions, which is normally tested using simulations. These may have been done, but I must assume that they have not, as information about that is absent in the report. Apparent precision of results (e.g. Figs 14 and 27) suggests to me that fairly rigid structural assumptions have been made. I do not see text about the examination of assessment retrospective patterns (sequential deletion of recent data year by year and re-assessment to see if pathological patterns emerge), that also provides some evidence

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 287 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

for stock assessment robustness. The provision of sensitivity analyses as part of an integrated stock assessment has become a necessary and standard practice for such assessments and has been done here. Such sensitivity analyses provide some comfort that assessment results are robust given the current model structure, but do not provide evidence for the robustness of the stock assessment model itself. A simple example to illustrate the point that I’m trying to make is that a coding error could exist in the stock assessment causing it to produce realistic-looking but incorrect results. Sensitivity tests could look OK, but only simulation testing could show if the stock assessment is able to reproduce results consistent with those made for the creation of simulated data, and to test robustness to alternative structural assumptions. MSE testing goes a step further in simulation testing the robustness of the entire harvest strategy (monitoring, assessment, harvest control rule). Document: MSC Certification Requirements Guidance V1.3, GCB2.8 Assessment of Stock Status PI (PI 1.2.4) state that: “This PI considers how the fishery assesses information to provide an understanding of stock status and the effectiveness of the harvest strategy. Some harvest strategies assess stock status using empirical indicators and do not require use of quantitative assessment models. In such cases, the Assessment PI will be scored relative to the

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 288 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

robustness of that indicator (which may also have contributed to the score for the Information PI). This PI refers to stock assessments but in some circumstances, particularly under SG100, it may be useful to consider if MP/MSE approaches were used to test the robustness of the stock assessment to uncertainty and alternative hypotheses.” My interpretation of the above and my preceding comments lead me to disagree with the assessors, and to suggest that under PI 1.2.4d for skipjack and yellowfin that a score of 80, rather than 100 is met. Certification Body Response a) This would indeed be useful, but we do not consider that the work involved is necessary or justifiable for the completion of this report. b) We acknowledge that there are additional steps that could be taken to test the robustness of the stock assessments. The reviewer is correct that simulation testing has not been undertaken for either the skipjack or yellowfin assessments. The reviewer notes that the guidance states that “it may be useful to consider if MP/MSE approaches were used to test the robustness of the stock assessment, “however undertaking such testing is not a requirement for passing scoring issue d at the 100 level.” There have, however, been a range of model assumptions explored and retrospective analyses have been undertaken and we acknowledge that descriptions of these should be included in the report not only as important background but also as evidence to justify the scores given. More detail about the range and nature of these explorations has therefore been added to the report. In further support of the score given we also note that the MSC assessments of yellowfin tuna for the Walker Seafood fishery also rated the yellowfin assessment as reaching the SG100 level for this scoring issue and that the other peer review agreed with this score. We therefore consider the assigned score to be correct but in need of further justification and have amended both the background and rationale to provide the additional evidence.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 289 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 290 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 3. Stakeholder Submissions

As described in Section 4.4.2, stakeholder outreach was conducted via posting of announcements to the MSC website, direct email outreach, and an on-site visit to Pago Pago, American Samoa. There were no written submissions received prior to the Public Comment Draft Report and no verbal submissions received prior to or during the site visit regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment.

During the Public Comment Draft Report stage of the assessment (December 10, 2015-January 20, 2016) the assessment team received comments from four organizations as well as a technical oversight report from MSC. These comments, and the assessment team responses, are provided in this section (See: Stakeholder Responses to the Public Comment Draft Report).

The stakeholders who were contacted and invited to comment throughout the assessment process are listed below: Aida Navarro, Wildcoast John Hampton, SPC Ocean Fisheries Programme Alfonso Aguirre, Conservacion de Islas Jorge Torres, COBI Alfred Schumm, WWF Juan Garcia, SFP Alison Cross, WWF Julie Sherman, Marine Fish Conservation Network Annika Mackensen, WWF Julio Morón Ayala, OPAGAC Ana Justel, ISSF Karen Garrison, NRDC Amanda Nickson, PEW Katherine Short, FLOW Andreas Merkl, Ocean Conservancy Katy Boss, Humane Society Andrew Lurie, Humane Society Keith Lawrence, Conservation International Andrew Read, Duke University Laura Rodriguez, Envioronmental Defence Fund Armando Guzman, FIDEMAR Lisa Balance, NOAA B Olson, Anova Luis Bourillon, COBI Bill Fox, WWF US M Herrera, Cicese Bill Holden, MSC Manuel Nevarez, INAPESCA/SAGARPA Brad Spear, SFP Margreet Van Vilsteren, North Sea Alliance Bubba Cook, WWF South Pacific Martin Rivas, INOPESCA Carlos Robinson, UNAM-ICMYL Martin Hall, IATTC Carrie Brownstein, Whole Foods Matt Owens, TriMarine Casson Trenor, Greenpeace USA Maurice Brownjohn, PNA Cat Dorey, Greenpeace Australia Max Chou, South Pacific Tuna Catherine Zucco, WWF Germany Megan Bailey, Wageningen Uni Colin Campbell, Sierra Club Megan Mackey, Ecotrust Daniel Suddaby, WWF UK Michaela Gosliner, Marine Mammal Commission Dave Phillips, Earth Island Institute Michaela Vivero, MSC David Gersham, Pew Michel Dreyfus, Dawn Martin, SeaWeb Miguel Angel, INAPESCA/SAGARPA Doug Hines, South Pacific Tuna Corporation Mike Kraft, Bumble Bee Tuna Enriqueta Gonzalez, Univ Veracruzana Mike Tillman, Marine Mammal Commission

Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 291 of 350

Enriqueta Gonzalez, Univ Veracruzana Momo Kochen, MDPI Eugene LaPointe, IWMC N Colivares, CNDANRBIG Eva Cotero, INAPESCA NOAA NOAA, Margo Schulze-Haugen Exequiel Ezcurra, Oliver Knowles, Greenpeace Feleti Teo, Transform Aqorau Omar Vidal, WWF Mex Animal Welfare Institute Pablo Arenas, THC COBI Paulo Bray, Friends of the Sea Defenders of Wildlife Pt. Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation Science, IUCN Switzerland Rainer Froese, GeoMar IATTC Rebecca Regnery, Humane Society ISSF--Global Robin Pelc, Monterey Bay Aquarium Oceana Rod Fujita, Envioronmental Defence Fund ASPCA Russ Mittermeir, Conservation International Earth Island Institute Samantha Murray, Ocean Conservancy Gerry Leape, PEW Sarah King, Greenpeace Canada Isabel Granillo, Nature conservancy Mex Scott Henderson, Conservation International James Movick, FFA, Advisor Tuna Fisheries John Mimikakis, Envioronmental Defence Fund Jenn Kemmerly, Monterey Bay Aquarium Simon Bush, Wageningen Uni Joel Cardoza, American Tuna Transform Transform Aqorau, PNA Johann Bell, Global tuna initiative Wendy Norden, Monterey Bay Aquarium Johanna Thomas, Envioronmental Defence Fund Wez Norris, Pac Is Forum Fisheries Agency Stefaan Depypere, Eu DG Mare Canadian Albacore Tuna Suan Jackson, ISSF Ecotrust Simon Bush, Wageningen Uni Autonomous Univ of Baja Stefaan Depypere, Eu DG Mare International Game Fish Association Suan Jackson, ISSF Marine Conservation Society Thereasa Ish, Walton Family Foundation Turtle Island Restoration Network Tim Fitzgerald, Envioronmental Defence Fund Victor Restrepo, ISSF Tim Gerrodette, NOAA WWF--Mex Tobias Aguirre, FishWise

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 292 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Stakeholder Responses to the Public Comment Draft Report The assessment team received 4 stakeholder submissions during the Public Comment Draft Report period, as described with date and format in Table 1. In order to effectively address the stakeholder areas of concerns and minimize repetition, the stakeholder comments are summarized in the tables below. Table 2 summarized overarching comments (i.e. those not directly related to scoring of a specific Performance Indicator) using direct quotations from the stakeholder submissions, and Tables 3 and 4 summarize comments specific to individual Performance Indicators. Table 4 is followed by copies of each stakeholder submission.

Table 1: Summary of Stakeholder Submissions

Organization Representative Date Received Format

ISSF Susan Jackson 12/22/2015 Emailed Letter South Pacific Tuna Corporation Doug Hines 1/19/2016 Emailed MSC Objections Template6 Organización de productores Julio Morón 1/19/2016 Emailed Letter asociados de grandes atuneros congeladores (OPAGAC) WWF Annika Mackensen 1/20/2016 Emailed Letter

6 South Pacific Tuna Corporation submitted a Notice of Objection form during the PCDR phase of the report, prior to the Final Report and Certification Determination. The team therefore reviewed and responded to the content of the Objection Form as a stakeholder comment, and offered to consult with the stakeholder to provide an explanation of the MSC process and further understand their concerns. Excerpts summarizing concerns noted in the objection template and assessment team responses are provided here, with full substantive content from the Objection Template provided with the other stakeholder letters following this summary.

Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 293 of 350

Table 2: General Stakeholder Comments (not directly pertaining to specific PI scoring) OPAGAC ISSF South Pacific Tuna Corporation Team Response Units of OPAGAC believes that certification of a fishery ISSF is concerned that the two UoC complies with MSC Certification- shall cover all or, at least, the large majority of UoCs under assessment, which requirements and the fishery Exclusion of the activities of the fishing vessel(s) involved. do not include catches from definition is consistent with PNA FADS from This is not the case of PTE purse seine purse seine sets associated with Certificate. Impacts on bigeye are the UoC fisheries, all of which catch tropical tunas fish aggregating devices, assessed according to this scope. associated with objects as much as free- prescribe an artificial fishery swimming schools of yellowfin tuna. The solely to meet minimum MSC The assessment team recognises certification of only a component of those standards without consideration and has noted the importance of fisheries on the grounds that such component of the ecological footprint of the the CoC system for compliance of the fishery is sustainable, against other fishery operation as a whole… with Certificate requirements but component(s) which MSC considers not ISSF recognizes that the PNA is not required to assess the CoC sustainable, is wrong, for the following Skipjack Free School Purse Seine prior to Certification. reasons:… the term sustainability shall be Fishery, which suffers from the applied to a fish stock and fishing fleet as a same artificial fishery definition, Any certified product that the whole, including all fishing activities of that established a precedent since it client seeks to market that was fleet on such stock…. The current assessment received MSC certification. caught after the proposed ignores the effect of the fishing practices of Therefore, the Tri Marine fishery eligibility date will have to have the fleet on bigeye tuna should also be eligible for been compliant with an certification by MSC, provided approved CoC. OPAGAC has serious concerns about the that its Chain of Custody definition of unassociated school that has certification is as strong as the See Traceability Section 5. been adopted by MSC for the separation of PNA one. unassociated and associated sets, in particular the ability of observers to properly identify unassociated sets using such definition.

Chain of OPAGAC has concerns about the ability of It is our opinion that no valid CoC The assessment describes the Custody observers to identify yellowfin tuna on board protocol has been proposed… current traceability risks and the vessels, track movements of fish onboard While Observers are provided from systems in place, using the PNA fishing vessels, and cross verification of established national programs for US CoC procedure that Tri Marine unassociated catches in destination ports, for Flag trips under the SPTT, trips currently uses as a model. the following reasons:.. Overspread currently, we understand that PNA MSC However, this is not necessarily misreporting of catches of yellowfin and observer competence does not cover identical to the chain of custody bigeye tuna by observers… Identification of MSC compliance in waters other than procedures that will be instituted fishing wells used to store the fish…. under the PNA UOC. More importantly for this certificate. Therefore,

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 294 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Movements of fish following storage on fish all regional observer program under the report does not consider any wells… Cross-verification of the amounts of PIFRO standard, specifically prohibits specific CoC protocol but does tunas unassociated unloaded by the fishing observers from reporting directly to or indicate the need for any such vessel and handled at the destination certifying any data directly for industry. protocol to be able to verify that market(s) Therefore, for the TMI UOA it means certified product was caught compliance monitoring as proposed, is from the certified fishery, and

not possible as it is not authorized that this CoC protocol must begin under WCPFC and PIP/PNA observer on-board the vessel. programs and therefore could be considered out of regulatory standards. The client operates in compliance Further the proposed use of TMI own with Regional Observer Program staff to monitor and reliance on log (ROP) requirements as stated in books and other self-reporting is not CMM 2007-01, and has stated credible or acceptable for MSC CoC as intent that the CoC procedure protocol demands third party implemented likewise will validation…. The report further fails to operate in compliance with define the point where MSC relevant requirements of the certification might occur and the fishery WCPFC ROP. UOC ends… Lastly TMI boats under the US Flag (SPTT) also fish the EPO area The traceability section (5) which complicates MSC monitoring and intends to describe relevant risks, the validity of this proposed including those identified by certification, as well as a major concern OPAGAC, resulting in the over the proposed CoC validity…. determination of the point at which chain of custody is required. The assessment team is not tasked with verifying that chain of custody is sufficient to address all such risks, as this is verified separately via an MSC CoC audit.

Language in the traceability section (5) has been revised to clarify the above.

Management Failure of the existing management measures Overall the report appears based upon The status of bigeye tuna has performance to curb overfishing of bigeye tuna…. Failure of data previously prepared and submitted been considered in the the VDS to limit fishing effort in PNA in the earlier 2011 PNA assessment assessment both as a main

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 295 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

and accuracy countries… indicate that the VDS cannot work while covering PNA EEZs (Banks et al retained species and as part of of depiction efficiently as a harvest control rule as its 2011) and would be considered the evaluation of the driver is economic rather than biological. In materially outdated, not effectiveness of WCPFC harvest recent years PNA adopted definitions for non- comprehensive or sufficient for control rules. fishing days, to be used under its ongoing assessment of the broader SPTT VDS. This plus the exclusion of nights from multilateral waters, proposed under The assessment is not just based the scheme, which account as non-fishing the UOA…. The CAB MSC assessment on data in the PNA assessment. It days, has allowed for an effective increase in report has failed to recognize the SPTT is recognized that the PNA fishing effort. area covers various administrations, assessment is an important not just PNA, as the report appears to consideration in this assessment. suggest. The WCPFC with regards to Data on the fishery up to 2014 broader CMMs, has no enforcement has been used including from capacity, especially in the high seas, as outside PNA waters (e.g. Table 2 PNA waters are under common and Figure 1 in Section 3.1.3). national laws as described in the PNA MSC report 2011. But other Pacific Although Australia and New Island Parties waters including Australia Zealand are parties to the SPTT, and New Zealand, and US waters don’t they are not part of the UoA for come under PNA and are not this assessment. The Scope of the evaluated. Although PNA manage their assessment has been revised to fishery under VDS, and the Treaty now exclude the waters of Wallis and reflects VDS effort in PNA waters, not Futuna, Niue and Tonga in which all Parties to the SPTT run VDS minimal fishing has historically management regimes in their domestic occurred. oversight, with some running quota and TAC. This is not reflected…. The The WCPFC provides a UOA is further stated to include the framework for the enforcement waters of Wallis and Fortuna; we of CMMs, as described in the believe these waters are not covered “Compliance and enforcement” under the SPTT…. section of the report. Observer coverage of 100% is enforced for Considering the various forms of purse seine vessels. Non- governance in PNA, non PNA zones, US compliance matters are brought waters and high seas, it is unlikely the to the attention of the US CAB could have drawn the same government which frequently conclusions without conditions levies penalties. imposed on high seas and other areas under the proposed UOC, especially The US SPTT and WCPFC high non PNA waters. seas effort limits both constrain

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 296 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

As these levels of governance and the number of allowable fishing monitoring are variable between zones days. CMM 2014-01 extends the and most are not as developed as in use of fishing day limits beyond PNA and US waters, it is unlikely the PNA members. No additional broader SPTT convention area could be quota or TAC applies. This is considered for MSC certification, reflected in the Principle 3 without an updated rescoring and section of the report. Quotas are possibly additional conditions not in place for the skipjack and established, if could be qualified. yellowfin tuna in the jurisdictions covered in this assessment. Australia and New Zealand do manage several tuna species under quota, but as indicated above they are not part of the UoA. Under the Tokelau Arrangement several Pacific nations are considering the introduction of quotas for albacore tuna.

The assessment team has considered all parts of the fishery including within PNA waters, non-PNA zones, in US controlled waters and on the high seas. Additional comments on consideration of governance are given below. The assessors have acknowledged the variation in management capacity across the jurisdictions covered. Compliance WCPFC has systematically disregarded cases The report has only utilized outdated WCPFC has established a of non-compliance, with no action taken PNA measures and governance, (Banks Technical and Compliance against the parties involved. This is illustrated et al 2011), without consideration of Committee (TCC) which meets by the fact that WCPFC is still to finalize a National laws of all [non PNA] Parties annually to discuss compliance formal mechanism to identify and address to the SPTT, including the US laws. Also related issues relevant to the cases of non-compliance7… Past and present the lack of enforcement of CMM Commission. Whilst the TCC

7 In Summary Report of the Eleventh Regular Session of the Technical and Compliance Committee of the WCPFC.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 297 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

reviews of PNA’s observer programme, measures in the high seas areas must provides evidence of discussion conducted by the WCPFC, have reported invalidate their consideration…. of compliance issues, the many cases of misconduct by both observers Without consideration of the UOA assessment team has recognized on board fishing vessels (including governance and compliance effect, no shortcomings in relation to alcoholism, unprofessional behaviour, etc.) valid MSC certification should be compliance, leading to 2 and vessel crew towards observers (such as considered. conditions. The inability of the harassment, threats, etc.), noting the WCPFC to determine compliance limitations that PNA or some responsible flag with CMM 2010-07 in relation to states have to identify and address those shark finning and the lack of any issues…. An example is OPAGAC, that has clear sanctions for the few channelled many requests for observer data reported cases on non- through the Spanish authorities and EU compliance has resulted in a administration, none of which has been condition at PI 2.1.2. In addition, addressed by the WCPFC. To this day, Spain the lack of transparency in has not received, via EU, any information WCPFC dealing with non- collected by observers on its own WCPFC compliance results in a condition fleet, in spite of those repeated requests. at PI 3.2.3.

Consideration of the PNA MSC assessment is necessarily an important component of this assessment. As the assessment report indicated, fishing within PNA waters provides the majority of the catch under consideration. However, the assessment team does not agree that there has not been consideration of other national laws. US laws have been an important factor in the assessment. US vessels fishing on the high seas are subject to the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act 1995. National laws of non-PNA parties have not been considered to the same extent, as there is very little fishing within these jurisdictions, but they are examined and shortcomings

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 298 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

discussed. The scope of the assessment has also been revised to exclude the waters of Wallis and Futuna, Niue and Tonga in which minimal fishing has historically occurred.

Action Plan Condition 6 requires that by the We believe TMI has limited or no The difficulties for the client in fourth surveillance audit the capabilities to implement measures to achieving the required outcomes Client demonstrates that meet any of the conditions of this to meet conditions is sanctions to deal with non- certification unilaterally. acknowledged and the same compliance exist, are Compliance with all conditions would problems apply to all fisheries consistently applied and thought appear reliant upon the WCPFC within RFMOs seeking MSC to provide effective deterrence. adopting measures and individual certification. ISSF believes that it is unlikely Parties to the Treaty taking proactive The precedent has already been that the actions listed in the action to enforce. On this basis we established for other fisheries Action Plan (p. 244 on the PCDR) believe the client action plan cannot be within RFMO jurisdiction being will, by themselves, achieve validated and therefore unachievable. certified with similar conditions. outcomes such as WCPFC Any consideration for TMI certification adopting an effective should be deferred until these It is also noted that at the time of compliance sanctions scheme. conditions are not required. releasing the PCDR the Action However, collaborative advocacy Plan acceptance was contingent work at TCC meetings from a upon receipt of a letter of number of WCPFC delegations support from NMFS. The team and endorsement from other has since received and reviewed stakeholders, such as ISSF, may this letter, and considers this, in prove effective in meeting this addition to the above, sufficient objective. to accept the client action plan.

See Appendix 1.3 for the Client Action Plan and letter of support from NMFS.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 299 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 3: Summary of Relevant Performance Indicators Commented on in Stakeholder Submissions Org. 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.1.3 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 2.1.1 2.1.2 2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3.1 2.3.2 2.3.3 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2.1 3.2.2 3.2.3 3.2.4 3.2.5 WWF x x S. Pac. x x x x x x x x x x Tuna Corp

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 300 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Table 4: Summary of Stakeholder Comments and Reponses by Performance Indicator Organization Performance Quote Team Response Indicator WWF 1.2.1 WWF disagrees with the conclusion of Medley & Powers that Well-defined HCRs are not yet in place but generally WCPFC’s harvest strategies for tuna stocks meet the SG60 level. understood ones are considered to be in place. This Although the design of the harvest strategy itself is explicit (F/FMSY interpretation is consistent with other assessed fisheries. < 1), the strategy does not provide an explicit account of how the design elements (i.e. HCRs) work together towards achieving the objective. Further, MSC guidance (GSA2.4) clearly states that “…key elements of harvest strategies include: the control rules and tools in place…” As SCS and WWF have both noted elsewhere, HCRs do not yet exist for these stocks. Therefore the key elements of a harvest strategy are altogether absent. The IO situation is not transferable to the WCPFC The lack of HCRs in the Indian Ocean was confirmed in the Independent Adjudicator’s determination on the successful objection by WWF to the proposed certification of the Echebastar Indian ocean purse seine skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna fishery under the MSC certification requirements (September 2015). WWF contends that the same situation exists in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, as evidenced by the active WCPFC working group to develop HCRs and MSE. WWF 1.2.2 WWF concurs that HCRs are not in place and not well-defined in the As noted above, well-defined HCRs are not yet in place Western and Central Pacific Ocean. However, WWF disagrees with but generally understood ones are considered to be in the conclusion that such an absence can still be said to attain the place. This interpretation is consistent with other minimum entry level for HCRs under the MSC Standard. The SG60 assessed fisheries we consider. level of PI 1.2.2(a) is not met. Using this flow chart it is unclear, for 1.2.2a under option B for The WWF flowchart is not part of the assessment process “available” HCRs, how and we have not followed it specifically. the CAB has: • Verified that the agreement/framework cited as a “framework” The workplan that was proposed as part of CMM-14-06 is explicit in requiring action at some defined point (GSA p.412); was agreed in 2015 as planned. This has specific timelines for steps in the complete specification of all the elements of HCRs for skipjack and yellowfin. The workplan identifies specific actions that should be completed well before skipjack tuna approach BMSY. • Confirmed that the fishery is only lightly exploited and still in the developmental stage (GSA p. 412). This option is not restricted to fisheries that are lightly exploited and in the development phase.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 301 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Using this flow chart it is unclear, for 1.2.2b under option B for “available” HCRs effectiveness, how the CAB has: • Identified whether there is a formal agreement or legal The development of HCRs is to follow a workplan that is framework that the management body has defined, and the not dependent on any specific indicators or triggers. It is indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of therefore more proactive than the guidance allows. HCRs (SA2.5.5b). • Established whether or not there is “real confidence backed up by ‘evidence’ that the management agency can and will act effectively and in a timely fashion when needed” (GSA p.412). S. Pac. Tuna 2.1.1, 2.2.1, With TMI being >25% of the US Treaty fleet at the time of The data provided are those obtained from SPC and Corp. 2.1.3, 2.2.3, assessment, data provided in in Tables 4 and 5 isn’t represent the catches by vessels in the UoA. The values conclusive that TMI bycatch retention and discards are shown as “% of the US Fleet Retained Catch” are totals of insignificant at typically <0.1 % of US Treaty catch. As above a species for the whole UoA (TMI plus other US vessels) it requires data to be reassessed and rescored accordingly as percentages of the total US catch of all species. This has now been clarified in the report.

2. TMI declared a very low incidence of bycatch most years, as The data are not “TMI declared”. They are the data from a % of US bycatch. This could present doubt on the data and independent observers. accuracy of TMI reporting. This needs further investigation, validation and rescoring considering all data points. S. Pac. Tuna 2.3.1, 2.3.3, Declaration of associated catch in Table 7. Numbers of ETP Catches of whale sharks have been reported to WCPFC Corp. species caught and discarded in unassociated purse seine sets by from sets that were classified as ‘unassociated’ by the Tri Marine fleet and other U.S. vessels, 2010-13 (from data observers. It has now been clarified that such sets would supplied by SPC) is not valid… not fall within the definition of the UoC for which the 1. Incidence of Whales sharks, etc. in any sets would disqualify finding of a whale shark or other object within the net any set as being not associated and MSC eligible. when the catch was being removed would make any 2. TMI declared a very low incidence of bycatch most years, as catch from that set ineligible to carry the ‘MSC-Certified’ a % of US bycatch. This could present doubt on the data and logo. accuracy of TMI reporting. This needs further investigation, validation and rescoring considering all data points. As noted above, the data are not “TMI declared”. They are the data from independent observers. S. Pac. Tuna 1.2.1, 1.2.2, Action Plan for conditions is inadequate See ‘Action Plan’ row of Table 2 Corp. 2.1.2, 3.2.3

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 302 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Letter from International Sustainable Seafood Foundation (ISSF)

Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 303 of 350

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 304 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Letter from South Pacific Tuna Corporation

South Pacific Tuna Corporation submitted a Notice of Objection form during the PCDR phase of the report, prior to the Final Report and Certification Determination. The team therefore reviewed and responded to the content of the Objection Form as a stakeholder comment, and SCS offered to consult with the stakeholder to provide an explanation of the MSC process and further understand their concerns. The full substantive content from the Objection Template is provided below.

PART FOUR: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH CD2.7.2.1

4.1 Please identify:

a) the procedure(s) that were prepared by the responsible party or parties part of the SCS organisation may have omitted or incorrectly presented the detail allowed by the conformity assessment body in the conduct of this assessment and the relationship of these matters to the MSC’s procedural rules, as set out in the MSC Scheme Requirements that were in force at the time of the assessment; and/or

The CAB report we find poor and largely invalid due to concern over the credibility of the data provided for the UOA. Overall the report appears based upon data previously prepared and submitted in the earlier 2011 PNA assessment while covering PNA EEZs (Banks et al 2011) and would be considered materially outdated, not comprehensive or sufficient for assessment of the broader SPTT multilateral waters, proposed under the UOA.

This is referenced in the report itself. “A weakness of the assessed fishery has been that fishing outside PNA waters has not been as strictly controlled and the proportion of the catch in these waters may increase in future.” WCPFC CMM 2014-01 has improved this situation with limits on fishing effort in high seas waters.

The report as determined in full assessment could be considered leading and vaguely unprofessional, as much of the UOA proposed is not covered by the PNA UOC and PNA governance as quoted in the assessment. Thus we could determine evaluation not credible, and would not meet MSC standards. Therefore, recommendation could be the assessment be suspended until further data points are developed and referenced.

b) Any other irregularity in the fishery assessment process that you or your organisation believe made a material difference to the fairness of the assessment.

The CAB MSC assessment report has failed to recognize the SPTT area covers various administrations, not just PNA, as the report appears to suggest. The WCPFC with regards to broader CMMs, has no enforcement capacity, especially in the high seas, as PNA waters are under common national laws as described in the PNA MSC report 2011. But other Pacific Island Parties waters including Australia and New Zealand, and US waters don’t come under PNA and are not evaluated. Although PNA manage their fishery under VDS, and the Treaty now reflects VDS effort in PNA waters, not all Parties to the SPTT run VDS management regimes in their domestic oversight, with some running quota and TAC. This is not reflected.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 305 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

4.2 Please state why you or your organisation believes that the failure to follow procedures by the conformity assessment body has significantly affected the result of the Determination such that the Determination should be altered?

The UOA extends beyond the PNA waters covered under the PNAO MSC assessment and reported widely (Banks et al 2011). Besides the broader WCPFC measures applicable in the WCPO, only the PNA management systems (Implementing Arrangements) are in place in PNA waters and validated under their current MSC certification. As the broader UOA proposed covers multiple jurisdictions and since there is no standard policy and governance applicable to all zones including high seas, the CAB has not made any valid assessment of the UOA thus the findings in the report could be considered incomplete. National laws are only harmonised in PNA waters, and while FFA has MTC applied in Pacific Island Parties (PIP) waters, these may not apply in US waters and further have no application in the High seas which come under the WCPFC. Under the SPTT, the US has adopted the essence of the broader PIP MTCs in US laws, but these may not be replicated. Other PNA measures, as high seas pocket closures, VDS length weightings etc. are not reflected in US regulatory management. We note little or no recognition of this in the assessment, rather the report refers to the basic measures in PNA waters, which do not apply in much of the proposed UOA. Therefore, we would consider the assessment invalid and process should cease.

The UOA is further stated to include the waters of Wallis and Fortuna; we believe these waters are not covered under the SPTT.

The chain of custody (CoC) proposed, in section 5, is most concerning as not a valid protocol. From experience, we are familiar with the sophisticated PNA CoC protocol built upon existing observer roles as applicable only in PNA waters under the PNA MSC CoC and overseen by PNA MSC qualified observers. This is unique and reliant upon 3rd party PNA MSC qualified observer from National programs to monitor MSC trips in PNA waters as part of their duties. While Observers are provided from established national programs for US Flag trips under the SPTT, trips currently, we understand that PNA MSC observer competence does not cover MSC compliance in waters other than under the PNA UOC. More importantly all regional observer program under PIFRO standard, specifically prohibits observers from reporting directly to or certifying any data directly for industry. Therefore, for the TMI UOA it means compliance monitoring as proposed, is not possible as it is not authorized under WCPFC and PIP/PNA observer programs and therefore could be considered out of regulatory standards. Further the proposed use of TMI own staff to monitor and reliance on log books and other self-reporting is not credible or acceptable for MSC CoC as protocol demands third party validation. Any release of Regional observer data as currently in effect can only be allowed if trip data is released in aggregated form and post trip. Strictly stated regional observers can certify nothing, therefore if released there is no surety of MSC CoC compliance. This invokes a risk of reporting purity of eligible MSC catch which defeats the certification process of the MSC standard. The report further fails to define the point where MSC certification might occur and the fishery UOC ends. Again the only conclusion is an invalid certification assessment.

Lastly TMI boats under the US Flag (SPTT) also fish the EPO area which complicates MSC monitoring and the validity of this proposed certification, as well as a major concern over the proposed CoC validity.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 306 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

PART FIVE: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH ACD2.7.2.1

5.1 Listing the conditions placed on the relevant performance indicator(s) and using the template below, please clearly: a) identify the reason(s) you or your organisation believe that the condition assigned to the performance indicator within the Final Report cannot be justified because it fundamentally cannot be fulfilled, and b) ensure you include rationale for why you believe the condition setting decision was arbitrary or unreasonable, as described in ACD2.7.2.1 of the Certification Requirements.

Performance Indicator 1.2.1a, 1.2.2a, b & c, 2.1.2e and 3.2.3b Condition ALL CONDITIONS: 1,2,3,4,5 and 6 a) Reason TMI may make company submissions to the US Government to be considered alongside other US industry positions in WCPFC meetings. Commission decisions are by consensus of members. We believe TMI has limited or no capabilities to implement measures to meet any of the conditions of this certification unilaterally. Compliance with all conditions would appear reliant upon the WCPFC adopting measures and individual Parties to the Treaty taking proactive action to enforce. On this basis we believe the client action plan cannot be validated and therefore unachievable. Any consideration for TMI certification should be deferred until these conditions are not required.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 307 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

b) Rationale With the TMI fleet being such a small player in the WCPFC fishery, and the influence of declining under the SPTT with a smaller fleet, than reported; we believe TMI does not have capability to effect the conditions proposed by the CAB. In effect the conditions are all deferred to WCPFC and relies upon Commission members to propose and adopt by consensus. Therefore the client action plan has limited value. Whereby PNA fishery has significant influence and the option to implement corrective actions unilaterally under the PNA MSC certification, with about 70% of the WCPFC catch in PNA waters. Under the PNA Client Action Plan, PNA has the option to implement measures unilaterally including eliminating effort if required, should effort increase in other areas of the WCPFC to meet sustainability of resource. As seen in 2015 PNA adopted a ‘Interim TRP” of 0.5 after years this being blocked at WCPFC meetings. We since have seen WCPFC endorse this PNA proposed TRP of 0.5 in Bali, December 2015. WCPFC has also adopted other CMM measures for tuna, each proposed and adopted by PNA first, these include FAD closures, catch retention, 100% observer coverage, etc. TMI has no capability to implement any measures to meet the certification conditions unilaterally. The client action plan appears premised upon PNA driving similar conditions, and adopted at the WCPFC for the broader WCPO, compared to PNA having the option to adopt measures unilaterally under the PNA UOC for PNA waters only, and has shown the will to exercise this initiative as demonstrated with the TRP condition.

PART SIX: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH CD2.7.2.2

6.1 Listing the relevant performance indicator(s) and using the template below, please clearly identify the reason(s) you or your organisation believe that the score(s) presented within the Final Report cannot be justified, ensuring you link those reasons with the requirements of Paragraphs CD2.7.2.2 (a), CD2.7.2.2 (b) and/or CD2.7.2.2 (c) of the objections procedure. Please provide your rationale and/or evidence in support of a different conclusion, making particular reference to the specific scoring guideposts associated with the particular performance indicator(s) in question.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 308 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Performance Indicator All Reason The report has only utilized outdated PNA measures and governance, (Banks et al 2011), without consideration of National laws of all [non PNA] Parties to the SPTT, including the US laws. Also the lack of enforcement of CMM measures in the high seas areas must invalidate their consideration. As a result the assessment should be redone, rescored with revised conditions. Rationale Without consideration of the UOA governance and compliance effect, no valid MSC certification should be considered.

Performance Indicator Body of report 3.4 Reason Lack of valid data on TMI impact on US catch. See Table 4 and 5 Rationale With TMI being >25% of the US Treaty fleet at the time of assessment, data provided in in Tables 4 and 5 isn’t conclusive that TMI bycatch retention and discards are insignificant at typically <0.1 % of US Treaty catch. As above it requires data to be reassessed and rescored accordingly

Performance Indicator Body of report 3.4 ETP Reason Declaration of associated catch in Table 7. Numbers of ETP species caught and discarded in unassociated purse seine sets by the Tri Marine fleet and other U.S. vessels, 2010-13 (from data supplied by SPC) is not valid. Rationale 1. Incidence of Whales sharks, etc. in any sets would disqualify any set as being not associated and MSC eligible. 2. TMI declared a very low incidence of bycatch most years, as a % of US bycatch. This could present doubt on the data and accuracy of TMI reporting. This needs further investigation, validation and rescoring considering all data points.

Performance Indicator Body of report 5.2 - Traceability Reason The CoC protocol proposed is not practical as regional observers are not allowed to certify data for industry. Within PNA waters, PNA office as the certificate holder can draw on data from its members. TMI cannot provide. Further self-certification protocols as proposed by are not considered credible, and should be invalidated. Rationale See 6.2 below. TMI have no valid traceability protocol in place under the proposed UOA. 6.2 For each issue identified in question 5.1, please state why you or your organisation believes that the effect of the score in relation to one or more of the particular performance indicators in question was material to the outcome of the Determination such that the Determination should be altered?

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 309 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

The report has referenced outdated PNA measures and governance, (Banks et al 2011), and not considered the national laws of all Parties to the SPTT and high seas governance. Also the lack of enforcement of CMM measures by WCPFC in the high seas areas must invalidate their consideration. Without proper consideration of UOA governance and compliance, no valid MSC certification should be considered, unless specified in the areas where governance could be asserted.

The data presented in tables 4, 5 and 7 for TMI fleets as a % of US Treaty and WCPFC area raises questions over the accuracy of reporting of such interactions in relation to US Treaty overall. Further considering what is declare as un-associated catch in table 7, includes Whale sharks and cetaceans, this must raise concern over the competence of the report and its credibility to certify free school catch as MSC.

It is our opinion that no valid CoC protocol has been proposed. The PNA office is the holder of the PNA MSC CoC which is reliant upon 3rd Party MSC qualified observer from National programs endorsed to monitoring MSC trips in PNA waters. As Observers are drawn from PIP national programs for US Treaty trips trips currently, only PNA MSC qualified observers can cover MSC trips and there exist no provision for separate MSC observers to manage compliance in waters other than under the PNA program UOC. The regional observer program under PIFRO standard, which includes PNA, prohibits observers from reporting directly to or certifying any data directly for industry. Therefore, for the TMI UOC it means compliance monitoring as proposed is not possible, and outside regulatory standards under WCPFC and PIP/PNA program. Further the use of TMI own staff and reliance on TMI log books and other self-reporting as proposed is not credible and we believe does not meet MSC CoC standards. Any release of such observer data by any program , we understand can only allow trip data to be release in a aggregated form, post trip, thus no surety of compliance to ensure the eligible MSC catch is valid. The Report further fails to define the point where MSC certification might occur and TMI CoC end. It is our view that this part of the assessment is invalid and it should not be deferred to a later CoC assessment, until a credible protocol is proposed and scored under this assessment. If the MSC “standard” is to be reset to allow self-certification then this needs to be a material change in all fisheries in order to effect fairness throughout all providers under Sustainability Assessment programs.

PART SEVEN: OBJECTION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH CD2.7.2.3

7.1 Using the template below, please list all additional information not forming part of the record2 that is relevant to the circumstances at the date of the Determination has not been considered, as per Paragraph CD2.7.2.3 of the objections procedure. Ensure that reasons are provided as to why you or your organisation believes that the particular information in question:

a) was known or should reasonably have been known to any party to the assessment process, and b) should reasonably have been made available to the conformity assessment body during the assessment process, and c) if considered, could have made a material difference to the outcome of the assessment;

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 310 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Information Reason why information Under the SPTT, all national laws are stated. Further on PNA, FFA, should reasonably have WCPFC, SPC, US and other National web sites, such data is well been known reported. It would also be clear that Wallis and Fortuna is not a party to the US treaty. The minimal scale of influence of the TMI group on the fishery in WCPFC should have been recognised Reason why information Data was not withheld, rather the assessment is incomplete and should reasonably have with inputs primarily from prior PNA certification report (banks et al been made available 2011) which has only partial relevance to the proposed UOA. Unless the full UOA is assessed in detail and rescored certification should be considered Reason why Considering the various forms of governance in PNA, non PNA zones, information could have US waters and high seas, it is unlikely the CAB could have drawn made a material the same conclusions without conditions imposed on high seas and difference to the other areas under the proposed UOC, especially non PNA waters. As outcome of the these levels of governance and monitoring are variable between assessment zones and most are not as developed as in PNA and US waters, it is unlikely the broader SPTT convention area could be considered for MSC certification, without an updated rescoring and possibly additional conditions established, if could be qualified.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 311 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Letter from Organización de productores asociados de grandes atuneros congeladores (OPAGAC) ORGANIZACIÓN DE PRODUCTORES ASOCIADOS DE GRANDES ATUNEROS CONGELADORES

C/ AYALA 54, 2º A, 28001 MADRID – TEL. +34-914314857 – 914353137 – FAX +34 – 915761222

e-mail: [email protected] OPAGAC comments on the Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE)

This document presents comments by OPAGAC concerning the report of the assessment team on the eligibility of the unassociated purse seine fishery by Tri Marine International (PTE) in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) to obtain Certification by the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). OPAGAC is aware that some of the comments included in this report may refer to issues beyond the scope of this Certification, but has preferred to retain such comments in the understanding that they are indeed relevant for the certification of WCPO tuna fisheries as a whole.

This comments from OPAGAC, are consistent with the view of this organization about any certification process in the WCPO area, based on the same principles of our objection to PNA MSC certification of Unassociated SKJ UoC. As a matter of consistency with that objection in 2011, the comments in the present document represent an update from the previous comments on the PNA objection adapted to this particular fishery.

OPAGAC has serious concerns regarding the eligibility of the skipjack (SKJ) and yellowfin tuna (YFT) unassociated fishery from Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) by Tri Marine International (PTE) for MSC-Certification as recommended by the Assessment Team on the full assessment of this fishery. It is OPAGAC’s view that the skipjack (SKJ) and yellowfin tuna (YFT) unassociated fishery from WCPO by Tri Marine International (PTE) is not in a position to be MSC Certified, for the following reasons:

Concerns on the selection of the Unit of Certification OPAGAC notes that all evaluations of industrial tuna purse seine fisheries for MSC-Certification conducted to date have identified two Units of Certification (UoC) for each stock, namely unassociated tuna schools and tuna schools associated with floating objects. OPAGAC strongly disagrees with this approach, for the following reasons:

1.1. Activities of the purse seiners covered by this assessment Industrial tuna purse seiners in the Pacific Ocean, including those by Tri Marine in the WCPO that will be covered by the MSC certification, use the same fishing gear (fishing net) to catch tunas, which they

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 312 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

detect using various types of equipment, on board the fishing boat (e.g. radar, sonar, binoculars, etc.), or elsewhere (e.g. helicopters, buoys attached to FAD). The sole purpose of this equipment is maximizing catches of tunas, irrespective of the type of technology used for the detection. According to the assessment team around 4% of the WCPFC catch is taken by the UoC concerned (5% of SKJ and 2% YFT, Table 2) in WCPO waters. However, while the overall number of unassociated sets has increased in recent years, according to reports from PNA-flagged and other fleets, it seems that this has had no consequence on catches, which remain at similar levels (Figure 1). Furthermore, the number of sets on FAD seem to be increasing against the number of sets on natural floating objects, with catches of tropical tunas on FAD also increasing and representing around half the total catches in the WCPFC region. This refers to activities inside as much as outside PNA waters and is supported by the increase in vessel numbers and activities for purse seiners flagged in PNA countries and the USA, which represents the only fleets for which fishing effort and catch have increased markedly since 2007 (Figure 2).

  Figure 1 (left): Number of sets (left) and catches (right) reported as unassociated and associated in the WCPFC region. The charts second from the bottom show purse seiners flagged to USA showing the increase in catches on FAD (red).   Figure 2 (above): Total effort (top) and catch Source: WCPFC-SC11-2014/GN WP-1 (Rev 1 (28 July 2015)) Overview of Tuna (bottom) for the main tuna purse seine fleets in Fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Including Economic Conditions – 2014 the WCPFC region showing the increase of effort and catch by purse seiners flagged to USA and PNA countries in recent years.

 It is important to note that around 70% of the PTE purse seine effort is exerted in the EEZ of PNA countries and therefore levels of effort in international waters or other EEZ is low, especially in recent years, following the implementation of the FAD closures (Figure 3).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 313 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

  Figure 3 (left): Effort exerted by purse seine fleets in PNA EEZ and archipelagic waters (red and yellow), other EEZ (green) and high seas (blue). Over 90% of the purse seine effort occurred in PNA waters in recent years (note that non-fishing days are not accounted for)

 Source: WCPFC-SC11-2014/GN WP-1 (Rev 1 (28 July 2015)) Overview of Tuna Fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, Including Economic Conditions – 2014 Table 1 below shows all existing MSC-Certified tuna fisheries, the gear(s) used, and whether that/those gear(s) are used in exclusivity or in combination with other, not MSC-certified, gears.

 Unit(s) of Certification  Gear(s)  Gear used in Exclusivity

 Canadian Highly Migratory Species  Troll  Yes Foundation (CHMSF) British Columbia albacore tuna North Pacific  AAFA and WFOA North and South Pacific  Troll & Pole-  Yes albacore tuna and-Line  PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack  Purse seine  No. Shared with other not certified non- fishing modes such as associated associated schools which catch as much SKJ as the UoC

 SZLC, HNSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south  Pelagic  Yes Pacific albacore longline longline  Fiji albacore tuna longline  Pelagic  Yes longline  New Zealand albacore tuna troll  Troll  Yes

 Walker Seafood Australia albacore, yellowfin  Pelagic mid-  Yes tuna and swordfish set longline  Maldives pole & line skipjack & yellowfin tuna Pole-and-Line No. Shared with handline for YFT/BET whose use is on the increase (30000 MT of YFT in 2014)

Therefore, six over the eight existing MSC-certifications refer to fisheries where the vessels involved use exclusively the fishing method covered by the certification. On the contrary, PNA

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 314 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

purse seiners and Maldivian baitboats catch during the same fishing trip tuna schools that would, according to the assessment team, be eligible for certification along with other tuna schools that, at present, are not be eligible for certification as per the MSC Standards. The same case would apply to the PTE’s SKJ & YFT unassociated school fisheries currently under consideration, as all purse seiners involved in that fishery catch also those species in tuna schools associated with objects, which seem to not be eligible for certification at present. Indeed, the increase of sets and catches on FADs over sets on natural floating objects proves that there is a clear intention to catch tuna schools associated to FAD, as FAD are purposely deployed and tracked by all vessels operating in the fishery rather than encountered by chance, as it is normally the case with natural floating objects. OPAGAC believes that certification of a fishery shall cover all or, at least, the large majority of the activities of the fishing vessel(s) involved. This is not the case of PTE purse seine fisheries, all of which catch tropical tunas associated with objects as much as free-swimming schools of yellowfin tuna. The certification of only a component of those fisheries on the grounds that such component of the fishery is sustainable, against other component(s) which MSC considers not sustainable, is wrong, for the following reasons: 1.1.1 OPAGAC believes that the term sustainability shall be applied to a fish stock and fishing fleet as a whole, including all fishing activities of that fleet on such stock. If the activities of a fleet involve what MSC would consider more than one UoC the fishery concerned should be assessed for all UoC relating to the same stock, not just part of them. The contrary would be equivalent to authorising a fishing vessel to operate within the PNA area because there is no record of IUU activities of such vessel inside the area, and ignore the fact that the vessel has a history of IUU fishing outside PNA or, for that matter, in other oceans. The skipper of the vessel can therefore choose depending on demand whether it is worth seeking certified fish (i.e. sustainable) or not (not sustainable) and therefore there is no incentive whatsoever to use what MSC considers to be sustainable fishing practices. This also applies to fishing companies owing more than one purse seiner which could set targets for sustainable and not sustainable fish depending on pre-arranged sales to markets and therefore defeat the purpose of certification. 1.1.2 The current assessment ignores the effect of the fishing practices of the fleet on bigeye tuna and other species on the grounds that the UoC that is assessed concerns only unassociated schools and the catches of bigeye tuna on such schools are low. However, about 60% of the catches of the US fleet8 refer to tropical tunas on associated schools, almost exclusively on FAD, which indeed have an impact on bigeye tuna and other species. Purse seine catches of BET represent around 30% of the total catches of the species in the WCPFC Area, while 80% of those catches (i.e. 25% of the total bigeye catch) are taken by purse seine vessels within the PNA area (Figure 4). As stated before, OPAGAC believes that certification of a fishery has to consider all activities of the fleet that is being certified and this is not the case in the present assessment. It is evident that the PTE purse seine fleet has a marked effect on the stock of BET, and that effect cannot be ignored, as it has been decided by the assessment team. And even more important, the status of the stock of bigeye tuna in the WCPO has not improved

8 Initially there is no reason to think that the Tri Marine fleet would operate in a different way.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 315 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

following MSC certification of the PNA skipjack fishery or as a consequence of the management measures adopted by the WCPFC. Indeed, the certification of other fisheries by the MSC, such as the PNA unassociated SKJ fishery, has not contributed at all to improve the status of the stock of bigeye tuna in the WCPO. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that certification of the PTE fisheries for unassociated YFT and SKJ will have a different effect on the stocks

15000 HS 18% 12000 EEZs 82%

9000

HS_Other HS_1 HS_2

CatchBET (MT) 6000 HS_4

3000

0

Fiji

FSM

PNG

Jarvis

Palau

Nauru

Tuvalu

Tokelau

Indonesia

Philippines

HS_Area_1 HS_Area_2 HS_Area_4

Kiribati_Line

Cook_Islands

Kiribati_Gilbert

HS_Area_others

Kiribati_Phoenix

Marshall_Islands

Solomon_Islands American_Samoa

Howland_and_Baker

Figure 4: Average catches of bigeye tuna taken on FADs in the different EEzs and high seas areas defined by the WCPFC (Map), over the period 2007-2012.

Inlay: Amount of bigeye tuna taken on FADs that comes from EEZs from states or territories in the WCPFC Area versus the amount of bigeye tuna caught on the high seas, for the period 2007-2012.

Source used to build the figures: Information Paper: Data summaries in support of discussions on the CMM on tropical tunas, According to data last updated – 20thJuly 2013; Tables last updated on 21 st August 2013. Presented at the WCFPC CMM 2012-01 Working Group, Tokyo, 27-30 August 2013. WCPFC-2013–WGTT/08

1.2. Identification of unassociated tuna schools OPAGAC has serious concerns about the definition of unassociated school that has been adopted by MSC for the separation of unassociated and associated sets, in particular the ability of observers to properly identify unassociated sets using such definition. According to the report of the assessment team (footnote 1, page 5): An unassociated set is defined as fishing on a free-school, which may include a free- school feeding on baitfish. There are no associations with objects (natural or manmade), with set distances from such objects of 1 nautical mile or greater. OPAGAC believes that this definition is extremely vague and cannot be implemented in the field. Indeed, OPAGAC believes that it is not possible for an observer to properly identify unassociated sets, for the following reasons:

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 316 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

1.2.1. Definitions of associated sets There have been a number of studies that have tried to characterize FAD fishing, with very different results. When looking into the attractiveness of a FAD they have defined distances of up to 5 nautical miles9. This means that fishing on associated schools is still possible beyond 1nautical mile but those will be mistakenly recorded as unassociated under the present scheme. Indeed, it is also possible that a set on a free-swimming school occur in the proximity of an object, which floats at less than 1 NM from such school. If the 1 NM definition is used the observer will record that set as associated while in fact it is unassociated. Considering that the species composition of unassociated and associated schools is very similar in some areas and time periods, in particular in coastal waters (which will be equivalent to a large part of the EEZ of PNA countries) in these cases the observer will be unable to characterize those sets as unassociated. It is also important to note a document10 that has been recently published which states that identification of FAD sets through species composition is only possible for around 70% of the sets (main species) or 85% of the sets if all bycatch species are also used. It is OPAGAC view that MSC shall set UoC based on clearly demonstrable facts and at this stage it does not seem possible to separate associated from unassociated schools with certainty. 1.2.2. Ability of an observer to identify a set as unassociated: Whichever the distance from the object to the fishing boat could be, OPAGAC has serious doubts that the observers are able to estimate that distance accurately. There should be many events in which objects are at a distance of just over or under 1 NM and OPAGAC wonders how observers decide whether those sets are associated or not. It is also important to note that recent studies tend to indicate that the species composition of a set cannot be conclusively used to characterize that set as associated or unassociated11. 1.2.3. Serious problems of compliance: Most FAD sets occur at dawn. This facilitates prior removal or relocation, to distances greater than 1 NM, of FAD by purse seiner crew using speedboats, something that will be extremely hard for the observer to detect. Therefore, we believe that it is extremely difficult for an observer to determine if a set is unassociated on the basis of the distance of the purse seiner to a FAD, or its species composition. Indeed, even in the case that identification of associated and unassociated sets were possible, it would be very difficult for the observer to monitor compliance with this measure. An example would be a skipper that sets the course of the vessel to sail at night towards a FAD because it has received information that there may be a tuna school associated, arriving to the FAD before dawn and realizing that there is indeed tuna worth fishing, then sending a crewmember to remove the FAD, and setting the net on what, to the eyes of the observer, appears to be a free-school. We believe that it is simply impossible for the observer to monitor this chain of events because it implies that he shall be able to read the skipper’s mind, something that will never be an objective approach. OPAGAC is deeply concerned that MSC has set the wrong UoC for assessments of the PTE fishery as unassociated (FAD-free) which, by extension, applies to all industrial purse seine fisheries. It is our

9 Reference missing 10 Steven R. Hare∗, Shelton J. Harley, W. John Hampton (2015). Verifying FAD-association in purse seine catches on the basis of catch sampling. Published by Elsevier B.V (Science Direct) 11 https://www.wcpfc.int/node/18881

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 317 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

view that purse seine fisheries have to be certified according to the stocks targeted. For the reasons expressed above, any attempt to separate those fisheries by type of set will fail and therefore defeat the purpose of a UoC defined to account only for part of the fishing activities of a purse seiner, which will be highly uncertain to differentiate from other, non-certified, activities.

Concerns about the chain of custody OPAGAC has concerns about the ability of observers to identify yellowfin tuna on board the vessels, track movements of fish onboard fishing vessels, and cross verification of unassociated catches in destination ports, for the following reasons: Overspread misreporting of catches of yellowfin and bigeye tuna by observers: MSC-Certification systems rely fully on accurate reporting of catches of the stocks involved. However, WCPFC has reported overspread misreporting of yellowfin and bigeye tuna catches by observers (in 54% of the fishing trips assessed), mainly juveniles, which are difficult to identify12. The TCC of the WCPFC has recommended Port Inspection to cross-verify catch reports. OPAGAC believes that MSC-Certification of a fishery that cannot properly identify species is wrong. Especially when from the two species subject to misidentification (yellowfin and bigeye), one is overexploited from many years now in the WCPO like bigeye. 2.1 There is therefore a high risk to misidentify yellowfin tunas with bigeye tunas, and finally certify by MSC a species that is overexploited by the fleet under certification. 2.2 Identification of fishing wells used to store the fish: In purse seine sets tuna are brailed from the water to the upper deck and then channelled through an opening in the upper deck through conveyor belts to be stored in one or more fish wells/tanks in the lower deck. To OPAGAC’s knowledge, each purse seiner has just one observer on board and that observer is generally monitoring activities in the upper deck throughout the set, to verify handling of bycatch and whether there are any discards of associated fauna. Therefore, the observer is unable to monitor storage of the fish, and has to request the vessel skipper or chief engineer at the end of each set the fish wells that were used to store the fish coming from an associated or unassociated sets, which largely contributes to have serious uncertainties about the UoC to be certified. OPAGAC believes that this is not enough as continuous monitoring of activities in the lower deck is also necessary, over the entire fishing set. This would involve using a minimum of two observers per boat, or full-time monitoring of the lower deck through other means, such as an electronic observer system. 2.3 Movements of fish following storage on fish wells: In some purse seiners tunas are sorted by species and size, with large fish moved to other wells following storage in a different fish well. It is OPAGAC’s opinion that it is hard for observers to monitor activities in the lower deck continuously, as movement of fish may happen at any time but is likely to be more frequent during the night. Once again, OPAGAC believes that a minimum of two observers, or one observer plus an electronic observer system is required to properly certify a sound chain of custody on board purse seiners. 2.4 Cross-verification of the amounts of tunas unassociated unloaded by the fishing vessel and handled at the destination market(s): OPAGAC wonders if PTE has established a system to cross- verify that the catches recorded as unassociated and unloaded from each fishing vessel are cross-

12 In Summary Report of the Eleventh Regular Session of the Technical and Compliance Committee of the WCPFC.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 318 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

verified against the amounts that will be potentially labelled as MSC-Certified in the destination markets. OPAGAC believes that this is a difficult undertaking as a single cargo from a fishing vessel may be exported to many different markets and those exports may contain both certifiable and non-certifiable products. OPAGAC has been unable to find examples of cargos of skipjack tuna or yellowfin tuna from individual vessels in WCPO waters that were cross-verified against the amounts unloaded in the combined destinations. An example would be a purse seiner that comes with 1000 tons of tuna of which 600 are unassociated and 400 are not. This purse seiner will send two cargos of 500 tons of fish to two markets and in both markets that fish will be sold as unassociated. Each destination market verifies that the boat caught 600 tons of unassociated fish and will label the 500 tons of fish as unassociated, adding the MSC label. OPAGAC wonders if the assessment team has considered this possibility in his audit of the chain of custody and proved that PTE vessels are not involved in this practice, through presentation of hard evidence that the amounts sold in the destination markets and MSC-labelled match the amount exported by each vessel as unassociated. For the above reasons OPAGAC has serious doubts about the chain of custody being thoroughly implemented and reiterates that certification of purse seine fisheries shall be done by stock rather than by type of set and stock.

Concerns on the efficiency of existing management measures in the WCPFC Area of Competence The assessment team indicates that PNA’s VDS is working efficiently as an implicit Harvest Control Rule in the PNA region, for which they base on the status of the stock of yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna, which have not been subject to overfishing or overfished in recent years. OPAGAC disagrees with those statements, for the following reasons:

3.1 Failure of the existing management measures to curb overfishing of bigeye tuna: Both PNA and WCPFC have implemented management measures for the three stocks of tropical tunas, including bigeye tuna, and those measures have not achieved curbing overfishing of the stock of bigeye tuna over several years, because they do not apply to all fleets or fishing areas. The PNA area is responsible for 80% of the catches of bigeye tuna taken by purse seiners, and around 25% of the total catches of the species in the WCPFC region. OPAGAC does not see how the VDS or other measures in place will achieve preventing overfishing of yellowfin and skipjack tunas when similar measures have proved completely ineffective to curb overfishing of BET. One example is the unrestrained growth of the purse seine fleet in the WCPFC Area13, which occurred in spite of all existing measures. OPAGAC’s view is that the current measures are insufficient. Indeed, further increases in fishing capacity will surely put tropical tuna stocks at risk and defeat the purpose of any measure that PNA or the WCPFC may wish to implement, unless the issue of fishing capacity is taking up seriously.

3.2 Failure of the VDS to limit fishing effort in PNA countries: In spite of the decision of the assessment team to disregard the gradual increase in the amount of non-fishing days reported in the PNA region, OPAGAC believes that this is a clear sign that effort levels in the PNA area are increasing and fishing days are simply misreported as non-fishing days. This is also in line with the large increase in numbers

13Over the last seven years, the number of vessels has gradually increased, attaining a record level of 303 vessels4 in 2013,with 302 vessels listed for2014. (Excerpt from WCPFC-SC11-2014/GN WP-1)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 319 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

of vessels recorded under flags of PNA countries and tends to prove that PNA observers are not monitoring properly the activities of fishing vessels. It also tends to indicate that the VDS cannot work efficiently as a harvest control rule as its driver is economic rather than biological. In recent years PNA adopted definitions for non-fishing days, to be used under its ongoing VDS. This plus the exclusion of nights from the scheme, which account as non-fishing days, has allowed for an effective increase in fishing effort. The main reason for effort levels to appear as stable in recent years is the different meaning that fishing days have had over the years, in particular after these new definitions were adopted. This is shown in Figure 5 which contains the number of days fished in PNA waters, by year, between 2009 and 2014. As the figure shows, levels of effort in the PNA region increased dramatically between 2009 (39,625 fishing days) and 2011 (55,126 days), by around 30%, in parallel with the increase in fleet numbers and activities. The drop in the fishing effort after 2011 is simply an artefact, consequence of the new definition adopted by PNA which, by excluding nights, remove around 30% of what previously was considered as part of the fishing effort; and the likely miss-reporting of fishing days as non-fishing days by observers14. Indeed, levels of effort similar or higher than those recorded in 2011 are only natural for 2012 and following years considering the constant increase in the number of purse seiners and the drop in activities on the high seas following WCPFC high seas closures. It is important to note that the VDS has also favoured an increase of effective fishing effort in the PNA region due to effort creep. This has been driven by ever increasing VDS prices, which have obliged fishing companies to streamline their fishing strategies (so-called cherry-picking) in order to compensate for those prices and optimize economic returns. Higher VDS prices can only promote sets on FAD where catches are higher, sailing to FAD can be classified as days in transit (rather than fishing days that will apply to searching for tuna schools), and more economic returns are expected. Therefore, rather than working as a HCR, the VDS is actually having the opposite effect. Number of days in PNA waters and %over WCPO 60000 100% 80% 50000 60% 40% 40000 20% 30000 0% 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

TOTAL PNA %PNA/WCPO

Figure5:Number of days fished (blue bars), by year (2009-2014) in PNA waters as per PNA definition of fishing day, and proportion that these days make over the total number of fishing days (green line) recorded for the WCPFC region.Note that the meaning of a fishing day is different depending on the years and therefore the levels of fishing effort shown in the chart are missleading (see text for details).

Source: PNA

14 In WCPFC-SC9-2013/MI-WP-01 REV2. Analysis of the implementation and effectiveness of key management measures for tropical tunas.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 320 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Concerns on the capacity of WCPFC to address compliance issues in the PNA region OPAGAC believes that for a management regime to work any cases of non-compliance shall be properly penalized. In this regard OPAGAC would like to note that WCPFC has systematically disregarded cases of non-compliance, with no action taken against the parties involved. This is illustrated by the fact that WCPFC is still to finalize a formal mechanism to identify and address cases of non-compliance15. OPAGAC believes that it is premature for MSC to consider certification of any fishery for a stock in the WCPFC region before WCPFC finalizes this process and a proper scheme of sanctions has been established by the WCPFC. Otherwise it is very likely that the MSC certify fisheries carried out by vessels involved in cases of non-compliance, which go unnoticed due to WCPFC’s lacking such mechanism.

OPAGAC also disagrees with the role that PNA has assigned to the scientific observers that board purse seiners that operate in the area, and the use of the information that they produce for compliance or certification purposes. Past and present reviews of PNA’s observer programme, conducted by the WCPFC, have reported many cases of misconduct by both observers on board fishing vessels (including alcoholism, unprofessional behaviour, etc.) and vessel crew towards observers (such as harassment, threats, etc.), noting the limitations that PNA or some responsible flag states have to identify and address those issues. WCPFC has also acknowledged that it is yet to address those cases and identify likely cases of corruption in which observers may be involved. In addition, there is a clear lack of transparency concerning the activities of observers and data collected through the programme, which is not even available to states that request this information for vessels under their flag. An example is OPAGAC, that has channelled many requests for observer data through the Spanish authorities and EU administration, none of which has been addressed by the WCPFC. To this day, Spain has not received, via EU, any information collected by observers on its own WCPFC fleet, in spite of those repeated requests. OPAGAC believes that WCPFC needs to call for the observer programme to be externally reviewed and that the results of this audit shall be reviewed by MSC prior to consider certification of any fishery in the WCPFC region.

Final Comment According to MSC his mission “…is to use our ecolabel and fishery certification program to contribute to the health of the world’s oceans by recognizing and rewarding sustainable fishing practices, influencing the choices people make when buying seafood, and working with our partners to transform the seafood market to a sustainable basis.” Basing on all the evidence that we have provided it is OPAGAC’s view that MSC would go against its principles if it decides to certify PTE’s unassociated yellowfin and skipjack tuna purse seine fisheries, as recommended by the assessment team. A close example is the existing PNA unassociated skipjack tuna purse seine fishery which, since obtaining that status, has not contributed at all to increased sustainability of WCPO stocks. This is illustrated by the poor status of the stock of bigeye tuna, which has not improved following certification of the PNA SKJ fishery or in response to the management measures that WCPFC has implemented over the last eight years. The crude reality is that the large majority of purse seine catches of bigeye tuna are made in PNA waters, on associated schools, and by purse seiners similar to

15 In Summary Report of the Eleventh Regular Session of the Technical and Compliance Committee of the WCPFC.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 321 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

those that, according to the assessment team, would now be eligible to be MSC-certified for unassociated SKJ and YFT. This is also the consequence of PNA’s implementing of the VDS, which has led to misreporting of fishing days, overcapacity and effort creep in the WCPFC region. When good intentioned people decide to choose MSC-Certified FAD-Free tuna over other tuna products at the market, they make this choice convinced that they are choosing tuna from a sustainable fishery. However, as explained before, this is not the case, as the same vessels that caught that tuna did also catch about the same amount of tuna using what MSC considers as unsustainable fishing practices. On a different note, OPAGAC would like to appreciate recent efforts by the MSC to incorporate social issues into its certification of fisheries. It is our view that those efforts shall be continued and indeed extended, to ensure that all fleets that obtain the MSC label are compliant with minimum social international standards, as defined by the relevant organizations. It would be really unfortunate that MSC certified products originate from fleets that do not respect those basic principles.

As a final note OPAGAC would like to reiterate that it considers it premature for MSC to certify the PTE fishery for skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna and indicate that the concerns it has expressed regarding the PTE fishery apply also to PNA’s MSC-Certified SKJ unassociated purse seine fishery, and will post those concerns when that fishery is reassessed for MSC status, in 2016.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 322 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Letter from World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 323 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 324 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 325 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 326 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 327 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 328 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 329 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 330 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 331 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 332 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 333 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 334 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 335 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

MSC Technical Oversight Report and Assessment Team Responses Main SubID Page Grade Requiremen OversightDescription Pi CABComment ID Referen t Version ce 16902 18454 14 Guidance CR-27.10.6.1 Table 2 contains catch data up until 2013. However, if The most recent data available at the v1.3 catch data are available from 2014, these should be time of the assessment have been included within the table to provide an idea of more used. More recent data for the whole recent catch trends. WCPFC purse seine fleet have been provided where this was readily available but a new compilation of data for the UoA is not required. 16902 18455 Through Guidance *N/A vn/a Referencing to figures within the document does not Cross-references have been updated. out match. For example, on page 21, the text references Figure 10, but it should reference Figure 9. This requires ammending throughout the document. 16902 18456 22 Guidance CR-27.10.6.1 The section of the report "Harvest Strategies" only Text revised to be more general v1.3 provides examples for skipjack. Suggest including information relevant to yellowfin as well. 16902 18457 110-111 Guidance CR-CI3.1 v1.3 Table 16 shows that TMI was harmonised with Walkers Text revised to include Walker Seafood. However, the comparison between scoring of Seafood PI 3.1 scores and assessment the 3.1.x PI's is not provided. The inclusion of these PI's status would allow comparisons to be made where applicable.

Additionally, in the body of the report under the heading 'Harmonised Fishery Assessments', Walkers seafood should be designated as certified, not under assessment. 16902 18458 120 Guidance CR-27.10.4 Table 6.1: The overall P1 score of 86.9 is given for both Overall score for YFT amended. v1.3 skipjack and yellowfin. However, in Table 6.2 the scores for these species differ for PI 1.1.1. Based off the scores in Table 6.2 for yellowfin, the overall score fpr P1 should be 84.4. 16902 18459 141 Guidance CR-27.10.6.2 PI 1.2.2: Scoring issue a: The 24 November 2014 1.2.2 Text has been removed v1.3 Notification to CABs for rescoring using v2.0 was only in regard to the SG60 level. Within v1.3 there is no requirement for SG100 in scoring issue a. SG100 text should be removed from the PI 1.2.2 table for skipjack and yellowfin.

Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 336 of 350

16902 18460 142, 162 Major CR-CI3.2.2 PI 1.2.2: Scoring Issue a: The rationales provided give a 1.2.2 The rationales used for TMI are in v1.3 thorough overview of how skipjack and yellowfin meet agreement with those in the final the requirements to use ‘available’ HCRs at the SG60 certification report for PNA YFT. The level. The team also provide an overview for what the rationales provided for SKJ when first 'available' HCR is based off SA2.5.3b. This overview certified predate the recent issues with includes that the WCPFC have a work plan/framework this PI and the subsequent guidance. It in place for HCR development "that will require the is likely that they will be extensively WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any revised upon re-assessment which is detectable, projected risk" to both yellowfin and due soon. Harmonisation with them is skipjack. therefore not considered useful.

However, the rationales state that for both species, the assessment team "do not consider that even generally understood HCRS are in place." As highlighted in the body of the report (e.g. Table 2, Figure 1), the majority of the Trimarine catch comes from PNA waters. Within these waters, purse seine fishing effort is controlled by the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS), as explained within the report and within the certified PNA skipjack and in assessment yellowfin reports.

As per CI 3.2.2, it is expected that CABs shall ensure that conclusions are consistent between fisheries, with respect to evaluation, scoring and conditions. This is further explained in the recently released interpretation on harmonisation whereby it is expected that similar arguments and logic are included in the scoring rationales between harmonised assessments.

For the Trimarine assessment, it is unclear why the assessment team has not used the VDS as the HCR to score PI 1.2.2. For example, if the VDS is sufficient as a 'generally understood' HCR for the PNA assessments, then it would therefore be applicable to the Trimarine assessment, and all removals of skipjack and yellowfin within the Western Central Pacific Ocean. This is because Principle 1 considers the full impacts of fishing on a stock.

It is acknowledged that the PNA and Trimarine

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 337 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

assessments occurred using different assessment trees. However, 'generally understood' requirements are present within both assessment trees. Therefore, the assessment team is required to provide explanation as to why the arguments for meeting the SG60 level differ between the Trimarine and PNA assessments.

16902 18461 218 Major CR-27.10.6.3 PI 3.1.4, SIa: The rationale provided does not justify the 3.1.4 The rationale for a partial score of 90 v1.3 score of 90 as it is not clear how SG100 is partially met, is that there are incentives in the i.e. how the management system explicitly considers management system consistent with incentives. achieving MSC Principles1 and 2 outcomes, but recognition that explicit consideration of incentives is not adequate means that 100 is not achieved. 16902 18462 172 Major CR-CB3.1.2 Table 4.3 Scoring elements considered in assessing the 2.1.1, Table 4.3 and other text has been v.1.3 fishery, identified silky sharks as a main retained species 2.1.2, revised following a Variation Request however it is not scored in Pis 2.1.x. In PI 2.1.1 it 2.1.3 to MSC (Appendix 8). Silky sharks are explicitly states that bigeye tuna is the only main considered as a discarded species retained species. Instead, silky sharks are mentioned in because discarding of this species is Pis 2.2.x in passing, but not as a scoring element. On both mandated and practiced but the page 50 of the report and given in Table 4.3, it is stated issue of shark finning has still been that silky sharks are considered a main retained species. evaluated under PI 2.1.2e.. Please clarify whether or not silky sharks are a P2 scoring element, and in which P2 species category they are scored. 16902 18463 166, 145 Major CR-27.10.6.1 PI 1.2.2 Scoring issue c: Depending on the revisions 1.2.2 No changes have been made to v1.3 made to scoring issue a for both skipjack and yellowfin, rationale for scoring issue a and as per TO comment 18460, the rationale of scoring issue therefore there are no revisions c may require alteration to demonstrate either 'some needed for scoring issue c evidence' or 'available' for the effectiveness of tools used to control exploitation. 16902 18469 117 Minor CR-27.12.2.1 The report must clarify the point at which Chain of Traceability section revised and v1.3 Custody certification is needed. Page 117 addresses the determination of the scope of need for CoC under "provisional recommendation" using certificate now in bold. In accordance words such as "should " and "if," with similar wording with CR 27.12.2.1c, the chain of throughout Section 5 on Traceability. The report needs custody is determined to be necessary to state clearly when the fishery certificate ends and within the scope of the certificate (i.e. when CoC must begin. For example, if the fishery at the point of landing of product on requires itsown separate CoC (prior to the first point of board).

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 338 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

sale), the report should state, "The fishery requires separate CoC assessment and certification to cover traceability at sea to address risks of mixing or substitution of certified free-school catch and non- certified FAD-associated catch on board, and to ensure only certified products enter certified chains of custody." 16902 18470 115 Guidance CR-27.6.2.3 The report states on page 115 the systems in place to Target eligibilty date revised, and text v1.3 ensure the separation of certified from non-certified clarified to more clearly state that product are believed to already be in place. The report systems in place for PNA are for should clarify whether these systems have been traceability system description implemented since the proposed target eligibility date, purposes only and do not necessarily as well as whether the systems in place ensure under- reflect the chain of custody system assessment product can also be identified and that will be put in place, which will be segregated based on harvest date. audited by qualified CoC auditors. 16902 18471 115 Minor CR-27.12.1.1 The report should clarify whether the traceability Language has been clarified to clearly v1.3 systems described must be applied to sub-contracted state that in order to join the UoC a vessels to client group. Page 115 mentions all "Cape" vessel must be verified to be in vessels owned or sub-contracted to Tri Marine must compliance with required traceability complete the FAD-free logbook, however in parentheses systems, via inclusion in the Tri states Tri Marine welcomes the voluntary participation Marine group chain of custody of sub-contracted vessels into the FAD-free programme. certificate (pending). Please clarify if all Cape vessels are part of the UoC, including subcontractors. Is the FAD-free programme, and all traceability and segregation systems described in the PCDR, required for all vessels in the UoC, including subontracted vessels? If not, how are risks for subcontracted vessels addressed? 16902 18472 115, 116 Guidance CR-27.12.1.3 Pages 115-116 mention vessel fishing in areas outside This will be covered by the chain of v1.3 the UoC, such as in IATTC areas. The report should custody certification to be put in place clarify whether documentation will record catch from and required for product to be within the UoC versus from outside the UoC, and how eligible. These risks and expected this will ensure that catch from outside the UoC will not traceability systems to address them enter certified supply chains. This would be especially are described in Section 5, but will be relevant where both certified and non-certified catch are audited by a qualified CoC auditor. landed at the same sites. Removed language regarding already Page 116 also mentions the onboard segregation compliant CoC procedures for clarity systems and processes in place are already in that this referred to the PNA system, compliance with the MSC CoC Standard. Does this apply not necessarily the CoC to be to all vessels in the UoC? instituted in this fishery.

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 339 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 4. Surveillance Frequency

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR ONLY)  The report shall include a rationale for determining the surveillance score.

 The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance plan table using the results from assessments described in CR 27.22.1

Table A4: Fishery Surveillance Plan Score from Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 CR Table Category C3 [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site [e.g. On-site surveillance [e.g. 2 or [e.g. Normal surveillance surveillance surveillance audit & re- more] Surveillance] audit] audit] audit] certification site visit]

Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services Page 340 of 350

Appendix 5. Client Agreement

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

The report shall include confirmation from the CAB that the Client has accepted the PCR. This may be a statement from the CAB, or a signature or statement from the client. (Reference: CR: 27.19.2)

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 341 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 6 Objections Process

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

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

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 342 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 7 Variation Request and Response: Unit of Assessment

Revised Unit of Assessment: April 11, 2016

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 343 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 344 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 345 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 346 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 347 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Appendix 8: Variation Request and Response: Silky Shark Scoring

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 348 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 349 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services

Document: MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.3 page 350 Date of issue: 15 January 2013 © Marine Stewardship Council, 2013 Version 1-3 (October 2013) | © SCS Global Services