Re-Assessment of the Maldives Pole & Line Skipjack Tuna Fishery

FINAL REPORT FOR THE Re-assessment of the Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna fishery

Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association (MSPEA)

Report No.: 2017-004, Rev. 0 Certificate code: F-DNV-191232: Skipjack tuna Date: 27.09.2017

Report type: Final Report for the DNV GL – Business Assurance Report title: Re-assessment of the Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna fishery DNV GL Business Assurance Customer: Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Norway AS Association (MSPEA), Veritasveien 1 M. West End, 3rd Floor 1322 HØVIK, Norway Handhuvaree Higun, Male – 20223 Tel: +47 67 57 99 00 MALDIVES http://www.dnvgl.com Contact person: Ms. Fazla Yoosuf Date of issue: 27.09.2017 Project No.: PRJC-535915-2015-MSC-NOR Organisation unit: ZNENO418 Report No.: 2017-004, Rev.0 Certificate No.: F-DNV-191232: Skipjack tuna

Objective: Re-assessment of the Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna fishery against MSC Fisheries Standards v2.0.

Prepared by: Verified by:

Anna Kiseleva [Name] Senior Assessor [title]

Kevin Stokes Team expert

Jo Akroyd Team expert

Copyright © DNV GL 2014. All rights reserved. This publication or parts thereof may not be copied, reproduced or transmitted in any form, or by any means, whether digitally or otherwise without the prior written consent of DNV GL. DNV GL and the Horizon Graphic are trademarks of DNV GL AS. The content of this publication shall be kept confidential by the customer, unless otherwise agreed in writing. Reference to part of this publication which may lead to misinterpretation is prohibited. DNV GL Distribution: Keywords: ☒ Unrestricted distribution (internal and external) MSC Fisheries, skipjack tuna ☐ Unrestricted distribution within DNV GL ☐ Limited distribution within DNV GL after 3 years ☐ No distribution (confidential) ☐ Secret

Rev. No. Date Reporting stage Prepared by Verified by

0 2017-05-22 Preliminary Draft Report Anna Kiseleva, Jo Akroyd, Kevin Stokes NA 0 2017-07-03 Peer Review Draft Report Anna Kiseleva, Jo Akroyd, Kevin Stokes NA

0 2017-07-12 Public Comment Draft Report Anna Kiseleva, Jo Akroyd, Kevin Stokes NA 0 2017-09-27 Final Report Anna Kiseleva, Jo Akroyd, Kevin Stokes NA [yyyy-mm-dd] Public Certification Report

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page i

Table of contents

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS ...... 4

STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS ...... 5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 6 1.1 Authorship and Peer reviewers 6 1.2 Re-assessment timeline 6 1.3 Principle level scores 7 1.4 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation 7 1.5 Draft Determination with supporting rationale 7 1.6 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance 7

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 9 2.1 Assessment team 9 2.2 Peer reviewers 11

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 13 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought 13 3.1.3 Proposed Unit of Certification 13 3.1.4 Other eligible fishers at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) 14 3.1.5 Final UoC(s) 14 3.1.6 Final other eligible fishers at the time of certification 15 3.1.7 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data 15 3.1.8 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries 15 3.1.9 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) 15 3.2 Overview of the fishery 15 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background 17 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 24 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background 32

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE...... 41 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment 41 4.2 Previous assessments 41 4.2.1 Summary of the original assessment 41 4.2.2 First annual surveillance and Expedited Principle 1 assessment for Yellowfin tuna – 2013 42 4.2.3 Second annual surveillance – 2014 42 4.2.4 Third annual surveillance – 2015/2016 43 4.2.5 Fourth annual surveillance – 2016/2017 46 4.3 Assessment Methodologies 54 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques 55

5 TRACEABILITY ...... 59 5.1 Eligibility Date 59 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery 59 5.3 Processing on board 59

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page ii

5.4 Points of landing 59 5.5 Traceability risk factors 60 5.6 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody 61 5.7 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody 61

6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 62 6.1 Principle Level Scores 62 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores 62 6.3 Summary of Conditions 63 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement 63

REFERENCES ...... 64

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 66 Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale 66 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs 158 Appendix 1.3 Conditions 171

APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 174

APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 198

APPENDIX 4 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 219

APPENDIX 5 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 220

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page iii

ABBREVIATIONS & ACRONYMS CBD Convention on Biological Diversity CC Compliance Committee of the IOTC CCRF Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora CMM Conservation Management Measures of the IOTC CP Contracting Parties of the IOTC EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone EPA Environmental Protection Agency ETP Endangered, threatened and protected species FAB Fisheries Advisory Board FAO Food and Agriculture Organization IO Indian Ocean IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission IUU Illegal, unreported and unregulated LOS Law of the Sea MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MIFCO Maldives Industrial Fisheries Company Limited MNDF Maldives National Defence Force MoFA Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture MRC Marine Research Centre MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSPEA Maldives Seafood Processors and Exporters Association NGO Non-Governmental Organisation NCP Non- contracting parties NPOA National Plan of Action P&L Pole and Line PI Performance indicator PISG Performance Indicator Scoring Guidepost PRIOTCO1 Performance review of the IOTC – report 1 PRIOTCO2 Performance review of the IOTC – report 2 RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisation SC Scientific Committee SG Scoring Guidepost TAC Total allowable catch UoA Unit of Assessment VME Vulnerable marine ecosystems

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 4

STOCK ASSESSMENT REFERENCE POINTS

B0 The (spawning) biomass expected if there had been no fishing (assuming recruitment as estimated through stock assessment).

Blim Spawning biomass limit reference point, sometimes used as a trigger within harvest control rules, or defined as the point below which recruitment is expected to be impaired or the stock dynamics are unknown

Bmsy Spawning Biomass at which the maximum sustainable yield is expected (sometimes expressed as SBmsy)

Btarg Spawning biomass target reference point

Flim Exploitation rate limit reference point, often taken as Fmsy based on UNFSA

Fmsy Fishing mortality rate associated with the achieving maximum sustainable yield

Ftarg Fishing mortality target reference point MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 5

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report provides information on the re-assessment of the Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna fishery against Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Fisheries Standard. The report is prepared by DNV GL for the client organization Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association (MSPEA). The Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna fishery received its original certificate on 29 November 2012 (Certificate number: F-DNV-191232, valid until 28 November 2017). The re-assessment was announced on the MSC website 8 November 2016 followed by a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders previously identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team. The re-assessment audit was performed as an on-site audit in Male, Maldives. The re-assessment activities were carried out by DNV GL team leader and CoC expert Anna Kiseleva and Independent MSC Fisheries experts Kevin Stokes and Jo Akroyd during 10 -16 December 2016. The assessment team gathered input from the various stakeholders, including the Ministry of Fisheries of Agriculture, Fisheries Inspection, the Marine Research Centre, and the client fishery. The re-assessment activities were carried out using the re-assessment audit methodology, as defined in the Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) (version 2.0) and in the subsequent MSC Guidance for the Fisheries Certification Requirements (version 2.0). The default assessment tree as set out in the FCR v2 was used for this re-assessment. The RBF methodology was applied to PI 2.2.1 and PI 2.4.1. The fishery attained a score of 80 or more against each of the MSC Principles and did not score less than 60 against any of the individual MSC Criteria. Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and chain of custody commences at the transfer of the ownership from the catching vessel to the processing company and starts at the point of landing at shore or at collector vessels/mother ships.

1.1 Authorship and Peer reviewers

Table 1 Assessment team

Name: Role: Kevin Stokes Principle 1 and 2 expert Jo Akroyd Principle 3 expert Anna Kiseleva DNV GL team leader and CoC responsible Bert Keus Peer Reviewer Giuseppe Scarcella Peer Reviewer

1.2 Re-assessment timeline

Table 2 Assessment timeline Event Date Announcement of re-assessment: 8 November 2016 Site visit and stakeholder 10-16 December 2016 consultations: Expected date of recertification: 28 November 2017 Target eligibility date: 28 November 2017 (date of certificate expiry and expected re-certification) Actual eligibility date: 28 November 2017 (date of certificate expiry and expected re-certification)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 6

1.3 Principle level scores Table 3 Principle level scores Principle level score Principle

Principle 1 90.0 Principle 2 88.6 Principle 3 85.4

1.4 Main strengths and weaknesses of the client’s operation

Table 4 strengths

 The UoA covers 100% of Maldivian pole and line catches of skipjack tuna, representing a strong commitment to the sustainable fishing practice on the national level

 Adherence of the client group vessels to laws, regulations and requirements;

 Pro-active cooperation with stakeholders and fishery scientists.

 The skipjack tuna stock in the Indian Ocean is well above above SBmsy.

 The skipjack tuna stock has been subject to research, monitoring and stock assessments since 1950. Thus, there is a significant body of reference data on life history, fecundity, spawning, distribution, growth, length at age, etc.

 The Republic of Maldives maintain an effective control and surveillance regime.

Table 5 weaknesses  There is some evidence of non-compliance in regards to log-books being carried on vessels and completed by the Master of fishing.  There is no summary of relevant work on ecosystem impacts of bait fisheries, drawing on existing information and identifying areas, if any, that warrant further study.

1.5 Final Determination with supporting rationale [PCDR: Draft determination with supporting rationale. FR: Final determination. PCR: formal statement from decision making entity] The Maldives pole and line skipjack fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC Criteria. Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the recertification of the Maldives pole and line skipjack fishery for the client Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association (MSPEA).

1.6 Conditions for certification and time-scale for compliance As the fishery achieved a score of below 80 against 1 scoring indicator, the assessment team has set 1 condition (Table 6) for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The condition is applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 7

Table 6 Conditions for certification (full text in Appendix 1.3) Condition PI Condition Time-scale for compliance number By the third annual surveillance an updated compliance report should be produced to show that compliance with reporting regulations (including 1 3.2.3 3rd annual surveillance audit completion and maintenance of logbooks) is further improved, such that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliancet

RECOMMENDATION (PI 2.5.3): Summarise relevant work on ecosystem impacts of bait fisheries, drawing on existing information and identifying areas, if any, that warrant further study.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 8

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS

Assessment team

Table 7 Assessment team Role Name Qualifications Team leader Anna Kiseleva Anna is a senior assessor and a Global service responsible for MSC Fisheries at DNV GL Business Assurance. She holds MSc degree in International fisheries management from the University of Tromsø and MSc degree in Business Management from Murmansk State Technical University. She has over 10 years of experience in the global seafood industry incl. assessment services, consultancy and project management. She is an experienced project management with proven ability to lead cross-disciplinary teams. She has been involved in the delivery of the MSC Fisheries assessment services since 2008. She was a team leader for the client’s fisheries currently undergoing re-assessment since 2015. Anna’s qualifications meet the competence criteria defined in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, for the Team-Leader. She passed MSC Fisheries team leader training course, for CR v. 1.3 and v.2.0. She has no conflicts of interest in relation to the UoA.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 9

Principle 1 & 2 Kevin Stokes Kevin is a fisheries science, management, and policy consultant expert with extensive international and Pacific experience. He has worked at senior management levels in both the public and private sectors as a fisheries scientist, manager, and advisor. Kevin worked for the Ministry, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) in the UK for 15 years. He was responsible for all finfish monitoring, assessment and advice and worked extensively in Europe, serving as chair of the EC Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries (STECF) and as UK representative on the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) advisory Committee for Fisheries Management (ACFM), as well as chairing working groups and committees. He served on multiple UK research councils, led the UK scientific delegation to the International Whaling Commission (IWC) and served as UK Alternate IWC Commissioner for many years. Kevin worked as Chief Scientist for the New Zealand Seafood Industry Council (SeafIC) for 9 years, responsible for science policy and process as well as leading a consulting group drawing on diverse international expertise. He has worked on a wide range of marine shellfish and finfish, and environmental issues and has provided advice nationally and internationally at senior governmental and ministerial levels, as well as to fishing, processing and retail industries, and to NGOs. Kevin was for many years a member of the New Zealand Institute of Directors and has worked on governance and strategy development projects, particularly in New Zealand. For the past 6 years, Kevin has worked as a private consultant in the general area of fisheries but extending to governance and wider advisory matters. He has worked extensively across the globe as well as in New Zealand, doing technical reviews; certification programme review and design work as well as certification assessment; governance review and design; and sustainability advice to retailers and processors. He has worked on Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) design and implementation. In 2007 Kevin participated in the MSC Quality and Consistency work, reviewing advice on development of the new P1 CR, and as part of the group that led development of the new P2 and P3 CR. He has undertaken more than 60 MSC pre-assessments as well as acting as an assessor, auditor, and peer reviewer for multiple certification assessments, ranging from prawns to tunas. He has carried out work for a number of Certification Assessment Bodies (CABs). From late 2013 for one year, Kevin worked exclusively to Conservation International, leading development work on the Global Tuna Initiative, with a focus on the Western Central Pacific. Among his current, contracted activities relevant to this assessment, he is involved in MSC certification and surveillance of tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean. He previously undertook surveillance on the certified PNA non-associated purse seine fishery for skipjack in the WCPO. He meets the competence criteria in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, concerning knowledge of the country and has substantial and appropriate skills related to Principle 1 and 2. He is trained as a team leader, incl. RBF, according to CR v. 2. Kevin has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 10

Principle 3 Jo Akroyd Jo Akroyd is Director and Principal Consultant of Jo Akroyd Ltd, expert an International consultancy company specializing in marine fisheries policy and marine ecosystem and community based management. She has also provided services in quality system implementation and training in project management and negotiation skills. Prior to a career in consultancy, she was manager of International Projects at the Auckland University of Technology and Director of Quality and Strategic Management and Assistant Director of Marine Research at the Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries, Wellington, New Zealand. Her specific experience relating to MSC assessments includes acting as Lead auditor and team member on the assessment of NZ albacore tuna, Fiji yellowfin and albacore tuna, Japan pole and line skipjack and albacore tuna, NZ deepwater fisheries including hoki, hake, ling, southern blue whiting, Hokkaido scallops Japan, NZ southern scallop and providing specialist inputs on Principle 3 (Fisheries management) for the the Ross Sea Toothfish fishery

She meets the competence criteria in the MSC Certification requirements v.2.0, annex PC, concerning knowledge of the country and has substantial and appropriate skills related to Principle 3. She is trained as a team leader according to CR v. 2. Jo has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

Peer reviewers Based on experience with the relevant MSC Fishery programme and components of the Unit of Certification, the peer reviewers listed in Table 8 were selected in accordance with MSC Fishery Certification Requirements on qualifications and competencies.

Table 8 Peer reviewers Peer reviewer Name Peer reviewer 1 Bert Keus Bert Keus is an independent consultant based in Leiden, the Netherlands. He holds degrees in biology and law, and started his career at the Netherlands Institute for Fisheries Investigation (RIVO- DLO). Later he held the position of Head of the Environmental Division of the Dutch Fisheries Board (Productschap Vis). Particular areas of expertise are environmental impact assesments of fisheries in the Natura 2000 framework, fisheries management plans, natural resource policy, and programme and project evaluations. He has long association with the several fisheries in the Netherlands, and he has been involved in efforts to achieve MSC certification of the North Sea brown shrimp fishery – acting as technical advisor to this multi-stakeholder initiative. Through this work and several other MSC certifications he has become particularly familiar with the MSC certification process. Between the years 1998 and 2003 he was a Member of the European Sustainable Use Specialist Group (ESUSG), Fisheries Working Group of IUCN.

He passed MSC Fisheries team member training course for CR 2.0. He has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 11

Peer reviewer 2 Giuseppe Scarcella Participated in projects since 2000 regarding the management and assessment of fisheries resources, the monitoring of artificial reefs and the evaluation of the environmental impact of off-shore gas platforms. He worked as a researcher on board research and fishing vessels as well as at landing sites to perform a wide variety of technical and supervisory studies. He was responsible for setting up the experimental designs and carrying out the statistical analyses of different research projects. He participated in the sampling activity and in the drawing up of the reports and of the related scientific papers. Moreover he actively participates in the development of fishery management plans and the evaluation of socio-economic impact, related both to fishing activities and the deployment of artificial structures for anti-trawling and fish restocking. He also participates, within the framework of the EU-STECF expert groups and FAO-GFCM working groups, in the stock assessment analyses for different species in different GSAs of Mediterranean Sea, in the discussion of the methodologies to be used and in the drawing up of the reports. Finally he is participating at the experimental trawl survey Medits, conducted in GSA 25 (Cyprus) within the Data Collection Framework (DCF) in compliance with the Regulations of the European Council.

He passed MSC Fisheries team member training course for CR 2.0. He has no conflicts of interest in relation to the fishery under assessment.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 12

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY

Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and scope of certification sought The DNV GL Business assurance confirms that the fishery entering re-assessment meets the scope requirements (FCR 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments [FCR 7.8.3.1].

• The fishery is within scope of the MSC standard, (i.e. it does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by dispute); • The fishery has not failed an assessment within the last two years; • IPI stocks are not caught; • The fishery is not regarded as enhanced. Some anchored FADs are available offshore but these are not regarded as significant habitat modification. • The fishery is not based on an introduced species; and • the fishery does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for violations against forced labour laws. Skipjack tuna is not identified as a Low Tropic Level species (LTL) (FCR v2.0 Section SA2.2.10, Box SA1).

Tropic levels are as follows:

Trophic level (from http://www.fishbase.org/summary/107) Skipjack tuna 4.4 ±0.5

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) MSC certification is specific to the fishery holding the certificate, the Unit of Certification. The assessment team may choose to assess a wider unit, the Unit of Assessment, to which the certificate may be extended under specific circumstances.

3.1.2 Unit of Assessment The Unit of Assessment defines the full scope of what is being assessed, and includes the Unit of Certification and any other eligible fishers. The Unit of Assessment includes the target stock(s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, and the fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the Unit of Certification.

The Unit of Assessment for this fishery assessment is specified in Table 9.

Table 9 Unit of Assessment (UoA) Species: Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Stock: Indian Ocean skipjack tuna Geographical area: Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Maldives Harvest method: Pole & line Management: Local: Ministry of Fisheries & Agriculture (MoFA); Regional: Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) Client group: Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association (MSPEA) Other eligible fishers: The eligible fishers are Maldivian vessels licensed for pole and line fishing within the 200 mile Maldives EEZ. There are no other eligible vessels in this fishery.

3.1.3 Proposed Unit of Certification The Unit of certification is the unit entitled to receive an MSC certificate. DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 13

The proposed Unit of Certification include the target stock (s), the fishing method or gear type/s, vessel type/s and/or practices, the fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including those client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate. The MSC FCR v2.0 specifies that the Unit of Certification is defined as “The target stock or stocks (= biologically distinct unit/s) combined with the fishing method/gear and practice (including vessel type/s) pursuing that stock and any fleets, groups of vessels, or individual vessels of other fishing operators.” The proposed Unit of Certification is provided in Table 10. The UoC will be the same as UoA as there are no other eligible fishers in this fishery.

Table 10 Proposed Unit(s) of Certification at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) Species: Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Stock: Indian Ocean skipjack tuna Geographical area: Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) of the Maldives Harvest method: Pole & line Management: Local: Ministry of Fisheries & Agriculture (MoFA); Regional: Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC) The fishing fleets or groups of vessels or Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters individual fishing operators pursuing that stock Association (MSPEA) including those client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate:

3.1.4 Other eligible fishers at the start of the certificate (prior to any certificate sharing) There are no other eligible vessels in this fishery. All Maldivian vessels licensed for pole and line fishing within the 200 mile Maldives EEZ are included in the UoA/UoC.

3.1.5 Final UoC(s) (PCR ONLY)

The PCR shall describe: a. The UoC(s) at the time of certification. b. A rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s) in section 3.1(c). c. Description of final other eligible fishers at the time of certification.

(References: FCR 7.4.8-7.4.10) The Unit of Certification covered by the MSC Fishery certificate at the time of certification is described in Table 11.

Table 11 Unit(s) of Certification at the time of certification Species: Stock: Geographical area: Harvest method: Management: The fishing fleets or groups of vessels or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including those client group members covered by the certificate: Rationale for any changes to the proposed UoC(s)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 14

3.1.6 Final other eligible fishers at the time of certification (PCR ONLY)

3.1.7 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

Table 12 TAC and catch data for pole and line Skipjack tuna TAC Year 2015 Amount NA* UoA share of TAC Year 2015 Amount NA* UoC share of TAC Year 2015 Amount NA* Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most recent) 2015** Amount 68,956 mt Year (second most recent) 2014 Amount 67,301 mt *No TAC is available since it’s not a TAC based fishery

3.1.8 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries The fishery is not enhanced. Some offshore FADs are available for use but these are limited in number (50) and are widespread across the Maldives. They are not regarded as habitat modification or likely to affect the biological characteristics of the stock, or enhancing selected parts of the fishery.

3.1.9 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) The fishery is not ISBF.

Overview of the fishery 3.2.1 Client name and contact information

Table 13 Client contact data Client name: Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association (MSPEA) Contact person: Ms. Fazla Yoosuf Address: M. West End, 3rd Floor Handhuvaree Higun, Male – 20223

MALDIVES Telephone: +960 777-5750 Email: [email protected] 3.2.2 Client information 3.2.3 General overview of the fishery The Maldivian tuna fishery has almost certainly existed for more than a thousand years (Anderson et al, 1998). The first detailed written record was provided by the Arab traveller Ibn Battuta who described the preparation and consumption of “Maldive fish” in the 1340s (Gray, 1889; Gibb, 1929). In 1507, Valentin Fernandes described the live bait P&L fishery and Maldivian fish preparation (Fitzler, 1935). In the early 1600s, François Pyrard de Laval mentioned the fishery in writing about the islands (Gray, 1889). Traditionally and as of today, the main activity was a live bait P&L fishery targeting skipjack tuna. Some trolling and hand lining for other tuna species was also done; indeed, over recent years the hand line fishery for yellowfin tuna has grown in importance due to the higher international market price. Before the advent of canned and frozen product, much of the catch was processed to make hikimas or “Maldive fish” which is a boiled, smoked and dried product (similar to Japanese

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 15

katsuobushi) that for centuries was exported; the main market was Sri Lanka; others included the Yemen and Sumatra. The traditional tuna fishery remained essentially unchanged until the early 1970s since when there have been substantial changes. While the basic fishing method (live bait P&L) remains much as before the mechanization of the fishing fleet has led to an increase in the size and fishing power of the fishing vessels, supported by increased demand for frozen and canned tuna. At the same time there was the collapse of the traditional Sri Lankan market for Maldive fish and a growth in tourism in the Maldives.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 16

Principle One: Target Species Background 3.3.1 Biology

Taxonomy and Geographic Range Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) belongs to the family Scombridae, which contains 14 genera with 48 species of epipelagic fish, including mackerels, Spanish mackerels, bonitos and tunas. skipjack is classified under the family scombridae, sub-family Scombrinae, tribe Thunnini, genus Katsuwonus and species pelamis (Joseph, Klawe & Murphy, 1988). skipjack is a cosmopolitan species commonly found in tropical and subtropical waters of the world’s oceans. The species is distributed throughout the Indian Ocean (IO) with a greater concentration in the western parts. skipjack are a highly productive tuna exhibiting great variability in life history characteristics such as growth rates, natural mortality rates, vulnerability to specific gears and the influence of oceanographic variability on all of these.

Migration &Stock Structure Tag recoveries from the Indian Ocean (IO) Regional Tuna Tagging Program (RTTP) provide evidence of rapid, large scale movements of skipjack in the IO; this supports the current assumption of a single stock in the IO. Skipjack recoveries indicate that the species is highly mobile and disperses rapidly to covers large distances. The average distance between skipjack tagging and recovery positions is estimated at 640 nautical miles. Accordingly, skipjack in the IO is considered a single stock for assessment purposes (IOTC-SC14, 2011).

Habitat skipjack is an epipelagic fish found in waters with a temperature higher than 15 °C (Matsumoto et al, 1984). Larvae are mostly restricted to areas with temperatures of at least 25°C. Skipjack tends to be associated with regions of upwelling or areas where cold, nutrient-rich waters are brought from the bottom of the ocean to the surface, as well as regions where cold and warm water mix. These areas are highly productive. skipjack does not have a swim bladder. This limitation leads its distribution to be generally within the mixed layer above the thermocline. Physiological studies of the species suggest that only small (<4 kg) skipjack can inhabit most surface tropical waters and that the habitat of large (>6.5 kg) skipjack in the tropics is in the vicinity of the thermocline adjacent to cooler water (Barkley et al, 1978). Several oceanographic and biological features are known to influence, directly or indirectly, the distribution of skipjack within their overall limits. These include temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen, thermocline structure, bottom topography, water transparency, current systems, water masses and biological productivity. Concerning distribution in the tropics, temperature seems to play a minor role since thermal gradients in these areas are generally weak. However, in sub-tropical areas, skipjack fisheries exhibit seasonality that correlate well with surface temperature. This has been observed in New Zealand and Australian waters. Another factor playing an important role in determining skipjack distribution is the presence of suitable forage and zooplankton and micronekton (Lewis, 1981). Similarly, skipjack is abundant around islands, seamounts and banks as a result of more food being found in these areas.

Behaviour Skipjack are found in warm, well-mixed surface waters and are often occur in large surface swimming schools both free-swimming and associated with floating objects. Skipjack exhibit schooling behaviour. Scott (1969) describes various types of schools of this fish in the EPO; 70% of the P&L skipjack catch came from single species schools and 80% from PS. Also, the species aggregates by size (Broadhead & Orange, 1960).

Natural Mortality Rate Natural mortality for skipjack in the IO has been estimated (Kolody et al, 2011) from an independent Brownie tagging analysis. The distribution of M estimated within stock assessment was compared with the preliminary Brownie estimates (Kolody et al, 2011). Estimates for fully selected fish are of the order of 0.8 per annum.

Life Span The maximum age of skipjack is not known, but is believed to be between 8 and 12 years of age (Forsberg, 1980).

Prey and Predators

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 17

Skipjack mainly feed on fish, crustacean and molluscs. The wide variety in its diet suggests that skipjack is a highly opportunistic feeder. Feeding activity peaks in the early morning and again in the late afternoon (Collette & Nauen, 1983). In the EPO, Alverson, 1963 found 59% crustaceans, 37% fish and 3% squid. Blackburn & Serventy, 1981 found that the major food items in the stomachs of skipjack in Australian waters were euphausids, with various fishes and squid making up a smaller percentage of stomach contents. Ankenbrandt, 1985, found that Euphausia similis had the highest index of relative importance, while the gonostomid Maurolicus muelleri made up the highest mean volumetric ratio measurement. Other fish, such as mackerel (Scomber) and Thyrsitops lepidoides were also common. Crustaceans other than E. similis occur frequently, but were not a major part of the volume of the stomach. Cephalopods occurred frequently. skipjack also consume pteropods, siphonophores and beetles. There is some debate whether this species is cannibalistic. Ankenbrandt, 1985 did not find evidence of this, but Collette & Nauen, 1983 lists the species as cannibalistic. This discrepancy could relate to the opportunistic feeding of skipjack, leading to consumption of their young when they are abundant. A large-scale study of skipjack stomachs in the Pacific Islands showed a high degree of cannibalism.

Growth and maturity The growth of skipjack has been estimated utilising RTTP-IO tag/recovery data and are consistent with the results obtained in the mid-1990s using data from the IPTP tagging programme in the Maldives. The von Bertalanffy growth curve estimates from the tagging studies for ages 2-5 were: K = 0.288, L∞ = 74.8cm and t0 = -0.5 (IOTC, 2008b). However, the variability in catch at size over the years suggests that growth rates are variable (IOTC, 2009). Using daily otolith readings, skipjack in the eastern IO were found to attain about 45 cm fork - length in 1 year and 50 to 55 cm in 1½ years. For the 2011 skipjack stock assessment in the IO, two curves for length-at-age were examined (Figure 2). These represented updates of previous analysis, but used the most recent tagging data. The two curves followed the standard von Bertalanffy growth function with length-at- age zero fixed at 20 cm (Kolody et al, 2011).

Skipjack reach sexual maturity in about one year. The size at first maturity is about 41-43 cm for both males and females (and as such most of the skipjack taken by the fisheries are fish that have already reproduced). For the SS3 skipjack stock assessment (see below) maturity estimates were adopted from Grande et al. (2010). The maturity schedule is assumed to be invariant over time, with 50% maturity occurring at length 38 cm (Figure 3)

Fecundity and Spawning skipjack is highly fecund and spawns opportunistically throughout the year in the whole inter- equatorial IO (north of 20°S, with surface temperature greater than 24°C) when conditions are favourable

3.3.2 Stock status Stock status is estimated using stock assessments carried out by the IOTC Secretariat which are reviewed and refined by the IOTC working Party on Tropical Tunas (WPTT). The WPTT report is further scrutinised by the IOTC Scientific Committee (SC) which provides advice to the Commission on status and management needs.

As reported by the most recent WPTT (IOTC, 2016a) and SC (IOTC, 2016b), the spawning biomass (SB) in 2013 is estimated as SB2013/SB0 = 0.58, with 80% confidence intervals for SB2013/SB0 of 0.53-0.62, where SB0 is the virgin (unexploited) spawning biomass. The assessment is considered in more detail below. In summary, the SC reports uncertainties in the assessment and comments on some concerns related to catch rates. The uncertainties in the assessment are due to poor definition of a base case formulation and the consequent use of a grid of 81 model formulations from which a median estimate and confidence intervals are drawn. The median estimate of SB2013/SB0 is poorly defined, but the confidence intervals may be inflated. All analyses, as reflected in the Kobe II Strategy Matrix, suggest that with catches less than MSY since 2013, under all model variants examined, the probability of SB2016 being below the defined limit, SBlim = 0.2B0, is zero. It is therefore highly unlikely that the stock is at a level where recruitment might be compromised or impaired.

The WPTT and SC report the estimate of SB2013/SBmsy as 1.59, with 80% confidence intervals of 1.13-2.14. As for SB/SB0, drawing on the same grid of assessment runs, the median estimate of SB2013/SB0 is poorly defined, but the confidence intervals may be inflated. However, analyses, as

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 18

reflected in the Kobe II Strategy Matrix, suggest that with catches less than MSY since 2013, under all but one of many model variants examined, the probability of SB2016 being below SBmsy is zero.

The IOTC SC and WPPT do not show spawning biomass trends through time but the trajectory of SB can be seen in the standard Kobe plot (IOTC, 2016a, b; Figure 1). The plot is based on the aggregation of model outputs from the grid of 81 model formulations. The spawning biomass has been estimated above 0.4SB0 in all but one year (2008) since 1950 and except for that year has fluctuated well above SBmsy and near 0.60Bo since 2000.

Figure 1: Kobe plot for Skipjack tuna (source: IOTC, 2016a)

3.3.3 Harvest Strategy The harvest strategy for skipjack consists of: I. collecting data to agreed standards II. assessing the stock status against clear reference points III. the SC advising the Commission in relation to those reference points and on catch/effort requirements to achieve them (if necessary) IV. the Commission responding through binding resolutions

To date, using estimates of SBmsy and percentiles of B0 and management advice provided annually (and a new stock assessment about every three years), this strategy has proven successful in maintaining skipjack biomass at a high level, with a range of management measures agreed by the Commission, primarily aimed at controlling effort. The general strategy outlined is essentially still in place but in 2016 the Commission adopted Resolution Res 16/02 which specifies target and limit reference points and a pre-determined harvest control rule (HCR), based on an assessment scheduled every three years and starting in 2017. The HCR, reference points, and other rules/measures contained in res 16/02 were based on extensive management strategy evaluation (MSE) undertaken by an independent consultant who worked collaboratively with the WPPT and SC, itself advising and coordinating with the Commission during the process. The agreed HCR, based on MSE work by Bentley and Adam (2016) was filtered through multiple criteria and parameterised to achieve a given performance. Its operation assumes a flow of data of equal quality to that currently available, and that a stock assessment of similar quality to the current one will be undertaken every three years. The HCR then determines an overall catch limit based on a relationship between fishing intensity and the ratio of SBcurrent/SB0. The tools for ensuring catch limits are adhered to have evolved over time and are laid out in multiple IOTC Resolutions.

Assuming data flows, assessment every three years, and application of tools, the harvest strategy is expected to maintain the stock at SB = 0.61SB0 with a very high probability (>90%) that the stock will not fall below 0.39SB0. SBmsy is estimated as 0.36SB0. Resolution 16/02 lays out the HCR which sets catch limits. These have yet to be set and will depend on IOTC discussions on catch allocation and then on the sum of each Member’s approach to ensuring national catch allocations are adhered to. However, Res 16/02 at paragraph 11, sets out that allocations will be made in proportion to current catches prior to agreement on a full allocation model

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 19

if SB falls below a threshold level of 0.4SB0. It also specifies that if SB >=0.4SB0 (as of 2015) then the HCR shall be used to establish an overall catch limit.

The IOTC has an ongoing process to develop a catch allocation scheme and has already developed allocation principles. IOTC RES 13/10, together with work on allocation (IOTC-2011-SS4-PropA[E] (IOTC, 2011a), IOTC-2011-SS4-PropB[E] (IOTC, 2011b), IOTC-2013-TCAC02-R[E] (IOTC, 2013)) show the intent to adopt catch limitation measures for all tunas under IOTC convention area. IOTC Res 14/02 mainly addresses stocks of yellowfin and bigeye, but relates to other tropical tunas and main targeted stocks and thus applies to skipjack.

Regarding tools used to date, management of exploitation level has been approached by the limitation of effort/capacity through a series of Resolutions (01/04, 03/01, 06/05, 09/02, and 12/11). The earlier resolutions were aimed at non-members but were extended to all Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-members (CPC). The most recent resolution, IOTC RES12/11, is aimed at determining fishing capacity for all IOTC CPCs, to ensure stabilisation of the level of fishing capacity active on stocks of high commercial value. The resolution provides for planned fleet development and vessel replacement but is aimed at ensuring no effective increase in capacity from a 2006 baseline plus any agreed Fishery Development Plans for the years 2007-2013. IOTC maintains list of authorized vessel and list of active vessel in an effort to control the fishing effort as given by the fleet development plans (http://iotc.org/vessels, accessed May 2017)

3.3.4 Harvest Control Rule Resolution 16/02 on Harvest Control Rules (IOTC, 2016c) lays out an explicit and well-defined HCR such that fishing intensity is reduced linearly from a maximum (when at or above 0.4SB0, the specified TRP) to zero at 0.1B0 (see Figure 2). The fishing intensity is 33.3% of the maximum at 0.2SB0 (the specified limit reference point (LRP)) but with a further rule to review the HCR and implement a rebuilding plan should spawning biomass fall below 0.2SB0. The rule was developed using Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE; Bentley and Adam, 2016) with an estimated median performance of maintaining the SB at 0.61SB0 and a 90% probability of maintaining SB above 0.39SB0 (implying a greater than 90% probability of SB being maintained above SBmsy of 0.365SB0).

Figure 2: (source IOTC Resolution 16/02): The harvest control rule for skipjack tuna, relating fishing intensity (and hence catch limits) to stock status.

Resolution 16/02 specifies LRP and target reference points (TRP), how fishing intensity should be varied depending on estimated stock status, the frequency of stock assessments and required outputs, how the IOTC SC should advise the Commission in order to implement the HCR, and conditions for review of the HCR (if needed). Resolution 16/02 also specifies that the next skipjack stock assessment will be in 2017 and that the measure (that is, Res 16/02) shall be reviewed in 2019 or earlier if there is any evidence that there is a risk of breaching the LRP.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 20

Development of the HCR used an extensive, collaborative and iterative, MSE process. The MSE used a simulation model of the skipjack fishery and assessment, with a single species, spatially explicit, age-structured population model similar in structure to that used for stock assessments and with uncertainty in outputs based on statistical fitting to the most recent assessment. No explicit stock assessment was embedded within the MSE. The precision and frequency of stock assessments were considered during evaluations but alternative structural assumptions about the stock and fisheries were not tested. A range of alternative HCR types and parameterisations were evaluated using a large set of performance statistics related to yield and sustainability. While structural (assessment/simulation) model alternatives have not been considered during MSE, IOTC stock assessment processes do consider alternatives and the base assessment model configuration used for MSE has proven robust.

The HCR design and selection has considered a range of uncertainties but this has not included multispecies biology/fishery components or issues such as potential use of alternative stock assessment methods/structures, instead relying on relatively simple consideration of assessment precision (but not bias), and frequency.

3.3.5 Stock assessment The most recent stock assessment is summarised in IOTC (2014a). The document cites IOTC–2014– WPTT16–43 Rev_2 (IOTC, 2014b), though online the available stock assessment file is IOTC-2014- WPTT16-43 Rev_3 (IOTC, 2014c) (http://www.iotc.org/meetings/16th-working-party-tropical- tunas). All results shown for skipjack in 2014, 2015, and 2016 IOTC WPPT and SC documents relate to the Rev_3 document, in particular Appendix 3, which shows results from final assessment runs following specified inputs from the WPTT.

The next stock assessment is required through Res 16/02 (2016c) in 2017, with a new assessment to be undertaken every three years.

Stock assessments are carried out by the IOTC secretariat and are reviewed at the WPTT which reports to the SC. For methodological issues, the IOTC Working Party on Methods (WPM) may also be involved. In 2014 the stock assessment (IOTC, 2014c) was presented to the WPTT which specified final requirements for model formulations and a parameter/assumption grid to be used in determining advice (see below).

The stock assessment used to generate estimates relevant to management is an integrated statistical model implemented using the SS3 framework, providing probabilistic estimates of management-related metrics. It builds on earlier skipjack assessment models developed by Kolody et al (2011) and Sharma et al (2012).

The model implemented in 2014 assumes a single area. Four fleets, operating quarterly, are included. The model is age-structured, utilizing length-frequency data and a growth function. Beverton-Holt recruitment dynamics are assumed, with a base case steepness of 0.9. Available data for model fitting include two CPUE indices (Maldivian Pole and Line CPUE), length frequencies, tag recoveries (mostly from purse seine and pole and line). For any model run, fixed growth (either von Bertalanffy or Richards types) and maturity curves were assumed. Length-based selectivity was estimated for each fleet using a flexible, non-parametric spline.

Model fitting in 2014 did not readily define a clear base case or set of runs and initial results presented status estimates from a candidate base case run with uncertainty also defined from a grid of 141 model formulations and fits. Following input from the WPTT, a final set of 81 runs was used to form a grid, from which medians of management-related quantities and confidence intervals were determined. The results from this grid are shown in IOTC-2014-WPTT16-43 Rev_3, Appendix 3, and have become the standard summary for skipjack status since that time, as used to estimate status.

The assessment grid explored sensitivity to steepness, natural mortality, use of CPUE index, and treatment of recruitment as deterministic or stochastic. Up to and including 2016, advice from the SC based on the assessment has utilized results from the WPTT-defined grid and projections/sensitivity results expressed through the Kobe II Strategy Matrix (IOTC, 2016ab). The

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 21

advice provided, based on the stock assessment, has been appropriate for the management arrangements in use until adoption of IOTC Res 16/02. For the harvest control rule adopted through IOTC Res 16/02, the key assessment output required is SBcurrent/SB0. The stock assessment provides a probabilistic estimate of this metric and is appropriate for the HCR.

The assessment takes in to account the growth, mortality, and maturation profile of skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean, using the most up to date biological information. It assumes a single stock and previous assessments have considered 2/3 area models. The WPTT and SC have recognized the need for further consideration of spatial complexity, with complex movement patterns observed through tagging studies. Also, there are inconsistencies between relative abundance trends as seen through CPUE indices (e.g purse seine).

The skipjack stock is subject to an integrated, statistical stock assessment which is able to provide estimates of spawning biomass (SB) and a proxy (C/Cmsy) for fishing mortality rate, as well as unfished biomass and other MSY-related reference points against which stock status can be determined and management advice provided. Previously, implicit reference points were used to frame management advice and under IOTC Res 16/02 explicit TRP andLRP for the harvest control rule have been agreed. All reference points are of standard form as used in multiple fisheries jurisdictions, including tuna RFMOs, and are appropriate to the skipjack stock, taking account of its productivity and resilience. SG80 is met.

There has been consideration of simpler catch-based methods to (IOTC, 2014a) to provide confidence in advice from the base case assessment undertaken using SS3. Those methods have provided different status estimates but still suggest the stock is both underfished and not subject to overfishing (in 2013).

The assessment 2014 conducted using SS3 has been subject to a systematic exploration of the interactions among different sets of assumptions, as shown in results from the grid and the Kobe II Strategy Matrix. However, the WPTT and SC (IOTC, 2016ab) has recognized the need for fuller exploration of spatial complexities and of CPUE data, and there is still a need to better define a base case or restricted set of runs; it cannot yet be said that alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

3.3.6 Information 3.3.6.1 Information other than removals IOTC (2014a) describes information sources for use in stock assessment of skipjack in the Indian Ocean. A single stock was assumed for all the assessment (e.g IOTC, 2014c) but previous assessments have explored multiple area formulations and the WPTT and SC (IOTC, 2016a,b) have noted the need for further exploration of spatial complexity. An IOTC Stock Structure Project using genetic and otolith microchemistry markers will start in 2017, focused on several IOTC species including Skipjack. Tagging data are available for spatial model fitting.

Stock productivity and fleet composition are well understood and the assessment takes account of both. The information available is considered sufficient to support the harvest strategy, itself dependent on the stock assessment and emergent advice, including status reporting against defined reference points.

Fleet composition data are available and used in the stock assessment which fits to a single area, by quarter (of year) for four fleets, including the UoA (Maldives pole and line). Stock abundance indices (CPUE) are available for three fleets (both associated and unassociated purse seine from the EU/Seychelles, and from the UoA). The CPUE analyses draw on environmental data which are also used to help interpret recruitment patterns. UoA removals and size data are reported annually to the IOTC in accordance with IOTC Res 10/02, now superseded by Res 15/02.

While there is a large range of data available (ageing, size frequencies, growth, maturity, fleet structure, CPUE, etc), there is not a clear strategic body of research specific to the long-term UoA- specific management system or information yet available fully to explore alternative stock hypotheses within assessment or further MSE. Stock abundance is estimated using the stock assessment rather than any direct survey methods, based on a wide range of data from all fisheries, input parameters and assumptions. Amongst the inputs to the assessment are indices of relative abundance in the form of standardized CPUE from three fleets (both associated and unassociated purse seine, and Maldives Pole and Line (the UoA). DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 22

There are problems associated with all indices. The Maldives Pole and Line fleet operates only within a restricted area of the skipjack distribution, has increasingly fished around FADs, and is a relatively short time-series (because of mechanization changes to the fleet). Purse seine CPUE in principle might better reflect stock abundance given the wider distribution of fishing, but separation of associated (FAD) and unassociated (non-FAD) purse seine effort is difficult. Also, there have been many technological advances in purse seine fisheries which are difficult to account for. Nevertheless, assessments in recent years, including the most recent in 2014, have explored the indices and have attempted to fit them. Signals from different indices conflict and how the assessment weights each becomes important. The approach taken (see above) of using a grid of assessments overcomes this problem to an extent and attempts to incorporate uncertainty in estimates of management-related metrics that feed in to the HCR and the harvest strategy. A spatially resolved assessment might help to resolve conflicts between indices but the current assessment is for a single area. The problem is a modelling one given that no single index can be expected to represent the entire stock.

3.3.6.2 Information on removals from the stock According to IOTC (2016d), the UoA accounts for about 17% of the total skipjack removals. Other pole and line fisheries contribute a few per cent of total removals. The majority of skipjack removals are by purse seine (~39%), and gillnet (~26%). Main removals by country are Indonesia (purse seine, troll, and gillnet, 21%), Sri Lanka (gillnet and longline, 15%), and the EU-Spain (purse seine, 15%).

The IOTC has agreed a number of resolutions pertinent to improved catch and effort reporting, with Res 15/02 specifying mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members & Cooperating Non Contracting Parties. The Secretariat reports annually on the standing of a range of data and statistics reported (e.g., IOTC, 2016d). The latest report covers retained catches and reports these are generally well known for the major industrial fleets, with little need for the Secretariat to make estimates or adjustments. However, catches are less certain for many of the artisanal fisheries with incomplete reporting by species by some fleets, and uncertainty in some of the more significant fleets (e.g., Sri Lanka).

The stock assessment includes three industrial fleets all with good quality information on removals, as well as size and effort data: i) Maldives pole and line (the uoA), ii) associated (FAD) purse seine, and iii) unassociated (free school) purse seine. It additionally includes all other removals as a single fleet, using data supplied by members with estimates and adjustments as necessary made by the secretariat. Overall, while there are known problems with some of the artisanal fishery reporting, the quality of information on non-UoA removals is considered sufficiently good for stock assessment purposes and hence to inform management.

UoA removals since 2009 have been of the order of 60,000 t per year against total removals approaching 400,000 t (i.e., circa 15%). UoA removals are reported in Maldives national statistics to the IOTC according to a range of resolutions (e.g., 10/08, 15/01, 15/02, 15/03).

The data collection system in the Maldives previously relied on atoll-based collection, but in 2010 a logbook-based system was introduced and has been slowly improved since being implemented. Logbooks are required to be kept on board at all times, but it is clear from discussions during the site visit that this has not been adhered to fully, with many still retained by atoll councils or vessel owners. Nevertheless, logbook returns are excellent with skippers filling in logbooks for return regularly and reconciliation between returns and purchase records from factories being good. In addition, a mix of on-board, shore-based, and fishery field officers (8 in total) provides good oversight on the quality and veracity of data collection as well as bolstering the size data collection programme. Since 2014, the Maldives has reported catch and effort data by gear and species by 0.5 x 0.5 geographic grid. This has been done since 2014.

IOTC (2016d) summarises the standing of a range of data and statistics received by the IOTC Secretariat for skipjack tuna, in accordance with IOTC Resolution 15/02. No issues are noted for Maldives Pole and Line as affects skipjack data.

Given the treatment of UoA catch, effort, and size frequency data in the stock assessment, it is clear that removals are monitored regularly and with sufficient coverage and accuracy to support use of assessment estimates, consistent with harvest control rule needs and within the harvest strategy.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 23

Principle Two: Ecosystem Background 3.4.1 Species caught in operations Pole and line fishing for skipjack involves two operational modes: i) fishing with pole and line for skipjack outside of the atolls within the Maldives EEZ, and ii) bait fishing within the atolls. The pole and line operations catch many species, including yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus), frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), kawakawa (Euthynnus affinus), rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), round scad (Decapterus), garfish (Belone belone), oceanic trigger fish (Canthidermis maculata), and jacks/trevallies (spp), as well as Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis). Bait fishing operations catch many species of small fish, including silver sprat (Spratelloides gracilis), blue sprat (Spratelloides delicatulus), anchovy (Enchrasicholina heteroloba), fusiliers (Caesionidae spp), cardinal fishes (Apogonidae spp).

For certification purposes, MSC splits non-target species in to two categories: i) primary species, and ii) secondary species. Species which are endangered, threatened or protected (ETP) are considered separately.

Primary species are those for which there are management tools controlling exploitation as well as known reference points in place. Secondary species are those which are neither primary nor ETP. In the Maldives, all shark fishing and trade in shark products has been banned since 2010 (IOTC, 2015). Silky sharks are therefore considered under ETP.

There is limited information on any bait fish species and all are treated as secondary. Of the species caught in pole and line operations, only yellowfin and bigeye tuna are managed using reference points. They are considered her as primary species while all other species caught in pole and line operations are treated as secondary.

3.4.1.1 Primary Species Both yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna are assessed and managed by the IOTC with measures in place expected to achieve management objectives reflected in reference points. Catches of bigeye tuna in the UoA are low with just 184 tonnes reported in 2015, representing 0.04% of the total pole and line (UoA) catch. Reported UoA catches of yellowfin for the years 2011 to 2015 are 9,650, 10,896, 18,878, 18,481, and 15,796 tonnes. Over those years, based on data provided by the client, the catch of yellowfin has varied from 13 to 19% of the UoA catch, with an average over the five years of near 17%. All catches of yellowfin and bigeye are retained and used.

Yellowfin status: The most recent stock assessment for yellowfin is reported in IOTC (2016a,b). The assessment follows one conducted in 2015 but introduces the most recent catches and a new longline CPUE index. The 2015 assessment estimated spawning stock in 2014 as 0.23SB0, with 80% confidence intervals of 0.21-0.36. The updated assessment in 2016 estimates SB2015/SB0 higher, at 0.29, but does not provide any estimate of confidence. At the third surveillance, through the IOTC, further analyses were used to estimate that across a range of model formulations, there is a greater than 80% probability that the 2015 estimate was above 0.2B0. The 2016 estimate is much higher and the stock assessment is generally more optimistic. Based on this, it is concluded that it is highly likely the yellowfin stock is above the point of recruitment impairment. However, the stock is assessed currently to be below SBmsy with an estimate of SB2015/SBmsy of 0.89 (0.79-0.99) and to have been below SBmsy for six of the last eight years.

We note also that the estimates of SB2015/SBmsy=0.89(0.79-0.99) and SB2015/SB0=0.29 imply SBmsy=0.33SB0 and SB2015/SB0 is in the range 0.26-0.33.

Bigeye status: Bigeye was assessed in 2016 (IOTC, 2016a,b) with SB2015/SB0 estimated as 0.38 but with no confidence intervals. SB2015/SBmsy is estimated as 1.29 (1.07-1.51). The estimates for bigeye are taken from a large array of model runs (500 from six model options). The Kobe plot showing F/Fmsy vs SB/SBmsy for 2015 is shown in Figure 3. The central estimate is that SB2015>SBmsy, with only a small number of 500 model runs falling below SBmsy.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 24

Figure 3 (copied from IOTC, 2016a,b): Kobe plot for bigeye tuna showing medians from a grid of 500 assessment model runs.

Information on primary species: Information/data collection systems for yellowfin and bigeye tuna are the same as for the target species, skipjack (see above). As for skipjack, the IOTC (2016d) summarises the standing of a range of data and statistics received by the IOTC Secretariat for yellowfin and bigeye tuna, in accordance with IOTC Resolution 15/02. No issues are noted for Maldives Pole and Line as affects yellowfin or bigeye data.

Overall, the Maldives yellowfin and bigeye statistics are regarded as high quality, quantitative data – being precise, verifiable, unbiased, continuous, and comprehensive. They are used in the IOTC stock assessment processes.

Management of primary species: Bigeye tuna is caught in small quantities and is estimated to be above Bmsy. Management is through the IOTC and the UoA does not have any special management provisions in place for the pole and line fishery targeting skipjack.

Yellowfin tuna is a substantial part of the pole and line catch and is also estimated currently to be below Bmsy, though at a level above that where recruitment might be impaired. In 2015, given estimated status of 0.23SB0 and SC advice to reduce effort, the Commission adopted Resolution 16/01 on a rebuilding plan for yellowfin. The resolution requires the Maldives to reduce yellowfin catches by 5% from 2014 levels. Maldives pole and line catch in 2014 was at a high level and a 5% reduction may imply a level above the recent average. The Maldives is required by Res 16/01 to advise the IOTC through its Annual Implementation Report, what measures will be taken. The report has been sighted for assessment purposes. It notes that the effective reduction, if distributed amongst all pole and line vessels is about 24kg per trip and that the Maldives will therefore seek to achieve the target through indirect measures in order to minimize impacts on small-scale, coastal communities. Steps include:  Some previously applied assistance for fuel, vessel purchase and duty exemptions will no longer be provided.  No additional anchored fish aggregating devices (FAD) shall be deployed to the existing network (around which yellowfin catches are higher).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 25

 Incentives to target free swimming skipjack will be introduced.  If monitoring from 1 Jan 2017 to 30 June 2017 suggests the catch limit might be breached, the number of fishing licenses will be limited and other mechanisms will be considered.

In addition, the Maldives has been working on a Concept Vessel project which already discourages targeting schools around anchored FADs and encourages the use of tools such bird radars and stabilized binoculars to assist in improved opportunities to target free swimming skipjack.

3.4.1.2 Secondary species Secondary species status: Of the species caught in pole and line operations, kawakawa may approach 1% of the UoA catch, with other species at lesser percentages. For certification purposes, being treated as secondary, none are considered to be main as defined by MSC and are not considered further here or in the risk based framework (RBF) used for scoring of secondary species (Appendix 1.2).

Jauharee et al (2015) review the Maldives livebait fishery, including using information from logbook schemes introduced in 2010 to collect information on the types and quantity of bait caught. The review provides insight in to the variability of catches by region and species, and attempts to look at trends by species and region. It does not provide definitive annual catch statistics by species but suggests the total catch weight of bait in 2014 was approximately 10,063 tonnes. This compares to previous estimates from multiple sources (cited in Jauharee et al) of 3,000-3,500 (1978-1981); 5,100+/-2,800 (1985-1987); and 11,100+/-2,800 (1993). The review also estimates a tuna:livebait weight ratio of 11.8:1.0 in 2014. This compares to previous estimates from multiple sources at different times of 7.3-10.6:1 (Anderson, 1997) or 7.4:10.0 (Anderson, 2009 cited in IPNLF, 2012). The review also suggests the major livebait species, silver sprat, may comprise 49% of the total catch. This compares to earlier estimates (Anderson, 1997) of about 38%. Overall, despite efforts to quantify annual catches by species by year to ascertain percentages of the UoA catch, this did to prove possible during the reassessment site visit. However, from all statistics it is clear that silver sprat is the major livebait species, with blue sprat secondary and at a much lower proportion overall. To estimate the silver sprat as a percentage of the UoA catch, we simply divide the proportion of silver sprat:livebait by the ratio of (tuna:livebait-1) to give the ratio of silver sprat to the total tuna plus livebait catch. The estimated percentages range from 3.5-7.7%.

As noted above for kawakawa, for certification purposes, it is necessary to consider main (as opposed to minor species). The definition of being main relies heavily on the percentage, with 5% being the standard criterion used. The range of inferred percentages spans 5% and for assessment purposes we adopt a precautionary approach and treat silver sprat as a main species. No other bait fish species, including blue sprat, is regarded as a main species. In applying the RBF (Appendix 1.2), the PSA method is applied only to the identified main species – silver sprat. Application of the PSA requires the use of productivity and susceptibility attributes. Productivity attributes are inherent to the species and drawn from literature. They cannot be changed through management practice. Susceptibility attributes, in contrast, depend on the behaviour of the fishery and data on its operation. The PSA workings for silver sprat are shown in Appendix 1.2. During the site visit, stakeholder consultation and information gathering took place to enable the PSA. PSA were also conducted on blue sprat, anchovy, and rainbow runner but are not included in Appendix 1.2. Because of high susceptibility scores, the RBF suggested resulted in an assessment score that results in a condition (see Appendix 1.3)

Information on secondary species: All livebait species, including the one main secondary species (silver sprat) have been monitored since 2010 using logbooks. Logbook returns have been improving with analyses possible on data since 2011 (Jauharee et al, 2015), though there are still some missing records. The logbook data has allowed a quantitative analysis of catch rates by region, by year and month, sufficient to determine trends, but not status. (This is why the RBF is used during assessment.) PSA-related information is available from multiple sources but is primarily sourced through Fishbase.org (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides-gracilis.html), see Appendix 1.3. Most, but not all, productivity attributes have some quantitative information available.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 26

Management of livebait fisheries: Silver sprat is the single, main secondary species. All livebait fishing, however, including minor species, is covered by the Maldives Livebait Management Plan (Gillett et al, 2013) and is considered in the review by Jauharee et al (2015).

There is no indication that silver sprat or any other live bait species is below biologically based limits or that current fishing practices might cause any to be so. The Livebait Management Plan does note concerns about occasional bait fishing difficulties, especially in the southern atolls, but all the bait species are short-lived and highly productive and there is no major concern about falling to unproductive levels.

The plan includes a number of objectives, with highest priority on i) Protection of baitfish resources to assure their continued availability for pole-and-line fishing (i.e. reduction of risk of depletion); and ii) Creation of an awareness among bait fisheries of the need for, and benefits of fisheries management.

A number of strategies and options for specific interventions are included in the Plan for meeting the objective. The range of measures, arrangements, and activities included in the plan are all aimed at ensuring a continued protection of the baitfish resources, whether main or minor in MSC consideration. Ongoing use of logbooks and research (Jauharee et al, 2015) provides a basis for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan.

Options for intervention include public campaigns and rigorous enforcement of existing exclusion zones (around all resorts, designated dive sites, and MPAs); a ban on commercial sale of livebait species for food; more efficient bait usage (with a number of specific interventions); and reactive interventions if catch rate declines are evident (including expansion of exclusion zones, restricting the use of lights or net size, and temporary closures).

Minor secondary species include many species caught also in pole and line operations. These include frigate tuna and kawakawa which are managed by the IOTC. Both are reported to the SC with the opportunity annually for the Commission to agree Resolutions impacting management. UoA catches of frigate tuna have declined from 2011 through 2015 from close to 1,400 tonnes to 100 tonnes. The annual IOTC catch is close to 100,000 tonnes. There is no specific strategy in place for the UoA but none is required. UoA catches of kawakawa have also declined in the same period from 18,00 tonnes to under 200 tonnes. The annual IOTC catch is close to 160,000 tonnes. Kawakawa is assessed using a catch-only model currently to be approaching SBmsy, with advice from the SC to reduce catches (IOTC, 2016b). It is not clear if there is a need for a specific UoA strategy for kawakawa. Other minor species are caught in lesser numbers and are unassessed; it is unclear is any UoA-specific strategies are required.

3.4.1.3 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) species ETP status: There are no national or international limits set for any ETP species caught by the UoA. Data on ETP interactions in pole and line operations are available from fishery logbooks, required reporting of any interactions, at-sea observers, and structured questionnaires (see PI2.3.3). Miller et al (2016) report on interactions with ETP in the UoA, based on 106 at-sea observer trips as well as from logbook and other information. The UoA pole and line fishing does not capture any turtle or marine mammal species and has limited interactions with two seabird species (lesser noddy (Anous tenuirostris) and brown noddy (Anous stolidus)) and juvenile silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis). Seabirds very rarely get tangled with lines and are reportedly always released alive. Logbook reports of both noddy species are very low. Both seabird ETP species are classified as of least concern in IUCN listings (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22694805/0, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22694794/0), and with very few interactions and reportedly all birds released unharmed, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no detrimental direct impacts of the UoA. Silky sharks are classified by IUCN as near threatened (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39370/0). IOTC (2016b) reports on the status of silky sharks, including on an ecological risk assessment. That risk assessment suggested silky sharks, being relatively long-lived and with low productivity, rated near the top of risk levels in purse seine and longline fisheries, but does not suggest a high risk factor for pole and line fisheries. The IOTC so far has not been able to estimate stock status nor sustainable catch levels. However, reported catches in the IOTC area average 3,700t. The UoA catches are of the order of 10t per year, with the majority released alive (Miller et al, 2016) from DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 27

brief encounters on barbless hooks and high expectation of survival. Given the low level of UoA catches relative to total Indian Ocean catches, it is probable the UoA direct effects will not hinder recovery. With no stock assessment, it is not possible to state this with a high degree of confidence but it is concluded that it is highly likely.

In the bait fishery, Jauharee et al (2015) report All indications are that ETP species are not harmed in any way by bait fishing and occasional entanglement or entrapment in the gear usually results in the organism in question being released without injury. Sharks and stingrays are an exception (not ETP species globally but do benefit from protection in the Maldivian waters) which occasionally suffer injury when being extracted from the nets used for collecting bait. All indications, however, are that these occurrences are rare, with all sharks and rays released without harm during (limited) observed trips. The one species of shark that might suffer small mortality is the black tip reef shark (Carcharhinus melanopterus). The species is classified as near threatened by IUCN (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39375/0) but the numbers potentially killed in the bait fishery (none observed) are highly likely not to hinder recovery, meeting SG80 requirements.

Information on ETP: Two reports have been published showing analyses and results of ETP interactions with i) the pole and line fishery (Miller et al, 2015); and ii) the livebait fishery (Jauharee et al, 2015). In both fisheries, fisheries logbook data have been analysed, plus data collected by fisheries observers. For both fisheries, based either on fisheries logbooks or observers, few interactions were recorded or observed and both studies concluded that direct and indirect effects of fishing at i) the individual level, are likely to be low, very low, or negligible; and ii) at the population level, to be negligible or none existent.

Management of ETP: As outlined by Miller et al (2016): i) All seabird species in the Maldives are protected under the Environment Protection and Preservation Act 4/93; ii) Sea turtles have been protected in the Maldives since 1995 (Directive No: FA-G/29/2005/07); and iii) Marine mammals have been protected in the Maldives since 1993. As noted in the Maldives NPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IOTC, 2015), all shark fishing and trade in shark products has been banned since 2010.

Seabirds: This is not considered to be a problem to manage. In reporting to the IOTC on the status of development and implementation of NPOA for sharks and seabirds (http://iotc.org/science/table- progress-implementing-npoa-sharks-npoa-seabirds-and-fao-guidelines-reduce-sea-turtle- mortality), the Maldives clearly states that seabirds are not an issue in the Maldives fisheries, both in the pole and line fishery (the UoA) and in the longline fishery. No strategy is required for seabirds (to achieve international and national requirements) other than the existing, continuous monitoring.

Silky shark: As for seabirds, even though some silky shark are discarded dead and the species is classified as near threatened, pole and line interactions are low and not considered detrimental or to cause any direct or indirect impacts (see PI2.3.1 si(b,c)). Beyond measures in the NPOA for sharks in general, and continued monitoring of pole and line fisheries with potential to respond using measures outlined in the NPOA should any need become evident, no further strategy is required.

The strategy in place for all ETP in the UoA is to maintain fishing operations, existing education (e.g. ETP Interactions Guide, 2015, in Dhivevi) and communication, recording through logbooks and at- sea observers, participating in relevant IOTC work on silky sharks, etc. There is a good track record in the Maldives of communication with and encouragement of fishers and much of the strategy for ETP species relies on this approach, providing a strong basis for confidence.

Evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented is through continued collection of data, analysis and reporting (Miller et al, 2016), including considerations of current impacts and measures. Clear evidence of continued successful implementation can also be seen through the lack of reported change in annual catches of ETP species; figures provided during assessment on silky shark, for example, suggest annual catches varying circa 10t, with no trend, and comprising about 0.01% of the UoA catch. Reported catches on seabirds (both noddy species) are too low to detect trends.

3.4.1.4 Habitats Habitat status: Pole and line fishing takes place in the surface layers of oceanic waters and is deemed to have no contact with or impact on habitats. DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 28

Bait fishing takes place within atoll-lagoons (Jauharee et al, 2015) and the atoll-lagoon non-reef habitat was identified by consensus during the site visit meeting with stakeholder s (as part of RBF) using CSA) as the only, and therefore main, habitat type. While there is some information available on fishing activities and habitat, it is insufficient to assess status using the default MSC assessment tree; the RB (CSA) was therefore used. The single habitat type was identified for RBF purposes as Fine, Flat and Small Erect, and the biome as shelf, inner shelf, sediment plains. Application of the CSA requires the use of consequence and spatial attributes. The consequence attributes rely primarily on the habitat and biome definitions, but also on the gear type. They cannot usually be changed through management practice unless through gear modification. Spatial attributes, in contrast, depend on the behaviour of the fishery and data on its operation. The CSA workings shown in Appendix 1. During the site visit, stakeholder consultation and information gathering took place to enable the CSA. The RBF suggested a low impact fishery with a high assessment score.

Information on habitats: Qualitative information is available from fishers from a long history of fishing across the entire Maldives archipelago, and this is verified and enhanced by regular monitoring of activities through at-sea observers and other research projects, notably of the bait fisheries (Jauharee et al, 2015). In addition, the dependence of the Maldives economy on tourism related to diving and other activities means there is widespread and regular inspection of many areas. Some quantitative information is also available from studies such as Naseer and Hatcher (2004), on the extent and types of habitats, with good estimates of atoll areas. Given the paucity of quantitative information, the RBF was used for assessment.

The limited quantitative information available may be used to define spatial overlap with the fishery. The spatial overlap is very low and though poorly defined is close to zero and well within the CSA scoring boundaries. Encounterability is not defined numerically but again is very clearly high and well beyond the maximum CSA scoring boundary. Given CSA scales/boundaries, information is sufficiently quantitative to make robust assignations.

Management of habitats: The UoA pole and line operations take place entirely at the surface in deep, oceanic waters. The fishery does not contact the seabed and any pelagic habitat impacts will be imperceptible and highly transient. The operational features of the pole and line operations can be considered to constitute an operational strategy for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types.

For bait fishing by the UoA vessels, the operations take place within the atoll-lagoons and in line with the Maldives Live Bait Fishery Management Plan (Gillett et al, 2013). The plan is aimed primarily at protection of bait fish resources but also includes objectives related to reduction of negative impacts on the ecosystem and physical environment. The measures included relate mainly to avoiding any coral reef damage, which should in any case be avoided during normal bait fishing operations. So long as fishers continue to comply with existing restrictions which amount to some 20% of potential bait fishing habitat, and the only habitat impacting activity is anchoring with a spatial overlap of the order of 0.001% (see Appendix 1.2, CSA), existing measures in place through regulation and customary practice, and the management plan, constitute an effective management strategy for the UoA. However, no consideration has been given to any potential impacts (if any) on atoll-lagoon habitats by any non-MSC fisheries operating in the area, either catching fish for bait or for local consumption.

3.4.1.5 Ecosystems Ecosystem status: The pole and line fishery consists of two distinct parts: bait fishing in atoll-reef systems and open ocean pole and line operations. Pole and line operations are limited to surface waters and remove about 17% of total Indian Ocean skipjack and much smaller percentages of primary and secondary species.

At the original certification assessment in 2012 ( availablfor download at www.msc.org), RBF workshop participants considered that there is limited knowledge of the atoll ecosystem in the Maldives and its dynamics and that it was impossible to separate out the impact of the fishery from other factors (largely oceanographic variables including red tides, current and water temperature). As there is no information available on the condition of the atoll ecosystem prior to the establishment of a significant bait fishery, it is difficult to establish cause and effect. The fishery, however, was not DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 29

thought to impact reef systems. Some individual elements have been studied, but broader ecosystem studies are still a rarity.

Unpublished observations by MRC staff suggest that baitfish abundance remain high, even in atolls with relatively high levels of fishing effort, suggesting that levels of removal by the P&L fishery are relatively small. There are no known impacts on key ecosystem elements (such as reef fish and seabirds). There may be localised impacts.

Due to the paucity of information, the RBF was used for scoring at reassessment. Stakeholder workshop participants concluded the most significant risk causing activity to the ecosystem was bait collection, with the most relevant SICA subcomponent being species composition.

Application of the SICA requires the use of spatial, intensity, and consequence attributes. The scoring of consequence attributes relies primarily on stakeholder considerations which need to take account of the spatial and intensity scores. Spatial and intensity attributes depend on the behaviour of the fishery and data on its operation but ultimately, SICA scoring depends on what is rationalised about the identified consequence – species composition in this case.

The SICA workings are shown in Appendix 1. The RBF suggested a low impact fishery with a high assessment score.

Information on ecosystems: Jauharee et al (2015) describe the bait fishery logbooks and observer coverage. The work is ongoing and is adequate to detect any increase in risk though the bait fishery, either by increased volumes of removals, trend in species composition or local depletion, or increases in catch of ETP. Habitat impact is very low but the monitoring would also show any changes.

Information collected under the Baitfish Management Plan (Gillett et al, 2013) and as reported in Jauharee et al (2015) is adequate to monitor bait species and any associated bycatch or potential increase in habitat interaction. It is thus adequate to implement the existing Baitfish Management Plan. The Plan, however, does not actively seek to collect data that might be used to monitor ecosystem elements to underpin development of additional strategies to manage and monitor ecosystem impacts.

It is known (see e.g., Jauharee et al, 2015) that the many species of small fish (sprats, anchovy, fusiliers, cardinalfish) caught and used as livebait in the tuna pole and line operations are likely to be an important food source for seabirds, small carcharhinid sharks, whale sharks and dolphins. While detailed foodwebs are not available, there is a broad understanding of the community composition, food chain and trophic structure.

Existing information, generally qualitative but with some quantitative work on bait fisheries (Jauharee et al, 2015), suggests the bait species are highly variable spatially and temporally, but with no observed changes in species composition) within the bait species. Jauharee et al (2015) note it is possible that collection of bait fish may indirectly affect various marine predators by reducing their food resource but no indirect impacts have been inferred or postulated.

There is a large literature on the Maldives reef systems (see e.g. McClanahan et al, 2000). While the literature does not deal specifically with the lagoons, it covers a wide range of species and ecosystem aspects of the reefs throughout the Maldives. Studies have suggested healthy ecosystems overall, though with effects from climate change (e.g increased frequency of coral bleaching events) , pollution, sewage, and reef fishingbait fishing has not been identified as a threat.

Ecosystem productivity is not impacted at all by the UoA and other ecosystem elements are highly unlikely to be so. Direct impacts are only on the bait species which are highly productive and spatially and temporally variable, and regarded as functionally interchangeable. Indirect effects are also unlikely given the nature of the system. Management of ecosystems: All livebait fishing is covered by the Maldives Livebait Management Plan (Gillett et al, 2013) and is considered in the review by Jauharee et al (2015). The plan includes a number of objectives, including v) reduction of negative impacts on the ecosystem and physical environment; and vi) reduction of negative impacts on Endangered, Threatened, or Protected species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 30

A number of strategies and options for specific interventions are included for meeting these and all other objectives. The range of measures, arrangements, and activities included in the plan are all aimed at ensuring a continued protection of the baitfish resources and the wider ecosystem and environment. Ongoing use of logbooks and research (Jauharee et al, 2015) provides a basis for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan.

The main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem are limited, potentially, to removal of ‘too much’ fish, disrupting trophic relationships and community composition, or possible ETP mortality. Habitat impact is negligible, being very small and the habitat itself being variable. The plan in place is to maintain the fishery controls as they are but to monitor the fishery and to use a set of pre-defined interventions if required. While the plan does not explicitly refer to ecosystem elements, it does implicitly address all impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem components.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 31

Principle Three: Management System Background This section provides a summary of the UoA and the fishery-specific management system. 3.5.1 Area of operation of the UoA and under which jurisdiction it falls.

The Maldive skipjack pole and line fishery under assessment is conducted solely in Maldivian EEZ waters. The stock is highly migratory and consequently comes under dual jurisdiction; the IOTC at the regional level and the Maldivian government at the local level. Both provide a formalised, legal, basis for management. Maldives is a full member of the IOTC and cooperates fully at both scientific and management levels.

3.5.2 Particulars of the recognised groups with interests in the UoA.

Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC):

The IOTC is an intergovernmental organization responsible for the management of tuna and tuna- like species in the Indian Ocean. Its area of responsibility is shown in Figure 4 below. The Commission to draft the convention agreement was established in 1993 at the 105th Session of the Council of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations under Article XIV of the FAO constitution and The Agreement was signed on November 25th 1993 and entered into force on the accession of the tenth IOTC Contracting Party, referred as Member, on March 27th 1996. The Financial Regulations were adopted in March 1997 and the Rules of Procedure were adopted in September 1997 IOTC has as objective to promote cooperation among the Contracting Parties (Members) and non- Contracting Cooperating Parties of the IOTC with a view to ensuring, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilization of stocks covered by the organization’s establishing Agreement and encouraging sustainable development of fisheries based on such stocks. The Commission has four key functions and responsibilities, which enable it to achieve this objective:

1. to keep under review the conditions and trends of the stocks and to gather, analyse and disseminate scientific information, catch and effort statistics and other data relevant to the conservation and management of the stocks and to fisheries based on the stocks; 2. to encourage, recommend, and coordinate research and development activities in respect of the stocks and fisheries covered by the IOTC, and such other activities as the Commission may decide appropriate, 3. to adopt – on the basis of scientific evidence – Conservation and Management Measures (CMM) to ensure the conservation of the stocks covered by the Agreement and to promote the objective of their optimum utilization throughout the Area; 4. to keep under review the economic and social aspects of the fisheries based on the stocks covered by the Agreement bearing in mind, in particular, the interests of developing coastal States. The IOTC management framework is consistent with national laws with national member states as either contracting, or cooperating non-contracting, parties. As a body under FAO, the management framework is also consistent with international laws and standards such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (CCRF), moves towards relevant NPOAs, and is in accordance with the principles expressed in the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 32

Figure 4 IOTC areas of responsibility in eastern and western Indian Ocean (indicated by areas between red hatched lines)

The Maldives: The Maldives is a signatory to: (i) the “Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 Dec 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks” (signed 1996 and ratified 1998); and (ii) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The Convention on Biological Diversity was ratified by the Maldives in 1992.

Maldivian engagement with international fisheries organisations includes: FAO, IFAD, INOFISH, , BOBLME Project, IOTC, SWIOFC, SIOFA. The Fishery Law of the Maldives, (Law No. 5/87), and associated regulations currently in force dates from 1985 together with the regulation for “Issuing Licenses to fish in the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Republic of the Maldives”, stipulates the permitted fishing methods and zones. The Fisheries Law was revised and submitted to Parliament in 2008, but the government later withdrew the Bill in order to make amendments reflecting community consultations. Extensive consultations have now taken place and the Draft Fisheries Bill of the Maldives 2015 is due to be enacted shortly. Recent Regulations and Directives have covered sea turtles, shark fishing, and a Regulation to ensure that the Maldives complies with the new EU IUU Regulations

3.5.3 Details of consultations leading to the formulation of the management plan.

The Draft Fisheries Bill, due to be enacted shortly, states that in the preparation and review of each

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 33

fishery management plan, the Ministry shall consult, as appropriate, with: 1. other government Ministries, including any local authorities affected by the plan; and 2. fishers and other persons affected by the plan; and 3. as appropriate, authorities of other States and regional or sub-regional fisheries organizations in the region in respect of shared or related stocks, with a view to promoting the compatibility or harmonization of fisheries conservation and management measures.

Consultations on the Fisheries Management Plan for tuna has been taking place with these organizations. There has been widespread consultation both in Male and on the outer islands. Information and suggestions have lead to modifications of the plan to ensure stakeholder input is included. MoFA works very closely with the Maldives Fishermen’s Association, Maldives National Chamber of Commerce and Industry and MSPEA. MoFA also considers the 5 investors/operators in the skipjack zones (namely MIFCO) Island Enterprises Pvt Ltd (IEL), Horizon Fisheries Pvt Ltd, Eco- Fisheries International Pvt Ltd and Funaddu Tuna Products Pvt Ltd) as key partners in industrial development of the tuna fisheries sector.

At Regional level, IOTC define roles and responsibilities both for its contracting parties and cooperating non-contracting parties, ensuring that all organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified, with functions, roles and responsibilities explicitly defined and, in general, these are well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction for all the parties. Furthermore, Working Parties including the Scientific Committee and the Commission meets regularly to seek and accept relevant information incorporating it into the management system.

3.5.4 Arrangements for on-going consultations with interest groups.

The small size of the Maldivian economy/population, open Government and cultural norms, mean that consultation and participation in sector management is generally good and the system uses local knowledge. In some cases, consultations may be at the informal level. Research under-pinning management also incorporates local knowledge through field activities of MRC. The Government holds meetings with both public and private sector representatives as required, and the private sector reports that the Government is willing and amenable to consultation with, and participation by, them. The MoFA Extension Service undertakes both consultation and education. Other communications on important issues is carried out by factory owners talking to fishermen at landing sites, and through radio and TV. In addition, at national level there is a formal requirement under the Fisheries Law, for a Fisheries Advisory Board that was set up in 1979 with the mandate of advising the government on policy guidelines for the overall development of the fisheries sector. The Board is comprised of the Minister, Permanent Secretary, and two State Ministers from the MoFA, two MRC staff, two private sector representatives, the Chamber of Commerce, and one person assigned by the President’s Office All meetings have recorded minutes and decisions/recommendations must be reached by consensus. The consultation process at national level provides good opportunity; facilitation and support for all interested and affected parties to be involved. At the regional level, IOTC consultation processes and the generation of relevant information are formalised through the workings of the Sub-commissions, Working Parties, the Scientific Committee and Commission meetings. The Rules of Procedure (Article XIII) for the IOTC clearly specifies and provides for observers.

3.5.5 Details of the decision-making process or processes, including the recognised participants.

Decision-making processes at national level for the P&L SKJ fishery are the responsibility of MoFA. They are well established and based on the consultation mechanisms described above and involve wide consultation. These mechanisms, and especially the informal nature of communication and the frequency of consultation between stakeholders, mean that decisions can be taken rapidly to define and put in place measures and strategies. Recognised participants are involved at all stages of the decision- making process

Mechanisms within IOTC are generally well established and more formal, but not as frequent given the periodicity of Commission meetings.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 34

At both regional and national levels, decisions are generally underpinned by, and refer to, the precautionary approach, but at the former level in particular concerns exist over the ability of the IOTC to respond rapidly to all serious and important issues identified through the adoption of Resolutions that actually bring about precautionary management.

With regards to SKJ, it should be noted that there have, to date, been no indications to suggest serious concerns with regards to stock status which necessitate a precautionary approach to conservation and management measures specifically on this stock. The decision to undertake a formal assessment of SKJ in the absence of any strong indication that the stock is overfished represents the precautionary approach being put into practice at least at a research level.

One potential concern is the ability of the IOTC at the regional level to bring about improved management. Since the IOTC first performance report (PRIOTC01), the IOTC has commenced work to establish a system of catch limits any other relevant measures for the main target species (Resolution 14/02). The PRIOTC01 also advised to consider a framework to take action in the face of uncertainty in the scientific advice, to which the Scientific Committee has responded by initiating a development of a management strategy evaluation process. It was further recommended to use the full range of available decision-making processes under the IOTC Agreement, and it is noted that voting was invoked for adopting a Conservation and Management Measures for the first time in 2014. Despite the ongoing legal constraints related to the IOTC Agreement, the IOTC has adopted several Conservation and Management Measures to give effect to modern fisheries management principles such as the precautionary approach and ecosystem based fisheries management. The Commission adopted Resolution 12/01 on the application of the precautionary approach consistent with the UNFSA Article 6, and reinforced some elements through the measure on reference points and decision framework (Resolution 15/10). In relation to the ecosystem based fisheries management, IOTC has adopted measures concerning bycatch of seabirds (Resolution 12/06), marine turtles (Resolution 12/04), large-scale driftnets (Resolution 12/12), cetaceans (Resolution 13/04) and whale sharks (Resolution 13/05) all aimed at encouraging fishing practices that protect marine biodiversity and reducing harmful fishing on the marine environment.

In relation to the key fisheries species, the second IOTC Performance review (PRIOTC02) noted that in general, effective fisheries management measures are still lacking in some cases. The Commission has adopted some species-specific Conservation and Management Measures but more are required. The report recommended a) the Commission acknowledge the inherent difficulty in managing small scale and data poor fisheries and continue efforts to adopt adequate fisheries management arrangements and to assist developing coastal States to overcome constraints to implement the CMMs. b) as the IOTC has faced the management of the main targeted stock under its purview only through a regulation of the fishing effort; other approaches should be explored, such as those envisioned in Resolutions 05/01 and 14/02, including catch limits, total allowable catch (TAC) or total allowable effort (TAE). c) the Science-Management Dialogue is strengthened to improve understanding of modern approaches to fisheries management, including the implementation of Harvest Strategies through the use of Management Strategy Evaluation. The Commission adopts a formal process of developing and implementing Harvest Strategies within a prescribed timeframe.

3.5.6 Objectives for the fishery

Long and short term National objectives for the fishery are started in Fisheries Law, the National Strategic Plan, the MRC research plan and various fisheries management plans eg the Bait fish Management Plan and the National Plan of Action for Sharks and the Marine Turtle Review

The key long term objectives are:

i. to provide for the long-term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources of the Maldives for the present and future generations of the Maldives; and

ii. to provide a framework for a transparent management of the fisheries resources of the Maldives in accordance with principles of equity and good governance; and

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 35

iii. to promote value addition to the fish and fisheries products of the Maldives with a view to ensuring the maximum economic and social benefits to the Maldives; and

iv. to promote the efficient and effective regulation of the aquaculture industry in order to contribute to the protection of the marine environment of the Maldives, support economic development, and the food security of the people of the Maldives; and

v. to provide an effective framework to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing; and

vi. to ensure a timely and effective implementation of international fisheries and related conservation and management obligations of the Maldives.

The objective of IOTC is “to promote cooperation among its Members with a view to ensuring, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilisation of stocks … and encouraging sustainable development of fisheries based on such stocks”. Some IOTC Resolutions make specific reference to the precautionary approach and to long-term sustainable utilisation of tuna stocks. The objectives, functions and responsibilities of the IOTC are explicit. Furthermore, in each Session of the IOTC, the Commission takes decisions concerning the management of tuna and tuna-like species. These decisions are passed in the form of Resolutions that are binding on the Commission Members, unless there is specific objection on the part of the Members. IOTC Resolutions include many explicit short- and long-term objectives in terms of issues such as statistical reporting, registration of vessels, compliance and IUU, port inspections, etc

3.5.7 Outline the fleet types or fishing categories participating in the fishery.

The fleet in this UoA involves 1100 vessels of which approximately 750 are pole and line vessels fishing for skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) exclusively in the Maldives EEZ.

The Maldivian fishery for SKJ using P&L is a distinct fishery that uses a specific gear to catch a specific species. Bait fish used in the fishing operation is caught separately using a simple lift net. The Maldivian fishery authorities manage the fishery and the Maldives is a full member of the IOTC and subject to its rule and regulations.

3.5.8 Details of those individuals or groups granted rights of access to the fishery and particulars of the nature of those rights.

Any Maldivian can apply for licence but must hold a fishing permit provided by the MoFA and comply with any conditions imposed. Fishing has been practiced in the Maldives for centuries and fish has been an important part of the Maldivian lifestyle, culture and economy. It has been widely documented that pole and line fishing has been practiced in the Maldives for centuries and historically pole and line skipjack tuna fishery was the most important commercial fishery in the Maldives. However, with the increase in demand to sustainably sourced seafood and with the opening up of high-end foreign markets with the improvement of transportation facilities, the fishing industry has evolved and diversified since the beginning of 1990s. Recently, the handline yellowfin tuna fishery has overtaken the pole and line skipjack tuna fishery in terms of economic revenue however, pole and line fishery remain as important to the Maldives from a socio-economic perspective.

There are no catch controls at IOTC level preventing catches by those dependent on fishing for food and livelihoods, and resolutions and recommendations work towards sustainable exploitation which itself protects catches made in the region by those dependent on fishing for food and livelihood.

There is reference to specific provisions for the Coastal States in many IOTC Resolutions and Recommendations, which take note and require due consideration of the interests of the developing

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 36

coastal States, in particular small island developing States and territories within the IOTC Convention Area whose economies depend largely on fisheries.

3.5.9 Description of the measures agreed upon for the regulation of fishing in order to meet the objectives

Fishery management measures for the regulation of fishing in the Maldives is the responsibility of the MoFA and is mostly limited to bans, prohibitions, quotas, vessel licensing schemes, and levying fees and royalties on fish exports. In setting up these measures, stakeholders are consulted either directly or indirectly through small workshops and other formal and informal consultations. In particular MoFA

a) adopts measures to ensure the long-term sustainability of fisheries resources and promote the objective of their optimum utilisation; and

b) ensures that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore, where appropriate, target stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards; and

c) applies the precautionary approach in accordance with this Act and the international obligations of the Maldives; and

d) assesses 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 target stocks; and

e) adopts measures to minimise waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, pollution originating from fishing vessels, catch of 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; and

The Environmental Protection and Conservation Act, EPCA (Law Number 4/93) contains provisions for conservation of biological diversity and protected areas and natural reserves. The responsibility for the implementation of the EPCA falls under Ministry of Environment and Construction. Both the EPCA and the Fisheries Law are taken together in formulating regulations and governing the capture fisheries. Guidance is sought from the Fisheries Advisory Board, which meets on ad hoc basis. The FAB consists of high level government officials representing line ministers. Thee chairman of the board is the Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture.

The IOTC management framework is consistent with national laws with national member states as either contracting, or cooperating non-contracting, parties. As a body under FAO, the management framework is also consistent with international laws and standards such as the Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing (CCRF), moves towards relevant NPOAs, and is accordance with the principles expressed in the relevant provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

3.5.10 Particulars of arrangements and responsibilities for monitoring, control and surveillance and enforcement.

Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of fishing activities is an area of high importance to the Maldives due to its dependence on fisheries resources. MoFA, Maldives National Defense Force (Coast Guard) and Maldives Police Service have key functions with regards to implementation of fisheries laws and regulations. The key MSC activities include:

Licensing of fishing vessels and fish processing facilities: All fishing vessels, fishing for the purpose of exporting fish from the Maldives or with the intention of offloading fish to a fish processing facilities, are required to obtain a fishing license. The fishing license has to be renewed every year.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 37

Implementation of vessel tracking: A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) has been established in the Maldives.. An amendment to the Licensing Regulation was gazetted on 21 August 2013 to make it mandatory for all licensed fishing vessels to be tracked via a VMS. However at this point in time, there was no requirement at RFMO level for Maldivian fishing vessels to carry VMS as they were all fishing inside the EEZ. Since then, the IOTC requirements have been extended to cover all fishing vessels >24m and all fishing vessels fishing outside the EEZ. The requirement is for the vessels to be fully tracked by April 2019. A segment of the fishing fleet of the Maldives (longline fleet) are currently fully covered by VMS. This is an absolute requirement and one that is vigilantly enforced. MoFA was made aware of some operational issues with the VMS in place by a consultant, hired to identify ways of improving the current system. It was found that the technology had some issues with transmission. A MoFA policy decision was taken to ease the timescale of VMS installation for the pole and line/handline PL/HL) component of the fleet based on the findings of the consultant. Given this relaxation of installation requirements, PL/HL fishermen remain in compliance with the relevant regulations. MOFA has successfully negotiated a World Bank project to address the issue. VLDs will be procured under the project and new units with additional capabilities will be installed on the PL/HL segment of the fleet by end 2018. This will keep Maldives in line with IOTC requirements, and domestic regulation

Random spot checks of fishing vessels/ processing facilities: Random spot checks are conducted by Compliance Staff of MoFA. Mainly these checks occur in port when vessels return from fishing. During these checks compliance staff will check for things such as possession of a valid license, recording of catch in log books, gear used and species caught.

Observer scheme: The observer scheme that was established in late 2014 is now non- functional due various issues. The purpose of the scheme was to collect verified data and other scientific information related to the fisheries. This observer scheme was established in line with the requirements of Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. However, the observer scheme remains to be a priority for the government of the Maldives. Electronic observer systems has been identified a potential solution to overcome the difficulties. Funding has been secured to procure and install electronic observer systems on board fishing vessels and this project is due to be commenced in 2017.

Other activities conducted by the compliance section with regards to improving MCS in fisheries

 Implementation of FAO Port State Measures Agreement

 Launching fisheries information system (fFIS) – keyolhu web-based software

 Memorandum of understanding between coast and MoFA A memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the Maldives National Defense – Coast Guard and MoFA to strengthen MCS is now in place. Under this MoU an MCS committee comprised of officials from coast guard and MoFA meet on a quarterly basis to share information and to discuss on means to address prevalent MCS issues.

 Implementation of FAO Port State Measures Agreement

IOTC has a Compliance Committee as an advisory body of the Commission, which was set up in 2003 but in 2009 redefined its terms of reference. The main activities of the Compliance Committee are as follows: 1. Review all aspects of CPCs individual compliance with IOTC Conservation and Management Measures; 2. Review information relevant to compliance from IOTC subsidiary bodies and from Reports of Implementation submitted by CPCs, 3. To identify and discuss problems related to the effective implementation of, and compliance with, IOTC Conservation and Management Measures, and to make

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 38

recommendations to the Commission on how to address these problems.

The primary responsibility of the Compliance Committee is to monitor compliance with respect to implementation of IOTC Conservation and Management Measures by CPCs. The monitoring is conducted through the assessment of reports provided by CPCs. In preparation for the meeting of the Compliance Committee the CPCs must send these reports to IOTC annually. The contents of the IOTC Compliance committee annual report includes - Implementation obligations - Management standards - Reporting on vessels - Vessel monitoring system - Implementation of mitigation measures and bycatch of non iotc species - Illegal unreported and unregulated vessels - Transshipment - Observers - Statistical document programme - Port inspection - Market

3.5.11 Details of any planned education and training for interest groups. Maldives is in the process of ratification of FAO Port State Measures Agreement. To support this, two rounds of training for Port Inspectors have been conducted with assistance from Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and IOTC. The first round of training conducted with FAOs assistance focused on developing Trainers that were capable of conducting such training programs in the future. The second round of trainings conducted with IOTCs assistance was focused on training senior level officials from Coast Guard, Maldives Customs Services, Maldives Police Service, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Transport Authority and Maldives Ports Limited. During the two rounds of trainings more than 40 Port Inspectors have been trained with another 8 trainers capable of conducting such training in the future.

MoFA field staff are regularly involved in training sessions for fishermen and the fishing industry when a need is identified.

3.5.12 Date of next review and audit of the management plan. MoFA is currently undertaking consultations to finalise a Fisheries Management Plan for tunas. Under the new legislation – a) The Ministry shall prepare and keep under review, as appropriate, fishery management plans for the conservation and management of a designated fishery in accordance with the objective and principles of this Act, and ensure the implementation of such plans. b) Each fishery management plan shall provide for the Plan’s period of validity, review and, as appropriate, revision. c) In the preparation and review of each fishery management plan, the Ministry shall consult, as appropriate, with: - other government Ministries, including any local authorities affected by the plan; and - fishers and other persons affected by the plan; and - as appropriate, authorities of other States and regional or sub-regional fisheries organisations in the region in respect of shared or related stocks, with a view to promoting the compatibility or harmonisation of fisheries conservation and management measures. d) No commercial fishing in the maritime zones of the Maldives shall be permitted unless there is a fishery management plan developed in accordance with this section for the fishery within two (2) years of the coming into force of this Act.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 39

e) A fishery management plan has no effect to the extent it is inconsistent with the provisions of this Act.

IOTC has implemented mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system by means of various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their advances to the Commission. Furthermore, through a Performance Review Panel (PRP) it has evaluated all parts of the management system.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 40

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE

Harmonised Fishery Assessment 4.1.1 Overlapping fisheries

Table 14 Overlapping fisheries Fishery Gear Geographical area Assessment status Echebastar Indian Purse seine Indian Ocean (IOTC In Simplification Pilot Ocean Purse Seine Convention Area) Process Skipjack Fishery 4.1.2 Harmonisation activities Since the Maldives re-assessment site visit in December 2016, the Echebastar Indian Ocean (EIO) purse seine skipjack fishery entered in to assessment through the MSC pilot simplification process (see: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/echebastar-indian-ocean-purse-seine-skipjack- tuna/@@assessments). Both assessments use CR ver 2.0 for all Principles. The desk review undertaken as part of the EIO simplified process assessment took place in February 2017 and a site visit was held in late March/early April.

The Maldives process used the default schedule of client draft report and agreement to the client action plan, followed by peer reviews and redrafting of a separate public comment draft report. Stakeholder comments and MSC Technical Oversight (TO) were then received and considered before drafting this final public certification report. The EIO followed a different process, with public comment and peer review taking place at the same time. The peer reviewers for the Maldives and EIO assessments do not overlap. There is extensive, non-overlapping stakeholder input to the two assessments. The MSC TO for the EIO assessment is also extensive.

The Maldives and EIO reports each respond to all comments made by peer reviewers, stakeholders and the MSC. This report does not repeat EIO responses (and vice versa) but the Principle 1 rationales and scores have been harmonised and therefore take account of all comments from both assessments.

The EIO assessment is undergoing final public certification report drafting at the time of publication of the Maldives public certification report (this report).

4.1.3 Harmonisation outcomes At the draft PCDR stage (22 May 2017) for both this and the EIO assessment, Principle 1 rationales and scores were consistent. At this PCR report stage, Principle 1 rationales and scores are also consistent.

Previous assessments 4.2.1 Summary of the original assessment The intent of the Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna fishery to become MSC certified was announced on 14.07.2009, and the fishery received its certification on 29.11.2012. Scope of certification is up to the point of landing and Chain of Custody starts at the point of landing at shore or at collector vessels/ mother ships.

Assessment was carried out by the certification company, Intertek. MSC Certification Requirements Version 1.2, 10 January, 2012 was used to assess the fishery. MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V1.2 Date of issue: 10th January 2012 was used to produce the report. In the second phase, with the exception of the use of the RBF for PIs 2.1.1, 2.4.1 and 2.5.1 the Default Assessment tree was used without adjustments.

In the initial certification the scores of the three Principles were:

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 41

Table 15 Principle scores – Original assessment: Principle Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna Principle 1 – Target Species 80.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 81.0 Principle 3 – Management System 81.1

The fishery achieved a score of below 80 against eight Performance indicators. The assessment team has therefore set 8 conditions for continuing certification that the client is required to address. Conditions and recommendations are presented in full in section 4 of this annual surveillance report.

4.2.2 First annual surveillance and Expedited Principle 1 assessment for Yellowfin tuna – 2013 The first surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit and conducted according to MSC Certification Requirements, version 1.3, January 2013 by certification company Intertek. The surveillance was announced on the MSC website 30.09.2013 followed with a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders that had previously been identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team.

The surveillance visit for this fishery was conducted on 11-13th of November 2013 in Male, Maldives. Member of the original assessment team and team-leader, Ian Scott and Principle 1 expert Kevin Stokes gathered input from the various stakeholders, incl. government authorities and research institutions. The findings and conclusions of the first annual surveillance audit in November 2014 could be downloaded from the MSC web-site: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/indian-ocean/maldives_pole_line_tuna/assessment-downloads- 1/20130930_Expedited_P1_Audit_Yellowfin_Pole-Line.pdf

The first annual surveillance audit included an expedited Principle 1 assessment of Pole & Line Yellowfin tuna that was previously assessed as a main retained stock in the Pole & Line Skipjack Fishery. Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) caught in the pole and line skipjack fishery was certified on 10th December 2014. The findings and conclusions of the expedited Principle 1 assessment could be downloaded from the MSC website: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/indian-ocean/maldives_pole_line_tuna/assessment-downloads- 1/82105_Maldives_Expedited_P1_Yellowfin_Tuna_Public_Certification_Report.pdf

Yellowfin tuna fishery achieved a score of 80 against two P1 PIs (1.1.2 – 75; 1.2.2 – 60). This led to two new conditions of certification specific to yellowfin (new conditions 9 and 10). The setting of these two conditions was considered in light of: i) the MSC instruction to use MSC CR v2.0 at recertification if PI 1.2.2 was assessed using MSC CR 2.0; ii) the reduced time remaining to the recertification of the P&L fishery; and iii) the need for harmonisation of time periods and milestones with the on-going Echebaster and handline yellowfin assessments.

Of the original P&L conditions, conditions 1 through 3 relate specifically to skipjack, while the remaining five (4 through 8) are relevant to both skipjack and yellowfin (P&L). The new conditions, 9 and 10, relate specifically to yellowfin and the client has supplemented its action plan to cover these.

In the Expedited Principle 1 certification the scores of the three Principles were:

Table 16 Principle scores – Original assessment: Principle Maldives pole & line yellowfin tuna Principle 1 – Target Species 82.5 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 81.0 Principle 3 – Management System 81.1

4.2.3 Second annual surveillance – 2014 The second surveillance audit was performed as an on-site audit by certification company Intertek. The surveillance audit activities covered Skipjack fishery only as the surveillance for the yellowfin tuna fishery was scheduled for the 2015. Due to an oversight, the formal announcement of the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 42

surveillance audit was only announced on the MSC website on 5th November, 2014 (Annex 2). However, direct e-mail notification was sent to identify stakeholders in the fishery on October 30 inviting them to contact the audit team (Annex 2). No replies were received.

The surveillance visit for this fishery was conducted on 22-23rd of November 2014 in Male, Maldives. Member of the original assessment team and team-leader, Ian Scott and Principle 1 expert Kevin Stokes gathered input from the various stakeholders, incl. authorities and research institutions.

The surveillance audit methodology, as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) (version 1.3 January 2013) was followed in this audit. The findings and conclusions of the second annual surveillance audit in November 2014 could be downloaded from the MSC web-site: https://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the- program/certified/indian-ocean/maldives_pole_line_tuna/assessment-downloads- 1/20150226_SURV_REP_TUN071.pdf

4.2.4 Third annual surveillance – 2015/2016 In December 2015, the certificates for the skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna were transferred from IFC (previously Intertek) to the DNV GL and the third surveillance audit was performed by the certification company DNV GL. The surveillance audit activities covered both Skipjack fishery and Yellowfin tuna fishery.

The surveillance was announced on the MSC website 22 December 2015 followed by a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders previously identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team.

The surveillance activities for the fishery were carried out onsite by DNV GL team leader and CoC expert Anna Kiseleva and Independent MSC Fisheries experts Kevin Stokes (P1 and P2 responsible) and Jo Akroyd (P3 responsible) during 9-11 February 2015. None of the team members are members of the original assessment team due to transfer of the certificates for both fisheries from IFC to DNV GL. Kevin Stokes was part of the first and second surveillances teams.

The assessment team gathered input from the various stakeholders, including WWF, Marine Research Center, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Coast Guard, Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association and Maldives Industry of Fisheries Companies. Information submitted by stakeholders were used in preparation of this surveillance report.

Table 17 Stakeholder meetings conducted and key issues discussed Name Affiliation Date Key issues Wetjens WWF 09.02.2016 Involvement of WWF in tuna certifications Dimmlich Status of Yellowfin tuna stock and increase in the fishing pressure

Measures to bring Yellowfin tuna stock back to the SG80 level

HCR for Skipjack tuna stock Shiham Adam Marine Research 10.02.2016 General P1 and P2 review: Centre •Stock status, stock structure and Khadeea Ali recruitment of fisheries under assessment (SSB in relation to MSY B trigger, Fishing A.Riyaz mortality in relation to Flim, FMSY / Fpa) Jauharee • Review of Limit and Target reference points established for these stock Mohamed • Approach to stock assessments Ahusan • Sampling programes and level of sampling • Levels of by-catch/non-target species in the fisheries under assessment (species, quantities)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 43

• Review of any stock assessment data available for main retained non-target species caught in the fisheries under assessment The • Monitoring programmes for and any reports on relevant ETP species. Can the extent of interactions with ETP species be quantified? • Review of recorded numbers of by-catch of ETP species (IUCN list)/birds and marine mammals in 2015/2016 • National/ International strategies for minimising/ eliminating ETP by-catch • Levels of discards (species, quantities) • Review of any additional assessment data over those presented in the most recent IOTC reports • Impact of the fisheries under surveillance on marine habitats. • Does the fishery overlap with sensitive habitats? • Which habitats are protected/closed? • Any new strategies/plans for protecting sensitive habitats • Impact of the fisheries under assessment on the ecosystem • Review of any new information available on the ecological role of yellowfin tuna and skipjack stocks

Review of conditions: PI 1.1.2: Limit and target reference points PI 1.2.2: harvest control rules PI 1.2.3 to support the harvest strategy. PI 2.1.2: strategy for managing retained species PI 2.1.3: Information on the nature and extent of retained species PI 2.3.3: information to support the management of fishery impacts on ETP species Adam Ziyad Ministry of 10.02.2016 General Review of the management Fisheries and system: Ahmed Shifaz Agriculture • General amendments to the Republic of (MOFA) Maldives fishing strategy Harvest strategy for skipjack and yellowfin tuna • Use of the precautionary approach in managing the marine resources of the Republic of Maldives • Stakeholder involvement in the Republic of Maldives marine resource decision- making • Review of current regulations for yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna fisheries • Review of control, surveillance and monitoring procedures applied to yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna • Logbooks: recording of commercial and non-commercial species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 44

• Measures in place to minimize the catch of small fish and non-commercial species by commercial fishing vessels • Recorded numbers of by-catch species of ETP birds and marine mammals in 2015/2016 • Review of measures in place to minimize fishery interactions with vulnerable marine ecosystems (e.g. coral reefs) • Quota and catches in 2015-2016 (TAC and catches) • Fishing patterns in 2015 and 2016 (gear used, fishing area, fleet composition, fishing season). • Reported points of landing in 2015-2016 • Subsidies applied/granted to fisheries in 2015/2016 • Review of mechanisms for resolution of legal disputes • Review of Republic of Maldives strategy in scientific research. • Research programmes for fishery under assessment

Review of conditions: PI 3.2.1:Fishery specific objectives PI 3.2.3: Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms Hussain Coast Guard 10.02.2016 General review of control and Rasheed enforcement: • Compliance of fishermen with Mohamed regulations; any non-compliance found Saleem during inspections made in 2015-2016. • Levels of discarding in yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna fisheries • Discrepancies found at landing control in 2015/2016 Adnan Ali Maldives 11.02.2016 Review of general info about MSPEA Seafood and MIFCO: Imaha Processors & • Ownership/changes in ownership Mohamed Exporters • Organizational structure, including any Association changes Andrew Hough (MSPEA) • Changes in roles and responsibilities in the MSC Fisheries certification process John Burton International 11.02.2016 Pole and Line Review of fishing operations: Foundation • fishing seasons (IPNL) • fishing areas Aishath Maldives 11.02.2016 • gear used Riyaza Industry of • fishing effort per area (quota and Fisheries catches).

Mohamed Companies Review of impacts on the ecosystem: Didi (MIFCO) • List of all retained fish species: (species and quantities 2015-2016). • By-catch of marine mammals, ETP species, birds • List of commercial/non-commercial species that are generally discarded • Loss of fishing gear, and if relevant, its recovery • Overlap with sensitive habitats.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 45

Compliance with rules and regulations: • Review of control, surveillance and monitoring procedures/regulations applied to yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna • Disputes with national/international authorities in 2015-2016. • Records of sanctions and penalties for 2015, 2016

Chain of Custody review: • Review of traceability system on board and at landing • Labelling of products/changes in labelling routines • Use of the MSC logo • List of landing sites in 2015/2016 • Transshipment • First point of sale • Main products/Changes to the product range • Main markets

The surveillance audit methodology, as defined in the MSC Certification Requirements (CR) (version 2.1) and in the subsequent MSC Guidance for the Fisheries Certification Requirements (version 2.0) were followed in this audit. The default assessment tree as set out in the MSC CR v1.3 was used for this surveillance, with the exceptions for the PI 1.2.2 as the assessment tree requirements v2.0 was followed to score this PI, This decision was based on an updated MSC Interpretation on Harvest Control Rules (HCR) issues to CABs on 16th December 2015.

4.2.5 Fourth annual surveillance – 2016/2017 The fourth surveillance audit was performed as the on-site audit. The surveillance audit activities covered both Skipjack fishery and Yellowfin tuna fishery.

The surveillance was announced on the MSC website 08 November 2016 followed by a supporting notice to stakeholders issued by the MSC on the same date. Direct email notification was also sent to the stakeholders previously identified for this fishery, inviting interested parties to contact the audit team.

The surveillance activities for the fishery were carried out onsite by DNV GL team leader and CoC expert Anna Kiseleva and Independent MSC Fisheries experts Kevin Stokes (P1 and P2 responsible) and Jo Akroyd (P3 responsible) during 10-16 December 2016. None of the team members are members of the original assessment team due to transfer of the certificates for both fisheries from the Intertek to DNV GL. Kevin Stokes was part of the first, second and third surveillances teams.

The assessment team gathered input from the various stakeholders, including the Marine Research Center, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Coast Guard, Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association and Maldives Industry of Fisheries Companies. Information submitted by stakeholders were used in preparation of this surveillance report.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 46

Table 18 Summary of previous assessment conditions Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Condition 1: By the third PI 1.1.2 Reference 2016 The Maldives has worked hard to annual surveillance audit, SG80 Points: Limit and ensure harvest control rules and SIa & SIb must be met; formal target reference explicit reference points have appropriately precautionary and points are been adopted for skipjack tuna. scientifically-based target and appropriate for the In 2016 the IOTC adopted limit reference points must be stock. Resolution 16/02 (IOTC, 2016d) agreed and adopted by IOTC, on harvest control rules, which consistent with the specifies clear target and limit management objectives and reference points as well as stock best available science assessment frequency and the nature of required scientific advice. All scoring issues have now achieved SG80 and the condition is closed. Condition 2: By the fourth 1.2.2 Harvest 2016 The Maldives has worked hard annual audit, SG80 SIa, SIb & control rules and to ensure harvest control rules SIc must be met. Formal tools: There are and explicit reference points appropriately precautionary well defined and have been adopted for skipjack harvest control rules (HCRs) effective harvest tuna. In 2016 the IOTC must be adopted and control rules in adopted Resolution 16/02 implemented for the skipjack place. (IOTC, 2016d) which specifies fishery by the IOTC to reduce clear target and limit reference the exploitation rate as the limit points as well as stock reference point are approached assessment frequency and the and the selection of the harvest nature of required scientific control rules takes into account advice. All scoring issues have the main uncertainties and now achieved SG80 and the operate within a robust harvest condition is closed. strategy consistent with the IOTC management objectives and best available science.”

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 47

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Condition 3: By the fourth PI 1.2.3. Relevant 2016 Maldives is a member of the annual surveillance audit, SG80 information is IOTC Performance Review SIc must be met with improved collected to support where IOTC policy on data and information all fishery removals the harvest governance is reviewed. That of skipjack to better facilitate strategy. review has made stock management. recommendations on improvements on data collection and reporting to underpin improvements to the stock assessment and development of robust conservation and management measures.

Overall: 1. Data collection and reporting in the Maldives continues to improve with the Fishery Information System and logbooks systems in place; 2. Maldives has been working with other CPCs to continue to improve overall data collection to IOTC.

Most importantly, developments in stock assessment and MSE (see also Condition 2) have demonstrated that the current levels of data collection (including all fishery removals from the stock) are sufficient to support a harvest strategy and harvest control rules, as required to meet SG80 requirements. Accordingly, the scoring issue is rescored and is now deemed to meet the SG80 level.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 48

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Condition 4: By the fourth PI 2.1.2: There is a 2016 Since implementation of a annual surveillance audit, SG80 strategy in place livebait management plan SIa, SIb & SIc must be met; a for managing (Gillett et al, 2013), funded by partial strategy for the retained species the Maldives Environment management of bait fish must that is designed to Management Project and the have been implemented that ensure the fishery World Bank, steady progress reduces the risk of Maldives does not pose a has been made, with clear wide and local depletion, there risk of serious or evidence at the second is evidence that the partial irreversible harm to surveillance of new logbooks, strategy has been implemented retained species training for fishermen on and there is some objective completion of logbook livebait basis for confidence that the entries, distribution of posters partial strategy will work. on the importance of livebait information, workshops on how to estimate removals using the “scoop” measure, and educational videos. Evidence was provided in the repository for the second surveillance and has been added to in the third surveillance (e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watc h?v=EOeRHnF2tZM).

The livebait management strategy has been implemented and is subject to ongoing monitoring and, where appropriate, enforcement.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 49

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Condition 5: By the first PI 2.1.3: 2016 Since implementation of a annual surveillance audit, the Information on the livebait management plan SG80 SIc must be met. There nature and extent (Gillett et al, 2013), will be documented evidence of retained species considerable improvements that the Government of is adequate to have been made to data Maldives is collecting the determine the risk collection (Jauharee et al, information needed to support a posed by the 2015). These include the partial strategy to manage bait fishery and the introduction and improvement fisheries (covering all species) effectiveness of the of the routine collection of bait (see Condition 4). strategy to manage removals and fishing effort by retained species fishermen (as time spent on bait collection). The data have allowed estimation of catch rate by species and by geographic area that may be used to track abundance of individual livebait species across the Maldives, allowing identification of risks posed by the fishery.

Training of fishermen in data collection has been undertaken and log books have been sighted during the site visit.

Observer data are also being collected with support from IPNF. So far, observer data for over 100 trips have been collected and have been used to corroborate fisheries logbook data. Observer data include very detailed data of live bait removals by species, and its fishing effort.

Overall, excellent progress has been made with sufficient data now being regularly collected and analysed to support the livebait strategy.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 50

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Condition 6: By the fourth PI 2.3.3: Relevant 2016 The Maldives has made annual surveillance audit, the information is excellent progress on SG80 scoring requirements collected to support improving fisheries reporting must be met: Information must the management of through introduction of revised be sufficient to measure trends fishery impacts on logbooks and associated and support a full strategy to ETP species training and enforcement. ETP manage impacts on ETP species including: species identification has been Information for the particularly enhanced through development of the the introduction of a new management species guide (in Dhivehi). strategy; Fisheries reporting through the Information to new logbooks has also been assess the accompanied by increased effectiveness of the fisheries observers, providing management corroboration of logbook data strategy; and and analytical results. Information to determine the Importantly, the fisheries outcome status of logbooks have been introduced ETP species and are now commonplace and continuing. Similarly, the observer activities are continuing, with increased coverage in 2015 (cf 2014). The ability to monitor trends, whether with statistical rigour or not, depends on the continued data collection. With the systems now in place and commitments to ongoing data analysis, the client has fulfilled expectations with regard to this condition.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 51

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Condition 7: By the fourth PI 3.2.1 Fishery- 2016 At the third annual surveillance annual surveillance audit, the specific objectives: audit, the client presented the SG80 scoring requirements The fishery has documented evidence that must be met. Short term clear, specific short term objectives have objectives must be explicit objectives designed been incorporated into relevant within the fishery management to achieve the management plans. system at both the regional and outcomes national levels. expressed by MSC’s For P1: Principles 1 and 2 -Lobbying for HCR and reference points including discussions on proposals with the main SCs and exploring all possibilities to adopt HCR (e.g. through quota allocation workshops).) -Improved data collection -Improved catch reporting statistics to IOTC -reduced/maintained annual catches in line with the scientific advice

For P2: -Bait Fish Management Plan -National Plan of Action for sharks -Marine turtle review

For P3: -Coast guard training programmes -Implementation of the new fisheries law (ref. Fisheries bill of Maldives) Increased observer coverage to comply with the IOTC requirement of 5%

The new information is sufficient to determine that 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 and the SG80 level of performance is met this PI is rescored at 80 and the condition is closed out.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 52

Condition PI(s) Year Justification closed Condition 8: By the fourth PI 3.2.3: 2016 Evidence includes: annual surveillance audit, SG80 Monitoring, control - There is formally organised SIa must be met. There must and surveillance cooperation between Ministry of be clear evidence of the mechanisms ensure Fisheries and Ministry of effectiveness of the MCS the fishery’s Defence (Coast guard). The mechanisms and there must be management current arrangement between information available on the measures are the Coast Guard, Maldives infringements of the regulations enforced and Customs and the Ministry of by local vessels and the related complied with. Fisheries and Agriculture allows sanctions enforcing monitoring control and surveillance of the tuna fishery in the Maldives -All infringements are recorded and analysed in the Annual compliance report -Observer coverage is implemented (2% coverage in 2015), with coverage to be increased to 5% in the next years. -Landing reporting was strengthened by implementation of additional control measures (cross-checks of catch logs and export records, new regulation specifying that fish couldn’t be sold to processors unless logbooks are submitted at landing) -Deterrence, infringement detection and penalties are in place and getting stronger. -MoFA is producing Annual MCS reports to formally document the progress and issues related to MCS. - A Summary of Infringements and corrective measures is documented for each year

PI 3.2.2 now meets all the SIs at the 80 level so this PI is rescored from 70 to 80 and the condition is closed.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 53

Assessment Methodologies

Table 19 Assessment methodologies Standard MSC Fishery Certification Requirements and Guidance version 2.0. Report template MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template v2.0 Assessment tree Default assessment tree . RBF used for PI 2.2.1.

4.3.1 The MSC fisheries standard The MSC fisheries standard sets out requirements that a fishery must meet to enable it to claim that its fish come from a well-managed and sustainable source. The MSC standard applies to wild-capture fisheries that meet the scope requirements as confirmed in section 3.1. The MSC fisheries standard comprises three core principles:

Principle 1: Sustainable target fish stocks A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery. Principle 2: Environmental impact of fishing Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends. Principle 3: Effective management The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

4.3.2 The assessment tree structure The default tree structure is divided into four main levels for the purposes of scoring, as summarised below and illustrated in Figure 5: - Principle: The Principles represent the overarching basis for the assessment tree - Component: A high level sub-division of the Principle - Performance Indicator (PI): A further sub-division of the Principle - Scoring Issue (SI): A sub-division of the PI into related but different topics. Each PI has one or more scoring issues against which the fishery is assessed at the SG 60, 80, and 100 levels.

The detailed assessment tree used in this assessment is included in Appendix 1.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 54

Figure 5 The assessment tree structure

Evaluation Processes and Techniques 4.4.1 Site Visits

Table 20 Itinerary of field activities Date Main activities and locations inspected Names of individuals contacted during field inspections 10 -16 On-site audit, including: Marine Research Centre (MRC) December Stakeholder meetings Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture 2016 open RBF scoring session for PI 2.2.1 Coast Guard Inspection of landings Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Vessel Inspection Association (MSPEA) Factory inspection (Horizon) Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Chain of custody review Association (MSPEA) Maldives Industry of Fisheries Companies (MIFCO) Marine Research Centre (MRC) International Pole and Line Foundation (IPNLF) Horizon factory

Names of the individuals contacted are available upon request.

4.4.2 Consultations 4.4.2.1 Site visit consultations The assessment team met with relevant stakeholders as outlined in Table 20 above. Information gathered is presented in this report and in the enclosed scoring tables.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 55

4.4.2.2 Process consultations Several stakeholders have been identified and contacted during the assessment of the Maldives pole & line skipjack tuna fishery. Information was made publicly available at different stages of the assessment (Table 21). Notifications on the MSC website (www.msc.org) were distributed to listed stakeholders in directed mails.

Table 21 Process announcements and consultations Consultation subject Consultation date Consultation channels Announcement of full assessment 8 November 2016 www.msc.org, e-mails to identified stakeholders Announcement of RBF 8 November 2016 www.msc.org, e-mails to identified stakeholders Public comment draft report 27 July 2017 www.msc.org, e-mails to identified stakeholders Final report 5 October 2017 www.msc.org, e-mails to identified stakeholders Public certification report

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques 4.4.3.1 Announcements The start of the re-assessment process was announced on 8. November 2016 on the MSC website www.msc.org to reach international and local stakeholders. 4.4.3.2 Methodology used The methodology used, included sample-based means of acquiring a working knowledge of the management operation and sea base. 4.4.3.3 Scoring process After all relevant information was compiled and analysed, the assessment team scored the Unit of Assessment against the Performance Indicator Scoring Guideposts (PISGs) in the default FCR Ver 2.0 tree. The team discussed evidence, weighed up the balance of evidence and used their judgement to agree on a final score following MSC FCR processes and based on consensus. Individual Performance indicators are scored. Scores for individual PIs are assigned in increments of five points. Any divisions of less than five points are justified. Scores for each of the three Principles are reported to the nearest one decimal. - If one or more of the scoring issues fails to meet the scoring guidepost at the 60 level, the UoA fails and no further scoring is provided for the Performance indicator.

- Where all of the SG60 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves at least a 60 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG80 level. - Where one or more of the SG80 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediate score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG80 scoring issues, and one or more condition(s) are assigned to the PI. - Where all of the 60 scoring issues and all of the 80 issues are met, the PI achieves at least an 80 score, and the team assesses each of the scoring issues at the SG100 level.

- Where one or more of the SG100 scoring issues is not met, the PI is given an intermediates score reflecting the overall performance against the different SG100 scoring issues.

- Where all of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 scoring issues are met, the PI achieves a 100 score. In Principle 1 and 2 the scoring may include PI with multiple scoring elements. Scoring is then applied to the individual scoring elements and the overall score for the PI is determined based on the score of the different scoring elements. Scoring elements considered in this assessment are listed in Table 22. In order to fulfil the requirements for certification the following minimum scores are required:

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 56

- The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, based on the weighted aggregate scores for all Performance Indicators under each Principle.

- The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each individual scoring issue under each Performance Indicator in each Principle. The final scores are based on group consensus within the assessment team. The assessment team will recommend certification where the weighted average score is 80 or more for all the three Principles, and were all individual scoring issues are met at the SG60 level. Conditions are set where the fishery fails to achieve a score of 80 to any Performance Indicators. Conditions with milestones are set to result in improved performance to at least the 80 level within a period set by the assessment team. The client is required to provide a client action plan to be accepted by the assessment team. The client action plan shall detail: - how conditions and milestones will be addressed - who will address the conditions - the specified time- period within which the conditions and milestones will be addressed - how the action(s) is expected to improve the performance of the UoA - how the CAB will assess outcomes and milestones in each subsequent surveillance or assessment - how progress to meeting conditions will be shown to CABs.

Table 22 Scoring elements Component Scoring elements Main Justification for Data- / not main/not main deficient main [primary and or not secondary species] P1 Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) NA NA NA Primary yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) Main >5% total catch No Primary Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Not <1% total catch No main Secondary Silver sprat (Spratelloides gracilis) Main circa 5% total Yes catch (precautionary approach taken) Secondary frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), kawakawa Not all <5%, most Yes (Euthynnus affinus), rainbow runner main very low (Elagatis bipinnulata), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), round scad (Decapterus), garfish (Belone belone), oceanic trigger fish (Canthidermis maculata), jacks/trevallies (spp), Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis). (Spratelloides delicatulus), anchovy (Enchrasicholina heteroloba), fusiliers (Caesionidae spp), cardinal fishes (Apogonidae spp) ETP None identified NA NA NA

4.4.3.4 Risk Based Framework At the start of the re-assessment, the assessment team announced (8.11.2016) the intention to apply RBF to the PIs specified in the Table 23 below. The assessment team sought to open a dialogue with organizations or individuals with a direct interest in this fishery. No comments to the use of the RBF were received and the consultation closed on 8 December 2017. During an open RBF session and stakeholder consultancy, sufficient information was provided to score 2.4.1 Habitats outcome using CSA, 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome using SICA, and PI 2.2.1 using PSA. To ensure effective data interpretation during the RBF process, the assessment team held an open workshop with a varied group of stakeholders (see Table 20). The outcomes of stakeholder engagement and their supporting rationales are documented in the Evaluation Results section

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 57

(section 6) and in detail in Appendix 1.2. The reference section contains the list of literature and documents submitted by stakeholders and used in this assessment. Table 23 Use of RBF PI that RBF is to be applied to 2.2.1 Secondary species outcome

Justification for use1 stock status assessments or quantitative analyses are not available for the secondary species. RBF (_SA) is applied to silver sprat on a precautionary basis because catches are of the order of 5% of total UoA catches. PI that RBF is to be applied to 2.4.1 Habitats outcome

Justification for use Information on a) habitats encountered and b) impact of fishery on habitats encountered is not readily available. This specifically relates to impacts of bait fishery activities in atolls in the Maldives EEZ. PI that RBF is to be applied to 2.5.1 Ecosystem outcome Justification for use Information is not available to support an analysis of the impact of the fishery on the Maldivian ecosystem, especially in regard to the atoll-based bait fishery.

1 Note that it is required that stakeholder comments on the use of the RBF need to be considered (FCR Annex PF 2.1.1.5). The stakeholder comment and CAB response shall be included in the Public Comment Draft Report (FCR 7.15.4.1). DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 58

5 TRACEABILITY

Eligibility Date Products from the certified fishery will be eligible to be sold as MSC certified or bear the MSC ecolabel from the date of the recertification.

Traceability within the Fishery All Maldivian P&L vessels fish exclusively within the 200 mile EEZ and are licensed by the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture. Starting form 01 January 2010, the Maldives adopted a logbook-based reporting system and set in motion to decommission the traditional method of captain/owner of the vessel reporting to island/ atoll offices via phone, or in person, and subsequent reporting to MoFA on a monthly basis. Whilst MoFA considers the transition to more systematic recording of catches by vessels is still in progress, considerable work has been done to educate captains and boat owners to report using log books on a daily basis. However, MOFA’s Annual Compliance Report for 2016 noted that a large number of vessels still do not have logbooks on board the vessels. Of the 23 vessel inspected in 2015, eleven vessels (47%) did not have a logbook and therefore still report using the old method - relaying sales receipt to the vessel owner who in additional to catch amounts records each day’s activities including livebait and other information required in the logbooks. The old reporting method, however, should not be considered any less accurate than logbooks completed on the vessels as the same information is ultimately being recorded in the same logbooks. All logbooks, completed by owners or skippers, are sent to MoFA within 30 days to avoid receiving reminders and eventual penalties. This situation does not compromise the traceability within the fishery as all catches are accounted for at landing by tuna buyers/ processors who have a full overview of fishing licenses, including how much fish was landed from the respective vessel up to date. At landing, vessels receive a sales receipt which include following information:  Name of vessel  Vessel registration number  Licence number  Name of the captain  landing site

It is important to note that the buyers also report their daily purchases on the Fisheries Information System, interrogated over the internet, and formally launched in September 2016. This reporting is near-real time and it is used for generating catch certificates and subsequently assessing national catch estimates.

The system is further strengthened by the field inspections at sea with sampling and weighing of tuna catches. The Trade ministry provides fishermen with a sealed weight calibrated by the ministry. Every boat has a scale of 60-70kg and all catches must be weighted and recorded in the log-books. Inspectors can cross check the actual catch against the records in the log-books. Potential discrepancies would be recorded and communicated to the authorities. It should be noted that log books may sometimes have a discrepancy with sales notes because log books would include fish which is taken home by fishermen (not tuna), while sales notes include only sold fish (tuna). This does not constitute a major issue, as the amount of fish taken for personal consumption is minimal. For further description of the management systems related to traceability see section 3.5.10.

Processing on board There is no processing on board. When tuna is caught, it is placed in plastic boxes which are iced. All tuna is sorted and weighed at landing.

Points of landing Catcher vessels operate from various locations throughout the Maldives archipelago. Due to the distances involved, fish are landed either directly to processing facilities (if located nearby) or to collector vessels/mother ships owned by processors. There are only 4 main processors in the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 59

Maldives who can buy and process skipjack tuna and opportunity to become a processor is limited by governmental regulations. Processors record all landings by licensee, species and quantity landed. All records are reported to MoFA. MoFA reconciles landings with processed product prior to export. There is no transhipment at sea other than from catcher vessels to collector/mother vessels within the Maldives EEZ. Certified skipjack tuna is landed fresh (from catcher vessels) to the processing factories; whole chilled (from collector vessels/mother ships), or whole frozen (from mother ships). Processing factories receiving skipjack tuna have Chain of Custody processes in place. No processing takes place at sea and fish are landed whole for on-shore processing prior to export. Almost all skipjack catches are exported. Main markets are Germany, the U.K., Netherlands and Switzerland.

Traceability risk factors

Table 24 Traceability risk factors within the fishery Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used None: within the fishery No non-certified gear is used onboard the UoC vessels on the same trips as the certified P&L gear. Handline is used on separate vessels for targeting yellowfin tuna and is not being deployed for skipjack tuna. Yellowfin tuna are not targeted on the same trips as Skipjack tuna. Only a small size yellowfin could be taken as bycatch in the Skipjack fishery and this tuna is caught by P&L gear and sorted out at landing. Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish None: outside the UoC or in different geographical UoC vessels do not fish outside the UoC or in different areas (on the same trips or different trips) geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips) Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or None: client group fishing the same stock All commercial Maldivian P&L vessels targeting SJT in the UoC are covered by this assessment. Foreign vessel fleets are not allowed to fish for tuna within EEZ of Maldives. Risks of mixing between certified and non- None: certified catch during storage, transport, or There is no risk of mixing certified and non-certified handling activities (including transport at sea skipjack tuna, during storage, transport, or handling and on land, points of landing, and sales at activities as all P&L skipjack is certified. auction) There are clear visual differences between skipjack, yellowfin and Big eye tuna and yellowfin and Big eye tuna are separated from skipjack at landing. Sorting activities are controlled by processer companies and quantities of fish are recorded in the sales notes and reported to the authorities. Risks of mixing between certified and non- None: certified catch during processing activities (at- There is no processing on board. When tuna is caught, sea and/or before subsequent Chain of it is placed in plastic boxes which are iced. All tuna is Custody) sorted at landing. Sorting activities are controlled by processer companies and quantities of fish are recorded in the sales notes and reported to the authorities. Risks of mixing between certified and non- None: certified catch during transhipment There is no transhipment at sea other than from catcher vessels to collector/mother vessels. Collector/mother vessels collect only fish from the Maldives P&L vessels in the UoC and do not collect any other species which could be mixed with the certified catch.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 60

Any other risks of substitution between fish None from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody CoC required at the transfer of the ownership from the catching vessel to the processing company and CoC starts at the point of landing at shore or at collector vessels/mother ships. There are no other developments or changes within the fishery which impact traceability or the ability to segregate between fish from the Unit of Certification (UoC) and fish from outside the UoC (non-certified fish).

Table 25 Eligibility to enter further chains of custody Conclusion and determination Tuna products will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody and be sold as MSC certified or carry the MSC ecolabel List of parties, or category of parties, eligible to use the The eligible parties are Maldivian fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified vessels licensed for pole and line fishing within the 200 mile Maldives EEZ. There are no other eligible vessels in this fishery. Point of intended change of ownership of product At the transfer of the ownership from the catching vessel to the processing company. Change of ownership takes place at shore or at collector vessels/mother ships. List of eligible landing points (if relevant) Valid for entire Maldives Point from which subsequent Chain of Custody is required At the point of landing at shore or at collector vessels/mother ships

Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody There are no IPI stocks involved in the certification of this fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 61

6 EVALUATION RESULTS

Principle Level Scores

Table 26 Final Principle scores Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 90.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 88.6 Principle 3 – Management System 85.4

Summary of PI Level Scores Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score 1.1.1 Stock status 1,0 100 Outcome 0,333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0,0 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0,25 85 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0,25 80 Management 0,667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0,25 90 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0,25 85 2.1.1 Outcome 0,333 90 Primary 0,2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0,333 85 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0,333 100 2.2.1 Outcome 0,333 80 Secondary 0,2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0,333 80 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0,333 90 2.3.1 Outcome 0,333 90 Two ETP species 0,2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0,333 85 2.3.3 Information strategy 0,333 80 2.4.1 Outcome 0,333 99 Habitats 0,2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0,333 90 2.4.3 Information 0,333 80 2.5.1 Outcome 0,333 100 Ecosystem 0,2 2.5.2 Management 0,333 90 2.5.3 Information 0,333 90 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0,333 90 Governance 0,5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0,333 95 and policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0,333 80 Three 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0,25 80 Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0,25 95 0,5 management 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0,25 75 system 3.2.4 Monitoring & management performance evaluation 0,25 80

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 62

Summary of Conditions

Table 27 Summary of Conditions Condition Condition Performance Related to number indicator previously raised condition? 1 By the third annual surveillance an 3.2.3 No updated compliance report should be produced to show that compliance with reporting regulations (including completion and maintenance of logbooks) is further improved, such that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement [PCDR: Draft determination with supporting rationale. FR: Final determination. PCR: formal statement from decision making entity] 4.6.1 Final determination The Maldives pole and line skipjack fishery achieved a score of 80 or more for each of the three MSC Principles, and did not score under 60 for any of the set MSC Criteria. As the fishery achieved a score of below 80 against one scoring indicator, the assessment team has set one condition for the continued certification that the client is required to address. The condition is applicable to improve performance to at least the 80 level within the period set by the assessment team

Based on the evaluation of the fishery presented in this report the assessment team recommends the re-certification of the Maldives pole and line skipjack fishery for the client Maldives Seafood Processors & Exporters Association (MSPEA). Following this decision by the assessment team, and review by peer-reviewers and stakeholders, the determination will be presented to the DNV GL Business Assurance decision making entity that the fishery has passed its re-assessment and should be re-certified.

(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.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 63

REFERENCES For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20-%20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026 %20November%202016.pdf

Bentley, N. and M.S. Adam (2016) Management strategy evaluation for the Indian Ocean skipjack tuna fishery

IOTC (2011a) THE CRITERIA TO USE IN ALLOCATING QUOTAS AMONGST CPCs OF IOTC IOTC- 2011-SS4-PropA[E]

IOTC (2011b) ON ESTABLISHING A QUOTA ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR THE MAIN TARGETED SPECIES IN THE IOTC AREA OF COMPETENCEIOTC-2011-SS4-PropB[E]

IOTC (2013) REPORT ON THE AVAILABILITY, COMPLETENESS AND QUALITY OF CATCH DATA FOR ALL FLEETS IN THE IOTC DATABASE IOTC-2013-TCAC02-R[E]

IOTC (2014a) Report of the Sixteen Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC– 2014–WPTT16–R[E]

IOTC (2014b) Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment 1950-2013 (Stock Synthesis) IOTC– 2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_2

IOTC (2014c) Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment 1950-2013 (Stock Synthesis) IOTC– 2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_3

IOTC (2016a) Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016- WPTT18-R

IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R

IOTC (2016d) REVIEW OF THE STATISTICAL DATA AND FISHERY TRENDS FOR TROPICAL TUNAS IOTC–2016–WPTT18–07

Kolody, D., M. Herrera and J. Million. 2011. 1950-2009 Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment (Stock Synthesis). IOTC-2011-WPTT-14(Rev1)

Sharma, R., M. Herrera and J. Million. 2012. 1950-2011 Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment (Stock Synthesis). IOTC-2012-WPTT-29(Rev2).

For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20-%20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026 %20November%202016.pdf

Anderson R.C. (1997) The Maldivian tuna livebait fishery - status and trends. Pp.69-92. In: D.J.Nickerson and M.H.Maniku (eds) Report and Proceedings of the Maldives / FAO National Workshop on Integrated Reef Resources Management in the Maldives, Malé, March 1996. OBP/REP/76: 312pp.

Gillett, R., A.R.Jauharee, and M.S. Adam (2013) Maldives Live Bait Fishery Management Plan 2013

IOTC (2015) Maldives NPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks IOTC-2015-WPEB11- INF12

IOTC (2016a) Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016- WPTT18-R

IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R

IOTC (2016d) REVIEW OF THE STATISTICAL DATA AND FISHERY TRENDS FOR TROPICAL TUNAS IOTC–2016–WPTT18–07

IOTC (2016e) IOTC–2016–WPEB12–R[E] Report of the 12th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole-and- line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 64

IPNLF (2012). Ensuring Sustainability of Livebait Fish, International Pole-and-line Foundation,London, 57 pages

Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages

McClanahan, T.R, C.R.C. Sheppard & D. O. Obura (eds) (2000) CORAL REEFS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN; THEIR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. No. of pages: 525.

Miller KI, Jauharee AR, Nadheeh I, and Adam MS (2016). Interactions with Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) Species in the Maldivian Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery. IPNLF and MRC,July 2016. 28 pages

Naseer, A., and B.G.Hatcher (2004) Inventory of the Maldives’coral reefs using morphometrics generated from Landsat ETM+ imagery. Coral Reefs (2004) 23: 161-168

Ali, K., Shimal, M. 2016. Review of the status of marine turtles in the Maldives.

Aneh Dhivehi Raajje” The Strategic Action Plan, National Framework for Development 2009 – 2013 The Government of Mal

Draft Maldives Fisheries Bill 2015 FAO Council 1993.The Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Hundred and Fifth Session in Rome on 25 November 1993. http://www.iotc.org/

Fisheries Law of the Maldives no. 5/1987

Gillett, R., Jauharee, A. R., Adam, M. S., (2013). Maldives livebait fishery management plan, Marine Research Centre, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, (MEMP). Medley and Powers 2015 An evaluation of the sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks relative to marine stewardship Council Criteria. March 2015 v3

IOTC 2001 resolution 12/01 on the implementation of the precautionary approach

IOTC 2004 resolution 11/04 on regional Observer Scheme

IOTC 2009 Resolution 10/09 concerning the functions of the compliance committee

IOTC 2010 resolution 13/10 on interim target and limit reference points and a decision framework

IOTC 2014 recommendation 12/14 on interim target and limit reference points IOTC 2015. Report of the 2nd IOTC review. Mahe, Seychelles, 2-6 February and 14-18 December 2015. www.iotc.org IOTC 2016 Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. November 2016 IOTC 2016a Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016- WPTT18-R MoFA 2016. Annual Compliance Report 2016

Websites IOTC - www.iotc.org MoFA- www. mofa.gov.pk/maldives MRC- www.mrc.gov.mv

For IOTC Resolutions: http://www.iotc.org/cmms

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 65

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES Appendix 1.1 Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

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

Met? Y Y Y Justifi Consistent with GSA2.2.3.1, the PRI is taken as 20%B0 (or 0.2 SB0 in cation IOTC terminology).

As reported by the most recent IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas (WPTT) (IOTC, 2016a) and Scientific Committee (SC) (IOTC, 2016b), SB2013/SB0 is estimated as 0.58, with 80% confidence intervals of 0.53-0.62. The SC reports uncertainties in the assessment and comments on some concerns related to catch rates. The uncertainties in the assessment are due to poor definition of a best case formulation and the consequent use of a grid of 81 model formulations from which a median estimate and confidence intervals are drawn. The confidence intervals may be inflated but the median estimate of SB2013/SB0 is poorly defined. However, all analyses, as reflected in the Kobe II Strategy Matrix, suggest that with catches less than MSY since 2013, under all model variants examined, the probability of SB2016 being below SBlim is zero – i.e, that the stock is above the PRI with a high degree of certainty.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are met. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high post fluctuating degree of around a level certainty that the consistent with stock has been MSY. fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 66

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Justifi As reported by the most recent IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas cation (WPTT) (IOTC, 2016a) and Scientific Committee (SC) (IOTC, 2016b), SB2013/SBmsy is estimated as 1.59, with 80% confidence intervals of 1.13-2.14. The SC reports uncertainties in the assessment and comments on some concerns related to catch rates. The uncertainties in the assessment are due to poor definition of a best case formulation and the consequent use of a grid of 81 formulations from which a median estimate and confidence intervals are drawn. The confidence intervals may be inflated. The median estimate of SB2013/SBmsy is poorly defined and above the estimates put forward as candidate base case estimates in the stock assessment (IOTC, 2014a). However, analyses, as reflected in the Kobe II Strategy Matrix, suggest that with catches less than MSY since 2013, under all but one of many model variants examined, the probability of SB2016 being below SBmsy is zero. The SC noted that “Current spawning biomass is considered to be above the interim target reference point of SBMSY, ...”

The IOTC SC and WPPT do not show SB trends through time but the trajectory of SB can be seen in the standard Kobe plot (IOTC, 2016a,b), copied here. The plot is based on the aggregation of model outputs from the grid of 81 model formulations.

The SB has been estimated above 0.4SB0 in all but one year (2008) since 1950 and except for that year has fluctuated well above SBmsy and near 0.60Bo since 2000.

The SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are met. • IOTC (2014c) Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment 1950-2013 (Stock Synthesis) IOTC–2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_3 • IOTC (2016a) Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working References Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016-WPTT18-R IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status point point relative to reference point

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 67

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue Reference Proportion of unfished SBlim as 0.2 SB2013/SB0 (80%CI) point used in spawning biomass B0 (IOTC, = 0.58 (0.53-0.62) scoring (SB0) 2016c) stock relative to PRI (SIa) Reference Proportion of unfished SBtarg as 0.4 B0 SB2013/SB0 (80%CI) = 0.58 point used in spawning biomass (IOTC, 2016c) (0.53-0.62) scoring (SB0) stock SBmsy is inferred from SB2013/SBmsy (80%CI) = relative to IOTC (2016a,b) as 1.59 (1.13-2.14) MSY (SIb) 0.365 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):100; si(b):100 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 68

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1A – Not applicable NOT LTL

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 69

The stock is at a level which has a low probability of serious ecosystem PI 1.1.1 A impacts Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Stock status relative to ecosystem impairment Guide It is likely that It is highly likely There is a high post the stock is that the stock is degree of above the point above the point certainty that the where serious where serious stock is above ecosystem ecosystem the point where impacts could impacts could serious occur. occur. ecosystem impacts could occur. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N)

Justifi NOT LTL cation b Stock status in relation to ecosystem needs Guide The stock is at or There is a high post fluctuating degree of around a level certainty that the consistent with stock has been ecosystem fluctuating needs. around a level consistent with ecosystem needs or has been above this level over recent years. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi NOT LTL cation [List any references here] References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status point point relative to reference point Reference point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem impairment (SIa) Reference point used in scoring stock relative to ecosystem needs (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/R

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 70

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 71

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

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi N/R cation

b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence There is strong post determine whether the that the evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding rebuilding effective in rebuilding the strategies are strategies are stock within the specified rebuilding stocks, rebuilding stocks, timeframe. or it is likely or it is highly based on likely based on simulation simulation modelling, modelling, exploitation rates exploitation rates or previous or previous performance that performance that they will be able they will be able to rebuild the to rebuild the stock within the stock within the specified specified timeframe. timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi N/R cation

[List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: N/R CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 72

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Harvest strategy design Guide The harvest The harvest The harvest post strategy is strategy is strategy is expected to responsive to the responsive to the achieve stock state of the stock state of the stock management and the elements and is designed objectives of the harvest to achieve stock reflected in PI strategy work management 1.1.1 SG80. together towards objectives achieving stock reflected in PI management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y Y N Justifi Consideration of the harvest strategy is made with reference to the newly cation adopted Res 16/02 setting up the harvest control rule for skipjack.

The stock management objectives reflected in PI1.1.1 are i) maintain the stock above the PRI with 80% probability; and ii) ensure the stock is fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. The agreed HCR, based on MSE work by Bentley and Adam (2016), assumes a flow of data of equal quality to that currently available and that a stock assessment will be undertaken every three years. The control rule then determines an overall catch limit based on a relationship between fishing intensity and the ratio SBcurrent/SB0. The tools for ensuring catch limits are adhered to are covered at PI1.2.2c. Assuming data flows, assessment, and application of tools, the harvest strategy is expected to achieve the stock management objectives. Indeed, the expectation is to exceed those objectives by a considerable margin (see PI1.2.2a).

The SG60 requirements are met.

Harvest strategy responsiveness is determined primarily through application of a harvest control rule which determines harvesting intensity and hence catch limits dependent directly on the state of the stock relative to SB0. Achievement of the management objectives then depends on the application of tools to ensure catch limits are appropriately set and adhered to. Res 16/02 specifies when an overall catch limit will be set (to be managed using existing effort management measures), and when catch allocations should be set (as well as how depending on progress on formal agreement on allocation).

The SG80 requirements are met.

The HCR component of the strategy has been developed and chosen to ensure that management objectives are achieved. The rule was filtered through multiple criteria and parameterised to achieve a given performance. It can be said to be designed to achieve, and exceed, the management objectives reflected at PI1.1.1, if implemented as intended. Implementation requires a continuous flow of data as already exists and can reasonably be anticipated, and assumes stock assessment at regular intervals – consistent with previous experience. There is a reasonable expectation that data and assessment components will meet the design criteria. Currently, the weakest part of the harvest strategy is the incomplete specification for how catch allocations will be made and adherence ensured, though Res 16/02 does address the issue by specifying at paragraph 11

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 73

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place how this will be dealt with until full allocation decisions have been made under given circumstances of stock status. Nevertheless, without fuller and clearer specification of the implementing tools (allocation, how catch limits will be ensured at national levels) it is not possible to say the whole harvest strategy has been designed.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest The harvest The performance post strategy is likely strategy may not of the harvest to work based on have been fully strategy has prior experience tested but been fully or plausible evidence exists evaluated and argument. that it is evidence exists achieving its to show that it is objectives. achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justifi The strategy of i) collecting data, ii) assessing stock status against clear cation reference points (previously SBmsy and percentiles of SB0), iii) advising in relation to those reference points and on catch/effort requirements to achieve them (if necessary), and iv) the Commission responding through binding resolutions, has proven successful to date in maintaining skipjack biomass at a high level, as described at PI1.1.1. The general strategy outlined is essentially that now in place except that with Res 16/02 the reference points and advice on catch limits are pre-determined. There is good reason to think the harvest strategy is likely to work based on past experience.

The SG60 requirements are met.

The strategy has been tested to the extent of data-assessment-HCR through MSE, and experience to date is that it has maintained skipjack at a high level, above Bmsy and well above any PRI. The evidence is that it is achieving its objectives.

The SG80 requirements are met.

The HCR has been developed using MSE but the performance of the harvest strategy has not. Thus far, the MSE has not included explicit assessment formulations, nor any consideration of management implementation error. Consistent with GSA2.4.1:

The SG100 requirements are not met. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in post place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 74

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Met? Y Justifi Every three to four years, a full stock assessment of the stock is undertaken. cation This includes a review of the catch, fishery dependent indices of abundance, models of historical population size as well as biological data and appropriate reference points. Management measures are reviewed annually by the IOTC and are changed as required. This process provides the monitoring to determine whether or not the strategy is working.

The newly agreed Res 16/02 specifies that a new stock assessment will take place in 2017 and again every three years, or sooner under certain conditions. It anticipates that the overall approach of managing according to a clear harvest control rule will be monitored directly through application of that rule, informed by scheduled stock assessments, and with additional rules to ensure precautionary management. Data collection and provision to enable the assessment is provided for through a range of other resolutions (see PI 1.2.3)

The SG60 requirements are met. d Harvest strategy review G The harvest u strategy is i periodically d reviewed and e improved as p necessary. o s t M Y e t ? Justifi The IOTC SC reviews the elements of harvest strategy annually and provides cation advice to the Commission on whether the strategy has been successful and whether it needs to be changed (see e.g. IOTC, 2016a,b). The SC has regularly reviewed and conducted stock assessments, re-estimated (re-calculated) and re- evaluated the appropriateness of the reference points, and whether the objectives of the Convention are being met. The Commission takes the advice of the SCRS under consideration and agrees binding Resolutions. Resolutions for the management of skipjack and other stocks under IOTC jurisdiction have generally been in line with the advice from the SC. Most recently, under advice from the SC, the Commission agreed Res 16/02 for skipjack which set/reaffirmed target and limit reference points, a harvest control rule, and a range of accompanying implementing rules and conditions. Resolutions for other stocks and other matters are also relevant. A recent example is the agreement to Res 16/01 on the rebuilding of yellowfin tuna stocks. The resolution has instituted catch limits for yellowfin tuna aimed at rebuilding, though not quite to the extent advised by the SC because of awareness, also through SC advice, of uncertainties. Other examples related to effort control are considered at PI1.2.2c. Overall, while the process is imperfect, the harvest strategy for all tropical tuna stocks within the IOTC is periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

The SG100 requirements are met. e Shark finning Guide It is likely that It is highly likely There is a high post shark finning is that shark finning degree of not taking place. certainty that

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 75

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place is not taking shark finning is place. not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The target species, skipjack, is not a shark. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a There is a There is a post review of the regular review biennial review potential of the potential of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of practicality of practicality of alternative alternative alternative measures to measures to measures to minimise UoA- minimise UoA- minimise UoA- related mortality related mortality related mortality of unwanted of unwanted of unwanted catch of the catch of the catch of the target stock. target stock and target stock, and they are they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi All skipjack catch is retained. cation  For IOTC Resolutions see: http://www.iotc.org/cmms  Bentley, N. and M.S. Adam (2016) Management strategy evaluation for the Indian Ocean skipjack tuna fishery References  IOTC (2016a) Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016-WPTT18-R  IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):80;si(b):80;si(c):60;si(d):100; 85 si(e): N/R; si(f): N/R CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 76

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a HCRs design and application Guide Generally Well defined The HCRs are post understood HCRs HCRs are in place expected to keep are in place or that ensure that the stock available that are the exploitation fluctuating at or expected to rate is reduced above a target reduce the as the PRI is level consistent exploitation rate approached, are with MSY, or as the point of expected to keep another more recruitment the stock appropriate level impairment (PRI) fluctuating taking into is approached. around a target account the level consistent ecological role of with (or above) the stock, most MSY, or for key of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y Y N Justifi Resolution 16/02 on Harvest Control Rules (IOTC, 2016c) lays out an explicit cation and well-defined harvest control rule (HCR) such that fishing intensity is reduced linearly from a maximum (when at or above 0.4B0, the specified TRP) to zero at 0.1B0. The fishing intensity is 33.3% of the maximum at 0.2B0 (the specified LRP) but with a further rule to review the HCR and implement a rebuilding plan should spawning biomass fall below 0.2B0. The rule was developed using Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE; Bentley and Adam, 2016) with an estimated median performance of maintaining the SB at 0.61SB0 and a 90% probability of maintaining SB above 0.39SB0 (implying a greater than 90% probability of SB being maintained above SBmsy of 0.365SB0).

The HCR specifies LRP and TRP, how fishing intensity should be varied depending on status, the frequency of stock assessments and required outputs, how the IOTC SC should advise the Commission in order to implement the HCR, and conditions for review of the HCR (if needed). Resolution 16/02 also specifies that the next skipjack stock assessment will be in 2017 and that the measure (Res 16/02) shall be reviewed in 2019 or earlier if there is any evidence that there is a risk of breaching the LRP.

Resolutions are binding on IOTC Members, unless there is a specific objection on the part of a Member, and require a two-thirds majority of members present and voting (see http://www.iotc.org/cmms). No objections have been made to res 16/02. An Interpretation on HCR by MSC (16 Dec 2016) makes clear that resolutions by RFMO are regarded as active and acceptable as evidence of HCR being in place.

Skipjack is not considered to be an LTL species.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 77

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place The MSE testing provides an expectation that the stock will be maintained well above Bmsy, and close to the current stock size, but no explicit account is taken of the ecological role of the stock in order to set that performance expectation during MSE testing, nor is any considered in IOTC Res 16/02.

The SG100 requirements are not met.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are The HCRs take post likely to be account of a wide robust to the range of main uncertainties uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? Y N Justifi The HCR was developed using MSE (Bentley and Adam, 2016). MSE work was cation conducted by an independent consultant (Bentley), with funding from the client and a range of other organisations. The work was conducted in an open and consultative manner with iterative input from the IOTC Working Party on Methods (WPM) and the WPTT.

The MSE used a simulation model of the skipjack fishery and assessment, with a single species, spatially explicit, age-structured population model similar in structure to that used for stock assessments and with uncertainty in outputs based on statistical fitting to the most recent assessment. No explicit stock assessment was embedded within the MSE. The precision and frequency of stock assessments were considered during evaluations but alternative structural assumptions about the stock and fisheries were not tested. A range of alternative HCR types and parameterisations were evaluated using a large set of performance statistics related to yield and sustainability. While structural (assessment/simulation) model alternatives have not been considered during MSE, IOTC stock assessment processes do consider alternatives and the base assessment model configuration used for MSE has proven robust.

The main uncertainties have been taken in to account by the MSE and stock assessment processes and the resulting, selected HCR additionally includes a range of additional rules to ensure robustness.

The SG80 requirements are met.

The SG100 requirements are not met. HCRs evaluation

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 78

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place c Guide There is some Available Evidence clearly post evidence that evidence shows that the tools in tools used or indicates that the use are effective in available to tools in use are achieving the implement HCRs appropriate and exploitation levels are appropriate effective in required under the HCRs. and effective in achieving the controlling exploitation exploitation. levels required under the HCRs. Met? Y Y N Justifi Resolution 16/02 lays out a HCR for skipjack tuna which sets catch limits. cation These have yet to be set and will depend on IOTC discussions on catch allocation and then on the sum of each Member’s approach to ensuring national catch allocations are adhered to. However, Res 16/02 at paragraph 11, sets out how allocations will be made prior to a full allocation model if SB falls below a threshold level of 0.4SB0 (in proportion to current ctches). It also specifies that if SB >=0.4SB0 (as now) then the HCR shall be used to establish an overall catch limit. The effectiveness of tools in use or available (as required for MSC scoring) needs to rely on how well exploitation rate has been controlled to date.

As noted above, Res 16/02 specifies that catch limits will be set. The IOTC has an ongoing process to develop a catch allocation scheme and has already developed allocation principles. IOTC RES 13/10, together with work on allocation (IOTC-2011-SS4-PropA[E] (IOTC, 2011a), IOTC- 2011-SS4-PropB[E] (IOTC, 2011b), IOTC-2013-TCAC02-R[E] (IOTC, 2013)) clearly demonstrates the intent to adopt catch limitation measures for all tunas under IOTC jurisdiction. IOTC Res 14/02 mainly addresses stocks of yellowfin and bigeye, but relates to other tropical tunas and main targeted stocks and thus applies to skipjack. It requires that “CPCs shall implement the following action plan: a) Establishment of an allocation system (Quota) or any other relevant measures based on the IOTC Scientific Committee recommendations for the main targeted species under the IOTC competence;...”

Regarding tools used to date, management of exploitation level has been approached by the limitation of effort/capacity through a series of Resolutions (01/04, 03/01, 06/05, 09/02, and 12/11). The earlier resolutions were aimed at non-members but were extended to all Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-members (CPC). The most recent resolution, IOTC RES12/11, is aimed at determining fishing capacity for all IOTC CPC, to ensure stabilisation of the level of fishing capacity active on stocks of high commercial value. The resolution provides for planned fleet development and vessel replacement but is aimed at ensuring no effective increase in capacity from a 2006 baseline plus any agreed Fishery Development Plans for the years 2007-2013.

For MSC scoring, CR v2 GSA2.5.6-2.5.7 is relevant. Consideration is needed of tools (e.g., for allocation and setting catch and/or effort limits) but also of the overall history of the effectiveness of tools in achieving the desired exploitation rates and biomass levels, and current status.

Following CR v2 GSA on Evaluating the effectiveness of HCRs (SA 2.5.6- 2.5.7), boxed example for 60, 80, and 100 SG levels:

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 79

There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in PI 1.2.2 place At least a 60 score may be justified if one proxy indicates that overfishing is not occurring. For skipjack tuna, IOTC (2016a,b) use a proxy of C/Cmsy as a measure of fishing mortality relative to Fmsy. The most recent value available is 0.62 with 80% CI of 0.49-0.75.

The SG 60 requirements are met.

At least an 80 score may be justified if one or more proxies indicate it is likely that overfishing is not occurring – when a minimum 70% probability can be assigned to the single indicator used. For skipjack tuna, IOTC (2016a,b) use a proxy of C/Cmsy as a measure of fishing mortality relative to Fmsy. The most recent value available is 0.62 with 80% CI of 0.49-0.75. The 70% probability level required for SG80 scoring in the boxed example is met.

An MSC Interpretation on HCRs (16 Dec 2016) made clear that F being less than Fmsy should not be used as sole evidence for the existence of an effective harvest control rule. However, taken with the long history of reasonably constant fishing mortality and biomass and IOTC measures related to effort control, it is overall concluded that available evidence indicates tools in place are effective at controlling exploitation rate.

The SG 80 requirements are met.

The same boxed example in the CR v2 GSA suggests that to meet the 100 level, two proxies are available and that both need to suggest it is highly likely overfishing is not occurring. Only one proxy exists for skipjack tuna.

The SG100 requirements are not met. [NB. The proxy (C/Cmsy) is used by IOTC because direct measures of F are uncertain – the grid approach is used to estimate status but is not extended to estimating F.]  For IOTC Resolutions see: http://www.iotc.org/cmms  Bentley, N. and M.S. Adam (2016) Management strategy evaluation for the Indian Ocean skipjack tuna fishery  IOTC (2011a) THE CRITERIA TO USE IN ALLOCATING QUOTAS AMONGST CPCs OF IOTC IOTC-2011-SS4-PropA[E]  IOTC (2011b) ON ESTABLISHING A QUOTA ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR THE MAIN TARGETED SPECIES IN THE IOTC AREA OF COMPETENCEIOTC-2011-SS4-PropB[E]  IOTC (2013) REPORT ON THE AVAILABILITY, COMPLETENESS AND References QUALITY OF CATCH DATA FOR ALL FLEETS IN THE IOTC DATABASE IOTC-2013-TCAC02-R[E]  IOTC (2016a) Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016-WPTT18-R  IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R  IOTC (2016c) RESOLUTION 16/02 ON HARVEST CONTROL RULES FOR SKIPJACK TUNA IN THE IOTC AREA OF COMPETENCE IOTC–2016–S20– R[E] OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):80; si(b):80; si(c):80 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 80

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Range of information Guide Some relevant Sufficient A comprehensive post information relevant range of related to stock information information (on structure, stock related to stock stock structure, productivity and structure, stock stock fleet composition productivity, fleet productivity, fleet is available to composition and composition, support the other data is stock abundance, harvest strategy. available to UoA removals support the and other harvest strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justifi IOTC (2014a) describes information sources for use in stock assessment cation of skipjack in the Indian Ocean. A single stock is assumed for the most recent assessment (IOTC, 2014c) but previous assessments have explored multiple area formulations and the WPTT and SC (IOTC, 2016ab) have noted the need for further exploration of spatial complexity. An IOTC Stock Structure Project using genetic and otolith microchemistry markers will start in 2017, focused on several IOTC species including Skipjack. Tagging data are available for spatial model fitting.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

Fleet composition data are available and used in the stock assessment which fits to a single area, by quarter (of year) for four fleets, including the UoA (Maldives pole and line). Stock abundance indices (CPUE) are available for three fleets (both associated and unassociated purse seine from the EU/Seychelles, and from the UoA). The CPUE analyses draw on some other (environmental) data which are also used to help interpret recruitment patterns. UoA removals are reported annually to the IOTC in accordance with IOTC Res 10/02, now superseded by Res 15/02.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 81

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy explore alternative stock hypotheses (GSA2.6.1) within assessment or further MSE.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance Stock abundance All information post and UoA and UoA required by the removals are removals are harvest control monitored and at regularly rule is monitored least one monitored at a with high indicator is level of accuracy frequency and a available and and coverage high degree of monitored with consistent with certainty, and sufficient the harvest there is a good frequency to control rule, and understanding of support the one or more inherent harvest control indicators are uncertainties in rule. available and the information monitored with [data] and the sufficient robustness of frequency to assessment and support the management to harvest control this uncertainty. rule. Met? Y Y Y Justifi GSA2.6.1 specifies that “Scoring issue (b) relates to fishery removals specifically cation by those vessels covered under the unit of assessment which need to be regularly monitored and have a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule.” Whereas “The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in scoring issue (c) relates to vessels outside or not covered by the unit of assessment. These require good information but not necessarily to the same level of accuracy or coverage as that covered by the second scoring issue.” We interpret this to relate only to but that the remaining clauses/elements of si(b) relate to all fisheries. Si(c) then relates only to non UoA removals. Stock abundance is estimated using the stock assessment rather than any direct survey methods, based on a wide range of data from all fisheries, input parameters and assumptions. Amongst the inputs to the assessment are indices of relative abundance in the form of standardized CPUE from three fleets (both associated and unassociated purse seine, and Maldives Pole and Line (the UoA). There are problems associated with all indices. The Maldives Pole and Line fleet operates only within a restricted area of the skipjack distribution, has increasingly fished around FADs, and is a relatively short time-series (because of mechanization changes to the fleet). Purse seine CPUE in principle might better reflect stock abundance given the wider distribution of fishing, but separation of associated (FAD) and unassociated (non-FAD) purse seine effort is difficult. Also, there have been many technological advances in purse seine fisheries which are difficult to account for. Nevertheless, assessments in recent years, including the most recent in 2014, have explored the indices and have attempted to fit them. Signals from different indices conflict and how the assessment weights each becomes important. The approach taken (see PI1.2.4) of using a grid of assessments overcomes this problem to an extent and attempts to incorporate uncertainty in estimates of management-related metrics that feed in to harvest control rules and the harvest strategy. A spatially resolved assessment might help to resolve conflicts between indices but the current assessment is for a single area. The problem is a modelling one given that no single index can be expected to represent the entire stock.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 82

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy UoA removals since 2009 have been of the order of 60,000 t per year against total removals approaching 400,000 t (i.e., circa 15%). UoA removals are reported in Maldives national statistics to the IOTC according to a range of resolutions (e.g., 10/08, 15/01, 15/02, 15/03). The data collection system in the Maldives previously relied on atoll-based collection, but in 2010 a logbook-based system was introduced and has been slowly improved since being implemented. Logbooks are required to be kept on board at all times, but it is clear from discussions during the site visit that this has not been adhered to fully, with many still retained by atoll councils or vessel owners. Nevertheless, logbook returns are excellent with skippers filling in logbooks for return regularly and reconciliation between returns and purchase records from factories being good. In addition, a mix of on-board, shore-based, and fishery field officers (8 in total) provides good oversight on the quality and veracity of data collection as well as bolstering the size data collection programme. Since 2014, the Maldives has reported catch and effort data by gear and species by 0.5 x 0.5 geographic grid. This has been done since 2014 (IOTC- 2014-SC17, para 21). IOTC (2016d) summarises the standing of a range of data and statistics received by the IOTC Secretariat for skipjack tuna, in accordance with IOTC Resolution 15/02. No issues are noted for Maldives Pole and Line as affects skipjack data. Given the treatment of UoA catch, effort, and size frequency data in the stock assessment, it is clear that removals are monitored regularly and with sufficient coverage and accuracy to support use of assessment estimates, consistent with harvest control rule needs and within the harvest strategy. The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met. The information required for the harvest control rule is that required for the stock assessment to estimate spawning biomass in relation to B0. Issues with the data are considered annually (e.g., IOTC (2016d)) and the assessment process takes these in to account (see PI1.2.4). The MSE work used to develop the HCR (see PI1.2.2) allows for uncertainties in assessment process/outputs rather than in input data directly. The WPTT and SC report on assessment quality and uncertainty in relation to the data inputs. The SG00 requirements are met. c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good post information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi GSA2.6.1 specifies that “Scoring issue (b) relates to fishery removals specifically cation by those vessels covered under the unit of assessment which need to be regularly monitored and have a level of accuracy and coverage consistent with the harvest control rule.” Whereas “The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in scoring issue (c) relates to vessels outside or not covered by the unit of assessment. These require good information but not necessarily to the same level of accuracy or coverage as that covered by the second scoring issue.” We interpret this to relate only to but that the remaining clauses/elements of si(b) relate to all fisheries. Si(c) then relates only to non UoA removals. According to IOTC (2016d), the UoA accounts for about 17% of the total skipjack removals. Other pole and line fisheries contribute a few per cent of total removals. The majority of skipjack removals are by purse seine (~39%), and gillnet (~26%). Main removals by country are Indonesia

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 83

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy (purse seine, troll, and gillnet, 21%), Sri Lanka (gillnet and longline, 15%), and the EU-Spain (purse seine, 15%).

The IOTC has agreed a number of resolutions pertinent to improved catch and effort reporting, with Res 15/02 specifying mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members & Cooperating Non Contracting Parties. The secretariat reports annually on the standing of a range of data and statistics reported (e.g., IOTC, 2016d). The latest report covers retained catches and reports these are generally well known for the major industrial fleets, with little need for the secretariat to make estimates or adjustments. There is no expectation of discards and retained catch is therefore considered relevant to scoring. However, catches are less certain for many of the artisanal fisheries with incomplete reporting by species by some fleets, and uncertainty in some of the more significant fleets (e.g., Sri Lanka). The secretariat includes information on data other than removals used in the stock assessment but these are not relevant at si(c).

The stock assessment (see PI 1.2.4) splits removals in to three industrial fleets all with good quality information on removals, as well as size and effort data: i) Maldives pole and line (the uoA), ii) associated (FAD) purse seine, and iii) unassociated (free school) purse seine. It additionally includes all other removals as a single fleet, using data supplied by members with estimates and adjustments as necessary made by the secretariat. Overall, while there are known problems with some of the artisanal fishery reporting, the quality of information on non- UoA removals is considered sufficiently good for stock assessment purposes and hence to inform management.

The SG80 requirements are met.

For IOTC Resolutions see: http://www.iotc.org/cmms  IOTC (2014a) Report of the Sixteen Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC–2014–WPTT16–R[E]  IOTC (2014c) Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment 1950-2013 (Stock Synthesis) IOTC–2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_3 References  IOTC (2016a) Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016-WPTT18-R  IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R  IOTC (2016d) REVIEW OF THE STATISTICAL DATA AND FISHERY TRENDS FOR TROPICAL TUNAS IOTC–2016–WPTT18–07 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):80; si(b):100; si(c):80 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 84

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guide The assessment The assessment post is appropriate for takes into the stock and for account the the harvest major features control rule. relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) N Justifi NOTE: The most recent stock assessment is summarised in IOTC cation (2014a). The document cites IOTC–2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_2 (IOTC, 2014b), though online the available stock assessment file is IOTC-2014- WPTT16-43 Rev_3 (IOTC, 2014c) (http://www.iotc.org/meetings/16th- working-party-tropical-tunas). All results shown for skipjack in 2014, 2015, and 2016 IOTC WPPT and SC documents relate to the Rev_3 document, in particular Appendix 3 which shows results from final assessment runs following specified inputs from the WPTT.

The next stock assessment is required through IOTC (2016c) in 2017, with a new assessment to be undertaken every three years.

The model implemented in 2014 assumes a single area. Four fleets, operating quarterly, are included. The model is age-structured, utilizing length-frequency data and a growth function. Beverton-Holt recruitment dynamics are assumed, with a base case steepness of 0.9. Available data for fitting include two CPUE indices (purse seine and Maldivian Pole and Line), length frequencies, tag recoveries (mostly from purse seine). For any model run, fixed growth (von Bertalanffy or Richards) and maturity curves were assumed. Length-based selectivity was estimated for each fleet using a flexible, non-parametric spline.

Model fitting in 2014 did not readily define a clear base case or set of runs and initial results presented status estimates from a candidate base case run with uncertainty also defined from a grid of 141 model formulations and fits. Following input from the WPTT, a final set of 81 runs was used to form a grid, from which medians of management- related quantities and confidence intervals were determined. The results from this grid are shown in IOTC-2014-WPTT16-43 Rev_3, Appendix 3, and have become the standard summary for skipjack status since that time.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 85

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Matrix (IOTC, 2016ab). The advice provided, based on the stock assessment, has been appropriate for the management arrangements in use until adoption of IOTC Res 16/02. For the harvest control rule adopted through IOTC Res 16/02, the key assessment output required is SBcurrent/SB0. The stock assessment provides a probabilistic estimate of this metric and is appropriate for the HCR.

The SG80 requirements are met.

The assessment takes in to account the growth, mortality, and maturation profile of skipjack tuna in the Indian Ocean, using the most up to date biological information. However, it assumes a single stock while previous assessments have considered 2/3 area models. The WPTT and SC have recognized the need for further consideration of spatial complexity, with complex movement patterns observed through tagging studies. Also, there are inconsistencies between relative abundance trends as seen through CPUE indices for different fleets.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock estimates stock status relative to status relative to generic reference reference points points that are appropriate to appropriate to the species the stock and can category. be estimated. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y Justifi The skipjack stock is subject to an integrated, statistical stock cation assessment which is able to provide estimates of spawning biomass (SB) and a proxy (C/Cmsy) for fishing mortality rate, as well as unfished biomass and other MSY-related reference points against which stock status can be determined and management advice provided. Previously, implicit reference points were used to frame management advice and under IOTC Res 16/02 explicit TRP, LRP and trigger reference points for the harvest control rule have been agreed. All reference points are of standard form as used in multiple fisheries jurisdictions, including tuna RFMOs, and are appropriate to the skipjack stock, taking account of its productivity and resilience. SG80 is met.

The reference points are appropriate for the stock, and can be and have been estimated.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guide The assessment The assessment The assessment post identifies major takes uncertainty takes into sources of into account. account uncertainty. uncertainty and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 86

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status in a probabilistic way. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y Justifi Major sources of uncertainty are identified. The assessment assumes a cation single area but recognizes the need to consider more complex spatial aspects of the stock, building on information contained in data from tagging studies. Other uncertainties identified include alternative signals contained in conflicting CPUE indices, productivity (steepness, mortality), growth, etc

The SG60 requirements are met.

The assessment takes account of uncertainty both by fitting to a wide range of formulations using a grid of steepness and mortality levels, alternate CPUE indices, and the treatment of recruitment (as deterministic or stochastic), and in the statistical fitting procedures for each formulation. The estimates of management-related metrics include uncertainty estimates derived from the grid of 81 model runs.

The SG80 requirements are met.

The assessment is an integrated statistical approach which fits parameters given data and multiple assumptions about error distributions, etc. The assessment outputs related to stock status are all estimated and presented probabilistically (see e.g. PI 1.1.1).

The SG100 requirements are met. d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment post has been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? N Justifi Assessments have developed over some years with the most recent cation assessment being undertaken in 2014.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 87

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status it cannot yet be said that alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

The SG100 requirements are not met. e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment The assessment post of stock status is has been subject to peer internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justifi The stock assessments are carried out by the IOTC secretariat and are cation reviewed at the WPTT which reports to the SC. For methodological issues, the IOTC Working Party on Methods (WPM) may also be involved. In 2014 the stock assessment (IOTC, 2014c) was presented to the WPTT which specified final requirements for model formulations and a parameter/assumption grid to be used in determining advice.

The SG80 requirements are met.

The WPTT arguably provides internal review and its effect can be seen, for example, at IOTC (2014c). However, there is a lack of documentation of WPTT technical considerations and decisions.

It is notable that the assessment methods and approaches used are common in many fisheries, including tuna RFMOs, with considerable scrutiny by multiple assessors. Additionally, being transparent, the assessments are considered by a wide range of parties. However, there has been no organized, external review of the skipjack assessment, for example by an independent consultant or through consideration of the assessment during MSE work.

The SG100 requirements are not met. • IOTC (2014a) Report of the Sixteen Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC–2014–WPTT16–R[E] • IOTC (2014b) Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment 1950- 2013 (Stock Synthesis) IOTC–2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_2 • IOTC (2014c) Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment 1950- 2013 (Stock Synthesis) IOTC–2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_3 References • Kolody, D., M. Herrera and J. Million. 2011. 1950-2009 Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment (Stock Synthesis). IOTC-2011- WPTT-14(Rev1) • Sharma, R., M. Herrera and J. Million. 2012. 1950-2011 Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment (Stock Synthesis). IOTC- 2012-WPTT-29(Rev2).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 si(a):80; si(b):80; si(c):100; si(d): -; si(e):80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 88

Principle 2 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary Main primary There is a high post species are likely species are degree of to be above the highly likely to be certainty that PRI above the PRI main primary species are above the PRI OR OR and are fluctuating If the species is If the species is around a level below the PRI, below the PRI, consistent with the UoA has there is either MSY. measures in evidence of place that are recovery or a expected to demonstrably ensure that the effective strategy UoA does not in place between hinder recovery all MSC UoAs and rebuilding. which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y (Y/N) N Justifi Following SA3.1.3, two primary species are identified: yellowfin tuna cation (Thunnus albacares) and bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus). Both are assessed and managed by the IOTC with measures in place expected to achieve management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points (SA3.1.3.3).

Bigeye catches in the UoA have been low. The catch in 2015 was just 184 tonnes, representing 0.04% of the UoA catch. Bigeye is not treated as a main species (SA3.4.2).

Reported UoA catches of yellowfin for the years 2011 to 2015 are 9,650, 10,896, 18,878, 18,481, and 15,796 tonnes. Over those years, based on data provided by the client, the catch of yellowfin has varied from 13 to 19% of the UoA catch, with an average over the five years of near 17%. Yellowfin is therefore considered to be a main species (SA3.4.2.1) and is considered for scoring here.

Consistent with GSA2.2.3.1, the PRI is taken as 20%B0 (or 0.2 SB0 in IOTC terminology).

The most recent stock assessment for yellowfin is reported in IOTC (2016ab). The assessment follows one conducted in 2015 but introduces the most recent catches and a new longline CPUE index. The 2015 assessment estimated SB2014/SB0 as 0.23 (0.21-0.36) while the

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 89

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not PI 2.1.1 hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. updated assessment in 2016 estimates SB2015/SB0 as 0.29 but does not provide any estimate of confidence. For scoring, it is necessary to determine how likely the estimate of 0.29SB0 is above the PRI of 0.20SB0. Some guidance is available from the third surveillance of the pole and line fishery (available for download at www.msc.org).

At the third surveillance, the previous stock assessment had estimated SB2014/SB0 as 0.23 (0.21-0.36). Through the IOTC, further analyses were used to estimate that across a range of model formulations, there is a greater than 80% probability that the 2015 estimate was above 0.2B0. The 2016 estimate is much higher and the model generally more optimistic. Based on this, it is concluded that it is highly likely (Table SA9) the yellowfin stock is above the PRI.

We note also that the 2016 estimates of SB2015/SBmsy=0.89(0.79-0.99) and SB2015/SB0=0.29 imply SBmsy=0.33SB0 and SB2015/SB0 is in the range 0.26- 0.33. This can be seen also in the “Kobe Plot” for the reference case from the 2016 stock assessment, though care is needed to read the grey 80% confidence interval bars which relate to SBmsy, not SB0.

The SG60 requirements are met The SG80 requirements are met.

It is unclear if there is a high degree of certainty (Table SA9) the stock is above the PRI. The stock is assessed currently to be below SBmsy with an estimate of SB2015/SBmsy of 0.89 (0.79-0.99) and to have been below SBmsy for six of the last eight years.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary post species are

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 90

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

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? (Y/N) Y Justifi Bigeye is the only identified minor, primary species. cation Consistent with GSA2.2.3.1, the PRI is taken as 20%B0 (or 0.2 SB0 in IOTC terminology) or 0.5SBmsy.

Bigeye was assessed in 2016 (IOTC, 2016ab) with SB2015/SB0 estimated as 0.38 but with no confidence intervals. SB2015/SBmsy is estimated as 1.29 (1.07-1.51). The estimates for bigeye are taken from a large array of model runs (500 from six model options). The Kobe plot showing F/Fmsy vs SB/SBmsy for 2015 is shown below. The central estimate clearly is that SB2015>SBmsy, with only a small number of 500 model runs falling below SBmsy. It is concluded that the stock is highly likely (Table SA9) to be above the PRI, using 0.5SBmsy as a proxy.

The SG100 requirements are met. • IOTC (2016a) Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016-WPTT18-R References • IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):80; si(b): 100 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 91

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are There is a partial There is a post measures in strategy in place strategy in place place for the for the UoA, if for the UoA for UoA, if necessary, that is managing main necessary, that expected to and minor are expected to maintain or to primary species. maintain or to not hinder not hinder rebuilding of the rebuilding of the main primary main primary species at/to species at/to levels which are levels which are highly likely to be likely to above above the point the point where where recruitment recruitment would be would be impaired. impaired. Met? Not scored – not Not scored – not Y necessary necessary Justifi Yellowfin is the only main, primary species. It is currently below SBmsy cation but above the PRI. There is therefore no need for rebuilding to a level likely or highly likely to be above the PRI. Consistent with GSA3.5.1, SG60 and SG80 are not scored.

Yellowfin is subject to a rebuilding plan following agreement of Res 16/01 by the IOTC. The resolution requires the Maldives to reduce yellowfin catches by 5% from 2014 levels (that is, to 17,557 tonnes). Maldives pole and line catch in 2014 was at a high level and a 5% reduction may imply a level above the recent average (13,141 tonnes from 2011-2013, or14,740 tonnes from 2011-2015). The Maldives is required by Res 16/01 to advise the IOTC through its Annual Implementation Report, what measures will be taken. The report has been sighted for assessment purposes. It notes that the effective reduction, if distributed amongst all pole and line vessels is about 24kg per trip and that the Maldives will therefore seek to achieve the target through indirect measures in order to minimize impacts on small-scale, coastal communities. Steps include:

 Some previously applied assistance for fuel, vessel purchase and duty exemptions will no longer be provided.  No additional anchored FADs shall be deployed to the existing network (around which yellowfin catches are higher).  Incentives to target free swimming skipjack will be introduced.  If monitoring from 1 Jan 2017 to 30 June 2017 suggests the catch limit might be breached, the number of fishing licenses will be limited and other mechanisms will be considered.

In addition, Maldives has been working on a Concept Vessel project which already discourages FAD usage and encourages the use of tools

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 92

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. such as stabilized binoculars to assist in improved opportunities to target free swimming skipjack.

The Maldives has introduced a range of clear arrangements to manage yellowfin catches in line with IOTC requirements to meet clear outcomes related to limiting catches. The arrangements are specific and include continued monitoring of yellowfin and bigeye catches to ensure the UoA has no impact on those stocks.

Any measures aimed at yellowfin also impact bigeye.

The SG100 requirements are met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures There is some Testing supports post are considered objective basis high confidence likely to work, for confidence that the partial based on that the strategy/strategy plausible measures/partial will work, based argument (e.g., strategy will on information general work, based on directly about the experience, some information fishery and/or theory or directly about the species involved. comparison with fishery and/or similar species involved. fisheries/species) . Met? Not scored – not Not scored – not N necessary necessary Justifi Consistent with si(a), SG60 and SG80 are not scored. cation As yet, there has been no testing of the partial strategy/strategy. The measures and arrangements have only recently been put in place. It is noted, however, that if the strategy is intended to ensure SG80 outcomes at PI2.1.1, then these are already met. Further, the UoA comprises only a small fraction of the overall yellowfin or bigeye catches, certainly much less than 30%, and would therefore not be influential in hindering recovery to the PRI were it necessary (GSA3.4.6).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 93

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justifi Consistent with si(a), SG80 is not scored. cation The strategic objective is to limit yellowfin catches to a level consistent with IOTC Res 16/01, the objective of which is to ensure the yellowfin stock rebuilds to SBmsy. As noted at si(a), for the UoA this means a small reduction in yellowfin catch, amounting to 24kg per trip across all vessels, on average, against the 2014 catch level which is above the average catch for the past 5 years.

The strategy in place consists of various arrangements outlined at si(a). These are only effective from 1 Jan 2017 and there is thus not yet any clear evidence to draw on.

The SG100 requirements are not met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that It is highly likely There is a high post shark finning is that shark finning degree of not taking place. is not taking certainty that place. shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. cation There are no primary shark species. e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review There is a regular There is a post of the potential review of the biennial review of effectiveness and potential the potential practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative practicality of practicality of measures to alternative alternative minimise UoA- measures to measures to related mortality minimise UoA- minimise UoA- of unwanted related mortality related mortality catch of main of unwanted of unwanted primary species. catch of main catch of all primary species primary species, and they are and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. cation There is no unwanted catch. All yellowfin tuna (the only main, primary species) are retained. Consistent with GSA3.5.3, this scoring issue is not scored.  For IOTC Resolutions see: http://www.iotc.org/cmms References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 si(a):100; si(b): 80; si(c): 80; si(d): N/R; si(e):N/R CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 94

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

OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to Qualitative score PI 2.1.1 for information is the UoA: adeqaute to Some estimate quantitative productivity and information is susceptibility adequate to attributes for assess main primary productivity and species. susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The yellowfin stock assessment is summarised in IOTC (2016ab). The cation assessment was last updated in 2016, following a new assessment in 2015. The 2016 update used new information (catches and CPUE) and is the best available means of estimating stock status. It is informed by multiple data sources, including from the UoA.

The impact of the UoA on main primary species (yellowfin) status depends on the quality of UoA yellowfin statistics and on the quantum of UoA catch relative to total catches.

UoA removals of yellowfin since 2011 have been of the order of 15,000 t per year against total removals approaching 400,000 t (i.e., circa 0.04%). There is thus a high degree of certainty that the impact of the UoA on the yellowfin stock status is minimal.

Yellowfin data collection is the same as for skipjack. The same considerations apply as at PI1.2.3.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 95

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species during the site visit that this has not been adhered to fully, with many still retained by atoll councils or vessel owners. Nevertheless, logbook returns are excellent with skippers filling in logbooks for return regularly and reconciliation between returns and purchase records from factories being good. In addition, a mix of on-board, shore-based, and fishery field officers (8 in total) provides good oversight on the quality and veracity of data collection as well as bolstering the size data collection programme. Since 2014, the Maldives has reported catch and effort data by gear and species by 0.5 x 0.5 geographic grid. This has been done since 2014 (IOTC-2014-SC17, para 21). IOTC (2016d) summarises the standing of a range of data and statistics received by the IOTC Secretariat for yellowfin tuna, in accordance with IOTC Resolution 15/02. No issues are noted for Maldives Pole and Line as affects yellowfin data. Overall, the Maldives yellowfin statistics are regarded as high quality, quantitative data – being precise, verifiable, unbiased, continuous, and comprehensive (SA3.6.3.2).

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some post quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justifi Bigeye catches in the UoA are very small, with just 184 t caught in 2015 cation (0.04% of UoA catch and 0.000002% of the total catch). Data collected on bigeye are as for skipjack and yellowfin and there is no reason to think there are any serious biases. The quantitative information is more than adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on bigeye stock status as trivial.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 96

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is no strategy required for bigeye. While primary by definition, the cation catch is negligible (insignificant relative to total catch).

For yellowfin, the strategy is aimed at ensuring catches are limited as laid out in Res 16/01. The strategy in place uses indirect means to limit yellowfin catches but depends, ultimately, on the continuity and veracity of UoA data collection to allow catch monitoring. The arrangements included at PI2.1.2a include in-season catch monitoring with the potential to trigger measures in the second half of the year, if necessary. The catch recording system in place (see si(a)) is adequate for this purpose and can support a high degree of certainty that UoA catch limits will be managed.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are met.

References • IOTC (2016d) REVIEW OF THE STATISTICAL DATA AND FISHERY TRENDS FOR TROPICAL TUNAS IOTC–2016–WPTT18–07 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):100; si(b) 100; 100 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 97

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary Main secondary There is a high post species are likely species are degree of to be within highly likely to be certainty that biologically based above biologically main secondary limits. based limits species are within biologically based limits. OR OR

If below If below biologically based biologically based limits, there are limits, there is measures in either evidence place expected to of recovery or a ensure that the demonstrably UoA does not effective partial hinder recovery strategy in place and rebuilding. such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? 66 from RBF N N Justifi In addition to the target species, and primary species identified at cation PI2.1.1a, a large number secondary species (following SA3.1.4) is caught by the UoA. None have sufficient information to allow use of the default assessment tree and the RBF is used for scoring at this PI.

Catches are either during pole and line operations (frigate tuna (Auxis thazard), kawakawa (Euthynnus affinus), rainbow runner (Elagatis

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 98

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. bipinnulata), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), round scad (Decapterus), garfish (Belone belone), oceanic trigger fish (Canthidermis maculata), jacks/trevallies (spp)), or during bait fishing (silver sprat (Spratelloides gracilis), blue sprat (Spratelloides delicatulus), anchovy (Enchrasicholina heteroloba), fusiliers (Caesionidae spp), cardinal fishes (Apogonidae spp)). Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) are also caught but are considered under ETP (PI2.3.x) Of the species caught in pole and line operations, kawakawa may approach 1% of the UoA catch, with other species at lesser percentages. None are treated as main (SA3.7.1 and SA3.4.2).

Jauharee et al (2015) review the Maldives livebait fishery, including using new information from logbook schemes introduced in 2010 to collect information on the types and quantity of bait caught. The review provides insight in to the variability of catches by region and species, and attempts to look at trends by species and region. It does not provide definitive annual catch statistics by species but suggests the total catch weight of bait in 2014 was approximately 10,063 tonnes. This compares to previous estimates from multiple sources (cited in Jauharee et al) of 3,000-3,500 (1978-1981); 5,100+/-2,800 (1985-1987); and 11,100+/- 2,800 (1993). The review also estimates a tuna:livebait weight ratio of 11.8:1.0 in 2014. This compares to previous estimates from multiple sources at different times of 7.3-10.6:1 (Anderson, 1997) or 7.4-10.0 (Anderson, 2009 cited in IPNLF, 2012). The review also suggests the major livebait species, silver sprat, may comprise 49% of the total catch. This compares to earlier estimates (Anderson, 1997) of circa 38%. Overall, despite efforts to quantify annual catches by species by year to ascertain percentages of the UoA catch, this did to prove possible. However, from all statistics it is clear that silver sprat is the major livebait species, with blue sprat secondary. To estimate the silver sprat as a percentage of the UoA catch, we simply divide the proportion of silver sprat:livebait by the ratio of (tuna:livebait-1) to give the ratio of silver sprat to the total tuna plus livebait catch. The estimated percentages range from 3.5-7.7%.

We adopt a precautionary approach and treat silver sprat as a main species. Blue sprat is not regarded as a main species. Following PF4.1.4, we only consider a PSA for the single, identified main species – silver sprat.

The PSA workings for silver sprat are shown in appendix 1. During the site visit, stakeholder consultation and information gathering took place to enable the PSA. PSA were also conducted on blue sprat, anchovy, and rainbow runner. However, as PF4.1.4 is being followed, only the silver sprat PSA is shown in Appendix 1.

The derived PSA score is 82. As only the one main species is considered, the final PI score is capped at 80 (PF5.3.2). b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 99

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based PI 2.2.1 limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit.

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? N (Not scored) Justifi Following PF4.1.4, only main species are scored. Minor secondary species cation are not considered.

 Anderson R.C. (1997) The Maldivian tuna livebait fishery - status and trends. Pp.69-92. In: D.J.Nickerson and M.H.Maniku (eds) Report and Proceedings of the Maldives / FAO National Workshop on Integrated Reef Resources Management in the Maldives, Malé, March 1996. OBP/REP/76: 312pp. References  IPNLF (2012). Ensuring Sustainability of Livebait Fish, International Pole- and-line Foundation,London, 57 pages  Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole-and- line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):82; si(b): - 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 100

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are There is a partial There is a strategy in post measures in strategy in place, place for the UoA for place, if if necessary, for managing main and necessary, which the UoA that is minor secondary species. are expected to expected to maintain or not maintain or not hinder rebuilding hinder rebuilding of main of main secondary secondary species at/to species at/to levels which are levels which are highly likely to be highly likely to be within biologically within biologically based limits or to based limits or to ensure that the ensure that the UoA does not UoA does not hinder their hinder their recovery. recovery. Met? Y Y N Justifi Silver sprat is the single, main secondary species. All livebait fishing, cation however, including minor species, is covered by the Maldives Live Bait Management Plan (Gillett et al, 2013) and is considered in the review by Jauharee et al (2015).

There is no indication that silver sprat or any other live bait species is below biologically based limits or that current fishing practices might cause any to be so. The Live Bait Management Plan does note concerns about occasional bait fishing difficulties, especially in the southern atolls, but all the bait species are short-lived and highly productive and there is no major concern about falling to unproductive levels.

The first objective is most relevant to scoring at this si. A number of strategies and options for specific interventions are included for meeting the objective. The range of measures, arrangements, and activities included in the plan are all aimed at ensuring a continued protection of the baitfish resources, whether main or minor in MSC consideration. Ongoing use of logbooks and research (Jauharee et al, 2015) provides a basis for monitoring the effectiveness of the plan.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 101

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. and reactive interventions if catch rate declines are evident (including expansion of exclusion zones, restricting the use of lights or net size, and temporary closures).

SG60 requirements are met. SG80 requirements are met.

The UoA consists of both pole and line and bait fishing operations. For baitfisheries, SG100 requirements are met for all species. Minor secondary species, however, are also caught in pole and line operations. These include frigate tuna and kawakawa which are managed by the IOTC. Both are reported on the SC with the opportunity annually for the Commission to agree Resolutions impacting management. UoA catches of frigate tuna have declined from 2011 through 2015 from close to 1,400 tonnes to 100 tonnes. The annual IOTC catch is close to 100,000 tonnes. There is no specific strategy in place for the UoA but none is required. UoA catches of kawakawa have also declined in the same period from 18,00 tonnes to under 200 tonnes. The annual IOTC catch is close to 160,000 tonnes. Kawakawa is assessed using a catch-only model currently to be approaching SBmsy, with advice from the SC to reduce catches (IOTC, 2016b). It is not clear if there is a need for a specific UoA strategy for kawakawa. Other minor species are caught in lesser numbers and are unassessed; it is unclear is any UoA-specific strategies are required.

Overall, SG100 requirements are not met for the UoA pole and line operations with respect to minor species.

SG100 requirements are not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures There is some Testing supports post are considered objective basis high confidence likely to work, for confidence that the partial based on that the strategy/strategy plausible measures/partial will work, based argument (e.g. strategy will on information general work, based on directly about the experience, some information UoA and/or theory or directly about the species involved. comparison with UoA and/or similar species involved. UoAs/species). Met? Y Y N Justifi There is a good track record in the Maldives of communication with and cation encouragement of fishers and much of the Live Bait Management Plan requires such arrangements. Work on the (ideal) Concept Vessel, annual ‘Fishermens Days’ and atoll-based outreach, together with work with JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) on improved bait handling, are all positive steps.

Bait fisheries are already protected substantially by closures of multiple types (around resorts to 1,000m, around designated dive sites, by numerous MPAs. There is already good adherence to closures and any

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 102

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. extensions under the management plan (e.g. from 1,000 to 1,500m around resorts, if required, are fully expected also to be adhered to.

For bait fisheries, Jauharee et al (2015) demonstrates already an ability for the Maldives to monitor bait fisheries and to detect trends to which the management plan has specified a set of intervention options.

Table GSA3 outlines the definitions of measures, partial strategy, strategy, and comprehensive strategy. The Live Bait Management Plan includes a range of measures, some of which are directly aimed at managing the live bait fishery and some of which are aimed primarily at other conservation goals (MPAs) or supporting tourism (closures around resorts and dive areas). A mix of measures and partial strategies are in operation. The arrangements are also both legislated/regulatory and voluntary, relying on communication and encouragement. Some elements of strategy re therefore present. With ongoing monitoring to determine trends by live bait species by region, there are also a key component of a comprehensive strategy for live bait species. However, no testing, as such, has been undertaken.

Overall, for main species (silver sprat in the bait fishery) the SG60 requirements are met. As are the SG80 requirements.

There are not clear strategies for main and minor species in both bait and pole and line fishing operations (see si(a)). Even for bait fishing, however, for which a strategy does exist, testing has yet to demonstrate its efficacy.

The SG100 requirements are not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post evidence that the evidence that the measures/partial partial strategy is being strategy/strategy implemented is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) N Justifi The Maldives Live Bait Management Plan was completed in 2013. One cation specific intervention was the instigation of an improved monitoring regime focused on capturing trends in catch per haul at the atoll level and an annual analysis of the data. Jauharee et al (2015) is evidence of the strategy already being implemented successfully, being a critical part of meeting the first objective of the plan (Protection of Baitfish Resources). To date, other interventions have not been necessary.

Jauharee et al is taken as some evidence; the SG80 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 103

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. As yet, full annual analyses and reporting has not been demonstrated and there is not clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy for baitfish is being implemented successfully. Also, there is no explicit strategy for secondary species caught in pole and line operations.

The SG100 requirements are not met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that It is highly likely There is a high post shark finning is that shark finning degree of not taking place. is not taking certainty that place. shark finning is not taking place. Met? (Y/N/Not (Y/N/Not (Y/N/Not relevant) Y relevant) Y relevant) N Justifi Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) is the only recorded shark species cation with annual catches varying circa 10t and comprising about 0.01% of the UoA catch. The export of all shark products from the Maldives was banned in 2010 and there is little local demand for shark products. Because all shark fishing and trade in products is banned in the Maldives, silky shark are considered under ETP. However, for completeness, according to Miller et al (2016), based on at-sea observations, most silky shark are released alive from pole and line operations, with a low number of dead shark discarded at sea. While there has been a recent report of illegal shark fins in the Maldives (http://maldivesindependent.com/environment/police-to-investigate- illegal-shark-finning-at-kulhudhuffushi-126477; see also IOTC, 2016x) it is highly unlikely fins in such numbers, and from the north of the Maldives, are associated with pole and line fishing. Overall, it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

The recent reports of illegal shark fins are unlikely to be associated with pole and line fishing. Nevertheless, some doubts are raised and it is concluded a high degree of certainty cannot be assigned.

The SG100 requirements are not met. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular There is a cation potential effectiveness review of the biennial review of and practicality of potential the potential alternative measures to effectiveness and effectiveness and minimise UoA-related practicality of practicality of mortality of unwanted alternative alternative catch of main secondary measures to measures to species. minimise UoA- minimise UoA- related mortality related mortality of unwanted of unwanted catch of main catch of all secondary secondary species and they species, and they are implemented are implemented, as appropriate. as appropriate.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 104

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Met? (Y/N/Not (Y/N/Not (Y/N/Not relevant) NR relevant) NR relevant) NR Guide There are no unwanted catches of the main secondary species (silver post sprat).

Minor secondary species are caught in small numbers in pole and line operations abut are regarded as small and unavoidable. All species are retained. There are no unwanted minor bait species.  Gillett, R., A.R.Jauharee, and M.S. Adam (2013) Maldives Live Bait Fishery Management Plan 2013  IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R  IOTC (2016x) IOTC–2016–WPEB12–R[E] Report of the 12th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch References Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole-and- line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages  Miller KI, Jauharee AR, Nadheeh I, and Adam MS (2016). Interactions with Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) Species in the Maldivian Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery. IPNLF and MRC,July 2016. 28 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 si(a): 80; si(b):80; si(c):80; di(d): 80; si(e): NR CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 105

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative post adequate to estimate information is available information is the impact of the UoA on and adequate to available and the main secondary assess the impact of the adequate to species with respect to UoA on main secondary assess with a status. species with respect to high degree of status. certainty the OR impact of the OR UoA on main If RBF is used to score secondary PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score species with PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: respect to status. Qualitative Some information is quantitative adequate to information is estimate adequate to productivity and assess susceptibility productivity and attributes for susceptibility main secondary attributes for species. main secondary species. Met? Y Y N Justifi cation All live bait species, including the one main secondary species (silver sprat) have been monitored since 2010 using logbooks. Logbook returns have been improving with analyses possible on data since 2011 (Jauharee et al, 2015), though there are still some missing records. The logbook data has allowed a quantitative analysis of catch rates by region, by year and month, sufficient to determine trends, but not status. The RBF is used. Only the main species, silver sprat is scored (PF4.1.4).

PSA-related information is available from multiple sources but is primarily sourced through Fishbase.org ((http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides- gracilis.html)), see Appendix RBF. Most, but not all, Productivity attributes have some quantitative information available.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

While the impact of the UoA on silver sprat status can be generally inferred from the quantitative information available, there is not a high degree of certainty as to silver sprat status.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 106

Met? Y Justifi Minor bait fish species are monitored in the same way as silver sprat cation (see si(a)) and some quantitative information is available to assess the impact of the UoA on their status.

Minor species caught in the pole and line operations are all caught as very low levels, as recorded through logbooks (see PI1.2.3) and also some at-sea observation (Miller et al, 2016). The recorded catches are regarded as reasonably accurate and adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on all secondary species stock status as negligible.

The SG100 requirements are met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is Information is Information is post adequate to adequate to adequate to support support a partial support a measures to strategy to strategy to manage main manage main manage all secondary secondary secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y Justifi The partial strategy for the one, main secondary species (silver sprat) is cation outlined at PI2.2.2. The information required to support that partial strategy is collected through the logbook system reported by Jauharee et al (2015), itself a component of the Live Bait Fishery Management Plan (see PI2.2.2 si(a,b)) and used as evidence of implementation of the plan (see PI2.2.2 si(c)).

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

All bait fish, both main and minor, are monitored in the same way and information is adequate to support the bait fish management strategy, and evaluate whether the strategy is meeting its multiple objectives laid out in the Live Bait Fishery Management Plan. There is no clear strategy for secondary species caught in pole and line operations but none is deemed necessary given the very low catches relative to UoA size or stock sizes of those species.

The SG100 requirements are met.  Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole- References and-line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 107

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species.  Miller KI, Jauharee AR, Nadheeh I, and Adam MS (2016). Interactions with Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) Species in the Maldivian Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery. IPNLF and MRC, July 2016. 28 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):80; si(b):100; si(c): 100 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 108

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national Where national Where national post and/or and/or and/or international international international requirements set requirements set requirements set limits for ETP limits for ETP limits for ETP species, the species, the species, there is effects of the combined effects a high degree of UoA on the of the MSC UoAs certainty that the population/stock on the combined effects are known and population/stock of the MSC UoAs likely to be within are known and are within these these limits. highly likely to be limits. within these limits. Met? (Y/N/Not (Y/N/Not (Y/N/Not relevant) NR relevant) NR relevant) NR Justifi Not relevant. There are no national or international limits set for any ETP cation species caught by the UoA.

b Direct effects Guide Known direct Known direct There is a high post effects of the effects of the degree of UoA are likely to UoA are highly confidence that not hinder likely to not there are no recovery of ETP hinder recovery significant species. of ETP species. detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? (Y/N) Y (Y/N) Y (Y/N) N Justifi Data on ETP interactions in pole and line operations are available from cation fishery logbooks, required reporting of any interactions, at-sea observers, and structured questionnaires (see PI2.3.3). Miller et al (2016) report on interactions with ETP in the UoA, based on 106 at-sea observer trips as well as from logbook and other information. The UoA pole and line fishing does not capture any turtle or marine mammal species and has limited interactions with two seabird species (lesser noddy (Anous tenuirostris) and brown noddy (Anous stolidus)) and juvenile silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis).

Seabirds very rarely get tangled with lines and are reportedly always released alive. Logbook reports of both noddy species are very low. Both seabird ETP species are classified as of least concern in IUCN listings (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22694805/0, http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22694794/0), and with very few interactions and reportedly all birds released unharmed, there is a high degree of confidence that there are no detrimental direct impacts of the UoA.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 109

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species For seabirds, SG60, 80, and 100 requirements are met.

Silky sharks are classified by IUCN as near threatened (http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39370/0). IOTC (2016b) reports on the status of silky sharks, including on an ecological risk assessment. That risk assessment suggested silky sharks, being relatively long-lived and with low productivity, rated near the top of risk levels in purse seine and longline fisheries, but does not suggest a high risk factor for pole and line fisheries. The IOTC does not estimate stock status nor sustainable catch levels. However, reported catches in the IOTC area average circa 3,700t. The UoA catches are of the order of 10t per year, with the majority released alive (Miller et al, 2016) from brief encounters on barbless hooks and high expectation of survival. Given the low level of UoA catches relative to total Indian Ocean catches, it is probable the UoA direct effects will not hinder recovery. With no stock assessment, it is not possible to state this with a high degree of confidence but it is concluded that it is highly likely.

For silky sharks, SG60 and SG80 requirements are met, but not SG100.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are not met. c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects There is a high post have been degree of considered and confidence that are thought to be there are no highly likely to significant not create detrimental unacceptable indirect effects of impacts. the fishery on ETP species. Met? Y Y Justifi Given the very low level of interactions with ETP species potential indirect cation effects on species (population level) are considered to be negligible (see, e.g., Miller et al, 2016). There is a high degree of confidence that the fishery (UoA in this case) does not cause any significant detrimental indirect effects on any of the ETP species.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 110

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the PI 2.3.1 protection of ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species

The SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are met. • IOTC (2016b) Report of the 19th Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee IOTC-2016-SC19-R References • Miller KI, Jauharee AR, Nadheeh I, and Adam MS (2016). Interactions with Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) Species in the Maldivian Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery. IPNLF and MRC, July 2016. 28 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a): NR; si(b): 80; si(c): 100 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 111

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

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guide There are There is a There is a post measures in strategy in place comprehensive place that for managing the strategy in place minimise the UoA’s impact on for managing the UoA-related ETP species, UoA’s impact on mortality of ETP including ETP species, species, and are measures to including expected to be minimise measures to highly likely to mortality, which minimise achieve national is designed to be mortality, which and international highly likely to is designed to requirements for achieve national achieve above the protection of and international national and ETP species. requirements for international the protection of requirements for ETP species. the protection of ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi As outlined by Miller et al (2016): i) All seabird species in the Maldives cation are protected under the Environment Protection and Preservation Act 4/93; ii) Sea turtles have been protected in the Maldives since 1995 (Directive No: FA-G/29/2005/07); and iii) Marine mammals have been protected in the Maldives since 1993. As noted in the Maldives NPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks (IOTC, 2015), all shark fishing and trade in shark products has been banned since 2010.

As outlined at PI2.3.1, only two seabird and one shark species are regarded as ETP in the UoA. As all are protected under Maldives national legislation, consistent with 3.11.2.1, si(a) is scored while si(b) is not.

Seabirds: There is not considered to be a problem to manage. In reporting to the IOTC on the status of development and implementation of NPOA for sharks and seabirds (http://iotc.org/science/table- progress-implementing-npoa-sharks-npoa-seabirds-and-fao- guidelines-reduce-sea-turtle-mortality), the Maldives clearly states that seabirds are not an issue in the Maldives fisheries, both in the pole- and-line fishery and in the longline fishery. This is consistent with scoring at PI2.3.1 si(b,c). No strategy is required for seabirds (to achieve international and national requirements) other than the existing, continuous monitoring.

Silky shark: As for seabirds, even though some silky shark are discarded dead and the species is classified as near threatened, pole and line interactions are low and not considered detrimental direct or indirect impacts (see PI2.3.1 si(b,c)). Beyond measures in the NPOA for sharks in general, and continued monitoring of pole and line fisheries with potential to respond using measures outlined in the NPOA should any need become evident, no further strategy is required.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 112

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

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

Table SA8 defines a comprehensive strategy (for ETP components) as a complete and tested strategy made up of linked monitoring, analyses, and management measures and responses. The monitoring through logbooks and at-sea observers is still relatively recent and analyses have been limited (e.g., Miller et al, 2015). Overall, it is not possible to conclude that the strategy has been tested.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are There is a There is a post measures in strategy in place comprehensive place that are that is expected strategy in place expected to to ensure the for managing ETP ensure the UoA UoA does not species, to does not hinder hinder the ensure the UoA the recovery of recovery of ETP does not hinder ETP species. species. the recovery of ETP species Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant (see si(a)). Not scored. cation c Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures There is an The post are considered objective basis strategy/compre likely to work, for confidence hensive strategy based on that the is mainly based plausible measures/strateg on information argument (e.g., y will work, directly about the general based on fishery and/or experience, information species involved, theory or directly about the and a comparison with fishery and/or quantitative similar the species analysis supports fisheries/species) involved. high confidence . that the strategy will work. Met? Y Y N Justifi There is a good track record in the Maldives of communication with and cation encouragement of fishers and much of the strategy for ETP species relies on this approach. As noted at PI2.2.2 si(b), this is a strong basis for confidence.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 113

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

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species.

Table GSA3 outlines the definitions of measures, partial strategy, strategy, and comprehensive strategy, though the latter is altered for ETP at SA8. The arrangements in place rely on general seabird and shark protection through national bans, and on the negligible impacts on ETP in the UoA. The nature of the fishery is the primary protection and there is no reason, objectively, to expect any change in fishery operation that might lead to increased interactions with ETP species. Ongoing monitoring provides the key, objective basis for confidence that the measures/strategy will work.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

There is not a comprehensive strategy as defined in SA8, though a sufficient de facto strategy exists. That strategy is based on information and understanding of the fishery (same as UoA) and species concerned and relies on information for monitoring. While there is management advice on silky sharks provided through the IOTC SC. And risk assessment, these are qualitative rather than quantitative.

The SG100 requirements are not met. d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post evidence that the evidence that the measures/strateg strategy/compre y is being hensive strategy implemented is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y Y Justifi As outlined at si(a), the strategy in place for all ETP in the UoA is to cation maintain fishing operations, existing education (e.g. ETP Interactions Guide, 2015, in Dhivevi) and communication, recording through logbooks and at-sea observers, participating in relevant IOTC work on silky sharks, etc.

Evidence that the strategy is being successfully implemented is through continued collection of data, analysis and reporting (Miller et al, 2016), including considerations of current impacts and measures. Clear evidence of continued successful implementation can also be seen through the lack of reported change in annual catches of ETP species; figures provided during assessment on silky shark, for example, suggest annual catches varying circa 10t, with no trend, and comprising about 0.01% of the UoA catch (see also PI2.2.2 si(d). Reported catches on seabirds (both noddy species) are too low to detect trends. The SG80 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 114

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

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. The SG100 requirements are met. e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review There is a regular There is a post of the potential review of the biennial review of effectiveness and potential the potential practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative practicality of practicality of measures to alternative alternative minimise UoA- measures to measures to related mortality minimise UoA- minimise UoA- of ETP species. related mortality related mortality of ETP species ETP species, and and they are they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not scored cation Bycatch of ETP is described in Miller et al (2015) and guidance on ETP interactions and protocols is provided to fishermen through factsheets in Dhivevi (see PI2.3.2 si(a)). Miller notes the very low (negligible or zero) mortality on seabirds and the high survival of juvenile silky sharks due to the strength of line, short time on deck, flick off method, and barbless hooks – but notes this warrants further study. Given the negligible amount of related mortality of ETP seabird species and effectively non-existent population level impact, there is no need to score this si for those species (GSA3.5.3). For silky shark, while there are non-zero related mortalities of individuals, the impact of related mortality at the population level is also likely negligible (Miller et al, 2015). Again, using GSA3.5.3, the si is not scored.  IOTC (2015) Maldives NPOA for the Conservation and Management of Sharks IOTC-2015-WPEB11-INF12 References • Miller KI, Jauharee AR, Nadheeh I, and Adam MS (2016). Interactions with Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) Species in the Maldivian Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery. IPNLF and MRC, July 2016. 28 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 si(a): 80; si(b): NR, si(c): 80; si(d):100; si(e): NR CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 115

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Qualitative Some Quantitative post information is quantitative information is adequate to information is available to estimate the UoA adequate to assess with a related mortality assess the UoA high degree of on ETP species. related mortality certainty the and impact and magnitude of to determine UoA-related OR whether the UoA impacts, may be a threat mortalities and If RBF is used to to protection and injuries and the score PI 2.3.1 for recovery of the consequences for the UoA: ETP species. the status of ETP species. Qualitative OR information is adequate to If RBF is used to estimate score PI 2.3.1 for productivity and the UoA: susceptibility attributes for ETP Some species. quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi Two reports have been published showing analyses and results of ETP cation interactions with i) the pole and line fishery (Miller et al, 2015); and ii) the livebait fishery (Jauharee et al, 2015). In both fisheries, fisheries logbook data have been analysed, plus data collected by fisheries observers.

For both fisheries, based either on fisheries logbooks or observers, quantitative information exist, few interactions were recorded or observed and both studies concluded that direct and indirect effects of fishing at i) the individual level, are likely to be low, very low, or negligible; and ii) at the population level, to be negligible or none existent.

The requirement at this scoring issue is that information be adequate (SG60/80) to measure UoA related mortality and impact or to assess with a high degree of certainty (SG100).

In this case, with all evidence suggesting very low UoA-related mortalities relative to ETP stock levels and other removals (see PI2.3.1), there is a high degree of certainty that the UoA has negligible consequences for ETP species status.

The SG60 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 116

Relevant information is collected to support the management of UoA impacts on ETP species, including: PI 2.3.3  Information for the development of the management strategy;  Information to assess the effectiveness of the management strategy; and  Information to determine the outcome status of ETP species. The SG80 requirements are met.

However, this SG goes beyond status determination requiring also quantitative information on individual impacts (injury). This information is not available.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is Information is Information is post adequate to adequate to adequate to support measure trends support a measures to and support a comprehensive manage the strategy to strategy to impacts on ETP manage impacts manage impacts, species. on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi Two reports have been published showing analyses and results of ETP cation interactions with i) the pole and line fishery (Miller et al, 2015); and ii) the livebait fishery (Jauharee et al, 2015). In both fisheries, fisheries logbook data have been analysed, plus data collected by fisheries observers. For both fisheries, based either on fisheries logbooks or observers, few interactions were recorded or observed and both studies concluded that direct and indirect effects of fishing at i) the individual level, are likely to be low, very low, or negligible; and ii) at the population level, to be negligible or none existent. The requirement at this scoring issue is that information be adequate to measure trends as a basis for supporting a strategy/comprehensive strategy ETP. Trend measurement requires ongoing data collection at sufficient intensity and frequency to determine changes, usually with statistical rigour. Formally, low frequency events (such as ETP fatalities in the pole and line or bait fisheries) require more intense sampling if trends are to be measured to a given significance level, yet prioritisation and funding of such sampling is difficult if the risks are in fact low. Interpretation of what is adequate therefore needs to be reasonable. In this case, with all evidence suggesting negligible or non-existent threats at the ETP population level, ongoing sampling simply to monitor what is happening is adequate to inform the strategy.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

There is not a comprehensive strategy as defined in SA8, though a sufficient de facto strategy exists. However, this SG goes beyond trend

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 117

The SG100 requirements are not met.  Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole-and- line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages References  Miller KI, Jauharee AR, Nadheeh I, and Adam MS (2016). Interactions with Endangered, Threatened, and Protected (ETP) Species in the Maldivian Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery. IPNLF and MRC, July 2016. 28 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):80; si(b):80 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 118

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is The UoA is highly There is evidence post unlikely to unlikely to that the UoA is reduce structure reduce structure highly unlikely to and function of and function of reduce structure the commonly the commonly and function of encountered encountered the commonly habitats to a habitats to a encountered point where point where habitats to a there would be there would be point where serious or serious or there would be irreversible irreversible serious or harm. harm. irreversible harm. Met? 99 (RBF) 99 (RBF) 99 (RBF) Justifi There is insufficient information to allow use of the default assessment cation tree and the RBF is used for scoring at this PI.

During the site visit, stakeholder consultation and information gathering took place to enable the CSA as part of a wider RBF process. Discussions were lively with good input. Where possible, quantitative rationales were encouraged by the team. Stakeholders assisted positively in all scoring (PF7.2.1). Scoring is by the team (PF7.2.2), though consensus was readily reached in all cases.

Habitat definition:

Pole and line fishing takes place in the surface layers of oceanic waters and is deemed to have no contact with or impact on habitats. Bait fishing takes place within atoll-lagoons (Jauharee et al, 2015) and the atoll- lagoon non-reef habitat was identified by consensus during the stakeholder meeting as the single, and therefore main, habitat type. The team did not have reason to depart from this expert judgement.

The habitat was identified using Table PF9 as Fine, Flat and Small Erect, and the biome using Table PF10 as shelf, inner shelf, sediment plains. The meeting agreed all classifications by consensus and the team agreed with all. Using the classification, scores from Tables PF12 and PF13 were agreed.

The CSA scores and rationales are shown in Appendix 1.2.3.

The derived CSA score is 99. PF7.1.5.1 and PF7.6.4 are noted. In this case, one, main habitat has been scored but it is the single habitat defined. Therefore, the derived CSA score is taken without adjustment.

VME habitat status

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 119

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the PI 2.4.1 governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. b Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence post reduce structure and unlikely to that the UoA is function of the VME reduce structure highly unlikely to habitats to a point where and function of reduce structure there would be serious or the VME habitats and function of irreversible harm. to a point where the VME habitats there would be to a point where serious or there would be irreversible serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi RBF used at PI2.4.1. No VMEs identified. cation

c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? (Y/N) NR Justifi RBF used at PI2.4.1. No minor identified One main habitat only). cation Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole-and- References line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: RBF (CSA) used, one habitat only 99 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 120

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are There is a partial There is a post measures in strategy in place, strategy in place place, if if necessary, that for managing the necessary, that is expected to impact of all MSC are expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC achieve the Habitat Outcome fisheries on Habitat Outcome 80 level of habitats. 80 level of performance or performance. above. Met? Y Y N Justifi The UoA pole and line operations take place entirely at the surface in deep, cation oceanic waters. The fishery does not contact the seabed and any pelagic habitat impacts will be imperceptible and highly transient. No additional measures are required to achieve the habitat outcome SG80 level. This meets the SG60 requirements. An additional partial strategy is also unnecessary to achieve the habitat outcome 80 level of performance. This meets the SG80 requirements. Overall, the operational features of the pole and line operations can be considered to constitute an operational strategy for managing the impact of the fishery on habitat types, meeting SG100 requirements.

For bait fishing by the UoA vessels, the operations take place within the atoll- lagoons and in line with the Maldives Live Bait Fishery Management Plan (Gillett et al, 2013). The plan is aimed primarily at protection of bait fish resources but also includes objectives related to reduction of negative impacts on the ecosystem and physical environment. The measures included relate mainly to avoiding any coral reef damage, which should in any case be avoided during normal bait fishing operations. So long as fishers continue to comply with existing restrictions which amount to some 20% of potential bait fishing habitat, and the only habitat impacting activity is anchoring with a spatial overlap of the order of 0.001% (see appendix 1, CSA), existing measures in place through regulation and customary practice, and the management plan, constitute an effective strategy as defined at Table GSA3.

While it is debatable that measures or a partial strategy are necessary for the bait fishery, SG60 and SG 80 requirements are met.

For the UoA, SG100 requirements are met. However, no consideration has been given to any potential impacts on atoll-lagoon habitats by any non-MSC fisheries operating in the area, either catching fish for bait or for local consumption.

The SG100 requirements are not met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures There is some Testing supports post are considered objective basis high confidence likely to work, for confidence that the partial based on that the strategy/strategy plausible measures/partial will work, based argument (e.g. strategy will on information general work, based on directly about the experience, information UoA and/or theory or directly about the habitats comparison with UoA and/or involved. similar habitats UoAs/habitats). involved.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 121

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The spatial overlap with the bait fishery and atoll-lagoon (non-reef) cation habitat is very small (0.0001%), being caused by a known number of vessels and fishing events and with knowledge about the interaction (anchoring using 1.3m anchors on an enumerated extent of sandy bottom).

Scoring depends on definitions given in Table GSA3, with SG80 and SG100 taking account of the scale and intensity of the UoA.

Given the scale and intensity of the UoA (see also appendix 1), and following the Table GSA3 definition of an objective basis for confidence, the mixture of data (on extent of habitat) and systematically collected data expert knowledge (on fishing operations), SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.

At SG100, a systematic monitoring or research system is required for either or both the operation and habitats. There is no systematic monitoring of the habitat type across its range, but the UoA bait operations are monitored (Jauharee et al, 2015). Testing is defined by MSC and it may include empirical testing (for example practical experience of performance or evidence of past performance). For practical purposes, given the long history of bait fishing within the Maldives’ atoll-lagoons using anchored vessels, testing can be said to have taken place.

The SG100 requirements are met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative quantitative evidence that the evidence that the measures/partial partial strategy is being strategy/strategy implemented is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi Bait fishing has bene monitored through logbooks since 2010 (Jauharee cation et al, 2015) and has continued unabated for centuries with no known impact on the habitat type – the sandy bottoms of the atoll-lagoons. The intensity of bait fishing has remained reasonably constant for many years, though with reductions in pole and line catch in recent years may be at a slightly lower level.

To meet scoring issue (a) at SG80, it is debatable that any measures/partial strategy are necessary. Nevertheless, the ongoing bait fishing operations are monitored and that there is quantitative evidence of their activities.

The SG80 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 122

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not PI 2.4.2 pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. There is clear quantitative evidence that the partial strategy/strategy (see si(a)) for bait fishing is being implemented and that any objective related to reducing the structure and function of atoll-lagoon habitat is being achieved. At si(a) SG100, it is also required to achieve the objective for all fisheries, including non-MSC ones. However, as the partial strategy refers at si(a) only to the bait fishery, SG100 requirements are met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is There is some There is clear post qualitative quantitative evidence quantitative evidence evidence that the that the UoA complies that the UoA complies UoA complies with both its with both its with its management management management requirements and with requirements and with requirements to protection measures protection measures protect VMEs. afforded to VMEs by afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Not relevant. There are no VMEs cation • Gillett, R., A.R.Jauharee, and M.S. Adam (2013) Maldives Live Bait Fishery Management Plan 2013 References • Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I.(2015). Maldives tuna Pole-and-line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 si(a): 80; si(b): 100; si(c): 100; si(d): NR CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 123

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guide The types and The nature, The distribution post distribution of distribution and of all habitats is the main habitats vulnerability of known over their are broadly the main habitats range, with understood. in the UoA area particular are known at a attention to the level of detail occurrence of OR relevant to the vulnerable scale and habitats. If CSA is used to intensity of the score PI 2.4.1 for UoA. the UoA: OR Qualitative information is If CSA is used to adequate to score PI 2.4.1 for estimate the the UoA: types and distribution of the main Some habitats. quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y (Y/N) -Not Scored Justifi RBF is used. cation Qualitative information is available from fishers from a long history of fishing across the entire Maldives archipelago, and this is verified and enhanced by regular monitoring of activities through at-sea observers and other research projects. In addition, the dependence of the Maldives economy on tourism related to diving and other activities means there is widespread and regular inspection of many areas.

The SG60 requirements are met.

Some quantitative information is also available from studies such as Naseer and Hatcher (2004), on the extent and types of habitats, with good estimates of atoll areas.

The SG80 requirements are met.

SG100 is not scored. Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 124

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. b Guide Information is adequate Information is adequate The physical post to broadly understand to allow for identification impacts of the the nature of the main of the main impacts of gear on all impacts of gear use on the UoA on the main habitats have the main habitats, habitats, and there is been quantified including spatial overlap reliable information on fully. of habitat with fishing the spatial extent of gear. interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear.

If CSA is used to score OR PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score Qualitative PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: information is adequate to Some estimate the quantitative consequence and information is spatial attributes available and is of the main adequate to habitats. estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y (Y/N) Justifi RBF is used. cation Some consequence attributes follow (given CSA tables) from habitat definitions. These are qualitative but with strong consensus. Qualitative information is available from fishers from a long history of fishing across the entire Maldives archipelago, and this is verified and enhanced by regular monitoring of activities through at-sea observers and other research projects. There is good consensus on consequence attributes.

The SG60 requirements are met.

Some, limited quantitative information is available and used to define spatial overlap. The spatial overlap is very low and though poorly defined is close to zero and well within the CSA scoring boundaries. Encounterability is not defined numerically but again is very clearly high and well beyond the maximum CSA scoring boundary. Given CSA scales/boundaries, information is sufficiently quantitative to make robust assignations.

The SG80 requirements are met.

SG100 is not scored. c Monitoring Guide Adequate Changes in post information habitat continues to be distributions over collected to time are detect any measured.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 125

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by PI 2.4.3 the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. increase in risk to the main habitats. Met? Y N Justifi Habitat types are fixed and Consequence attributes unchangeable unless cation gear type is changed or alternative areas are fished (with a change to habitat definitions). Increase in risk to main habitats can only therefore be through gear type changes or increased spatial impact. The gear type for fishing is not that which is used for scoring as it does not contact habitats. Rather, anchors are considered. Anchoring cannot be increased and is not considered relevant here. The only increase in risk relevant to scoring at SG80 is what might be detected due to increased spatial overlap. All bait fishing has been monitored since 2010 using logbooks (see PI2.2.3). Logbook returns have been improving with analyses possible on data since 2011 (Jauharee et al, 2015), though there are still some missing records. The logbook data include information on where and when fishing takes place and under the assumption that all or a fixed proportion of fishing uses anchors, should be adequate to signal any increased risks to main habitats. It should be noted, however, consistent with si(b), that the spatial overlap is so low compared to CSA scale boundaries that the CSA scoring would likely be insensitive.

The SG80 requirements are met.

There are no ongoing programmes to consider habitat changes over time.

The SG100 requirements are not met.  Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I. (2015). Maldives tuna Pole- and-line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages References  Naseer, A., and B.G.Hatcher (2004) Inventory of the Maldives’coral reefs using morphometrics generated from Landsat ETM+ imagery. Coral Reefs (2004) 23: 161-168 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a):80; si(b):80; si(c): 80 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 126

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements PI 2.5.1 of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is The UoA is highly There is evidence post unlikely to unlikely to that the UoA is disrupt the key disrupt the key highly unlikely to elements elements disrupt the key underlying underlying elements ecosystem ecosystem underlying structure and structure and ecosystem function to a function to a structure and point where point where function to a there would be a there would be a point where serious or serious or there would be a irreversible irreversible serious or harm. harm. irreversible harm. Met? 100 (RBF) 100 (RBF) 100 (RBF) Justifi The RBF is used. cation The pole and line fishery consists of two distinct parts: bait fishing in atoll-reef systems and open ocean pole and line operations. Pole and line operations are limited to surface waters and remove about 15% of total Indian Ocean skipjack (see PI1.2.3) and much smaller percentages of primary and secondary species (see PI2.1.3 and 2.2.3).

At the original assessment in 2012, RBF workshop participants considered that there is limited knowledge of the atoll ecosystem in the Maldives and its dynamics and that it was impossible to separate out the impact of the fishery from other factors (largely oceanographic variables including red tides, current and water temperature). As there is no information available on the condition of the atoll ecosystem prior to the establishment of a significant bait fishery, it is difficult to establish cause and effect. The fishery was not thought to impact reef systems. Some individual elements have been studied, but broader ecosystem studies are still a rarity. Unpublished observations by MRC staff suggest that baitfish abundance remain high, even in atolls with relatively high levels of fishing effort, suggesting that levels of removal by the P&L fishery are relatively small. There are no known impacts on key ecosystem elements (such as reef fish and seabirds). There may be localised impacts.

On the basis of the foregoing, the workshop participants concluded the most significant risk causing activity to the ecosystem was bait collection, with the most relevant SICA subcomponent being species composition. The SICA table, developed using stakeholder input and following PF8.7.4, is shown in Appendix 1.

A Consequence score is 100. No additional material is brought to bear (PF8.8.2.2) and a score of 100 is awarded. See Appendix 1 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a): 100 RBF (SICA) used 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 127

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Management strategy in place Guide There are There is a partial There is a post measures in strategy in place, strategy that place, if if necessary, consists of a necessary which which takes into plan, in place take into account account available which contains the potential information and measures to impacts of the is expected to address all main fishery on key restrain impacts impacts of the elements of the of the UoA on the UoA on the ecosystem. ecosystem so as ecosystem, and to achieve the at least some of Ecosystem these measures Outcome 80 level are in place. of performance. Met? Not scored – not Not scored – not Y necessary necessary Justifi The RBF focuses on bait fisheries. PI2.5.2 and 2.5.3 are therefore cation focused on the bait fisheries.

No measures or partial strategy is necessary. SG60 and SG80a are not scored.

All livebait fishing is covered by the Maldives Live Bait Management Plan (Gillett et al, 2013) and is considered in the review by Jauharee et al (2015).

The plan includes a number of objectives (see alo PI2.2.2), including v) reduction of negative impacts on the ecosystem and physical environment; and vi) reduction of negative impacts on Endangered, Threatened, or Protected species.

While SG60 and SG80 are not scored, the plan would be sufficient to meet allSG60 and SG80 requirements. The main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem are limited, potentially, to removal of ‘too much’ fish,

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 128

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. disrupting trophic relationships and community composition, or possible ETP mortality. Habitat impact is negligible, being very small (see PI2.4.1) and the habitat itself being variable. The plan in place is to maintain the fishery controls as they are but to monitor the fishery and to use a set of pre-defined interventions if required. While the plan does not explicitly refer to ecosystem elements (as at GSA3.18.1), it does implicitly address all impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem components (see also PI2.2.2, 2.3.2, and 2.4.2 and noting SA3.17.3.1 and SA3.17.3.2.)

The SG1060 requirements are met. b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures There is some Testing supports post are considered objective basis high confidence likely to work, for confidence that the partial based on that the strategy/strategy plausible measures/partial will work, based argument (e.g., strategy will on information general work, based on directly about the experience, some information UoA and/or theory or directly about the ecosystem comparison with UoA and/or the involved similar fisheries/ ecosystem ecosystems). involved Met? Y Y Y Justifi The main elements of the lagoon ecosystem are regarded as unimpacted cation by the UoA which has been operating for a long period of time with no apparent detrimental effects. The strategy in place is to maintain current practices but to monitor them and use pre-defined interventions if necessary. The long history of apparent lack of impact s an objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work. (NOTE, as si(a) is not scored at SG60 and SG80, it is arguable that SG60 and SG80 need not be scored at si(b)).

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

The strategy is identified at si(a) SG100. There has been no formal testing but meets the definition at MSC Vocabulary as empirical testing (see also SG60/80 rationale).

The SG100 requirements are met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post evidence that the evidence that the measures/partial partial strategy is being strategy/strategy implemented is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 129

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Justifi See also PI2.2.2c where SG80 is scored for implementation of the cation Baitfish Management Plan but SG100 is not scored because, as yet, full annual analyses and reporting has not been demonstrated and there is not clear evidence that the partial strategy/strategy for baitfish is being implemented successfully. Given the central role of the same plan(Maldives Live Bait Management Plan) for PI2.5.2 scoring, scoring here is kept consistent with that at PI2.2.2c.

The Maldives Live Bait Management Plan was completed in 2013. One specific intervention was the instigation of an improved monitoring regime focused on capturing trends in catch per haul at the atoll level and an annual analysis of the data by Jauharee et al (2015) is evidence of the strategy already being implemented successfully.

Jauharee et al is taken as some evidence; the SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are not met.  Gillett, R., A.R.Jauharee, and M.S. Adam (2013) Maldives Live Bait Fishery Management Plan 2013 References  Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I. (2015). Maldives tuna Pole- and-line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: si(a): 100; si(b): 100; si(c): 80 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 130

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Information quality Guide Information is Information is post adequate to adequate to identify the key broadly elements of the understand the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justifi The RBF focuses on bait fisheries. PI2.5.2 and 2.5.3 are therefore cation focused on the bait fisheries.

In addition, there is a large literature on the Maldives reef systems (see e.g. McClanahan et al, 2000). While the literature does not deal specifically with the lagoons, it covers a wide range of species and ecosystem aspects of the reefs throughout the Maldives.

The SG60 requirements are met. The SG80 requirements are met.

b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of Main impacts of Main interactions post the UoA on these the UoA on these between the UoA key ecosystem key ecosystem and these elements can be elements can be ecosystem inferred from inferred from elements can be existing existing inferred from information, but information, and existing have not been some have been information, and investigated in investigated in have been detail. detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N Justifi Existing information, generally qualitative but with some quantitative cation work on bait fisheries (Jauharee et al, 2015), suggests the bait species are highly variable spatially and temporally, but with no observed changes in species composition (see appendix 1 on RBF) within the bait species. Jauharee et al (2015) note it is possible that collection of bait fish may indirectly affect various marine predators by reducing their food resource but no indirect impacts have been inferred or postulated.

The SG60 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 131

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. Existing information can be used to infer there have been no impacts of bait fisheries on atoll communities, partially meeting the SG80 requirements. There has been no detailed investigation of the lagoon ecology but there has been extensive research conducted on Maldives- wide reef ecology (McClanahan et al, 2000). Studies have suggested healthy ecosystems overall, though with pressures from sea level changes, sewage, and reef fishing for some species. Bait fishing has not been identified as a threat. Given the close linkage between the reefs and sandy lagoon areas, this is considered sufficient for SG80 the requirements of some investigation. The SG80 requirements are met.

There has not been a detailed investigation of the main interactions between bait fisheries and ecosystem elements.

The SG100 requirements are not met.

RECOMMENDATION: Summarise relevant work on ecosystem impacts of bait fisheries, drawing on existing information and identifying areas, if any, that warrant further study. c Understanding of component functions Guide The main The impacts of post functions of the the UoA on P1 components (i.e., target species, P1 target primary, species, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP species and ETP species and Habitats are Habitats) in the identified and the ecosystem are main functions of known. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y Y Justifi Target and primary species are not associated with the atoll lagoon cation ecosystem(s). The secondary species associated with the ecosystem are the multiple bait species as identified. Impacts on ETP and habitat are small or negligible. The bait species are highly productive, low trophic level species which vary spatially and temporally, with changeable species composition. Functionally, they are regarded as interchangeable, linking primary production to higher trophic levels.

The SG80 requirements are met.

The impacts of the UoA on target, primary, secondary, ETP, and habitats are considered at earlier P1 and P2 PI. The UoA has little or no impact, except potentially on bait species as identified using PSA on the dominant species caught. The difference between SG100 and SG80 requirements is only in that the functions of the components be understood as opposed to known. The key component impacted by the UoA is secondary species (bait fish species); the function of the species is understood. The SG100 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 132

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. d Information relevance Guide Adequate Adequate post information is information is available on the available on the impacts of the impacts of the UoA on these UoA on the components to components and allow some of the elements to allow main the main consequences for consequences for the ecosystem to the ecosystem to be inferred. be inferred. Met? Y Y Justifi Ecosystem productivity is not impacted at all by the UoA and other cation ecosystem elements are highly unlikely to be so direct impacts only on the bait species which are highly productive and spatially and temporally variable, and regarded as functionally interchangeable. Indirect effects are also unlikely given the nature of the system. Information on bait species catches and ETP interactions (Jauharee et al, 2015) is adequate to allow inferences to be made about species composition and direct impacts on community composition. There is not comprehensive information on the wider lagoon community but no indirect effects have been observed or postulated in relation to the bait fishery. Productivity is not impacted by the UoA. Biodiversity measurement would not obviously be at the lagoon-only level and would most likely be impacted by climate, shore-based, or reef fish fishing well before any UoA-related effects might occur. Main consequences for the ecosystem can be inferred using available information, which is deemed adequate.

The SG80 requirements are met. The SG100 requirements are met.

e Monitoring Guide Adequate data Information is post continue to be adequate to collected to support the detect any development of increase in risk strategies to level. manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justifi Jauharee et al (2015) describe the bait fishery logbooks and observer cation coverage. The work is ongoing and is adequate to detect any increase in risk though the bait fishery, either by increased volumes of removals, trend sin species composition or local depletion, or increases in catch of ETP. Habitat impact is very low (see 2.4.1) but the monitoring would also show any changes.

The SG80 requirements are met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 133

There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the PI 2.5.3 ecosystem. interaction. It is thus adequate to implement the existing Baitfish Management Plan. The Plan, however, does not seek to collect data that might be used to monitor ecosystem elements (as defined at GSA3.18.1) to underpin development of additional strategies to manage and monitor ecosystem impacts.

The SG100 requirements are not met.

 Gillett, R., A.R.Jauharee, and M.S. Adam (2013) Maldives Live Bait Fishery Management Plan 2013  Jauharee, A. R., Neal, K. and Miller, K. I. (2015). Maldives tuna Pole- References and-line Tuna Fishery: Livebait Fishery Review, MRC, IPNLF and MSPEA, December 2015. 60 pages  McClanahan, T.R, C.R.C. Sheppard & D. O. Obura (eds) (2000) CORAL REEFS OF THE INDIAN OCEAN; THEIR ECOLOGY AND CONSERVATION Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2000. No. of pages: 525. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 si(a): 80; si(b):80; si(c):100; si(d): 100; si(e): 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 134

Principle 3 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guide There is an There is an effective There is an post effective national national legal system and effective national legal system and organised and legal system and a framework for effective cooperation binding cooperation with with other parties, where procedures other parties, necessary, to deliver governing where necessary, management outcomes cooperation with to deliver consistent with MSC other parties management Principles 1 and 2. which delivers outcomes management consistent with outcomes MSC Principles 1 consistent with and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y

Justifi At the national level, the Fishery Law (Law No. 5/87), and associated regulations cation provides the framework and delivers outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. The framework has a focus on longterm management. The legislation has been revised and updated after a long consultation process. The Fisheries Bill of the Maldives 2015 is due to be enacted shortly. It establishes who, how, how much and where fishermen can fish and sanctions and penalties for non- compliance and is binding. The MoFA is the main management body although other bodies have a role to play in the effective management of fisheries. MoFA has organised and effective cooperation with government agencies in particular those responsible for Conservation, Environmental Protection and Enforcement and also with the fishing industry.

Maldives is a member of IOTC and is signatory to most major international fisheries agreements to ensure that the management system is generally consistent with international laws.

The Maldivian government is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Maldives waters are compatible with those of the IOTC, and fishing by Maldivian vessels is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by IOTC. These requirements are binding.

At regional level the IOTC framework created in 1998 provides for an organised and effective co•operation among parties. The operating procedures (IOTC rules of procedures) are fully transparent and are posted on the IOTC website. Members can make decisions concerning the management of tuna and tuna-like resources, and their associated environment, binding on all Members and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties and entered into force in 1996. The Rules of Procedure 1997 are consistent with international laws and standards. From 1997 additional rules have been approved and at present IOTC is a framework effective legal system and organized and effective cooperation with other parties. SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are met

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 135

b Resolution of disputes Guide The management The management The management post system system system incorporates or is incorporates or is incorporates or is subject by law to subject by law to subject by law to a mechanism for a transparent a transparent the resolution of mechanism for mechanism for legal disputes the resolution of the resolution of arising within the legal disputes legal disputes system. which is that is considered to be appropriate to effective in the context of dealing with the fishery and most issues and has been tested that is and proven to be appropriate to effective. the context of the UoA. Met? Y Y N

Justifi At the national management level, the legal system allows for the Ministry to be cation subject to legal challenges. The MoFA has not needed to take any action to resolve legal disputes indicating disrespect or defiance of the Law. This suggests that the approach to settling disputes is effective and that it is appropriate in the context of the fishery. However it has not been tested. At the regional management level, IOTC has three mechanisms for dealing with legal disputes at the international level. Firstly, disputes can be dealt with at the annual meetings of the CPCs through consultation and conciliation. Secondly, an appropriately composed expert or technical panel might resolve technical disputes. Thirdly, disputes that remain unresolved might be resolved through either the International Court of Justice or the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. The mechanism is transparent; but given the lack of disputes it not may be argued that it has not been tested. SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

c Respect for rights Guide The management The management The management post system has a system has a system has a mechanism to mechanism to mechanism to generally respect observe the legal formally commit the legal rights rights created to the legal rights created explicitly explicitly or created explicitly or established by established by or established by custom of people custom of people custom of people dependent on dependent on dependent on fishing for food fishing for food fishing for food or livelihood in a or livelihood in a and livelihood in manner manner a manner

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 136

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: PI 3.1.1  Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and  Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and  Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework. consistent with consistent with consistent with the objectives of the objectives of the objectives of MSC Principles 1 MSC Principles 1 MSC Principles 1 and 2. and 2. and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi At national level all Maldivian people can get a licence and fish, provided cation they obey the regulations, the system is open to everyone. There is a clear distinction between fishermen fishing commercially and subsistence fishing At regional level the passing of Resolutions and Recommendations by the IOTC provide a mechanism to formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom on people dependent on fishing for food and livelihood through special recognition of coastal states highly dependent on fisheries.

SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are met

 For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20- %20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026%20November%20 2016.pdf  Draft Maldives Fisheries Bill 2015  FAO Council 1993.The Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian References Ocean Tuna Commission. Hundred and Fifth Session in Rome on 25 November 1993. http://www.iotc.org/English/info/mission.php

 Fisheries Law of the Maldives no. 5/1987  Medley and Powers 2015 An evaluation of the sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks relative to marine stewardship Council Criteria. March 2015 v3

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 137

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations Organisations Organisations post and individuals and individuals and individuals involved in the involved in the involved in the management management management process have process have process have been identified. been identified. been identified. Functions, roles Functions, roles Functions, roles and and and responsibilities responsibilities responsibilities are generally are explicitly are explicitly understood. defined and well defined and well understood for understood for all key areas of areas of responsibility and responsibility and interaction. interaction. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the national level MoFA is the management body responsible for fisheries. A cation number of other government bodies and private sector representative organisations and companies play a part in the fisheries management process. These include the Ministry of Trade, Ministry of the Environment, Coast Guard, Research Institute, Ministry of Economic Development, Environmental Protection Agency, and Island Councils. There is also a Fisheries Advisory committee that has government and industry representatives. Functions, roles and responsibilities for the MoFA and other related organisations are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. This is through their legal constitutions and specifications of the organisation and through individual staff mandates and responsibilities (as reflected in job descriptions). Meeting records show involvement of relevant organisations who understand their responsibilities. At the regional level IOTC Rules of Procedure define roles and responsibilities for its contracting parties and co-operating non-contracting parties. Collectively it is the responsibility of CPCs and the Secretariat to ensure that CPCs understand their areas of responsibility and interaction. On the whole, it is successful in many areas, including providing basic catch data and catch sampling, implementing research programs and developing initial stock assessments and scientific advice.

The performance of the Secretariat is sound and well regarded as both efficient and effective by CPCs. The CPCs themselves vary in their ability to perform their role, but the roles and responsibilities are nevertheless explicitly defined at least at the national level for key areas. 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.

Roles and responsibilities are not well defined or well understood in all areas. IOTC has had problems with flag states that have not applied appropriate controls to their vessels, not submitting timely data and so on. While these problems are not all in key areas in the sense that they do

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 138

SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

b Consultation processes Guide The management The management The management post system includes system includes system includes consultation consultation consultation processes that processes that processes that obtain relevant regularly seek regularly seek information from and accept and accept the main affected relevant relevant parties, including information, information, local knowledge, including local including local to inform the knowledge. The knowledge. The management management management system. system system demonstrates demonstrates consideration of consideration of the information the information obtained. and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y Y Justifi At national level, meetings between the MoFA and stakeholders including cation appropriate Ministry’s, industry, resorts, Island Councils and NGOs are held regularly and are intended to seek relevant information. In particular -there is an annual forum on “Fisherman’s day” to discuss any issue of concern to any sector of the fishing industry. This is attended by fishermen, processors, exporters, industry, Island and atoll councils and government departments.

-the Fisheries promotion Board has 6-10 meetings per year to discuss promotion of fisheries. The Promotion Board consists of the Minister of fisheries, reps from Ministry of board is comprised of Minister of Fisheries, representative from Ministry of Economic Development, Maldives Seafood Processors and Exporters Association and Fishermen’s Association of Maldives -there is an annual feedback session on Resolutions to be tabled at IOTC to discuss new proposals that are to be tabled at the annual session. This meeting is attended by Maldives Seafood Processors and Exporters Association (MSPEA), Fisheries Association and Technical officials of the Ministry.

Decisions and positions of the Maldives to all proposals are based on the feedback from the group - stakeholder consultations fro new regulations or major amendments to regulations are held on a “need to” basis. All relevant stakeholders are invited to the meeting and typically such meetings would be attended by Ministry of Environment, EPA, Coast Guard, Maldives Police Service, fisheries and processors, fisheries related associations, NGOs etc. New regulations could go through at least two or three stakeholder consultations before they are finalized

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 139

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 -As a result of consultations changes are made as evidenced with the draft Fisheries Bill. The new Bill was the subject of extensive consultation with industry and fishermen from all atolls. Stakeholders considered that their recommendations had been taken into account. The Ministry makes regulations available for consultation on their web site and facebook. Consultations also take place face to face and by telephone. Government management strategy is also strongly based on an extensive consultation process. MRC research and field visits regularly obtain local knowledge used to inform management decisions.

Consultation processes explain how information is used or not used, and management decisions are broadcast and disseminated through local media. The Ministry and the MRC both have websites.

In addition, at national level there is a formal requirement under the Fisheries Law for a Fisheries Advisory Board with the mandate of advising the government on policy guidelines for the overall development of the fisheries sector. The Board is comprised of the Minister, Permanent Secretary, and two State Ministers from the MoFA, two RC staff, two private sector representatives, the Chamber of Commerce, and one person assigned by the President’s Office All meetings are recorded and decisions/recommendations must be reached by consensus. The consultation process at national level thus provides good opportunity; facilitation and support for all interested and affected parties to be involved.

At regional level, IOTC Working Parties, Scientific Committee and the Commission meet regularly to seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. IOTC holds annual plenary meetings and specialist working groups of IOTC comprising scientists from contracting parties) convene technical meetings on an annual basis. Meeting reports provide evidence that the management system considers the information obtained and can be considered to explain how it is used or not used through specific reference in Resolutions and Recommendations to the information provided to the Commission as the basis for them. All meeting reports, Resolutions and Recommendations are publicly available on the IOTC website.

SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are met

c Participation Guide The consultation The consultation post process provides process provides opportunity for opportunity and all interested and encouragement affected parties for all interested to be involved. and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 140

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? Y Y Justifi At national level MoFA consultation processes with FAB, MPEA, the cation fishermen’s union and the fishermen association, extension activities in outer islands, and the general availability of Government staff for communication and consultation with stakeholders, all mean that there is opportunity and encouragement for participation by interested and affected parties.

At regional level consultation occurs at several levels within the management system. Consultation at international level is formalized and there are well- developed mechanisms for the seeking of and consideration of appropriate information. IOTC facilitates effective engagement of its stakeholders. IOTC also provides training and support to States lacking the capacity in areas of data management and fisheries science, which facilitates effective and full involvement in its activities. all mean that there is opportunity and encouragement for participation by interested and affected parties

SG 80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are met

 For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20- %20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026%20November%20 2016.pdf  Draft Maldives Fisheries Bill 2015  FAO Council 1993.The Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Hundred and Fifth Session November 1993.

References  Fisheries Law of the Maldives no. 5/1987  MoFA website www.mofa.gov.pk/maldives  Medley and Powers 2015 An evaluation of the sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks relative to marine stewardship Council Criteria. March 2015 v3

 MRC website www.mrc.gov.mv  IOTC website www.iotc.org

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 141

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives Guide Long-term Clear long-term Clear long-term post objectives to objectives that objectives that guide decision- guide decision- guide decision- making, making, making, consistent with consistent with consistent with the MSC fisheries MSC fisheries MSC fisheries standard and the standard and the standard and the precautionary precautionary precautionary approach, are approach are approach, are implicit within explicit within explicit within management management and required by policy. policy. management policy. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the national level, the Maldives Fisheries Bill, 2015, the Fisheries cation Strategic Action Plan, 2009 and the Marine Research Plan all have long term objectives for the fishery, which guide decision-making and follow the precautionary approach. The objectives include providing for the long term conservation and sustainable use of fisheries resources of the Maldives for present and future generations. Also to provide a framework for the transparent management of fisheries resources in accordance with the principle of equity and good governance and to ensure timely and effective implementation of international fisheries and related conservation and management obligations of the Maldives. These include conservation and optimum utilization of skipjack tuna stocks. The Maldives is signatories to CITES and CBD, which have, clear long term objectives to guide decision-making. The Maldives also has objectives to protect turtles and sharks that are explicit in the management system

At regional level. The main objective of IOTC, as reflected in its establishment Agreement: “The Commission shall promote cooperation among its Members with a view to ensuring, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilization of stocks covered by this Agreement and encouraging sustainable development of fisheries based on such stocks”. In addition, Resolution 12-01 states that IOTC shall “… apply the precautionary approach, in accordance with relevant internationally agreed standards, in particular with the guidelines set forth in the UNFSA, and to ensure the sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources as set forth in Article V of the IOTC Agreement.” and “In applying the precautionary approach, the Commission shall adopt, after due consideration of the advice supplied by the IOTC Scientific Committee, stock-specific reference points … and associated harvest control rules …”. However, despite this, there is less evidence for the implementation of the precautionary approach in practice for some stocks, notably albacore and yellowfin. Management has not taken precautionary action despite these stocks being at risk, and adopted provisional limits and targets do not appear to account for uncertainties. A lack of evidence that the precautionary approach is being applied across all policy prevents SG100 being met.

SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are met

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 142

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide PI 3.1.3 decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. SG 100 requirements are not met

 For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20-%20Compendium%20of%20 ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026%20November%202016.pdf

 Aneh Dhivehi Raajje” The Strategic Action Plan, National Framework for Development 2009 – 2013 The Government of Mal

 Draft Maldives Fisheries Bill 2015  IOTC (2001) resolution 12/01 on the implementation of the precautionary approach

References  IOTC (2010) resolution 13/10 on interim target and limit reference points and a decision framework

 IOTC (2014) recommendation 12/14 on interim target and limit reference points

 IOTC 2016a Report of the 18th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas IOTC-2016-WPTT18-R  IOTC 2016. Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Last updated: 8 October 2014

 MRC Research Plan 2012 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 143

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Objectives Guide Objectives, which Short and long- Well defined and post are broadly term objectives, measurable short consistent with which are and long-term achieving the consistent with objectives, which outcomes achieving the are demonstrably expressed by outcomes consistent with MSC’s Principles expressed by achieving the 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles outcomes implicit within 1 and 2, are expressed by the fishery- explicit within the MSC’s Principles specific fishery-specific 1 and 2, are management management explicit within the system. system. fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y N Justifi At national level Long and short term objectives for the fishery consistent with cation achieving outcomes expressed by MSC’s P1 and P2 are started in Fisheries Law, the National Strategic Plan, the MRC research plan and various fisheries management plans eg the Bait fish Management Plan and National Plan of Action for Shark and the Marine Turtle Review. Currently short and long tern objectives are explicit within the fishery specific management system but until the Fisheries Management Plan for tunas has been implemented it cannot be agreed that these are well defined and measurable At regional level fisheries objectives are not well defined in general. Some reference points associated to interim values have been adopted for several IOTC stocks through the IOTC Resolution 13/10 and Recommendation 12/14. Despite this lack of deﬁned management objectives a set of interim objectives exist, which could be derived from the IOTC convention text, other international agreements to which IOTC is bound (e.g. UNCLOS), and recent IOTC resolutions and recommendations. These are consistent with achieving the outcomes of MSC Principle 1 and 2. Bmsy/Fmsy objectives are well defined and some IOTC Resolutions make specific reference to the precautionary approach and to long- term sustainable utilization of tuna stocks. However they cannot be considered well defined and measurable.

SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

 For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20- %20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026%20November%20 2016.pdf References

 Ali, K., Shimal, M. 2016. Review of the status of marine turtles in the Maldives.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 144

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

 Draft Maldives Fisheries Bill 2015  FAO Council 1993.The Agreement for the Establishment of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Hundred and Fifth Session in Rome on 25 November 1993. http://www.iotc.org

 Fisheries Law of the Maldives no. 5/1987

 Gillett, R., Jauharee, A. R., Adam, M. S., (2013). Maldives livebait fishery management plan, Marine Research Centre, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, (MEMP).  IOTC (2014) recommendation 12/14 on interim target and reference points  IOTC 2016 Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. November 2016  Marine Research Centre, Malé, Rep.of Maldives, 20 pp.http://www.fao/3/a-az641e.pdf. Mal  Medley and Powers 2015 An evaluation of the sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks relative to marine stewardship Council Criteria. March 2015 v3

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 145

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Decision-making processes Guide There are some There are post decision-making established processes in decision-making place that result processes that in measures and result in strategies to measures and achieve the strategies to fishery-specific achieve the objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Y Y Justifi At national level Maldivian decision-making processes for the P&L SKJ fishery is cation the responsibility of MoFA. They are well established and based on the consultation mechanisms described under PI 3.1.2. An decision making process is established within the Ministry. Typically, fisheries management decisions are based on stock status reports compiled by the Marine Research Centre (research arm of the Ministry) which are then tabled and discussed first in Technical Committee that sits within the Ministry. The reports are discussed in this committee comprised of technical experts; technical feedback along with management advice is then sent forward to the Policy Committee for its consideration . Based on the feedback from the Policy Committee the Fisheries Management Section of the Ministry would formulate the necessary Fisheries Management Plan or Regulation which would govern the management of the respective fish stocks. As specified earlier such regulation could go through several rounds of stakeholder consultation before a regulation is gazetted - these are stakeholder consultations that take place during the development and drafting of new fisheries related regulations or drafting major amendments.; all relevant stakeholders are invited to the meeting and typically such meetings would be attended by Ministry of Environment, EPA, Coast Guard, Maldives Police Service, fisheries and processors, fisheries related associations, NGOs etc. New regulations could go through at least two or three stakeholder consultations before they are finalized. This is very clearly demonstrated by the process that was followed during the development and the formulation of the grouper fishery management plan and the subsequent regulation. A similar process was also followed in the development of the longline fishery regulation which was initiated based on a report from Fisheries Management Section based on the need to change the management approach for the fishery. For tuna resources, as those species are shared stocks, management advice is based on the outcomes of the IOTC processes. Hence, any such management intervention from the IOTC will be followed through by the technical and policy committee discussions. The Draft Fisheries Management Bill also includes these provisions for consultations. The final draft of the bill has now been endorsed by the Attorney General for it to be tabled at the Parliament. In the Maldives there are established decision making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery specific objectives eg in the bait fishery this has led to a Bait Fishery Management Plan.The Ministry promotes collaboration, participatory decision making and transparency in the management of the fisheries resources of the Maldives.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 146

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. At regional level decision-making processes are in place, which are established, responsive and largely transparent. However, there are some weaknesses, which have been highlighted by the performance reviews. Despite this, decision-making processes are in place, and they do generally result in measures and strategies to achieve objectives, which meet SG80. SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are met

b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes processes processes respond to respond to respond to all serious issues serious and other issues identified identified in important issues in relevant relevant identified in research, research, relevant monitoring, monitoring, research, evaluation and evaluation and monitoring, consultation, in a consultation, in a evaluation and transparent, transparent, consultation, in a timely and timely and transparent, adaptive manner adaptive manner timely and and take account and take some adaptive manner of the wider account of the and take account implications of wider of the wider decisions. implications of implications of decisions. decisions. Met? Y Y N Justifi At national level in the Maldives, there are well-established decision making cation processes based on a variety of consultation mechanisms. These mechanisms and especially the informal nature of communication and the frequency of consultation between stakeholders mean that decisions can be taken rapidly to define and put in place measures and strategies thus responding to serious and other important issues.

Decisions respond to research eg bait fish research, monitoring eg from the annual Compliance Review, evaluation eg the Marine Turtle review and consultation eg changes to the Fisheries Bill. However it cannot be said that it responds to all issues identified eg observer coverage so SG 100 is not met.

At regional level the Rules of Procedure set mechanisms for dealing with resolutions, which should be made on the basis of scientific evidence and be designed to maintain tuna populations at levels that will permit optimum utilization. Resolutions may be made at the initiative of the CPC to the Commission. The decision-making is transparent. IOTC resolves most disputes at its annual meetings by consensus. While the outcome of such decisions is transparent and, initial positions and the information used for the basis of the decision is available, exactly how a decision is reached may not necessarily be obvious. The system makes sure that all members are fully informed of the issues under consideration and are able to participate in informed decision-making.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 147

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Overall the decision-making is adequate for the stocks being considered. It can be shown that it deals with serious and important issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner meeting SG80.

It cannot be claimed that the decision-making deals with all issues. The objections process probably stops contentious issues from being raised wherever possible and therefore these may not be resolved. Therefore the fishery does not meet SG100.

SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi At national level, the need for a precautionary approach has been highlighted cation and national objectives that relate to sustainability implicitly consider the precautionary approach. While the new fisheries law has not yet been approved many of the key issues related to the need to address issues have been covered by the secondary legislation. The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan are strongly premised on the precautionary principle

At regional level decision-making processes clearly attempt to use the best available information. A large number of meetings are conducted and reports written for the Commission, which provide analyses and advice, based on all the available information.

Although the precautionary approach is implicit rather than explicit in decision-making processes, it can be demonstrated that it is used in practice under most circumstances. For example, various recommendations and resolutions have been made on the basis of the potential harm they might do, and have not been delayed while waiting for relevant research to be conducted.

Overall, IOTC decision-making processes meet SG80. They are based on the best available information, and in most cases it can be shown to be based on the precautionary approach. Importantly, there is now a clear intention to include the precautionary approach explicitly in its basic texts, which should clarify its use and ensure reference to it in giving explanations for decisions.

SG 80 requirements are met d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some Information on Formal reporting post information on the fishery’s to all interested the fishery’s performance and stakeholders performance and management provides management action is comprehensive action is available on information on generally request, and the fishery’s

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 148

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. available on explanations are performance and request to provided for any management stakeholders. actions or lack of actions and action associated describes how with findings and the management relevant system recommendation responded to s emerging from findings and research, relevant monitoring, recommendation evaluation and s emerging from review activity. research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y Y Justifi At national level there is formal reporting of policy, research, compliance cation and fishery’s performance. This information is published on the Ministry’s website and available to all stakeholders. The Ministry requests and encourages feedback and incorporates this into revised policies reports, plans etc - It is current government policy to not issue any form of direct subsidies or perverse incentives that would contribute to additional capacity in fisheries. This is a decision made by the Policy Committee and this information would be made available on request.

- There are no formal allocation arrangements for Maldive fisheries. But the position of government of Maldives in relation to allocation at Indian Ocean level is clear and the information has been in the public domain for some time.

- Maldives is regularly assessed against the requirements of IOTC for compliance. Maldivs has maintained above average compliance levels at IOTC in the recent past and this information is available on IOTC website.

- Fisheries management decisions are based on discussions made at various levels within the Ministry and also based on the discussions of wider stakeholder consultations as stated above. Such processes are documented and minutes of such meetings are maintained and will be made available to the public as required by the Right to Information Act 2005 of Maldives.

At regional level recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation and performance review are published formally. Likewise, reports of the plenary sessions of meetings are published formally and are publicly available. All information is public and available to all interested parties via the website of the organization All information available for the decision-making is published, allowing any stakeholder to draw their own conclusions, and there is frequent feedback from NGOs, scientists and other stakeholders. With detailed formal public reporting of decisions and all information on which those decisions are based, the IOTC fisheries meet SG100.

SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are met

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 149

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision- making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management The management post management system or fishery system or fishery authority or is attempting to acts proactively fishery may be comply in a to avoid legal subject to timely fashion disputes or continuing court with judicial rapidly challenges, it is decisions arising implements not indicating a from any legal judicial decisions disrespect or challenges. arising from legal defiance of the challenges. law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y Y Justifi At national level the legal system allows for the Ministry to be subject to legal cation challenges. Currently there have been no legal challenges and there is no evidence that MoFA disrespect or defy the law. The Maldives Fisheries Law provides for a Fishery Advisory Board, and along with good levels of consultation (see above), work proactively to avoid legal disputes. The fact that no legal disputes have arisen provides sufficient evidence that the management system is acting proactively to avoid legal disputes.

At the regional level there are no current outstanding judicial disputes. The formal dispute resolution procedure (Article XXIII of the Agreement covers “Interpretation and Settlement of Disputes”) is transparent; given the lack of disputes it may be argued that the system is proactive in dealing with potential disputes The consultation and voting mechanisms within IOTC are formalised in its Rules of Procedure, and are designed to be proactive in avoiding legal disputes to any proposed management-related Resolutions or /and Recommendations by ensuring that issues of concern are addressed and considered before any formal decision taken. No legal challenges have been made to IOTC.

SG 60 requirements are met SGv80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are met

 For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20- %20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026%20November%20 2016.pdf References  Aneh Dhivehi Raajje” The Strategic Action Plan, National Framework for Development 2009 – 2013 The Government of Maldives.

 Ali, K., Shimal, M. 2016. Review of the status of marine turtles in the Maldives.  Draft Maldives Fisheries Bill 2015

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 150

 Fisheries Law of the Maldives no. 5/1987

 Gillett, R., Jauharee, A. R., Adam, M. S., (2013). Maldives livebait fishery management plan, Marine Research Centre, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, (MEMP).  IOTC 2016 Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. November 2016. www.iotc.org  IOTC (2001) resolution 12/01 on the implementation of the precautionary approach  Medley and Powers 2015 An evaluation of the sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks relative to marine stewardship Council Criteria. March 2015 v3

 MoFA 2016. Annual Compliance report 2016.

 MoAF 2002 The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2002),

 The National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2002)

 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of 10 December 1982 (UNCLOS). http://www.un.org/Depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/unclo s_e.pdf

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 151

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, A monitoring, A comprehensive post control and control and monitoring, surveillance surveillance control and mechanisms system has been surveillance exist, and are implemented in system has been implemented in the fishery and implemented in the fishery and has the fishery and there is a demonstrated an has reasonable ability to enforce demonstrated a expectation that relevant consistent ability they are management to enforce effective. measures, relevant strategies and/or management rules. measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y N Justifi At national level Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of fishing activities is cation an area of high importance to the Maldives due to its dependence on fisheries resources. Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) of fishing activities is an area of high importance to the Maldives due to its dependence on fisheries resources. MoFA, Maldives National Defence Force (Coast Guard) and Maldives Police Service have key functions with regards to implementation of fisheries laws and regulations. The key MSC activities include - Licensing of fishing vessels and fish processing facilities All fishing vessels fishing for the purpose of exporting fish from the Maldives or with the intention of offloading fish to a fish processing facilities, are required to obtain a fishing license. The fishing license has to be renewed every year. - Implementation of vessel tracking. A Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) has been established in the Maldives in 2014 and it is now a requirement under the Licensing Regulation for all licensed fishing vessels to be tracked to the VMS. However it is not yet fully functional and the Pole and Line vessels fishing inside the EEZ currently do not all have it. - Random spot checks of fishing vessels/ processing facilities Random spot checks are conducted by Compliance Staff of MoFA. Mainly these checks occur in port when vessels return from fishing. During these checks compliance staff will check for things such as possession of a valid license, recording of catch in log books, gear used and species caught - Observer scheme. The observer scheme that was established in late 2014 is now non functional due to various issues eg staff and finance. The purpose of the scheme was to collect verified data and other scientific information related to the fisheries. This observer scheme was established in line with the requirements of Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. However, the observer scheme remains to be a priority for the government of the Maldives. Electronic observer systems has been identified a potential solution to overcome the difficulties. Funding has been secured to procure and install electronic observer systems on board fishing vessels and this project is due to be commenced in 2017.

There is a annual Compliance Report which demonstrates the ability of to enforce relevant management measures etc The Maldives MCS has been implemented but can’t be considered comprehensive until it meets all IOTC requirements.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 152

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. At the regional level IOTC has a compliance Committee as an advisory board of the Commission. The main activities of the Compliance committee are to 1) review all aspects of CPCs individual compliance with IOTC Conservation and Management measures 2) Review information relevant to compliance from IOTC subsidiary bodies and reports of implementation submitted by CPCs and 3) to identify and discuss problems related to the effective implementation of and compliance with IOTC CMMs and to make recommendations to the commission on how to address these. IOTC don’t perform MCS this is the responsibility of the member countries

SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal Sanctions to deal Sanctions to deal post with non- with non- with non- compliance exist compliance exist, compliance exist, and there is are consistently are consistently some evidence applied and applied and that they are thought to demonstrably applied. provide effective provide effective deterrence. deterrence. Met? Y Y N Justifi At national level sanctions for noncompliance exit. They are explicit cation within the Fisheries Law. The annual National Compliance report identifies infringements made and the corrective action taken. The lack of repetitive infringements would suggest that the action taken has provided effective deterrence however until the reporting has been in operation for several years it cannot show that it demonstrably provides effective deterrence. At regional level For IOTC, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. This is a function of the Compliance Committee

SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

c Compliance Guide Fishers are Some evidence There is a high post generally thought exists to degree of to comply with demonstrate confidence that the management fishers comply fishers comply system for the with the with the fishery under management management assessment, system under system under including, when assessment, assessment, required, including, when including, providing required, providing information of providing information of importance to information of importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the effective management of the fishery. the fishery.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 153

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. management of the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the national level there is some evidence and indeed a high degree of cation confidence that fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. In part this is because there is little need for MCS on pole and line or hand line fisheries prosecuted by Maldivians due the fishing method used, few regulations needed in the fishery, and few drivers to break the regulations that do exist. At site visit meetings with the Coast guard and the Ministry, it was confirmed that the fishers in this fishery comply with rules and regulations and provide information as requested. However not all vessels currently carry logbooks see below 3.2.3 e). However some of these vessels reported their catches to the Ministry and it was established that the catch and other information was relayed via phone to the vessel owner who then reported it to the Ministry.

At regional level the Compliance Committee of the IOTC is responsible for tracking the degree of compliance with the different parties involved in this fishery. CC monitors compliance with recommendations and it is responsible for analysing and solving problems related to compliance. The primary responsibility of the Compliance Committee is to monitor compliance with respect to implementation of IOTC Conservation and Management Measures by CPCs. The monitoring is conducted through the assessment of reports provided by CPCs. 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.

SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no post evidence of systematic non- compliance. Met? N Justifi Maldives has had a long history of reporting catches by word of mouth. cation The method of data capture was overhauled following changes in export requirements into the UK. Starting form 01 January 2010 Maldives adopted a logbook based reporting system and set in motion to decommission the traditional method of captain/owner of the vessel reporting to island/ atoll offices via phone, or in person, and subsequent reporting to MoFA on a monthly basis.

However, MOFA’s Annual Compliance Report - 2016 noted that still a large number of vessels do not have logbooks on board the vessels. Of the 23 vessel inspected in 2015, eleven vessels (47%) did not have a logbook and therefore still report using the old method - relaying sales receipt to the vessel owner who in additional to catch amounts records each day’s activities including livebait and other information required in the logbooks.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 154

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the PI 3.2.3 management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.

It is a requirement that all fishing vessels are subject to a data recording system and this involves a logbook being completed by the Master of the Fishing vessel. The original recordings contained in the fishing logbooks shall be kept on board the fishing vessel for a period of at least 12 months

There is evidence of systematic non-compliance in regards to log-books being carried on all vessels and completed by the Master of fishing. A Condition is raised.

SG80 requirements is not met  For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20- %20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026%20November%20 2016.pdf  Draft Maldives Fisheries Bill 2015  Fisheries Law of the Maldives no. 5/1987

 IOTC. Compliance Committee Roles and Duties http://www.iotc.org/compliance/coc

References  IOTC (2009) Resolution 10/09 concerning the functions of the compliance committee

 IOTC 2004 resolution 11/04 on regional Observer Scheme  IOTC 2016 Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. November 2016. www.iotc.org

 MoFA 2016. Annual Compliance Report 2016.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 155

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Issue a Evaluation coverage Guide There are There are There are post mechanisms in mechanisms in mechanisms in place to evaluate place to evaluate place to evaluate some parts of the key parts of the all parts of the fishery-specific fishery-specific fishery-specific management management management system. system system. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the national level, typically evaluation of some parts of the cation management system is conducted by donor-funded activities although this is not on a regular basis. The Ministry has a work plan, which includes mechanisms to evaluate performance of the fishery 3 monthly. Financial monitoring and evaluation of MoFA performance is undertaken annually by the Auditor General’s office. Internal review of monitoring and management performance takes place for key parts of the management system At regional level IOTC has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. This is demonstrated by the various committees, and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. As noted, the 2009 and 2016 PRP Performance Review Panel has also evaluated all parts of the management system.

SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery- The fishery- The fishery- post specific specific specific management management management system is subject system is subject system is subject to occasional to regular to regular internal review. internal and internal and occasional external review. external review. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the national level, internal review is regular while external review by cation consultants is occasional. Financial monitoring and evaluation of MoFA performance is undertaken annually by the Auditor General’s office.

At regional level IOTC is subject to regular internal review. This is demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. In 2009 and again in 2015 there was a formal external performance review that was conducted and they evaluated all parts of the management system.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 156

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. There has been a clear monitored response to the reviews, and progress against recommendations is being reported.

SG 60 requirements are met SG80 requirements are met SG 100 requirements are not met

 For IOTC Resolutions see: file:///C:/Users/Jake/Downloads/IOTC%20- %20Compendium%20of%20ACTIVE%20CMMs%2026%20November%20 2016.pdf  IOTC 2015. Report of the 2nd IOTC review. Mahe, Seychelles, 2-6 February and 14-18 December 2015. www.iotc.org  IOTC 2016 Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. November 2016. www.iotc.org References  MoFA 2016. Annual Compliance Report 2016.  IOTC 2016 Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. November 2016. www.iotc.org

 MoFA 2016. Annual Compliance Report 2016.  Auditor General’s Report

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

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 157

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

Appendix 1.2.1 Susceptibility Analysis (PSA) 2.2.1

Table 28 PSA Rationale Table

PI number 2.2.1

A. Productivity Scoring element Silver sprat (Spratelloides gracilis) - MAIN (species) Attribute Rationale Score The species is highly productive with a population doubling time of less than 15 months, growing to a maximum size within months. Average age, and hence 1 Average age at maturity. age at maturity, short (19 days, Adam pers. comm.).

Based on details in Fishbase.org (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides- gracilis.html) The species is highly productive with a population doubling time of less than 15 months, growing to a maximum size within months. Average age, and hence Average maximum age age at maturity, short (19 days, Adam pers. comm.). 1 Based on details in Fishbase.org (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides- gracilis.html) Relative fecundity is 1596 eggs per unit body weight Fecundity (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides- 2 gracilis.html) 10.5cm (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides- gracilis.html); 9.5cm (MRS, 1997)

Average maximum size 1 REFERENCE: M.R.S. (1997) Fishes of the Maldives. Marine Research Section, Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture, Republic of Maldives. 408 pp. 4-?, but less than 10.5. Average size at maturity (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides- 1 gracilis.html) Reproductive strategy The species is a typical broadcast spawner. 1 3.1; Fishbase.org Trophic level (http://www.fishbase.org/summary/Spratelloides- 2 gracilis.html) [To be used when scoring invertebrate species only – Density dependence delete if not applicable] N/R

B. Susceptibility [Insert list of all the fisheries impacting the given scoring element, as required in PF4.4.3]. Fishery % contribution of Weighting score catch

Fishery only where the

scoring element is [PF4.4.4 Where the impacts of fisheries other than the UoA are scored cumulatively taken into account each fishery affecting the given stock shall be identified and listed separately. To account for impact of other fisheries on a given stock the team shall determine the contribution of each fishery on the total catch of the given stock according to PF4.4.4.1 a and b.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 158

PF4.4.5 A weighted average of PSA scores for each fishery affecting the given stock shall be calculated in order to derive the final overall PSA score except in the case that catch data cannot be estimated for a particular fishery (gear type) using either qualitative or quantitative data. In this case the susceptibility score for the overall PSA shall be based on the attributes of the gear with the highest susceptibility score.] Attribute Rationale Score Silver sprat is a coastal species, often found in large schools at harbours and inside the Atoll lagoons (MRS, 1997), as well as outside the reef (stakeholder workshop). Life span is of the order of 19 days and it is highly likely the stock is a single Maldivian one.

Fishing is nearly all within the atoll lagoons and very little outside the reef as anchoring is limited. Fishing takes place at all atolls, by about 700 vessels and using about 50,000 days per year. Individual vessels/skippers have their preferred place to fish (traditional) but the overall patterns are highly variable. skippers communicate about bait and can get aggregated catching on any occasion, though can vary where through time. Fishing takes place by anchoring and using lights to attract plankton, and hence the livebait species such as silver sprat which follow the plankton; the area covered on a fishing event is no more than 500m x 500m (see also PF17).

Discussion with stakeholders suggested the total overlap between silver sprat and the fishery might be above or below 30%. The Maldives is currently carrying out a study on the bait fishing and a request was made for the key researcher to provide input after the site visit. The response is as follows:

Both silver sprat and blue sprat are widely exploited throughout the Maldives for pole and fishing. Silver sprat is most preferred Areal Overlap by fishers who are targeting skipjack and small yellowfin. Being a 2 pelagic species this fish is abundant in the shallow lagoons, reef flats and on the reef slopes both inside and on the outside reef edge of the atolls. From Naseer and Hatcher, 2004 "The total surface area of the major reef structures of the Maldives (all coral reef and lagoon habitats of atolls) is 21 000 square kilometers". Base on the information we have gathered from fishers so far - approximately 30% of the 21 000 sq km which is 6300 sq km is used for collecting silver sprat.

Adopting a precautionary approach, the team initially assigned a high susceptibility score (3) using Table PF5.

However, during preparation of the CDR, the same key researcher provided clarification as follows:

During December 2016 while the consultants were here I had indicated that "based on the information gathered from fishers so far approximaltey 30% of the 21,000 sq km is used for collecting livebait". Having given some thought and seen the estimates made by Shiham, I have to admit that I would be wrong on at least two counts.

1: My guesstimate was based on discussions I had with the fishers in the south. In 2016 I was really hesitant to provide a percentage of what fishers would use. If I recall correctly the at the RBF meeting the agreement was that less than 30% of the distribution area would be used by the fishers. What I should have siad and implied is that 30% area of reef is visited by sometime during the year by the fishes. Hence some of these fishing grounds (areas of the reef) may be used only a few times

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 159

in a year for livebait fishing while other areas are visited more frequently. 2: I have understood that total suface of the of the habit where sprat would live would more than 21,340 sq km, because it was all agreed and understood that silver sprat was also caught from some distance outside of the reef. Therefore it is reasonably to 10% of the area to the 21,000 value.

From the example Shiham made for Laaamu Atoll, I know the estimates are very conservative for the number of vessel and days used and also the assumption of unique spot for each time they fish. But what I slightly disagree is the totals surface area afffected by any given fishing event. His assertion was 1,000 sq m, but my assertion would be 75 m radius from the point of light (2000W four lights used on larger vessels) which would give about 17,500 sq m area.. but even with this it would still be less than 30%. I hope this clarifies the situation.

Note: Instead of using the size of the net I believe it will be more appropriate to use the area affected by the lights used for livebait fishing. The larger vessels use (four lights each 2000Watts). I believe that these could attract sprats from about 75m radius from the lights. The largest nets are about 100 feet long and 85 feet wide. This size nets are operated by both fishers in the water and on the vessel. But if aggregation is very concentrated under the light a much smaller net supported by two long poles are used. Hence from my observations the affected area of the reef or lagoon during the bait fishing operation would be the area affected by the lights used for attracting the bait.

The second reason why I am wrong in my assertion is the way how I have understood the 21,000 sq km

The figure given by Naseer and Hatcher (2004) is the reef area. The total area of the individual reefs in the in Maldives.

The sprat is not only found on the reef but are frequently caught from several meters outside the reef edge

This explanation aligns with discussions during the RBF, clarifying that the silver sprat distribution is beyond the reefs and beyond fishing areas. The team notes that the areal overlap referred to here is between the fishery and the species (silver sprat), not with the habitat as is scored at PF17 for the CSA on habitats.

Given the discussions in the RBF session during the site visit and the clarifications received during preparation of the CDR, the team revised the susceptibility score to 2 using Table PF5. The team notes this is not a change in risk attitude but a response to the clarification from the key researcher. Method of capture: scoop net (small seine). Depth of the location is 60m. Depth of deployment: 15m. However, plankton is attracted with light and livebait fish follow, so Encounterability are attracted from the deployment depth and all fish may 3 effectively be encountered. It is unclear whether to score as medium (2) or high (3) but given uncertainty a score of 3 is adopted. 5mm mesh size is used and all fish are retained. Selectivity of gear type Individuals less than the size at maturity are frequently 3 caught. All live fish are retained as bait. Any discarded fish are Post capture mortality 3 dead. Catch (weight) only where the scoring N/R element is scored cumulatively

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 160

Appendix 1.2.2 Screenshot of final PSA Table for silver sprat.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 161

Appendix 1.2.3 Consequence Spatial Analysis (CSA)

Table PF9: SGB habitat nomenclature (modified from Williams et al., 20114)

Substratum Geomorphology Biota Fine (mud, sand) Flat Large erect  Mud (0.1 mm)  Simple surface structure Dominated by:  Fine sediments(0.1-1  Unrippled/flat  Large and/or erect mm) – sand,  Current rippled/directed sponges scour  Solitary large sponges  Coarse sediments (1-4  Wave rippled (indication  Solitary sedentary/sessile mm) of current) and flat epifauna (e.g., ascidians/ bryozoans)  Crinoids  Corals  Mixed large or erect communities Medium Low relief Small erect/  Gravel/pebble (4-60 mm)  Irregular topography with encrusting/burrowing mounds and depressions Dominated by:  Rough surface structure  Small, low-encrusting  Debris flow/rubble banks sponges  Small, low-standing sponges  Consolidated (e.g., mussels) and unconsolidated bivalve beds (e.g., scallops)  Mixed small/low- encrusting invertebrate communities  Infaunal bioturbators Large Outcrop No fauna or flora  Cobble/boulders (60 mm  Subcrop (rock protrusions  No apparent epifauna, - 3 m) from surrounding infauna, or flora  Igneous, metamorphic, or sediment <1 m) sedimentary bedrock (>3  Low-relief outcrop (<1 m) m)

Solid reef of biogenic origin  High relief Flora  Biogenic (substratum of  High outcrop (protrusion Dominated by: biogenic calcium of consolidated  Seagrass species carbonate) substrate >1 m)  Depositions of skeletal  Rugged surface structure material forming coral reef base

Table PF10: List of example biomes, sub-biomes, and features (modified from Williams et al., 2011) Biome Sub-biome Feature Coast (0-25 m) Coastal margin (<25 m) Seamounts Shelf (25-200 m) Inner shelf (25-100 m) Canyons Slope (200-2,000 m) Outer shelf (100-200 m) Abyss Abyss (>2,000 m) Upper slope (200-700 m) Shelf break (~150-300 m) Mid-slope (700-1,500 m) Sediment plains Sediment terraces Escarpments Plains of scattered reef Large rocky banks

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 162

Table PF12: Scoring regeneration of biota based on age, growth, and recolonisation of biota (modified from Williams et al., 2011)

Sub-biome Using available data Using surrogate when data are not available Annual Less More No Small Large Large Seagrass Crinoids/ than than epifau erect/ erect erect communit solitary/m decadal decad na encrus (sponge (ascidia ies/ ixed al ting s) ns and mixed communiti bryozoa faunal es/ hard ns) communit and soft ies/ hard corals corals Coastal 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 margin (<25 m) Inner shelf 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 2 2 (25-100 m) Outer shelf 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 3 3 (100-200 m) Upper 1 2 3 1 1 3 3 3 3 slope (200-700 m) Mid-slope 1 2 3 1 2 3 3 3 3 (700- 1,500 m)

Table PF13: Scoring natural disturbance (modified from Williams et al., 2011)

Attribute Score 1 2 3 Natural disturbance Regular or severe Irregular or moderate No natural natural disturbance natural disturbance disturbance Natural disturbance Coastal margin and Deep inner shelf and Slope (>200 m) (in absence of shallow inner shelf outer shelf (60-200 information) (<60 m) m)

Table PF14: Scoring the removability of biota and removability of substratum attributes (modified from Hobday et al., 2007)

Gear type Removability of biota Removability of substratum Low, Erect, Tall, Immovable <6 cm 6 cm - 3 robust, medium delicate, (bedrock (transfera m small (<5 (<30 cm), large (>30 and ble) (removabl cm), moderately cm high), boulders >3 e) smooth, rugose, or rugose, or m) or flexible inflexible inflexible biota biota biota OR OR OR robust, moderately delicate, deep- robust, shallow- burrowing shallow- burrowing biota burrowing biota biota Hand collection 1 1 1 1 1 2 Demersal 1 1 2 1 1 1 longline Handline 1 1 2 1 1 1

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 163

Trap (achor) 1 2 2 1 1 1 Bottom gill net 1 2 3 1 1 1 or other entangling net Danish seine 1 2 3 1 2 3 Demersal trawl 1 3 3 1 3 3 (including pair, otter twin-rig, and otter multi- rig) Dredge 3 3 3 1 3 3

Anchor = trap as best proxy

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 164

Table PF15: Scoring the substratum hardness, substratum ruggedness, and seabed slope attributes (modified from Hobday et al., 2007) Gear Substratum hardness Substratum ruggedness Seabed slope type Hard Soft Sedime High Low Flat, Low Mediu High (igneous (lightly nts relief relief simple degr m degree , consolid (uncons (>1 m), (<1.0 surface ee degre (>10): sedimen ated, oli- high m), structu (<1): e (1- Canyon tary, or weather dated) outcrop, rough re Plain 10): s in heavily ed, or or surface (moun s in Terra outer consolid biogenic) rugged structur ds, coast ces in shelf, or ated surface e undula al outer upper rock structur (rubble, tions, marg shelf or mid- types) e small ripples in, or slope (cracks, boulders ), inner upper OR crevices , rock current or slope seamou , edges), rippled outer nts/ overhan subcrop , wave shelf bioher gs, , or low rippled or ms in large outcrop , or mid- coastal boulder irregul slope margin, s, rock ar OR inner walls) terra shelf, or ces upper in or mid- mid- slope slope OR rocky bank s/ fringi ng reefs in coast al marg in, inner or outer shelf, or uppe r or mid- slope Hand 1 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 3 collecti on Demer 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 sal longlin e Handli 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 ne Trap 1 2 3 2 3 1 1 2 3 Bottom 1 2 3 2 3 3 1 2 3 gill net or other entang ling net Danish 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 3 seine

Demer 1 2 3 1 3 3 1 2 3 sal trawl (includi ng, pair, otter twin- rig, and otter multi- rig) Dredge 1 2 3 1 1 3 1 2 3

TABLE PF16: TRAP =1

TABLE PF17:

Spatial overlap

What proportion of bait trips is anchored?

Approx 43,000 bait trips per year. Stakeholders advise circa 90% use anchors. Assume all independent.

Diameter of anchor=1.3m. Area impacted: 2mx2m = 4m2. Total atoll reef area is approx 22,000 km2.

Spatial overlap is of order of 0.0014% - much less than 15% and hence Score: 0.5

Encounterability

Deployment of anchor, by design, has high encounterability.

Score: 3

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 166

Table 29 CSA Rationale Table

PI number 2.4.1 Habitat

Consequence Rationale Score Regeneration of Table PF12: small erect/encrusting and inner shelf (25-100m) 1 biota Natural PF13: Coastal margin and shallow inner shelf (<60 m) 1 disturbance Removability of PF14: Low, robust, small (<5 cm), smooth, or flexible biota biota OR robust, deep-burrowing biota and gear type TRAP

NOTE: The contact with habitat during bait fishing is the anchor. The team took advice from stakeholders on the size of 1 anchors (approx. 1.3m diameter and likely area of impact (about 2m x 2m). Given the list of gear types at PF14, it was deemed appropriate to use TRAP as the nearest, and reasonable, proxy for anchor. Removability of PF14: <6 cm (transferable) and gear type TRAP substratum NOTE: The contact with habitat during bait fishing is the anchor. The team took advice from stakeholders on the size of 1 anchors (approx. 1.3m diameter and likely area of impact (about 2m x 2m). Given the list of gear types at PF14, it was deemed appropriate to use TRAP as the nearest, and reasonable, proxy for anchor. Substratum PF15: Sediments (unconsolidated) and gear type TRAP 3 hardness Substratum PF15: Flat, simple surface structure (mounds, undulations, ruggedness ripples), current rippled, wave rippled, or irregular and gear 1 type TRAP Seabed slope PF15: Low degree (<1): Plains in coastal margin, inner or outer shelf or mid-slope OR terraces in mid-slope OR rocky 1 banks/ fringing reefs in coastal margin, inner or outer shelf, or upper or mid-slope and gear type TRAP

Spatial Rationale Score Gear footprint PF16: TRAP (see above) 1 Spatial overlap Approx 43,000 bait trips per year. Stakeholders advise circa 90% use anchors. Assume all independent. Diameter of anchor=1.3m. Area impacted: 2mx2m = 4m2. Then 43,000*0.9*4 = 155,000 m2 per year. (all numbers derived through discussion during stakeholder meeting)

Total atoll reef area is approx 22,000 km2 (as advised by Marine Research Centre).

0.5 Spatial overlap is of order of 15510E3/22E9 = 0.001% - much less than 15% and hence score = 0.5

NOTE: Also discussed with stakeholders measures in place to protect reefs in general, specific resorts, and MPAs which reduce the effective 22,000 km2 atoll area by approx. 4,500 km2 (or 20%). This, advised by Maldives government (Maldives Research Centre and Ministry of environment and Energy) was not used in final scoring. Encounterability Deployment of anchor, by design, has high encounterability. 3

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 167

Screenshot of final CSA Table for bait fish anchoring.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 168

Appendix 1.2.4 Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis (SICA)

Table 30 SICA Scoring Template for PI 2.5.1 Ecosystem COMPONENT: Maldives wide, atoll-reef ecosystem

Spatial Temporal Intensity scale of scale of Relevant Consequence of fishing fishing fishing subcomponents Score activity activity activity Species 100 PRINCIPLE composition TWO: Functional Ecosystem group outcome composition 3 5 2 Distribution of

the community

Trophic

size/structure Rationale for Considerable discussion was had during the stakeholder workshop, with spatial scale views falling either side of 30% for spatial scale of the fishery. Attempts were of fishing made to consider the total area of atoll reef against the extent of fishing, in activity particular the extent of bait species distribution. With multiple species, there was considerable uncertainty but the stakeholders agreed by consensus that the most likely spatial overlap was under 30%. Following PF8.4.1 and Table PF20, a score of 3 is assigned.

NOTE: for PSA at PI2.2.1, and using information also received following the site visit (solicited at the visit), an expert judgment of 30% was received for the overlap between silver sprat and fishing and distribution. In that case, adopting a precautionary approach and applying PSA scoring instructions, the team applied a spatial overlap of greater than 30%. Rationale for Fishing does not take place at all on Fridays or Ramadan, or when weather is temporal scale unsuitable. The workshop reached a quick consensus that the number of bait of fishing fishing days per year is in the range 201-300. Following PF8.5.3 and Table activity PF21, a score of 5 is assigned.

Rationale for The stakeholder workshop quickly determined that with approximately 53,000 intensity of fishing trips per year, 147 vessels and 20 atolls, there would be of the order of 7 fishing activity vessels per day per atoll on average (assuming 360 days rather than something under 300 as implied at the temporal scale consideration). There was then some difficulty in using Table PF22 to convert this to a score, with initially divergent views on the descriptors in relation to 7 vessels per night within an atoll. The workshop agreed to a score of 2.

Following PF8.6.2 and Table PF22, a score of 2 is assigned. Rationale for PF8.7.1; PF8.7.2: Consideration was given to which subcomponent the Consequence fishing activity is having the most impact on. Discussion was not extensive, score with reference to the SICA carried out at the original assessment. The workshop quickly agreed that the most vulnerable subcomponent would likely be species composition. Consistent with PF8.7.3, species composition was recognised as possible in principle to monitor more easily than other subcomponents (for example, by using information reported and analysed by Jauharee et al (2015).

PF8.7.4; PF8.7.5: Jauharee et al (2015) demonstrates that there is considerable variability between catch rates by species in place and time, but there is no clear indication of changes in composition. Given the very long history (many hundreds of years) of the fishery, and the highly variable nature of the many, short-lived and highly productive bait species, this is unsurprising. While the temporal scale of the fishery is moderate to high, the spatial scale and (subjective) intensity are not. Overall, the stakeholder

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 169

workshop and team agreed that the Consequence Category using Table PF23 should be 100.

PF8.7.8: The consequence score is recorded in the SICA scoring template [above] for each component [bait fishing] and the rationale documented

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 170

Appendix 1.3 Conditions No conditions were carried over from a previous assessment. One new condition raised during the re-assessment process does not relate to previous conditions raised in the previous assessment and surveillance audits.

Table 31 Conditions: Condition 1 Performance 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the Indicator management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Score 75

Rationale Several vessels failed to report the logbook catch data to the Ministry as required by the Licensing Regulation. Many of the vessels in this fishery did not have logbooks on-board. It is a requirement that all fishing vessels are subject to a data recording system and this involves a logbook being completed by the Master of the Fishing vessel. The recordings contained in the fishing logbooks shall be kept on board the fishing vessel for a period of at least 12 months There is evidence of systematic non-compliance in regards to logbooks being carried on all vessels and completed by the Master of fishing and catch data being provided to the Ministry. Condition By the third annual surveillance an updated compliance report should be produced to show that compliance with reporting regulations (including completion and maintenance of logbooks) is further improved, such that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Milestones 1st surveillance:

Evidence that the vessels owners have been informed of the requirement to carry log books, or other reporting methods to comply with Maldivian reporting requirements, on all vessels and for them to be completed by the Master and reports provided to the Ministry. It is not anticipated that any re-scoring will take place at the first surveillance.

2nd surveillance: A Compliance report be presented to the team to demonstrate that vessel owners and skippers have been informed of the relevant regulations and that compliance is improved as a result. It is not anticipated that any re-scoring will take place at the first surveillance.

3rd surveillance: An updated compliance report should be produced to show that compliance with reporting regulations (including completion and maintenance of logbooks) is further improved, such that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance The PI will be rescored and it is expected that it will meet the SG 80.

Client action To achieve this condition, in the first year, the Ministry of Fisheries and plan Agriculture through collaboration of the Client, MSPEA and its members, will re-iterate and communicate to all fishing vessel owners of the fisheries regulation requirement of keeping logbooks on board the vessel. The circular would also refer to the responsibility of recording catch and fishing effort information as per instructions contained in the logbook forms.

Fresh logbooks forms will be made available to collect at the landing sites (from shore-based and collector / freezer vessels) and Island Council Offices of major fishing islands. In addition a logbook and a copy of the circular will be issued from MoFA at the time of renewal of the fishing license.

Specific instructions would be given to shore-based field officer/ enumerators based at major fish landings sites (Maandhoo, Felivaru and Kooddoo) to engage with skippers and remind them of their requirement to complete logbooks as part of the work. DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 171

MoFA would strengthen its random vessel inspections in Male and greater Male area.

As part of internal audit MoFA would keep records received from enumerators and timely reporting of logbooks. Vessel failing to keep logbooks on board or failing to submit logbooks would be reminded through a ‘reminder letter’ at the time of annual fishing license renewal. Vessels who are repeatedly failing to report would be given warnings of possible revoking of the fishing license the following year if no improvements have been made.

During second year, the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture plans to rollout electronic logbook (e-logbook) application that can be used on smart phone and tablets. Reporting through e-logbooks would be considered as having logbooks on board the vessels.

At the end of the second year, vessels carrying fishing license who do not enrol for e-logbooks, MoFA would make it a mandatory requirement to surrender a copy of the log-sheet for the fishing trip at the point of sale of the fish. It will be the responsibility of the buyer to forward the trip log-sheets to the MoFA in this case.

The implementation of above will be evidenced by circulars and/or written communications available to inspect during annual surveillance audits. Annual compliance reports will also be made available during surveillance audits.

At the end of third year, the use of e-logbooks will be made mandatory for all licensed fishing vessels instead of conventional paper based logbook reporting. This will be evidenced by changes to the regulation and/or license condition and annual compliance reports based on the data reported to the FIS database.

Consultation on The Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture condition

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 172

Appendix 1.3.1 Supporting letters from The Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 173

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 174

APPENDIX 2 PEER REVIEW REPORTS The unattributed reports of the peer reviewers with the explicit responses of the assessment team are provided below. Certification Body note: The assessment team notes that the Echebastar Indian Ocean assessment is overlapping and underway using the MSC trial simplification process. That assessment is nearing peer review and public comment stages combined under the trial process. There will be a need to harmonise the Maldives and EIO assessments and to take account of further peer review comments and public comment. As the EIO consultation is currently also using the draft report as peer reviewed here, we need to be aware that making too many changes could be confusing. While responding to peer review comments below we have tried to minimise changes to scoring and rationales – aware that more might yet be made.

Peer Review A Overall Opinion Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes Certification Body Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: No response required. The assessment team concluded that the fishery be certified. The overall determination that this fishery should be certified according to the MSC principles and criteria is appropriate and correctly based on the findings of this assessment.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are No Certification Body Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? The requirement for pole and line Justification: vessels to carry VMS was amended to One condition was raised (PI 3.2.3). The condition addresses 2019. The text on p38 has been non –compliance with regards to log-books being carried on revised to include this and the reasons all vessels and completed by the Master of fishing and catch behind it. data being provided to the Ministry. The condition is appropriately written so that within a three year period there will be prove that there is no longer evidence of systematic non-compliance. However: On page 38 of the report it is stated that: “a Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) has been established in the Maldives in 2014 and it is now a requirement under the Licensing Regulation for all licensed fishing vessels to be tracked to the VMS. However, it is not yet fully functional and the Pole and Line vessels fishing inside the EEZ currently do not all have it.” This suggest that there is also evidence of non-compliance concerning this license requirement and this should be addressed in the condition as well.

If included:

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 175

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes Certification Body Response to close the conditions raised? See response above. No change to the Justification: condition is deemed to be necessary. The client action plan states that within the timeframe specified by the condition an electronic logbook system will be implemented. This electronic logbook will replace the paper logbook and facilitate reporting of catches directly from the vessel. The actions defined in the client action plan are sufficient to close the condition within the specified timeframe. If the Condition is changed to also address VMS then the action plan should be updated accordingly.

General Comments on the Assessment Report (optional) This is a very well (excellent) written report that provides a substantial amount of information on this fishery. The information and rationales support the scores that are awarded. The report is clearly written by a team that is highly qualified concerning the MSC’s certification process. Only a few minor comments for improvement could be made. One general remark is that in many occasions the conclusions which SG are met is provided after the rational which is merely a repetition of the Y or N in the boxes above the rational. It is therefore up to the reader to check which information In the rational supports the conclusion. I should be specified in the rational which information supports the different SG’s to be met.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 176

Performance Indicator Review

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

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA NA

1.1.2 NA NA NA NA

1.1.3 NA NA NA NA

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA NA

1.2.2 Yes Yes NA The rational for SG80c mentions Noted. A similar comment is made by a fishery development plan for reviewer B – please see response there. the period 2007-2013. Since the stabilisation of fishing capacity is part of the HCR it should be made clear that this also takes place after 2013.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 177

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA

2.1.2 No No NA SG80a and SG80b have not Re shark finning, this PI/si derals only with been scored since the Yellowfin primary species and the scoring should refer tuna stock is highly likely aboce only to those species. PRI and a partial strategy is not

necessary. However under SG80c the partial strategy is Re 2.1.2c scoring, catches in 2015 and 2016 scored. The conclusion is that are not relevant as the 5% rediction cf 2014 there is some evidence that the catch is only imlementedf from 1 Jan 2017. partial strategy is being However, the point about scoring implemented succesfully. The requirement is taken – we have modified support for this conclusion is the scoring table so that 2.1 sic is scored only that catches in 2014 were only at the 100 level (as NO) with SG80 above avarage and that it is being NOT SCORED (consistent with si(a) likely that the catches are and si(b)). already 5 % down. It should however be possible to check if the Yellowfin catches in 2015 and 2016 were indeed 5 % lower than in 2014. Alternatively it might also be possible not to score SG80c. Under SG80d it is mentioned

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 178

that there are no primary shark species. However no shark finning should take place at all. The rational should support this conclusion.

2.1.3 Yes Yes NA

2.2.1 RBF used NA NA

2.2.2 Yes No NA The rational states that SG100a We have modified the PI2.2.2 si(a) rationale is met for bait fisheries and not to take account of this comemnt. Thank for other minor secundary you. species. This suggests that two scoring elements are used. If this is the case the element scores should be combined.

2.2.3 No Yes NA .

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 179

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA

2.4.1 RBF used NA NA

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA .

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA

2.5.1 RBF used NA NA

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA

2.5.3 Yes No NA Scoring issue SG100d requires The rationale refers to ecosystem elements that adequate information is (community structure, productivity, available on the impacts of the biodiversity) as well as to components UoA on the components and

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 180

elements to allow the main (secondary species, ETP). consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. In the rational there is no reference to the elements f the ecosystem so the rational does not clearly suppor the conclusion that SG100d is met.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA

3.1.4 Yes Yes NA

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 181

3.2.3 No No No On page 38 of the report it is The requirement for pole and line vessels to stated that carry VMS was amened to 2019. The text on p38 has been revised to include this and the : “a Vessel Monitoring System reasons behind it. (VMS) has been established in the Maldives in 2014 and it is now a requirement under the Licensing Regulation for all licensed fishing vessels to be tracked to the VMS. However, it is not yet fully functional and the Pole and Line vessels fishing inside the EEZ currently do not all have it.” This suggest that there is also evidence of non- compliance concerning this license requirement and this should be addressed in the condition as wel.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 182

3.2.5 Yes Yes NA .

Any Other Comments

Comments Certification Body Response

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 183

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: Certification Body Response: Indicator clearly explain scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific how the referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation process used to Yes/No where possible. Please attach additional pages if determine risk necessary. using the RBF led to the stated outcome? Yes/No

1.1.1 NA NA

2.1.1 NA NA

2.2.1 No Yes No PSA graph or PSA score is provided in Appendix Good idea. A screenshot of the PSA table is 1.2.1 So the report does not clearly shows how the now included. It is easy to make mistakes on outcome score of 82 has been derived. Maybe a the scoring tables and inclusion provides a screenshot of the excel sheet (PSA graph) could be good means of checking without recourse to provided the spreadsheet. 2.4.1 NO Yes Appendix 1.2.3 does not show how the scores Ditto, a CSA screenshot has been added. The awarded in the CSA rational table lead to an table was double checked and the score of 99 outcome score of 99. Maybe a screenshot of the still holds. excel sheet could be provided. Filling in of the scores of the table seems to lead to a score of 93?

2.5.1 Yes Yes

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 184

Peer Review B

Summary of Peer Reviewer OpinionHas the Mostly CAB Response assessment team arrived at an appropriate yes, with conclusion based on the evidence presented in caveats the assessment report? as noted Justification: As explained at PI1.1.1 and 1.2.4, the In general, the report is very well written and justifications status determination uses a grid of 81 are in most of the case appropriate for the scores given. I do models and while a Kobe Plot is believe the fishery should meet the MSC Standard overall. generated, there is no available, single However, there are a number of concerns mainly due to a assessment run for which to display a lack of information provided which I feel need to be trend in SSB, fishing, or recruitment. addressed in order to confirm the generally high scores The rationale draws on the best given: available information including the 1) The information was not presented of target species report from the Scientific Cttee that SSB, fishing mortality, recruitment and harvest. catches since 2013 have been below What is presented in Principle one is just a Kobe plot the estimated MSY. for SSB/SSBMSY and C/CMSY ratios. Such graph would be appropriate but I ‘m sure that the model output UoA definition is debatable. In this (SS3) are available. The lack of a trend of catches case, the two fishing activities are raises another concern that is due to the fact that carried out by the same vessels on the the SSB level against SSBMSY is estimated in 2013 same trips and are therefore and in absence of catches for 2014-2016 is not considered all as one UoA. We do possible to conclude that the stock is still at the distinguish activities at P2. same level (look comments in 1.1.1) As noted also in the main responses, 2) A clear description of the fishing technique is lacking. we do not see a catch profile or more However, at page 25 of the report it is stated: “Pole detailed tabulation as necessary. There and line fishing for skipjack involves two operational are just two primary species defined as modes: i) fishing with pole and line for skipjack at SA3.1.3.3, with one (yellowfin tuna) outside of the atolls within the Maldives EEZ, and ii) being well above the 5% main species bait fishing within the atolls”. I’m not sure but taking threshold and other (bigeye tuna) into account the MSC definition of ‘Unit of being well below. Tonnages are given Assessment’ (UoA), it includes the target stock, in the relevant scoring tables. For fishing method and practice, and any fleets, groups secondary species thee is a long list of of vessels, individual fishing operators and ‘other species occasionally caught in the pole eligible fishers’ that are involved in a MSC fishery and line operations but in very small assessment. In my view, the two operational modes amounts. The figures for bait fisheries mentioned in the report should be treated as are not straightforward and derive from separate UoA in P2 framework becauise they could multiple sources described in the have completely different impact on primary, scoring tables and then considered secondary and ETP species. A strong justification using RBF. should be provided to merge them together. 3) The catch profile of the primary and secondary species should be better presented. The team reported just the species above or below the relevant percentage thresholds but the catch values in tons should be provided. Minor: References – thank you. We agree that The reference list is not complete. Moreover, I suggest to references need to be complete. This integrate the references cited in principle 1 with the may take some time and span the following studies: public consultation period. We will need  Dueri, S., Faugeras, B., Maury, O., 2012. Modelling to look at the other references to see if the skipjack tuna dynamics in the Indian Ocean with they are necessary but note there is no APECOSM-E: Part 1. Model formulation. Ecol. Model. indication from the peer reviewer that 245, 41–54. these would alter any conclusions or  Grande, M.G., 2013. The reproductive biology, scoring. Initial reading of the first condition and feeding ecology of the skipjack, suggested reference is that it might be Katsuwonus pelamis, in the Western Indian Ocean. more relevant at P2.5. The other Universidad del Pais Vasco. references may be relevant at P1  Grande, M., Murua, H., Zudaire, I., Arsenault-Pernet, and/or P2. We note, however, that E.J., Pernet, F., Bodin, N., 2016. Energy allocation certification assessments do not strategy of skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis during attempt to review or replace technical their reproductive cycle. J. 620 Fish Biol. assessments by e.g. IOTC SC and do  Grande, M., Murua, H., Zudaire, I., Goni, N., Bodin, not necessarily require that all possible N., 2014. Reproductive timing and reproductive references be used. We will consider all

capacity of the Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) before final publication but are aware in the western Indian Ocean. Fish. Res. 623 156, that other peer reviewers will also be 14–22. considering the P1 materials under a Grande, M., Murua, H., Zudaire, I., Korta, M., 2012. Oocyte separate (Echebastar Indian Ocean) development and fecundity type of the skipjack, Katsuwonus certification assessment and it is pelamis, in the Western Indian Ocean. J. Sea Res. 73, 117– possible other views could be 125.From the text the cited bibliography relative to expressed.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 Yes outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification: NA Yes – they appear consistent with requirements.

If included:

Do you think the client action plan is sufficient CAB Response to close the conditions raised? No [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: NA Yes – it is should work in accordance with the milestone drafted by team and close the raised condition.

Performance Indicator Review Numerous comments were provided with the draft report that was sent back to the CAB to assist in producing the PCDR. These have not been reproduced, here.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 186

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by relevant and/or rationale raised improve referring to specific scoring issues and information used to score the fishery’s any relevant documentation where possible. Please attach additional been used to this Indicator performance to pages if necessary. score this support the the SG80

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.1.1 No No N/A As I explined before in absence of a Please see comment above. The latest trend of cathces from the whole stock IOTC stock assessment depends ona is not possible to judge if in the period grid (or ensemble) of models and 2014-2016 the cathes were below does not have a dsingle biomass or MSY and the biomass did not decrease exploitation trned. It is best below the relevant thresholds. represneted using the prtovided Kobe Plot.

1.2.1 Yes Probably Yes, N/A Taking into account that also PI1.2.1 si(f) applies only to the UoA. but needs European fleets (Spain) are targeting clarification the stock the SI f should be scored, because the Art15 of the new CFP applies also to EU fleets operating in OFR.

1.2.2 Yes Probably Yes, N/A In SI c, taking into account the lack of Peer Reviewer A made a similar but needs information evidenced before in 1.1.1, comment. Please also see the clarification is quite difficult to score 80. Available comments re PI1.1.1 and the way the evidence for the period 2014-2016 is assessment is done and presented. lacking. The scoring of PI1.2.2 si(c) relies on SA2.5.6-2.5.7. For SG80 there are two components. First, that one or more proxies indicate it is likely that

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 187

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

overfishing is not occuring. This is met via the stock assessment outputs. Second,that further evidence is needed. This is where things are less clear and the peer review comment is relevant. The rationale refers to the long history of reasonably constant fishing mortality and biomass. Thes eare evident in the Kobe Plot used at PI1.1.1. C/Cmsy (the fishing mortality proxy) has been well below 1 and generally in the region 0.6-0.7 since 2000. With one exception in 2008 (which is dififcut to interpret) SB/SB0 has been well above 0.4 and generally in the in the range 0.5-0.6 in the same period.Since 2014 catches have been below MSY (as reported by the IOTC SC). Taken as a whole it is hard not to score SG80.

We note that the skipjack assessment is unusual and does not elad to what might be regarded as normal or

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 188

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

typical assessment outputswhere trends in exploitation rate or stock size can be viewed. The assessment recognises uncertainty and hence uses the grid of 81 assessment runs to construct the available Kobe Plot. That characterisation is the best available information and the one that drives the scoring.

1.2.3 Yes No N/A It is clear from the description of the This is a difficult area. The indices are model that much of the uncerinity is indeed problematic and it is not clear due to the use of abundance indicaors yet that any provide a good, diretc (i.e.: CPUE series) that are critically index of abundance. However, the biased. In particular the use of CPUE scoring issue requires the availability from a fishwith shooling behaviour is of one or more indices beigtn not a good indicator of stock available and monitored sufficientlky abundance (look Hilborn and Mangel, frequently to suuport the harvest 1997; page 241).-Therore I would control rule. The HCR is is based on disagree about the SG 80 in SI b and outputs from an assessment model a condition sdhiould be raiused in which integrates and weights all data order to use or improve the sources to provide estimates of S/SB0 abundance indicator for stock etc probabilistical. It would be ideal to have a clear and excellent index of

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 189

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

assessment. the stock, but the standardisation work on less than ideal cpue data and the weighted integration of cpue through stock assessment and the HCR.

We note that in reviewing the ratinales and scoring because eof this peer reviewer comment that a mistake in the scoring table cf the rationales was found and corrected.

1.2.4 Yes Yes N/A None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

2.1.1 No No NA I would normally expect a catch Using CR Ver 2, this PI deals with profile to be included in the report, primary species as defined at but no actual figures for primary and SA3.1.3, not with discards or non- secondary species. Going back to the commercial bycatch. Only two species original report was not helpful either, were identified as primary and main as the data on discards was focused and clear percentages of catch are entirely on commercial species. I given (very low for bigeye) and higher

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 190

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

would not necessarily expect UoA to for yellowfin (with the last 5 years take a lot of non-commercial bycatch, catch data detailed). It is not clear but a catch profile would give much how these are of lesser value than a greater assurance that we are seeing catch profile as suggested by the peer the full picture. It does not necessarily reviewer. A catch profile still needs to follow that there are no main non- be interpreted in terms of numbers vulnerable species because the and percentages.. discard rates of skip jack tuna are non-commercial catch is considered low?!. under PI2.2.x. We note that section 3.4.1.2 provides full references to secondary species caught in the pole Moreover the same problem with data and line, and bait, fisheries. presentation (lacks of trend of SSB) is found also for the two primary species.

2.1.2 Yes Possibly – see NA My concerns regarding scoring It is not clear what concerns the peer Justification primary species are reflected in the reviewer has about scoring as jsutification to PI 2.1.1. I have opposed to rationalisation. nothgin further to add, here.

2.1.3 Yes Possibly – see NA Noting my concern over the data No comment. Justification available to determine risk (as

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 191

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

discussed in comments on PI 2.1.1), I think this is all OK.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The team correctly used the RBF. NA

2.2.2 Yes Possibly – see NA My concerns regarding scoring Please see comment at PI2.1.1. Justification secondary species are reflected in the justification to PI 2.1.1. I have nothgin further to add, here.

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate. However, the evidence that pole and line fishery score 100 for sea birds and bait fishery only 80 suggests that two UoA should be considered, as observed before.

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 192

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

appropriate.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate. Again here is stated: “Two reports have been published showing analyses and results of ETP interactions with i) the pole and line fishery (Miller et al, 2015); and ii) the livebait fishery (Jauharee et al, 2015). In both fisheries, fisheries logbook data have been analysed, plus data collected by fisheries observers.” Therefore two Uoa should be considered in P2.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA The team correctly used the RBF. NA

2.4.2 Yes Probably Yes NA In SI d is stated that there are no We think this is unnecessary. The VMEs and the SI is not scored. A map statement that there is no overlap should be provided in order to see with There are no VMEs in the Indian that there is not overlap between the Ocean (see e.g. fishng activities and VMEs. http://www.fao.org/in- action/vulnerable-marine-

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 193

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

ecosystems/vme- database/en/vme.html). Providing a map takes space and file size but has no practical effect. TheP&L fishery is surface and the bait fishing all within Maldives waters so even if VMEs existed there would still be no overlap.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA The team correctly used the RBF. NA

2.5.2 NO No NA In SI c no evidence is provided to Noted. We have amended the justify an SG 80. rationale text and hope it is now clearer how Jauharee et al is taken as evidence to justify SG80.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 194

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

3.1.2 Yes Probably SIc International scoring seems a little 3.1.2 was scored at 100.It was harsh; is it not adequate if scientists considered that the management are engaged at the international level system has effective consultation rather than everyone? As long as processes that are open to all there was an effective system of interested parties both at national and consultation before and reporting back regional level. after, as there seems to be. Otherwise it would all be a little unmanageable. But I leave it to you.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 195

Indicator? given score? level? (Yes/No) (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes I agree with the conditon correctly NA raised in SI d.

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA None – the score and rationale are NA appropriate.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 196

For reports using the Risk-Based Framework: Performance Does the report Are the RBF risk Justification: CAB Response: Indicator clearly explain how scores well- Please support your answers by referring to specific the process(es) referenced? scoring issues and any relevant documentation applied to determine Yes/No where possible. Please attach additional pages if risk using the RBF necessary. has led to the stated Note: Justification to support your answers is only outcome? Yes/No required where answers given are ‘No’.

1.1.1 NA

2.1.1 NA

2.2.1 Yes Yes The scoring for Spratelloides gracilis looks fine to NA me. However I can’t understand why the PSA has been conducted only in this species and not for (Auxis thazard), kawakawa (Euthynnus affinus), rainbow runner (Elagatis bipinnulata), dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus), round scad (Decapterus), garfish (Belone belone), oceanic trigger fish (Canthidermis maculata), jacks/trevallies (spp)), blue sprat (Spratelloides delicatulus), anchovy (Enchrasicholina heteroloba), fusiliers (Caesionidae spp), cardinal fishes (Apogonidae spp)). 2.3.1 NA

2.4.1 Yes N? I can’t see any references in Appendix 1.2 or in the Noted. Some additions made in rationale for 2.4.1 relating to the CSA scoring. I the RBF Appendix, but note the presume that the scores given in the CSA tables and scoring and rationales followed matrix come mainly from stakeholder consensus. extensive discussion and are based I’m not sure what you would reference there, but on non-controversial, direct input maybe take another look at it since according to from all participants. MSC I guess there should be references 2.5.1 Yes Yes None – the score and rationale are appropriate. NA

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 197

APPENDIX 3 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS The only submissions received during site visits regarding issues of concern material to the outcome of the assessment were related to the RBF. These are documented in the Evaluation Results section (section 6). Reference section contains the list of literature and documents submitted by stakeholders and used in this assessment.

At Public Comment Draft Report, comments were provided by the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), WWF-UK and MSC. All written submissions made by stakeholders about the public comment draft report in full, together with the explicit responses of the team to points raised in comments on the public comment draft report are provided below. The assessment team thanks ISSF, WWF-UK and MSC for clear and constructive comments

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 198

APPENDIX 3.1 ISSF Submissions and assessment team response

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 199

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 200

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 201

ASSESSMENT TEAM RESPONSE TO ISSF Client action Plan: Assessment team notes the ISSF concern. Our view is that given the experience to date of MOFA involvement in the certification processes (assessment, surveillances, reassessment) and actions in the IOTC, for example driving adoption of the skipjack HCR, that a formal letter is unnecessary. However, we have consulted with the client and MOFA is very happy to provide a letter as suggested by ISSF. This is attached in Appendix 1.3.1.

Harvest Control Rules: PI 1.2.2b: This is a very difficult issue. We do not agree the ISSF point related to the structure of the HCR – the HCR likely performance has been tested using Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) and it is the performance of the rule that matters, not the rule per se. However, we agree that testing of likely performance could include a range of assumptions as to (as yet unspecified) management decisions related for example to subsistence fishing if the minimum threshold is reached. We have to make a judgment given the materials presented and the MSE work cannot be comprehensive. We have to take in to account the full set of “meta rules” associated with Res 16-02 and the likely robustness to the “main uncertainties” possible during the implementation lifetime. It is very hard to envisage that the stock could approach such a low level during the next five years (as seems to be agreed by ISSF in its comment at 1.2.2c) and even if it were to decline, Res 16-02 and the annual IOTC processes allow for reconsideration. We recognise the FCR V2 Guidance at GSA2.5.2-2.5.5 and our considered view is that the HCR is likely to be robust to the main uncertainties, hence justifying a score of 80.

Harvest Control Rules: PI 1.2.2c: We have some sympathy with the tenor of the ISSF comment but the logic for scoring at 80 is based on very specific provisions at FCR V2 GSA2.5.6-2.5.7 (and SA2.5.6-2.5.7) plus the quoted MSC Interpretation dated 16/12/2016. These provisions and interpretation arguably move from the language of the 1.2.2c SG, as used by ISSF, and push scoring towards a reliance on matters already considered at P1.1.1. We have received no comments from Peer Reviewers for this assessment, or from multiple stakeholders comments on both assessments, that address our logic. One (of three) EIO reviewer touches on the logic but essentially makes a similar SG-based argument as ISSF – we have responded similarly in comments to that reviewer. We further note that attempts to score PI1.2.2c based on the SG language alone, as in the ISSF letter, often stray in to issues of management effectiveness that might in fact be best considered at PI3.1.1a. Despite MSC attempts at interpretation, this is a difficult scoring issue and we appreciate the ISSF input. We hope our response satisfactorily explains why we have scored at 80 even though our understanding/interpretation and ISSFs’ may differ. Consultation, roles and responsibilities PI 3.1.2 a: Assessment team agrees with ISSF comment that the score should not meet SG 100 and have rescored this as meeting SG 80. We do not agree that it doesn’t meet 80. ISSF says that roles and responsibilities are well understood in many areas. The SG 80 says “ organisations and SG 80 :Organizations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. The performance of the Secretariat is sound and well regarded as both efficient and effective by CPCs. The CPCs themselves vary in their ability to perform their role, but the roles and responsibilities are nevertheless explicitly defined at least at the national level for key areas. 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. Roles and responsibilities are not well defined or well understood in all areas. IOTC has had problems with flag states that have not applied appropriate controls to their vessels, not submitting timely data and so on. While these problems are not all in key areas in the sense that they do not prevent IOTC from completing many of its tasks, they nevertheless undermine its overall effectiveness and increase risks for fishery sustainability. Hence the fishery does not meet SG100

Consultation, roles and responsibilities PI 3.1.2 b: SG 100 says the management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information, including local knowledge. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 202

ISSF says it does not meet SG 100 because the management system cannot demonstrate in all cases consideration of all the information or explain how it uses information in decisions. However this is not required at SG100.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 203

APPENDIX 3.2 WWF UK Submissions and assessment team response

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 204

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 205

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 206

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 207

ASSESSMENT TEAM RESPONSE TO WWF UK Background information (Kobe Plot): WWF-UK says the PDCR “should” incorporate the Kobe Plot. We disagree that the Kobe Plot should be included as a matter of course, especially when scoring PI2.1.1, though note it is common. Great care is needed interpreting “Kobe Plots” which increasingly report on slightly differing things – for example, the IOTC bigeye tuna Kobe Plot shows ensemble results rather than a single trajectory, and in other places such plots may show multiple possible trajectories based on individual runs which may or may not include a base case. Also, Kobe Plots are generally more useful for reporting on status with respect to SBmsy (at PI1.1.1) rather than on SB0 as required for scoring with respect to PRI at PI2.1.1 s(a). Nevertheless, we have included the relevant Kobe Plot in the scoring table as suggested by WWF-UK.

Cumulative impacts: Cumulative impacts are only considered at FCR V2 PI2.1.1 if the species is below the PRI. This is not the case for yellowfin and cumulative impact provisions are not invoked.

Background information (FADs): WWF-UK raises a number of points. Taking the last point first, IOTC Res 17/08 and 17/09 have not been considered because scoring took place in late 2016 and the client draft report and CAPs were completed prior to IOTC meetings in 2017. With prolonged assessment processes, including harmonisation activities, considering later information in any PI would lead to a never-ending need to consider each bit of new information, further prolonging processes. We agree this is difficult and it is natural for WFF-UK to refer to the latest information available when submitting, but for orderly process we are forced to use a cut-off point for information – statement of the information cut-off should perhaps be included as a standard entry in the MSC template. We do note, however, that if new information becomes available which would materially alter conclusions/scoring/conditions etc then we would be compelled to take account of it. We note that though not considered here due to the cut-off, the Maldives does have a FAD Management Plan submitted to IOTC, consistent with IOTC Res 17/08 (on FAD Management Plans and drifting FAD limitations) and 17/09 (on Guidelines for FAD Management Plans). That plan, along with all other newer, relevant information should be considered at surveillance. We would very much welcome WWF-UK input at that stage and to receive information on all relevant FAD-related activities. We are aware that since scoring there have been relevant FAD meetings (including the April 2017 Joint RFMO FAD Working Group, IOTC ad hoc WG on FADs, ISSF workshops, other RFMO FAD WGs, etc). The impact of FADs has been considered briefly in the statement on enhanced fisheries at 3.1.8 but we acknowledge this is less than WWF-UK might prefer. There is a total of just 50 anchored FADs across the whole of the Maldives, compared to many thousands (>10,000) in the Indian Ocean, usually drifting and associated with industrial purse seining. Some of those non-UoC FADs are known to drift in to Maldivian waters and have been associated with entanglement as reported in Miller et al (2016, as referenced in scoring tables for P2). The Maldives bycatch reporting noted in P2 scoring includes fishing associated with Maldivian anchored FADs and with fishing associated with drifting FADs and natural objects. We could perhaps have reported more on this but the numbers reported at P2 scoring speak for themselves and we do not see the Maldivian anchored FADs as an issue except potentially at PI2.1.2 in relation to yellowfin rebuilding measures – something else that will need to be considered in detail at the first surveillance. In summary, we do not see the need to modify P2 scoring and rationales to consider FADs in more detail at this stage of the assessment process because we do not think it will make any material difference. However, we agree with WWF-UK that there is an increasing amount of information on and activity around FADs. This should be considered at surveillances. It would be very helpful if an input could be made that summarises all the new information and any emerging conclusions. PI2.1.2a: Point (1): We again hit an information cut-off with scoring taking place in late 2016 before 2016 yellowfin catch figures were available. As noted in scoring, we used a confidential sighting of the Maldives Annual Implementation Report to make an assessment. We agree with WWF-UK that the rationale in the scoring table is a little weak. We have added the limit implied by Res 16/01 and as correctly pointed out by WWF- UK (17,557 tonnes) and also averages for 2011-2012013 and 2011-2015, both of which are below the implied limit. These better explain our reasoning in the PCDR and should have been included – we apologise. We do not agree with the last sentence on Point 1 raised by WWF-UK. Our reasoning refers to the recent averages (now added) and does not rely on justification related to the 2016 catch – which we did not then have available. We have been informed by the client, however, that the 2016 Maldives P&L yellowfin tuna catch was reported to IOTC by the 30 June 2017 deadline. It is 8,550 tonnes.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 208

PI2.1.2a: Point (2): The quantitative target (maximum) is the 5% reduction cf 2014 (17,557 tonnes per annum). Point re scoring at 79: it is not possible to score 79 at MSC PI except in some PI under special circumstances such as use of RBF. In this case, 80 is scored effectively by default because the stock is highly likely to be above the PRI; a condition cannot be set.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 209

Page Main Requirement Oversight CAB Sub ID Referen Grade Pi ID Version Description Comment ce

PI 3.1.2 scoring PI 3.1.2b. The issue (b): The rationale has now rationale presented been provided to does not provide show evidence of evidence of the the regularity of FCR-7.10.6.1 regularity of 22367 27216 137 Major 3.1.2 management v2.0 management seeking relevant seeking relevant information. Refer information. This is to 3.1.2b Evaluation required at the table justification SG80 level for this for full text PI.

PI 3.2.2 Scoring PI 3.2.2a. Evidence Issue (a): is provided in the Insufficient rationale to show evidence provided that decision in the rationale to making processes indicate that result in measures FCR-7.10.6.1 decision-making 22367 27217 144 Major 3.2.2 and strategies that v2.0 processes result in achieve fishery measures and specific objectives strategies that Refer to 3.2.2a achieve the fishery- Evaluation table specific objectives justification for full as required by the text. Scoring Guideposts.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 210

PI 3.2.2 Scoring Issue (d): The rationale provided doesn't specify what type of information on the fishery's performance and management actions is available. As per guidance GSA4.8: At the SG60 level, it should be expected that at least a general summary of information on subsidies, PI 3.2.2d The allocation, rationale now compliance and provides the type of fisheries information on the management fishery's FCR-7.10.6.1 22367 27218 146 Major decisions is 3.2.2 performance and v2.0 available to management action (fishery, available. Refer to government and 3.2.2d Evaluation non-government) table justification stakeholders on for full text. request. At the SG80 level, it should be expected that in addition to the information provided at the SG60 level, information on decisions, data supporting decisions, and the reasons for decisions, are made available to all stakeholders on request.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 211

Information is Vessels in the UoC missing to do not handle effectively identify certified and non- risks and describe certified fish on- mitigation board at the same measures. Vessels time. All SJT in the UoC may catches from the handle certified and UoC vessels are non-certified fish covered by the on-board and this certificate. must be identified as a risk and be addressed. This is required by FCR v2.0 clauses 7.12.1.3-4 (also refer to FCR Guidance 7.12.1.2- 4 and Guidance 7.12.1.5). Key risks to clarify please:

1. Any non-certified 1. No non-certified gear used on-board gear is used on- the UoC vessels on board the UoC the same trips as vessels on the same the certified P&L trips as the certified gear - while we P&L gear. Handline understand that is for targeting YFT Table FCR_7.12.1.4 handline is primarily and is not being 22367 27220 24 Page Minor v2.0 for targetting YFT deployed for SJT. 59 any non-certified Handline Yellowfin gear should still be tuna are not targeted identified and with on the same trips as narrative on the risk Skipjack tuna. Only a small size YFT could level. be taken as by catch in the Skipjack fishery and this tuna is caught by P&L gear and sorted out at landing.

2. Please state 2 UoC verssels do whether UoC not fish outside the verssels ever fish UoC geographic outside the UoC area. As stated in geographic area? the section 5.2 all Maldivian P&L vessels fish exclusively within the 200 mile EEZ and are licensed by the Ministry of Fisheries and Agriculture.

3. Do other vessels 3. There are no not included in the other vessels not UoC fish the same included in the UoC certified stock which can fish the within the Maldives same certified stock

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 212

EEZ? within the Maldives EEZ.

4. How are (non- 4. This re- certified) YFT, or assessment covers any tuna including only SJT. YFT SKJ caught with fishery is suspended gear other than P&L and re-assessment be kept separate has not yet from certified SKJ commenced. caught with P&L? And please describe No non-certified how traceability gear is used on- back to the UoC is board the UoC maintained? vessels on the same trips as the certified P&L gear. Handline is for targeting YFT and is not being deployed for SJT. Handline Yellowfin tuna are not targeted on the same trips as Skipjack tuna. Only a small size YFT could be taken as by catch in the Skipjack fishery and this tuna is caught by P&L gear and sorted out at landing.

5. We understood 5.There is no that CoC is required transshipment at at the point of sea other than from offloading to catcher vessels to collector vessels, collector/mother please still identify vessels. transhipment as a Collector/mother risk hence the vessels collect only recommendation for SJT from the CoC, and any other Maldives P&L transhipment risks vessels in the UoC and mitigation and do not collect measures to any other species address them. Also which could be the MSC mixed with the recommends listing certified catch. CoC clearly the collector is required for vessels' CoC holders Collector vessels as it wasn't clear not because of the under whose high-risk involved certificate their CoC (as there is none), is covered (i.e. by but because of the one of the 4 main change of the eligible processors ownership which takes place on

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 213

or all or board. Collector separately)? vessels belong to the processors and should be covered by the processors chain of custody certificate.

6.This re- 6. Any other risks - assessment covers the YF P&L tuna only SJT. YFT component of the fishery is suspended fishery is currently and re-assessment suspended. has not yet However should the commenced. certification status changes it would affect traceability in the fishery (P&L YFT would be certified, while handline YFT would not). This should be identified under 'other risk' in the last row of the risk table.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 214

Based on Section 5.4 it is understood that SKJ are landed both directly to processing facilities AND also being picked up by collector vessels (where separate CoC will be required). But Page 58 FCR_7.12.1.5. Amended 22367 27221 Minor further in the PCDR - 60 b v2.0 accordingly. states the point of intended change of ownership takes place at sea. Please be consistent on where change of ownership takes place so the required starting point of CoC is clear.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 215

Catcher vessels operate from various locations throughout the Maldives archipelago. Due to FCR v2.0 clause the distances 7.12.2.1.a requires involved, fish are that CoC is always landed either required following directly to the change in processing facilities ownership of the (if located nearby) product to any or to collector Page Guidanc FCR_7.12.2.1 22367 27222 party not covered vessels/mother 58-60 e v2.0 by the fishery ships owned by certificate. Please processors. confirm and explain CoC is required at where CoC begins, the transfer of the at sea or at the ownership from the point of landing? Or catching vessel to both? the processing company and CoC starts at the point of landing at shore or at collector vessels/mother ships.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 216

Please elaborate on the membership of the client group, MSPEA, and clearly list out the 4 eligible processors (section 5.4, p. 58) to ensure first buyers Fishery certificate from the fishery are covers fishing able to verify they vessels only. are buying from a Processor valid client group FCR_7.4.8.3 companies are 22367 27223 Page 58 Minor member. v2.0 indeed first buyers

and would require Further, please note own chain of FCR v2.0 clause Custody 7.19.4.2(a) which certification. requires named companies who are members of the client group to be published in the PCR, and updates required under FCR v2.0 clause 7.22.9).

The current Target Eligibility Date is also the date the current certificate would expires (28 November 2017), the MSC Pages 6 Guidanc Amended 22367 27224 FCR-7.6.1 v2.0 recommends to & 58 e accordingly. make the statement on pg.6 consistent with the statement on pg.58 (TED is from (re)certification date).

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 217

In the Executive Summary, the MSC Certification Requirements are given as v2.1. However, this Guidanc should either be the Amended 22367 27225 6 e MSC General accordingly. Certification Requirements v2.1 or the Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 218

APPENDIX 4 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY

Table 32 Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale Level auditors 1 - 4 Level 4 : reduced 1-2 auditors on- From client action plan it can be deduced that surveillance. site with remote information needed to verify progress towards 2 on-site support from 1 condition can be provided remotely in year 2 surveillance auditor and 3. But this would be confirmed in the first audits surveillance report, once the progress against 2 off-site the condition is verified. surveillance audits

Table 33 Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary Proposed date of Rationale date of surveillance certificate audit 1-4 28th November February - March IOTC meetings take place in Spring each year, proposal to postpone audit to include findings from IOTC.

Table 34 Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 4 On-site Off-site Off-site On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 219

APPENDIX 5 OBJECTIONS PROCESS

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

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

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 220

About DNV GL Driven by our purpose of safeguarding life, property and the environment, DNV GL enables organizations to advance the safety and sustainability of their business. We provide classification and technical assurance along with software and independent expert advisory services to the maritime, oil and gas, and energy industries. We also provide certification services to customers across a wide range of industries. Operating in more than 100 countries, our 16,000 professionals are dedicated to helping our customers make the world safer, smarter and greener.

DNV GL – Report No. 2017-004, Rev. 0 – www.dnvgl.com MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template V2.0 – issued 8 April 2015 Template approval date: Page 221