(WPSTA) Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Free School Purse Seine MSC Fishery Assessment Report

SCS Global Services Report

Western Pacific Sustainable Tuna Alliance (WPSTA) Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine MSC Fishery Assessment Report

Public Certification Report

Authors Client Contact Dr. Sian Morgan, Lead Auditor F.C.F. Fishery Co., Ltd Mr. Alexander Morison, Principles 1 & 2 No 8 Min Chuan 2nd Rd, 28th floor Mr. Frank Meere, Principle 3 Kaohsiung, TW Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone, Project Coordinator http://www.fcf.com.tw/

June 18, 2018

SCS Global Services Report

Table of Contents Glossary ...... 4 1. Executive Summary ...... 7 Fishery Operations Overview ...... 8 Assessment Overview ...... 9 Summary of Findings ...... 10 2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 12 2.1 Audit Team ...... 12 2.2 Peer Reviewers ...... 14 For Independent Peer Reviewers...... 14 3. Description of the Fishery ...... 16 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 16 3.1.1 UoA and Final Unit of Certification (UoC) (equivalent to proposed) ...... 16 3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 20 3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 21 3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 21 3.2 Overview of the Fishery ...... 21 3.2.1 Location and History of the Fishery ...... 21 3.2.2 Organization and User Rights...... 23 3.2.3 Description of Fishing Practices: Gear ...... 25 3.2.4 Areas and Seasons ...... 26 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 28 3.3.1 Skipjack tuna ...... 28 3.3.2 Yellowfin tuna ...... 39 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 54 3.4.1 Observer Programs ...... 54 3.4.2 Overview of Non-target Catch ...... 58 3.4.3 Primary Species ...... 65 3.4.4 Secondary Species ...... 69 3.4.5 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species ...... 73 3.4.6 Habitat Impacts ...... 87 3.4.7 Ecosystem Impacts ...... 89 3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 96 3.5.1 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions ...... 96 3.5.2 Fishery-Specific Management ...... 121 4. Evaluation Procedure ...... 132 4.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessment ...... 132

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 2

SCS Global Services Report

4.2 Previous assessments ...... 138 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 138 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 138 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 138 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 140 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 141 5. Traceability ...... 146 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 146 5.2 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 149 5.3 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 150 6. Evaluation Results ...... 151 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 151 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 152 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 153 6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 155 Appendices ...... 163 Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationales ...... 163 Principle 1...... 164 Principle 2...... 196 Principle 3...... 238 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 279 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 280 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports ...... 320 Peer Reviewer 1 ...... 320 Peer Reviewer 2 ...... 333 Appendix 3 Stakeholder Submissions ...... 348 Comments Received Prior to the PCDR Stage ...... 348 PNAO NOTE TO RELEVANT CABS ON SCORING OF SI 1.2.1a FOR WCPO SKIPJACK FISHERIES ... 348 Comments Received during the PCDR Stage ...... 354 ISSF ...... 354 SCS Response to ISSF...... 357 MSC Technical Oversight (with SCS Response in far right column) ...... 358 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 362 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 363 Appendix 6. Vessel List ...... 364 Appendix 7: Letter to WCPFC re CMM 2016-01 and Response ...... 365 Letter to WCPFC from SCS ...... 365

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 3

SCS Global Services Report

Letter to SCS from WCPFC ...... 367 Appendix 8: Expedited Audit/Scope Eligibility Re-affirmation ...... 369

Glossary

B Biomass Bcurrent Average total biomass for recent years BMSY Biomass at MSY C, Clatest Catch, Latest catch WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and CCM Participating Territories are termed CCMs Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna CITES and Flora CMM Conservation and Management Measure CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort EAFM Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ELAPS Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine (applies to USA vessels) ERA Ecological Risk Assessment EU European Union ETP Endangered, Threatened or Protected F Fishing mortality FCF Fong Chung Formosa Company Ltd. FAD Fish Aggregating Device FB Fisheries Bureau on behalf of China Fcurrent Average fishing mortality-at-age for recent years FFA Forum Fisheries Agency FEP Fishery Ecosystem Plan FL Fork length FLIM Fishing Mortality Limit Reference Point FMSY Fishing Mortality at MSY FMP Fisheries Management Plan FSM Federated States of Micronesia HCR Harvest Control Rule HTMC Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions IATTC Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission IFIMS Industry Fisheries Information Management System (for PNA) IPOA International Plan of Action International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna like Species in the ISC N. Pacific ISO International Standard Organization ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 4

SCS Global Services Report

IW International waters LRP Limit Reference Point MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MP Management Plan MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield MSFCMA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act NFA National Fisheries Authority on behalf of Papua New Guinea NFD Non-fishing day NGO Non-Government Organisation NOAA National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPOA National Plan of Action OFP Offshore Fisheries Program (of the SPC) P1, P2, P3 The three guiding Principles of the MSC PAE Party allowable effort PASAI Pacific Association of Supreme Audit Institutions PCR Public Certification Report PI Performance Indicator PICT Pacific Island Country or Territory PIP Pacific Island Party (to the USA Treaty) PITIA Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association PNA Parties to the Nauru Agreement PNAO Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office PNG Papua and New Guinea PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSA Productivity Susceptibility Analysis RBF Risk-Based Framework RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisations RMI Republic of the Marshall Islands ROP Regional Observer Program SB Spawning stock biomass SBcurrent Average spawning biomass over recent years SBMSY Spawning biomass at MSY SC Scientific Committee (of the WCPFC) SCS SCS Global Services SEAPODYM Spatial Ecosystem and Population Dynamics Model SICA Scale Intensity Consequence Analysis SIDS Small Island Developing States SPC Secretariat to the Pacific Community SPREP South Pacific Regional Environment Programme SPTT South Pacific Tuna Treaty (the USA Treaty) TAC Total Allowable Catch TAE Total Allowable Effort TCC Technical Compliance Committee of the WCPFC

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 5

SCS Global Services Report

TEP Threatened, Endangered and Protected Species TFA Taiwanese Fishing Authority TRP Target Reference Point UNCLOS United Nations Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification USA or USA United States of America VDS Vessel Day Scheme VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPO Western and Central Pacific Ocean WPRFMC Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 6

SCS Global Services Report

1. Executive Summary This report presents the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) assessment of the skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) fishery, harvested by purse seine gear on free school sets1 only in Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention (WCPFC) area by select vessels flagged to the USA, China, and Chinese Taipei, considered to be a six Units of Assessment (UoA). Within the report, the combined UoAs will be referred to as the Western Pacific Sustainable Tuna Alliance (WPSTA) fishery. The assessment was conducted, and the findings were prepared by SCS Global Services (SCS), an MSC-accredited, independent, third-party conformity assessment body, in accordance with the MSC Principles and Criteria for sustainable fishing. The assessment complies with the MSC Certification Requirements and Guidance v2.0 (October 1, 2014). The fishery was assessed against the Default Assessment Tree with no modifications.

Table 1. Assessment Scope: 6 Units of Assessment

Stock/Species Method of Capture Fishing fleet (FCR v2.0 7.4.7.1) (FCR v2.0 7.4.7.2) (FCR v2.0 7.4.7.3) Select vessels licensed to fish in the WCPF Western and Central Pacific Purse seine fishing, Convention Area by the following nation Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus free school sets only and under the purview of: pelamis) China: Bureau of Fisheries Select vessels licensed to fish in the WCPF Western and Central Pacific Purse seine fishing, Convention Area by the following nation Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus free school sets only and under the purview of: albacares) China: Bureau of Fisheries Select vessels licensed to fish in the WCPF Western and Central Pacific Purse seine fishing, Convention Area by the following nation Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus free school sets only and under the purview of: pelamis) Chinese Taipei: Fisheries Agency of R.O.C. Select vessels licensed to fish in the WCPF Western and Central Pacific Purse seine fishing, Convention Area by the following nation Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus free school sets only and under the purview of: albacares) Chinese Taipei: Fisheries Agency of R.O.C. Select vessels licensed to fish in the WCPF Western and Central Pacific Purse seine fishing, Convention Area by the following nation Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus free school sets only and under the purview of: pelamis) USA: National Marine Fisheries Service Select vessels licensed to fish in the WCPF Western and Central Pacific Convention Area by the following nation Purse seine fishing, Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus and under the purview of: free school sets only albacares) USA: National Marine Fisheries Service

This assessment includes six UoAs: the six units use the same gear (free school purse seine) but target two target stocks (Skipjack tuna and yellowfin tuna, assessed under Principle 1), and are divided into three UoA fleets according to flag states to which the fleet is licensed (USA, China, and Chinese Taipei, assessed under Principle 3). Under Principle 1, there are therefore two sets of scoring tables: one for

1 A definition of ‘free school set’ is provided in p. 9 of this report

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 7

SCS Global Services Report each target species/stock. Because skipjack and yellowfin are often caught together, the remaining Principles 2 and 3 are scored the same for the two target stocks.

Under Principle 2, the catch composition was evaluated across each flag state separately to categorize species for MSC evaluation (Primary, Secondary, ETP, Main/Minor). Tables in the background present the catch composition for each flag state separately. The recorded fish catches for the Chinese fleet (Table 9), Chinese Taipei fleet (Table 10) and the USA fleet (Table 11), and for out-of-scope species (Table 12) demonstrate material alignment in the outcome of the main species classifications for the purposes of MSC scoring (based primarily on catch by weight as a proportion of the total catch of the given flag state fleet), with slight differences in minor species. These results are then presented as largely grouped scores in a single set of scoring tables, due to this alignment in main species, with differences in scoring due to the difference in the composition of minor species catches between the nation state fleets, noted accordingly.

Under Principle 3, scoring considers all applicable biological and jurisdictional levels that apply to the management system of the UoA (GSA4.1.1). The potentially relevant jurisdictions include the WCPFC, Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), and the three licensing flag states of the fleet under assessment (USA, China, and Chinese Taipei). Each flag state is therefore scored separately. The applicable jurisdictions are determined on a Performance Indicator (PI), and Scoring Issue (SI), basis, because the relevant jurisdictions that affect performance relative to the respective scoring guideposts vary based on the aspect of the governance and fishery management system being assessed. For reader-friendliness and to minimize duplicative text in the report, a single set of evaluation tables are provided for all three flag states. Differences in scores across the three sets of nation state scores (based on flag state performance and other relevant considerations) are noted in the justification. Although WCPFC performance is considered in each SI, it is not ‘scored’ as an element as per individual species or guilds in Principle 22, but instead is incorporated with the flag state score to generate an overall UoA score for each nation stage fleet (USA, China, Chinese Taipei).

The approach to scoring is explained at the beginning of each Principle in the scoring tables in Appendix 1, the scope is further detailed in Section 3.1 and scoring methodology in Section 4.3.

Fishery Operations Overview WPSTA is an alliance between the trading company, F.C.F. Fishery Co. Ltd, and several vessel owners representing a fleet of 27 purse seine vessels flagged to the USA, China, and Chinese Taipei, and operating in the WCPFC Convention area. The WPSTA fishery for yellowfin, Thunnus albacares, and skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, occurs in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) within the boundaries of the waters managed by the WCPFC. The area covered by the Convention covers almost 20 per cent of the Earth’s surface (see Figure 4). Although the western boundary notionally extends to the East Asian seaboard, it is understood that the Convention Area does not include the South China Sea. In the east, the Convention Area adjoins, or overlaps, the area of competence of the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission. The southern boundary extends to 60 degrees south and the

2 In P1 or 2, the ‘scoring elements’ approach can be employed when there are different scoring elements (i.e. individual species) that comprise part of the same component ( i.e. ETP) affected by the UoA.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 8

SCS Global Services Report northern boundary extends to Alaska and the Bering Sea (https://www.wcpfc.int/frequently-asked- questions-and-brochures). The fleet fishes primarily for skipjack and yellowfin tuna with fishing operations primarily in the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of countries that are Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), primarily under the following arrangements and management frameworks: . The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); . The Nauru Agreement and its implementing Arrangements; . The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement; . The United States Multilateral Treaty (USAT) (also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, SPTT) (USA fleet only); and . The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (not a regulatory organisation but plays an important role in providing technical assistance to members). . The respective flag state national governance systems of the fleets under assessment (United States, Chinese Taipei, China) For more detail on the governance and fishery management systems, see Background Section 3.5.

The fleet under assessment employs purse seine fishing, which involves enclosing a school of fish, in this case skipjack and yellowfin tuna, with a curtain of netting. See Background Section 3.2.3 for a description of the purse seine gear operation. The purse seine fishing under assessment here includes only sets which take place on free swimming schools of tuna. During the one trip vessels may fish on schools that are either free school3 or associated with Fish Aggregating Devices (FADs)4 (for detailed description of a FAD see p. 19) but the product from both types of sets must be kept separate at all times (see section 5 on Traceability).

Assessment Overview

The team selected to undertake the assessment includes three team members that collectively meet the requirements for MSC assessment teams. These are: . Dr. Sian Morgan, Lead Auditor . Mr. Alexander Morison, Principles 1 & 2 . Mr. Frank Meere, Principle 35 Prior to the announcement of the fishery full assessment, the client submitted a suite of documentation to support the assessment process. The on-site meetings with fishery representatives,

3 Free school sets include unassociated sets or sets where tuna are feeding on baitfish. 4 The WCPFC, in Conservation and Management Measure (CMM) 2008-01, defines a Fish Aggregation Device (FAD) as “any object or group of objects, of any size, that has or has not been deployed, that is living or non- living, including but not limited to buoys, floats, netting, webbing, plastics, bamboo, logs, and whale sharks floating on or near the surface of the water that fish may associate with.” Schools of tuna may be found near man-made and natural or be unassociated with any such structures or organisms. 5 Frank Meere was added to the assessment team to replace the original Principle 3 expert during the scoring and client draft development stage. This change was announced on the MSC website for stakeholder consideration.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 9

SCS Global Services Report scientists and stakeholders took place in Beijing, China, and Taipei City, Chinese Taipei, between June 13-19, 2017. The assessment team visited agency offices including the China Overseas Fisheries Association (COFA) and Chinese Taipei Fisheries Agency (TFA). Documents were presented by fishery representatives and fisheries scientists. Client representatives were thorough in their approach and provided the assessment team with supporting documents. The original announcement for the assessment indicated that the Risk based framework (RBF) would not need to be used and this was confirmed from information provided prior to and during the site visit. Several stakeholders registered interest, but prior to the onsite meetings only one set of comments have been received, from PNAO. At the PCDR stage, one set of comments was received from International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF), as well as a Technical Oversight report from MSC. See Background Section 4 for more detail on the assessment process, and for stakeholder submissions and SCS responses see Appendix 3.

Shortly after the objection period a report by Greenpeace6 was published that documented issues of forced and slave labor on high seas tuna fisheries, and names Fong Chun Formosa Fishery Company, Ltd. (FCF) as a company linked to trading tuna from three main case studies covered by the report. None of the client group vessels were implicated directly in this report. However, due to the MSC scope criteria on forced labor7 that is considered applicable to all members of the client group, and the potential for ownership structures to link purse seine vessels to named longline vessels, SCS was obligated to conducted an expedited audit to confirm the scope eligibility of the client group and fishery prior to making its certification decision (per ISO 17065 7.11, FCR V2.0 7.23.22.1). In the course of the brief expedited audit SCS sought further information on the vessels named in the three cases brought forward by Greenpeace, as well as input from the Taiwanese Fishing Authority (TFA), as the competent authority for the vessels in question. The team has concluded based on available evidence that the Unit of Assessment’s client group remains in compliance with the scope criteria of FCR V2.0 7.4.1.4. Thus, the assessment proceeded to a positive certification decision. Please see Appendix 8 for more detail regarding the Expedited Audit process and findings.

Summary of Findings In this report, we provide detailed rationales for scores presented for each of the Performance Indicators (PIs) under Principle 1 (Stock status and Harvest strategy), Principle 2 (Ecosystem Impact) and Principle 3 (Governance, Policy and Management system) of the MSC Standard. No PIs failed to reach the minimum Scoring Guidepost (SG) of 60, and the average scores for the three Principles remained above SG80. The fishery received a total of 14 conditions within seven performance indicators across the six UoAs. The fishery received four conditions in Principle 1 (two for skipjack and two for yellowfin), two conditions in Principle 2 (one per fleet for China and Chinese Taipei), and eight conditions in Principle 3 (four per fleet for China and Chinese Taipei). A Client Action Plan, detailed in Appendix 1.3., was produced to meet the conditions.

6 http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/Global/eastasia/publications/campaigns/Oceans/Misery_at_Sea- Final1.pdf 7 7.4.1.4 The client or client group shall not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years. a. If an entity that belongs to a certified client group is successfully prosecuted for violations of laws on forced labour, such entity shall be considered as having become out of scope and shall be withdrawn from the certificate or client group.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 10

SCS Global Services Report

The key strengths of the WPSTA fishing operations include that they have largely operated under the management provisions imposed by the PNA and particularly the VDS, as well as the Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) adopted by the WCPFC. The VDS scheme has proved to provide an effective cap on the levels of fishing effort in the EEZs of PNA members. Purse seine fishing on free school sets occurs with minimal bycatch, as evidenced by a lack of any ‘Main’ species (i.e. there are no non-target species comprising >5% of catch by weight) under the Primary or Secondary species classification. Both skipjack and yellowfin tuna stocks are well above their limit reference points and the point of recruitment impairment. In Principle 1, two of the PIs (1.2.1 and 1.2.2 for both skipjack and yellowfin) received scores under SG80, resulting in four conditions. Both conditions are rooted in a lack of a clear harvest control rule linked to the status of the skipjack and yellowfin stocks. Scores under Principle 1 are harmonized with several overlapping MSC-certified fisheries targeting skipjack and yellowfin in WCPFC waters. For a detailed description of the harmonization process and outcomes, see Background Section 4.1. In Principle 2, one of the PIs (2.2.2) received a score under SG80, for Chinese Taipei and China only. The condition on PI 2.2.2 pertains to evidence to demonstrate that shark finning is not occurring within these fleets. In Principle 3, four of the PIs (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3) received scores under SG80 for the Chinese and Chinese Taipei fleets, due to flag state governance concerns regarding effective cooperation, national consultation and decision-making, and evidence of consistent application of sanctions that provide effective deterrence.

In this report we provide the rationales for all scores proposed, which support the determination that the fishery is recommended for certification.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 11

SCS Global Services Report

2. Authorship and Peer Reviewers

2.1 Audit Team

Dr. Siân Morgan― SCS Global Services, Director, Sustainable Seafood, Lead Auditor Dr. Sian Morgan is an ISO 9001:2008 certified lead auditor in SCS’s Sustainable Seafood Certification program, which includes both fishery and chain of custody certification under the auspices of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC). Dr. Morgan has been involved in or led full assessments, pre- assessments, and surveillance audits for a 40+ MSC assessments, including large-scale purse seine tuna fisheries. Dr. Morgan has fifteen years of experience in the fields of marine ecology and fisheries science with particular expertise in markets-based fisheries reform, certification and quantitative methods for decision analysis. Her doctoral research at the Fisheries Center, University of British Columbia/McGill examined the ecology, population dynamics and management of a small-scale, data- poor fishery in Asia. Dr. Morgan has worked in non-governmental, academic and consulting settings and brings to the team a strong background in multi-stakeholder consultation. Past projects include developing SeaChoice, a national sustainable seafood program for Canada, conceiving pragmatic trade tools for the CITES Secretariat and developing the Capture Fisheries Standard for artisanal fisheries for Fair Trade USA. Dr. Morgan is qualified to audit the MSC and the ASC standards, including the MSC Risk-based framework, Low Trophic Level MSC assessments, MSC Chain of custody audits and SAI’s SA 8000 social accountability audits.

Dr. Morgan’s experience satisfies the MSC requirements for a Team Leader as described in PC1 (FCRv2.0). She has completed the v2.0 Team Leader MSC modules within the last 3 years and has undertaken more than 2 MSC fishery assessment or surveillance site visits as a team member in the last 5 years. She is competent in the MSC Standard and current Certification Requirements, auditing techniques, and communication and stakeholder facilitation techniques. Mr. Alexander “Sandy” Morison – Morison Aquatic Sciences, Principle 1 & Principle 2 Mr. Morison is a consultant specializing in fisheries and aquatic sciences. He has over 30 years experience in fishery science and assessment at state, national and international levels and has held senior research positions for state and national organizations in Australia. He is currently chair of the Ecologically Related Species Working Group of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) and has been engaged in the Kobe process for harmonisation of measures across the tuna RFMOs. Mr Morison has considerable experience with issues of tuna and other pelagic species through various positions in addition to his current role with CCSBT. He was Australia’s representative on the Science Working Group during the establishment of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation and was the inaugural chair of the Jack Mackerel Working Group during that time. He has also chaired Australia’s East Coast Tuna and Billfish Resource Assessment Group. Mr. Morison has participated as part of a team undertaking MSC pre-assessments for several fisheries and is also trained as a lead auditor for MSC assessments.  Heard Island and MacDonald Islands Mackerel Icefish: Reassessments and surveillance audits (Principle 1).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 12

SCS Global Services Report

 Heard Island and MacDonald Islands Patagonian toothfish: First assessment, reassessment and surveillance audits (Principle 1).  Lakes and Coorong Fishery (South Australia): Reassessments and surveillance audits (Principle 1).  Macquarie Island Patagonian toothfish fishery: First assessment, reassessment and surveillance audits (Principle 1).  Kyoto Danish Seine Fishery: Reassessment (Principle 1).  Western Rock Lobster Fishery: Surveillance audits and reassessment. (Principle 1)  PNA Western and Central Pacific unassociated purse seine fishery (skipjack tuna): Surveillance audits (Principle 1).  PNA Western and Central Pacific unassociated purse seine fishery (yellowfin tuna): Expedited assessment (Principle 1).  Northeastern Tropical Pacific purse seine yellowfin & skipjack tuna: first assessment (Principle 2).  Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna: first assessment (Team leader, Principle 1 and Principle 2).  Peel-Harvey Inlet, blue swimmer crab and sea mullet fisheries (Principle 1).  Western Australia deep sea crab fishery (Principle 1).  Australian pearl oyster fishery (Principle 1).  Pre-assessments of three other fisheries (confidential). Mr. Morison was the facilitator for an assessment of the ecological risks from Queensland’s East Coast Trawl Fishery that looked at the full range of ecological components. He was senior author of the report that synthesised background information and the results of an expert workshop, and was co- author of the summary and technical reports that described the results of the project. He was subsequently engaged to assist with an assessment of this fishery’s vulnerability to climate change. Sandy is also contracted by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority to chair the South East Fisheries Resource Assessment Group and the Shark Fisheries Resource Assessment Group, is the Scientific Representative on the South East Fishery Management Advisory Committee, and is a member of the South East Scalefish and Shark Fishery Resource Assessment Group. He has also been the scientific representative on other Resource Assessment Groups. Sandy has experience with the assessment of invertebrate, chondrichthyan and teleost fisheries including commercial and recreational fisheries in freshwater, estuarine and marine habitats and fisheries operating in tropical, temperate and polar environments. He has particular expertise with fish age and growth and has been involved in the development and implementation of harvest strategies for several fisheries. He has over 20 publications in peer- reviewed scientific journals (8 as senior author), 8 book chapters, and over 100 project reports, technical reports, client reports and papers in workshop and conference proceedings. For more details visit: www.morisonaqsci.com.au

Frank Meere- FRM Consulting Pty Ltd, Principle 3

Frank has extensive fisheries management and policy expertise underpinned by qualifications in applied economics and has worked in domestic and international fisheries management and policy

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 13

SCS Global Services Report for more than 27 years. Prior to joining fisheries Frank worked for the Australian Government for 10 years in a range of other positions and agencies.

In 1989 he joined the Australian Fisheries Service and was involved in the development and drafting of new Commonwealth fisheries legislation and in the early 90’s, the establishment of Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA). He worked for more than ten years in key senior positions within AFMA and left the organisation in 2003 after five years as its Managing Director. Frank then worked on the High Seas Task Force – a Ministerial Task force on IUU fishing on the high seas, for two years where he took prime responsibility for the economics and trade and management and enforcement aspects of the HSTF work and subsequent report.

Frank has extensive international fisheries management experience having served on Australian Government delegations to RFMOs, been involved in the development of new RFMOs, participated as a member of the 2008 Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) performance review panel, in 2017 acted as the independent Chair of the South Pacific Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (SPRFMO) Jack Mackerel Allocation Working Group and is currently serving as the independent Chair of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) Compliance Committee.

Frank has particular expertise in analysing and developing practical policy and administrative approaches to complex fisheries management issues and is particularly interested in seeking market based approaches to management challenges. He is a member of the International Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade.

Frank runs his own consulting company and is active in international fisheries governance (including IUU fishing) and management issues. He is based in Australia and works predominantly overseas.

2.2 Peer Reviewers

For Independent Peer Reviewers

The peer reviewers were selected based on their qualifications and competencies, with specific attention to experience in RFMO-managed fisheries, the nature of fishing and fisheries management of distant water fishing fleets, observer programs and fishery monitoring, and stock assessments for tropical tuna species. Dr. Laurence Kell – Independent Consultant Dr. Laurence Kell has more than thirty years experience of developing novel approaches and providing advice and for a wide range of stocks and fisheries. His work includes temperate and tropical tuna and tuna like species, demersal and pelagics stocks, data poor species, and by- caught species including cetaceans, turtles and sea birds. He helped pioneer the application of

Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) in Europe. As well as working in Europe with ICES, he has participated in a variety of management bodies, including the International Whaling Commission as head of the UK scientific delegation and as an alternate commissioner, and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT) where he was employed as the Population Dynamics Expert. At ICCAT his duties include the establishment of review mechanisms, the provision

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 14

SCS Global Services Report of guidance on assessment models and assumptions underpinning scientific advice and was been heavily involved in the development of new assessment methods and approaches, particularly related to model validation, simulation testing, MSE, and Ecological Risk Assessment. Throughout his career he has collaborated widely with a large number of scientists from a variety of disciplines and helped to developed approaches to improve dialogue with stakeholders and decision makers.

Dr. Teresa Athayde – Independent Consultant Dr. Teresa Athayde works as an independent consultant (SeaMORE2) since January 2010 helping countries of the SWIO developing fisheries observers programs, and on the development of subregional fisheries observers activities with the industrial tuna fleets operating in the region in association with the IOC, the SWIOFC and the IOTC. From 2010 till 2013 she was in charge of coordinating scientific surveys and observer activities for the South West Indian Ocean Fisheries Project (SWIOFP), a World Bank development project. Moreover during 2005-2009 she worked as Communication and Tag Recovery Officer for the Regional Tuna Tagging Project – Indian Ocean, European Union development project implemented under the technical coordination of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC). She has an experience with the tuna fishing industry, specialized mainly in the Indian Ocean and a wide trajectory as Scientific Observer in fishing boats between 1998 and 2005 with a worldwide fleet. This experience has allowed her to acquire an extended knowledge about fish stock assessment, fish stock biology and ecology, fishing impacts in aquatic ecosystems and fisheries management and operations.

Teresa has a deep knowledge of RFMOs objectives, function and responsibilities, politics and limitations. During my work with the Indian Ocean Tuna Tagging Program I had the opportunity to work in close contact with Dr. John Hampton, Oceanic Fisheries Program (OFP) Manager of Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), during the Tenth Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas (Bangkok, Thailand, 23-31 October, 2008) and during the First Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tagging Data Analysis (Seychelles, 30 June to 4 July 2008). In work as Publicity and Tag Recovery Officer of the RTTP-IO she worked in close association with vessel owners, agents and representatives as well with vessel crew from countries such as Spain, France, Portugal, China, Japan and Chinese Taipei. While drafting the a proposal for addressing Regional Observer Aspects as part of development of Protocol for Regional Minimum Terms and Conditions (MTC) for granting fishing access to foreign fleets in the Southwest Indian Ocean (SWIO) region she conducted a gap analysis of regional observer programmes at an international scale including SPC/WCPFC/FFA observer programs, with whose coordinators she regularly exchanged to collect information concerning local fishery geo-political context and its implications on SPC/WCPFC/FFA observer programs and MSC certification. Such exchanges increased her knowledge of the West and South Pacific Region, of its geo-political particularities and local fishery context. Teresa has completed the MSC online training as a fisheries team member and has previously served as a peer reviewer for the North Atlantic Albacore Artisanal Fishery.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 15

SCS Global Services Report

3. Description of the Fishery

3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought

3.1.1 UoA and Final Unit of Certification (UoC) (equivalent to proposed)

The Unit of Assessment includes Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna caught by the 27 vessels that belong to members of the WPSTA, licensed by the USA, China, and Chinese Taipei, using purse seine gear (free school set types), fishing within the WCPF Convention Area. (See vessel list in Appendix 6).

This Fishery has been found to meet scope requirements (FCR v2.0 7.4) for MSC fishery assessments as it . Does not operate under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement, use destructive fishing practices, does not target amphibians, birds, reptiles or mammals and is not overwhelmed by dispute. (FCR 7.4.1.1, 7.4.1.2, 7.4.1.3, 7.4.2) . The fishery does not engage in shark finning, has mechanisms for resolving disputes (FCR 7.4.2.1), and has not previously failed assessment or had a certificate withdrawn. . Is not an enhanced fishery, is not based on an introduced species, and does not represent an inseparable or practically inseparable species (FCR 7.4.3, 7.4.4, 7.4.13-15) . And does not include an entity successfully prosecuted for violating forced labor laws (7.4.1.4) . The UoA does overlap with several MSC certified or applicant fishery (7.4.16), and therefore harmonization requirements are applicable. (see Section 4.1 for more detail). . The Unit of Assessment, the Unit of Certification, and eligible fishers have been clearly defined, traceability risks characterized, and the client has provided a clear indication of their position relative to certificate sharing (7.4.6-7.4.12). See the MSC website for a certificate sharing statement from the client: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/wpsta-western-and-central- pacific-skipjack-and-yellowfin-free-school-purse-seine/@@assessments.

This assessment includes six Units of Assessment (UoAs): the six units use the same gear (free school purse seine) but target two stocks (Principle 1), and are divided into three UoA fleets according to flag states to which the fleet is licensed (Principle 3).

Under Principle 1, there are two sets of scoring tables: one for each target species/stock.

Under Principle 2, the catch composition was evaluated across each flag state separately in order to categorize species for MSC evaluation (Primary, Secondary, ETP, Main/Minor). Tables in the background present the catch composition for each flag state separately. The recorded fish catches for the Chinese fleet (Table 9), Chinese Taipei fleet (Table 10) and the USA’s fleet (Table 11), and for out-of-scope species (Table 12) demonstrate material alignment in the outcome of the main species classifications for the purposes of MSC scoring (which is primarily based on catch by weight as a proportion of the total catch of the given flag state fleet), with slightly difference in minor species. These results are then presented as largely grouped scores in a single set of scoring tables, due to this

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 16

SCS Global Services Report alignment in main species, with differences in scoring due to difference in the composition of minor species catches between the nation state fleets, noted accordingly.

Because skipjack and yellowfin are scored thoroughly under Principle 1, they are not scored a second time as primary species. A target species that is certified under Principle 1 and has obtained an overall score >80 for P1, will have already be assessed under a higher standard of performance than those for main retained/primary under Principle 2, thus it is expected to obtain a score >80 for the relevant Principal Indicators under P2. If in a subsequent assessment one of the target P1 target species fails and is no longer considered as certified, it will then be scored under Principle 2.

Under Principle 3, scoring considers all applicable biological and/or jurisdictional levels that apply to the management system of the UoA (GSA4.1.1). The potentially relevant jurisdictions include the WCPFC, PNA, and the three licensing flag states of the fleet under assessment (USA, China, and Chinese Taipei). Each flag state is scored separately. The applicable jurisdictions are determined on a PI, and SI, basis, because the relevant jurisdictions that affect performance relative to the respective scoring guideposts vary based on the aspect of the governance and fishery management system being assessed. For reader-friendliness and to minimize duplicative text in the report, a single set of evaluation tables are provided for all three flag states. Differences in scores across the three sets of nation state scores (based on flag state performance and other relevant considerations) are noted. Although WCPFC performance is considered in each SI, it is not ‘scored’ as an element as per individual species or guilds in Principle 2, but instead is incorporated with the flag state score to generate an overall UoA score for each nation stage fleet (USA, China, Chinese Taipei).

Table 2. Units of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC). There are 6 total UoAs, based on the target stocks and flag states in scope. See above for further explanation.

Units of Assessment: Defined as the species, gear, and fleet assessed (6 Total) 1) Western and Central Pacific Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) UoA: Species & Stock (FCR v2.0 7.4.7.1) 2) Western and Central Pacific Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) UoA: Gear Type (FCR v2.0 7.4.7.2)* Purse seine fishing, free school8 only Select purse seine vessels licensed to fish in the WCPF Convention area by the three following nations and under the purview of: 1) China: Bureau of Fisheries UoA: Vessels (FCR v2.0 7.4.7.3)

2) Chinese Taipei: Fisheries Agency of R.O.C.

3) USA: National Marine Fisheries Service

8 Free School sets, according to WCPFC, including unassociated sets and sets associated with baitfish.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 17

SCS Global Services Report

The UoA fishery for yellowfin, Thunnus albacares, and skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, occurs in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) within the boundaries of the waters managed by the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Convention. The Convention Area is defined in article 3 of the Convention and comprises all waters of the Pacific Ocean bounded to the south and to the east by a line drawn from the south coast of Australia due south along the 141° meridian of east longitude to its intersection with the 55° parallel of south latitude; thence due east along the 55° parallel of south latitude to its intersection with the Further information: Geographic Area 150° meridian of east longitude; thence due south along the 150° meridian of east longitude to its intersection with the 60° parallel of south latitude; thence due east along the 60° parallel of south latitude to its intersection with the 130° meridian of west longitude; thence due north along the 130° meridian of west longitude to its intersection with the 4° parallel of south latitude; thence due west along the 4° parallel of south latitude to its intersection with the 150° meridian of west longitude; thence due north along the 150° meridian of west longitude (https://www.wcpfc.int/convention-text). The key components of the regional and sub-regional governance arrangements and fishery management framework relevant to the UoA include: • The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); • The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (the PNA Agreement); Further information: Management System • The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement; • The United States Multilateral Treaty (USAT) (also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, SPTT) (USA fleet only); and • The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (not a regulatory organisation but plays an important role in providing technical assistance to members). Unit of Certification: Defined as the vessels allowed to use the MSC ecolabel for catch from the Unit of Assessment (defined as the species, location and gear assessed against the MSC standard). WPSTA, represented by: F.C.F. Fishery Co., Ltd. No 8 Min Chuan 2nd Rd, 28th floor, Kaohsiung, TW Client Group Max Chou TEL: +886-7-3391636 ext. 318 Email: [email protected] Fishers in the UoC for the chosen stock The Unit of Assessment is equivalent to the Unit of Other Eligible Fishers that may join the Certification. Thus, there are no other eligible fishers. certificate for the chosen stock

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 18

SCS Global Services Report

*Notes on Defining the Gear Type The assessment team evaluated all free school sets as determined in the SPC observer database, which are classified as either unassociated or feeding on bait fish at the beginning of the set. Sets classified as associated are categorized as ‘FAD’ sets, in accordance with WCPFC definitions:

Definition of a FAD The definition of a FAD to be used for this Certification follows that used by the WCPFC which has been developed as part of CMMs specifying FAD closure periods. CMM 2008-01 states that “For the purposes of these measures, the term Fish Aggregation Device (FAD) means any man-made device, or natural floating object, whether anchored or not, that is capable of aggregating fish.” This was expanded upon in CMM 2009-02 in defining the Rules for FAD Closures: “The definition of a FAD in footnote 1 to CMM 2008-01 shall be interpreted as including: ‘any object or group of objects, of any size, that has or has not been deployed, that is living or non-living, including but not limited to buoys, floats, netting, webbing, plastics, bamboo, logs and whale sharks floating on or near the surface of the water that fish may associate with’ 3. During the FAD closure period specified in CMM 2008-01, no purse seine vessel shall conduct any part of a set within one nautical mile of a FAD. That is, at no time may the vessel or any of its fishing gear or tenders be located within one nautical mile of a FAD while a set is being conducted. 4. The operator of a vessel shall not allow the vessel to be used to aggregate fish, or to move aggregated fish including using underwater lights and chumming. 5. A FAD and/or associated electronic equipment shall not be retrieved by a vessel during the period of a FAD closure unless: a. the FAD and/or associated electronic equipment are retrieved and kept on board the vessel until landed or until the end of the closure; and b. the vessel does not conduct any set either for a period of seven (7) days after retrieval or within a fifty (50) mile radius of the point of retrieval of any FAD. 6. In addition to paragraph 6, vessels shall not be used to operate in cooperation with each other in order to catch aggregated fish. No vessel shall conduct any set during the prohibition period within one nautical mile of a point where a FAD has been retrieved by another vessel within twenty four (24) hours immediately preceding the set. Codes to implement the above definition and to be used by observers to classify set types are listed in the WCPFC Regional Observer Program Minimum Standard Data Fields document (www.wcpfc.int/system/files/Table-ROP-data-fields-instructions.pdf). For “Purse seine free school association (tuna)” these may be either “unassociated” or “feeding on bait fish”. Purse seine associated school associations (i.e. FAD sets) include sets on “Drifting log, debris, dead animal; drifting raft; anchored raft; live whales/marine mammals; live whale shark; other floating object”. Set types are recorded by observers at the time a set commences but, on hauling, a whale shark or other object may be found to have been associated with the school. This occurs apparently because “the whale shark may be not visible at the time of setting and so the set is recorded as another set type (e.g. unassociated, feeding on baitfish)”. Subsequently, the observer discovers the animal in the net during the brailing process, and records it as an interaction” (WCPFC8 ‐2011‐IP‐01 (rev. 1)). This assessment was conducted using observer data, wherein sets are classified as unassociated (free school) or associated (FAD) at the beginning of the set. This means there may be some associated sets included in the catch data evaluated (where objects were not identifiable at the start of a set). The only likely consequence of this highly conservative definition of a free school set, is that there could be an increased volume of “FAD-like” catch composition included in the assessed unit. Given that associated sets tend to have greater proportion of unwanted catch than free school sets, the findings in this report will be more conservative from a scoring and condition perspective, rather than less so (the fishery may have lower scores, and more improvements required than if post-set verification were conducted in order to “remove” sets determined post hoc to be associated (vs. free school), from assessment. Note, for Chain of Custody purposed a verification process is required to ensure that those potential FAD sets are not sold as MSC certified product. See Section 5 Traceability.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 19

SCS Global Services Report

3.1.2 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data Table 3. Catch of skipjack and yellowfin tuna by free school purse seine, by fleet, year (2014 and 2015) and area of capture (mt). PNA – EEZs of PNA member countries, IW – International waters, Other EEZ – EEZ of non-PNA countries.

Species Fleet Location Year Total % for fleet 2014 2015 (2014-15) Skipjack China PNA 2,700 6,015 8,716 94% IW 604 604 6.5% Total 2,700 6,619 9,320 Chinese 98% Taipei PNA 20,714 8,861 29,575 IW 71 495 565 1.9% Total 20,784 9,356 30,140 USA PNA 97,517 41,187 138,705 82% IW 1,983 28,876 30,860 18% Other EEZ 1 1 <0.1% Total 99,501 70,065 169,566 TOTAL 122,986 86,040 209,025 Yellowfin China PNA 365 2,641 3,007 100% Chinese 98% Taipei PNA 2,510 3,021 5,531 IW 112 112 2.0% Total 2,510 3,133 5,643 USA PNA 11,118 4,915 16,033 82% IW 241 3,391 3,633 18% Total 11,360 8,306 19,666 TOTAL 14,234 14,081 28,315

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 20

SCS Global Services Report

3.1.3 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

There is no evidence of enhancement in this fishery.

3.1.4 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF)

There is no evidence of introduced species in this fishery.

3.2 Overview of the Fishery 3.2.1 Location and History of the Fishery

The tuna fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is diverse, ranging from small-scale artisanal operations in the coastal waters of Pacific states, to large-scale, industrial purse-seine, pole-and-line and longline operations in both the exclusive economic zones of Pacific states and on the high seas. The main species targeted by these fisheries are skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis), yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) (Williams et al. 2017a).

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

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

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

Gillett (2007) outlined some major events affecting purse-seining in the Pacific Islands region during the last two decades including: . Strong El Niño events, especially that of 1982–83, resulted in good purse seine fishing in the Pacific Islands and the opposite in the eastern Pacific. In general, during El Niño years the purse seine fishery moves to the east of its normal location between Papua New Guinea and the Federated States of Micronesia.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 21

SCS Global Services Report

. The South Pacific Tuna Treaty (also known as the USA. Multilateral Tuna Treaty or just the USA Treaty) was signed in 1987 and came into force in 1988. Since that time, the USA purse seine fleet has enjoyed access to most of the region except closed areas in some EEZs and high seas pockets. . There has been a general increase in the proportion of tuna caught by purse-seining relative to that by longline or pole-and-line. About 80 percent of the tuna in the region is presently caught by this gear. In recent years, the catch by purse seines has continued to increase and remains responsible for the majority of the catch of the main tropical tunas (Figure 1). The distribution of catches of skipjack tuna (Figure 2) and yellowfin tuna (Figure 3) by different gear types shows how the catch has varied spatially.

Figure 1. Catch (mt) of albacore, bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin in the WCP–CA, by longline, pole-and-line, purse seine and other gear types (from Williams et al. 2017a).

Figure 2. Distribution and magnitude of skipjack catches for the most recent decade of the stock assessment (2006-2015) by 5 ◦ square and fishing gear: longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 22

SCS Global Services Report

miscellaneous (yellow), for the entire Pacific Ocean. Overlayed are the regional boundaries for the stock assessment (from McKechnie et al. 2016).

Figure 3. Distribution and magnitude of yellowfin tuna catches for the most recent decade of the stock assessment (2006-2015) by 5 ◦ square and fishing gear: longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow), for the WCPO and part of the EPO. Overlayed are the regional boundaries for the stock assessment (2017 regional structure) (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

3.2.2 Organization and User Rights The WPSTA fishery for yellowfin, Thunnus albacares, and skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, occurs in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) within the boundaries of the waters managed by the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Convention. The area covered by the Convention covers almost 20 per cent of the Earth’s surface (see Figure 4). Although the western boundary notionally extends to the east Asian seaboard, it is understood that the Convention Area does not include the South China Sea. In the east, the Convention Area adjoins, or overlaps, the area of competence of the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission. The southern boundary extends to 60 degrees south and the northern boundary extends to Alaska and the Bering Sea (https://www.wcpfc.int/frequently-asked- questions-and-brochures).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 23

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 4. WCPFC Convention area. EEZs in blue. Boundaries shown are those used for catch compilation estimates. Source: http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/tuna-fisheries/170-tuna-fisheries-of-the-western-and- central-pacific-ocean

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 24

SCS Global Services Report

The Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean established the WCPFC in 2004 to conserve and manage migratory fishery resources in the WCPO. The WCPFC is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment, and provides a framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission. The Nauru Agreement is a binding Treaty-level instrument considered to be a sub-regional or regional fisheries management arrangement for the purpose of the UNFSA and the WCPFC Convention. The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) collectively account for a significant bulk of the region’s tuna catch and the majority of the purse seine catch, and have worked collaboratively since 1982 to manage the tuna stocks within their national waters with a view to enhancing economic benefits from the fishery.

FFA was established under the South Pacific Forum Fisheries Agency Convention and the governing body is the Forum Fisheries Committee (FFC). The FFA presently has seventeen members - Australia, Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tokelau, Tonga, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu. FFA is an expertise based organisation providing advice, technical assistance and other support to its members. In 1982, FFA established standardization of minimum terms and conditions of fisheries access throughout the Pacific region. Members agreed to adopt these minimum standards and conditions in licensing distant-water fishing nations’ fleets. They included the regional register of fishing vessels and conditions such as licensing procedures, rights of authorized law enforcement officers, requirements for reporting catch and maintaining logbooks, reporting requirements and procedures for entering and exiting zones and for identifying vessels.

Each purse seine vessel is licensed via its flag state for participation in fishing operations in the WCPF Convention Area, and any EEZs within the Convention area via sub-regional or bilateral access agreements. There are three flag states licensing the fleet under assessment: The United States, Chinese Taipei, and China. The governance systems of these flag states as they affect the performance of the fleet relative to the MSC Standard is evaluated in Principle 3.

See Sections 3.5.1 and 3.5.2 for more information on governance and fishery specific management. 3.2.3 Description of Fishing Practices: Gear

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

Although specifications can vary, nets are typically made of nylon mesh around 1,500 meters long and 200 meters in depth. Mesh size ranges from 90 mm in the center (bunt), and 200 mm in the wings. The net lengths are divided into separate panels, which can be replaced when the nets are damaged. The first sets of the day usually commence at around 3 or 4 am and are usually completed

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 25

SCS Global Services Report at around 9 or 10 am. Depending on opportunities, there may be up to 3 sets in a day. Trip lengths may last from 3 weeks to 3 months (Banks et al., 2011).

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

Figure 5. Illustration of a free school tuna purse seine set (Source FAO).

3.2.4 Areas and Seasons The purse-seine catch/effort distribution in tropical areas of the WCP–CA is strongly influenced by El Nino–Southern Oscillation Index (ENSO) events with fishing effort typically expanding further to the east during El Niño years and contracting to western areas during La Niña periods (Williams et al. 2017a). The distribution of total catches of skipjack tuna (Figure 6) and yellowfin tuna (Figure 7) over recent years are generally similar.

Also affecting the spatial and temporal distribution of fishing effort and catch are the FAD closure periods (since 2010) which have contributed to an increase in free school sets, but in some years this set type has dominated in the non-FAD closure months as well, due to prevailing environmental conditions which were more conducive to sets on free-swimming schools (Williams et al. 2017a).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 26

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 6. Distribution and magnitude of skipjack catches for the most recent decade of the stock assessment (2006-2015) by 5º square and fishing gear: longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow), for the entire Pacific Ocean. Overlayed are the regional boundaries for the stock assessment (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Figure 7. Distribution and magnitude of yellowfin tuna catches for the most recent decade of the stock assessment (2006-2015) by 5 ◦ square and fishing gear: longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow), for the WCPO and part of the EPO. Overlayed are the regional boundaries for the stock assessment (2017 regional structure) (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 27

SCS Global Services Report

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

3.3.1 Skipjack tuna

Taxonomic classification

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

Behaviour

Skipjack tuna form both free schools and schools associated with FADs or other floating objects. Depth distribution ranges from the surface to about 260 m during the day, but is limited to near surface waters at night. Skipjack tuna feed on fishes, crustaceans, cephalopods and mollusks; cannibalism is common. They are preyed upon by large pelagic fishes and sharks. Skipjack tuna are not a Low Trophic Level species. Their trophic level is reported in Fishabase.org has been estimated at 4.4 ( 0.5 se).

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

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

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

Reproduction and Recruitment Skipjack tuna reach maturity at about 40 cm fork length (FL) and within their first year. They spawn in batches throughout the year in equatorial waters, and from spring to early fall in subtropical waters, with the spawning season becoming shorter as distance from the equator increases. Fecundity increases with size but is highly variable, the number of eggs per season in females of 41

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 28

SCS Global Services Report to 87 cm fork length ranging between 80 000 and 2 million. Skipjack tuna have a generation time of 2 years (Berger et al. 2013).

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

Skipjack in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are considered to comprise one stock for assessment and management purposes. A substantial amount of information on skipjack movement is available from tagging programs, which have documented some large-scale movement within the Pacific (Figure 8). In general, skipjack movement is highly variable (Sibert et al., 1999) but is thought to be influenced by large-scale oceanographic variability (Lehodey et al. 1997). Skipjack tuna are also classified as a ‘highly migratory species’ and are listed as such in Annex I of UNCLOS. Analyses of the tagging data have, however, indicated that the median lifetime displacement of skipjack ranges from 420 to 470 nautical miles (Sibert and Hampton 2003). Other studies (Hoyle et al. 2011, Lehody et al. 2011) also indicate that mixing rates appear to be fairly restricted, particularly between the equatorial and sub-tropical/temperate North Pacific.

Figure 8. Map of the movements of tagged skipjack released in the WCPO and subsequently recaptured. (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Catch The catch by the UoA is shown in Table 3. The total catch from the whole stock, as used in the most recent stock assessment, shows the continued dominance of catches by purse seines (Figure 9). This catch has been taken from all the regions used in the assessment, and the relative importance of each region has varied over time (Figure 10) (the modelled regions are shown in Figure 2).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 29

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 9. Skipjack tuna. Time series of total annual catch (1000’s mt) by fishing gear from the reference case model over the full assessment period. The different colours refer to longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow) (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Figure 10. Skipjack tuna: time series of total annual catch (1000’s mt) by fishing gear and assessment region from the reference case model over the full assessment period. The different colours refer to longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow) (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Stock assessment Stock assessments for skipjack tuna are undertaken by the Oceanic Fisheries Program (OFP) of the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC) as the scientific advisory body for the WCPFC. It uses MULTIFAN-CL which is an integrated statistical modelling framework that with a large degree of

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 30

SCS Global Services Report flexibility as to which model components are fixed or estimated (including biological parameters, fishery characteristics and variances).

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

The assessment reports contain descriptions of structural assumptions, model parameterization and priors. These have been progressively developed over the years and the latest report generally only contains details of changes to these assumptions which may be more fully described in earlier versions. Stock assessments for skipjack tuna have been conducted regularly since 2000 with the most recent one being in 2016 (McKechnie et al. 2016a). The assessment model uses MULTIFAN‐CL and is based mainly on catch and effort data for various fleets, size data and tagging data. This assessment followed the previously agreed approach but also addressed several flagged improvements. The conclusions of this assessment were as follows: 1. The current stock assessment estimates stock status to be very similar to the 2014 assessment, with a period of moderately higher spawning biomass over the subsequent years. 2. Current catches are lower than, but approaching, estimated MSY. 3. Fishing mortality of all age-classes is estimated to have increased significantly since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing, but fishing mortality still remains below the level that would result in the MSY, and is estimated to have decreased moderately in the last several years. 4. Recent levels of spawning biomass are well above the level that will support the MSY, and are well above the limit reference point, 20%SB F=0 .5 5. Depletion-based reference points (including SB latest /SB F=0 , SB recent /SB F=0 and SB 2015 /SB F=0[2015] ) for the reference case model, sensitivity analyses and uncertainty grid suggest that the skipjack stock is most probably at or close to the target reference point of 50%SB F=0. 6. Modelling assumptions explored in sensitivity and structural uncertainty analyses had a moderate impact on model output but did not change the broad conclusions about recent stock status. 7. Modelling results were most sensitive to assumptions about weighting of data components, tag mixing period and steepness, and several important avenues of research related to these assumptions have been identified and will improve future assessments.

These results are also summarised in Table 4 and illustrated in Figure 11 and Figure 12.

The SC could not reach a consensus regarding the use of this as the basis of an agreed base case leading to a majority view (Option 1 in Table 4) and an alternative view (Option 2) was conveyed to the Commission. The concerns they expressed at the SC meeting were addressed by SPC in a follow up paper to the Commission (McKechnie et al. 2016b) which produced similar or more optimistic assessment results. This did not lead to consensus at the Commission as to an accepted base case

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 31

SCS Global Services Report model but there was agreement that the status of skipjack tuna was not of concern. We consider there to be sufficient evidence to support the conclusion reported by Dr Hampton to the Commission that the stock is not overfished and is not experiencing overfishing.

In addition to the reference case, a wide range of other model formulations were examined. The key uncertainties explored concerned the assumed steepness of the stock-recruitment relationship, the weighting of length samples and the tagging data, and the tag mixing period, producing 54 combinations of these factors for which a separate model was run for each.

A retrospective analysis has also been undertaken previously for the assessment (Rice et al. 2014, which involves rerunning the model after consecutively removing successive years of data to estimate model bias. The results of the retrospective analyses were the basis of a modification to the reference case whereby recruitment deviates for the last four quarters were not estimated and a better reference point developed for spawning potential depletion (the most recent year of the assessment).

For skipjack tuna an alternative model formulation had also been explored using age‐ and season‐ specific movement rates based on the ecosystem model SEAPODYM (Lehodey et al. 2001) to test the plausibility of using ecosystem model output in the place of internal estimation (Rice et al. 2014). At this time the use of the SEAPODYM movement parameters greatly degraded the likelihood and so this model was not included in the uncertainty grid described above, but the more recent assessment produced results which were more consistent with the predictions of SEAPODYM (McKechnie et al. 2016).

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 32

SCS Global Services Report

Table 4. Skipjack tuna. Estimates of management quantities for the selected stock assessment models. For the purpose of this assessment, “recent” is the average over the period 2011–2014 and “latest” is 2015. The column “Ref Case” shows summaries for the reference case and the remaining columns are the quantiles of the structural uncertainty grid, e.g. 5% and 50% are the 5% quantile and the median (50% quantile), respectively. Option 1 in the text recommends basing management advice on the reference case model and considering the uncertainty represented by the 5% and 95% quantile columns. Option 2 recommends basing management advice on the range of model runs in the structural uncertainty grid, as represented by the 5% and 95% quantile columns (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Quantity Ref Case 50% 5% 25% 75% 95% 푪풍풂풕풆풔풕 1,679,528 1,679,444 1,678,646 1,679,170 1,679,497 1,679,592 푴푺풀 1,891,600 1,875,600 1,618,060 1,785,400 1,976,700 2,199,880

풀푭풓풆풄풆풏풕 1,594,800 1,607,000 1,486,660 1,533,200 1,755,200 1,808,860 풇풎풖풍풕 2.23 2.07 1.57 1.85 2.29 2.62 푭푴푺풀 0.24 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.26 0.28 푭풓풆풄풆풏풕/푭푴푺풀 0.45 0.48 0.38 0.44 0.54 0.64 푺푩푴푺풀 1,626,000 1,628,000 1,258,700 1,425,750 1,852,750 2,166,100 푺푩ퟎ 6,764,000 6,359,500 5,214,050 5,853,750 7,095,250 8,340,450 푺푩푭=ퟎ 7,221,135 6,876,526 5,778,079 6,408,578 7,425,353 8,555,240 푺푩풍풂풕풆풔풕/푺푩ퟎ 0.62 0.55 0.43 0.49 0.59 0.71 푺푩풍풂풕풆풔풕/푺푩푭=ퟎ 0.58 0.51 0.39 0.47 0.57 0.67 푺푩풍풂풕풆풔풕/푺푩푴푺풀 2.56 2.15 1.6 1.81 2.43 3.08 푺푩풓풆풄풆풏풕/푺푩푭=ퟎ 0.52 0.49 0.4 0.46 0.52 0.57 푺푩풓풆풄풆풏풕/푺푩푴푺풀 2.31 2.04 1.58 1.82 2.32 2.65

Figure 11. Skipjack tuna. Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning biomass, SB latest /SB F=0 , for the reference case model. The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SB F=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line, the adopted target reference point, 50%SB F=0 , is shown by the green dashed line, and the red circle represents, SB latest /SB F=0 , the level of spawning biomass depletion based on the agreed method of calculating SB F=0 over the last ten years of the model (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 33

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 12. Skipjack tuna. Temporal trend for the reference case model (left) and the structural uncertainty grid (right) in stock status relative to SBF=0 (x-axis) and FMSY (y-axis). The red zone represents spawning potential levels lower than the agreed LRP, which is marked with the solid black line (0.2SBF=0). The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than FMSY (F=FMSY; marked with the black dashed line). The green line indicates the interim target reference point 50%SBF=0 (from McKechnie et al. 2016a)

Figure 13. History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) for the reference case model compared with annual catch by the main gear types (from McKechnie et al. 2016a).

Management There are three distinct levels of management for the UoA which are described more fully in Section 3.5: management by the WCPFC, management by the PNA (noting that the vast majority of the catch

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 34

SCS Global Services Report of both skipjack and yellowfin are taken from PNA waters – see Table 3), and management by the flag states in which fishing vessels are registered. This section provides some background to the first two of these levels of management.

WCPFC management Skipjack tuna were not included in the earlier tuna specific Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs) passed by the WCPFC because there were no concerns about the status of the species. They were first included in CMM 2012-01 and have been included in all later iterations of this CMM. CMM 2016-01 deals with skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna and includes the following requirements for purse seine effort control: Exclusive Economic Zones 20. Coastal States within the Convention Area that are Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) shall restrict the level of purse seine effort in their EEZs to 2010 levels through the PNA Vessel Days Scheme (VDS).

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

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

23. Other coastal States within the Convention Area other than those referred to in paragraph 20 and paragraph 22 shall establish effort limits, or equivalent catch limits for purse seine fisheries within their EEZs that reflect the geographical distributions of skipjack, yellowfin, and bigeye tunas, and are consistent with the objectives for those species. Those coastal States that have already notified limits to the Commission shall restrict purse seine effort and/or catch within their EEZs in accordance with those limits. Those coastal State CCMs that have yet to notify limits to the Commission shall do so by 30 June 2014.

High Seas purse seine effort limits 25. For 2017, non-SIDS CCMs shall restrict the level of purse seine effort on high seas to the limits indicated in Attachment D. The Commission shall review these limits at its meeting in 2017 and agree on high seas purse seine effort limits to apply after 2017.

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

CMM 2016-01 also specifies other management measures including a three months (July, August and September) prohibition of setting on FADs for all purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and high seas, and also high seas purse seine effort limits. The annual high seas limit for USA vessels through to 2017 is 1270 days. In addition to this, the USA NMFS has set a compatible limit of 558 fishing days per year with the USA EEZ, in accordance with CMM 2016-01 para. 23. These limits are applicable until 2017. Operationally, the USA considers that the limits apply to a combined area comprised of the high seas and EEZ for a total of 1,828 days. The 2016-2017 ELAPS days (EEZ and high seas) were codifed as Rule 81 FR 41239, amending USA Code of Federal Regulations: 50 CFR Part 300.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 35

SCS Global Services Report

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

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

Since 2008, the VDS has been an important element of the WCPFC purse seine measures to conserve bigeye (CMM 2008-001). Currently, the scheme has aimed to limit the catch to 2010 levels by restricting effort of vessels within the scheme to less than 2010 levels (the reduction being intended to allow for increasing fishing efficiency). CMM 2016-01 reiterated the requirement (initially contained in CMM 2011-01 and subsequently carried over in subsequent measures) that Coastal States within the Convention Area that are PNA members shall restrict the level of purse seine effort in their EEZs to 2010 levels through the PNA Vessel Days Scheme; and that WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) shall support the ongoing development and strengthening of the PNA VDS including implementation and compliance with the requirements of the VDS as appropriate. Catches from vessels outside the scheme have not been similarly constrained.

Article 12 of the Palau Arrangement (PNA 2016) states that the Total Allowable Effort will be set having regard to: i) The best available scientific, economic, management and other relevant advice and information; ii) the provisions of the Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean; iii) the objectives of the Management Scheme; and iv) any submission on this issue from any party, individual or organisation.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 36

SCS Global Services Report

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

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

There have previously been concerns expressed about a lack of clarity and openness in PNA decision-making with respect to the establishment and operation of the VDS Total Allowable Effort, particularly with respect to links to the requirements of WCPFC CMMs and the scientific advice (Banks et al. 2011). Despite being given copies of PNA meeting minutes, we consider that a lack of clarity about the links between the scientific advice, VDS effort allocations, and CMM provisions persists. Also a concern from a stock sustainability perspective are concerns over how the VDS will deal with evidence of effort creep from increasing size of fishing vessels and increases in the number of sets per fishing day and tonnage caught per fishing day (Pilling et al. 2017c). More discussion on the VDS is provided in Section 3.5.1.

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

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

For a target reference point (TRP), WCPFC’s CMM 2014-01 (WCPFC 2014b) reiterated the general objective (contained in previous CMMs) that its management measures aim to ensure that stocks are maintained at a minimum, at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield. This

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 37

SCS Global Services Report was also expressed in the specific objective that the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than the Fishing Mortality (F) at Maximum Sustainable Yield (MSY)

FMSY, i.e. F/FMSY ≤ 1. A series of Management Objectives Workshops were held and there is now an interim target reference point for skipjack tuna following the adoption of CMM 2015-06 which specified that

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

The harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is more advanced than for the other main species of tropical tunas. Nevertheless, the workplan that WCPFC adopted in 2015 and revised in 2016 for yellowfin tuna (Table 5) indicates that there are still important decisions to be made concerning harvest control rules.

Table 5. Agreed work plan for skipjack tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06.

Year Activity 2016  Record management objectives for the fishery or stock (a).  Agree acceptable levels of risk (c).  Agree monitoring strategy (d).  Develop harvest control rules (e).  Management strategy evaluation (f) o SC provide advice on a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. o SC provide advice on a range of performance indicators to evaluate performance of harvest control rules. o Commission record management objectives for skipjack o Commission agree to acceptable levels of risk for breaching Limit Reference Point for skipjack. o Commission agree to a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. o Commission agree performance indicators to evaluate harvest control rules. 2017  Develop harvest control rules (e).  Management strategy evaluation (f). o SC provide advice on candidate harvest control rules based on agreed reference points. o Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. 2018  Develop harvest control rules (e).  Management strategy evaluation (f). o SC provide advice on performance of candidate harvest control rules. o TCC* consider the implications of candidate harvest control rules. o Commission consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules.

* TCC = Technical and Compliance Committee

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 38

SCS Global Services Report

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

For more information on the VDS, see Section 3.5.

Information

The information used in the assessment of skipjack tuna consists of catch, effort, length-frequency and weight-frequency data for the fisheries defined in the analysis, and tag release-recapture data. These data come from a range of sources including mandatory logbooks with daily catch and effort records for each fishing operation (as described in CMM 2013-05), a VMS (as adopted under CMM 2014-3), 100% observer coverage of fishing operations providing a range of data including a detailed record of catch composition (through the Regional Observer Program as instigated under CMM 2006-07 and CMM 2007-01, and implemented through a range of standards and procedures available on the WCPFC website: https://www.wcpfc.int/regional-observer-programme). Records of authorised fishing vessels are also required to be maintained (as described in CMM 2013-10).

Information is also available on stock structure (from tagging and other work), and all other key aspects of the species’ biology. Data on environmental conditions is collected and is known to be important for understanding shifts in the distribution of the stock and the fishery.

3.3.2 Yellowfin tuna

Taxonomic classification

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

Behaviour

Yellowfin tuna are a large, schooling tuna, common in surface waters of tropical and sub-equatorial oceans (Molony 2008). Tagging with acoustic transmitters or ultrasonic tags has shown yellowfin spend a majority of their time in the upper mixed layer of the ocean (less than 100 m) and typically in temperatures above 17–18°C (Molony 2008). Yellowfin tuna feed on other fish, crustaceans and squid. Their trophic level has been estimated at 4.4  0.4 se.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 39

SCS Global Services Report

Growth and Natural Mortality

Growth in length for yellowfin tuna is estimated to continue throughout their life (Figure 14). The estimated mean length of the final age‐class is 153.4 cm but maximum fork length is over 200 cm.

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

Figure 14. Yellowfin tuna: estimated growth for the diagnostic case model. The blue line represents the estimated mean fork length (cm) at-age and the blue region represents the length-at-age within one standard deviation of the mean, for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Reproduction and Recruitment

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 40

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 15. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (from Davies et al. 2014).

Distribution and Stock Structure

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

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

Nevertheless, for the purpose of WCPFC yellowfin stock assessments, the stock within the domain of the model area (essentially the WCPO, west of 210°E, Figure 21) has been considered as a discrete stock unit (Davies et al. 2014). This area has been disaggregated into model regions (Figure 16) so as to describe to some extent spatial processes (such as recruitment and movement) and fishing mortality within regions (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 41

SCS Global Services Report

There is a large amount of tagging data (1989‐2012) which indicates extensive latitudinal movements among the equatorial regions but also a level of longitudinal movements to and from the sub‐tropical latitudes (Figure 17). The movement of tagged fish among regions is used in the stock assessment to estimate movement coefficients among different regions. A new regional structure proposed for the current stock assessment, with region boundaries shifted from 20° N to 10° N, was suggested by the PAW based on few movements between tropical tag release sites and temperate zones for bigeye tuna (McKechnie et al., 2017a).

Figure 16. Yellowfin tuna: the geographical area covered by the stock assessment and the boundaries for the 9 regions when using the “2017 regional structure” (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 42

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 17. Map of the movements of tagged yellowfin tuna released in the Pacific Ocean and subsequently recaptured more than 1,000 nautical miles from their release site. RTTP – Regional Tuna Tagging Project, SSAP – (Not defined in source), HTTP – (Not defined in source), PTTP – Pacific Tuna Tagging Program. (from Tremblay-Boyer et al.2017).

Catch The catch by the UoA is shown in Table 3. The total catch from the whole stock, as used in the most recent stock assessment, shows the continued dominance of catches by purse seines (Figure 18). This catch has been taken from all the regions used in the assessment, and the relative importance of each region has varied over time (Figure 19) (the location of modelled regions are shown in Figure 3).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 43

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 18. Yellowfin tuna: time series of total annual catch (1000’s mt) by fishing gear for the diagnostic case model over the full assessment period. The different colours refer to longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow). Note that the catch by longline gear has been converted into catch-in-weight from catch-in-numbers and so estimates differs from the annual catch estimates presented in (Williams and Terawasi, 2017), however these catches enter the model as catch-in-numbers (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 44

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 19. Yellowfin tuna: time series of total annual catch (1000’s mt) by fishing gear and assessment region from the diagnostic case model over the full assessment period. The different colours denote longline (green), pole-and-line (red), purse seine (blue) and miscellaneous (yellow) (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Stock assessment

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

The most recent assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017) was an update of the previous assessment (Davies et al., 2014) but also addressed relevant recommendations of that assessment report, including an investigation of an alternative regional structure, exploration of uncertainties in the assessment model, particularly in response to the inclusion of additional years of data, and improving diagnostic weaknesses of previous assessments.

In addition to the diagnostic case model, it reported the results of one-off sensitivity models to explore the relative impacts of key data and model assumptions for the diagnostic case model on the stock assessment results and conclusions. It also undertook a structural uncertainty analysis (model grid) for consideration in developing management advice where all possible combinations of the most important axes of uncertainty from the one-off models were included. In comparison to

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 45

SCS Global Services Report previous assessments, less emphasis was placed on the diagnostic case model. Instead Tremblay- Boyer et al. (2017) recommended that management advice be formulated from the results of the structural uncertainty grid.

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

Based on the results of the model grid, the general conclusions were: 1. The grid contained a wide range of models with some variation in estimates of stock status, trends in abundance and reference points. However, biomass was estimated to have declined throughout the model period for all models in the grid. Those declines were found across most tropical and temperate regions of the model. 2. Across the model grid, the terminal depletion estimated for the majority of runs estimate stock status levels to be above the 20% SB F=0 . The range of SB latest /SB F=0 values was 0.18 to 0.45. Only two runs (<5%) fell below the LRP of 20% SB F=0 . The median estimate (0.33) was comparable to that estimated from the 2014 assessment grid, noting the differences in grid uncertainty axes used in the two assessments. 3. Corresponding estimates of F recent /F msy ranged from 0.58 to 1.13, with 2 out of the 48 runs (<5%) indicating that F recent /F msy > 1. The median estimate (0.75) was also comparable to that estimated from the 2014 assessment grid. 4. Fishing mortality for adult and juvenile yellowfin tuna was estimated to have increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing (seen in the diagnostic case model). In general these had been on average higher for juveniles, but in recent years adult fishing mortality had also increased. A significant component of the increase in juvenile fishing mortality was attributable to the Philippines, Indonesian and Vietnamese surface fisheries, which have the most uncertain catch, effort and size data. The work of the WPEA project to assist in enhancing the current fishery monitoring programme and improving estimates of historical and current catch from these fisheries remains important given the contribution of these fisheries in the overall fishing impact analyses from this assessment. 5. The significance of the recent increased recruitment events and the progression of these fish to the spawning potential component of the stock were encouraging, although whether this was a result of management measures for the fishery or beneficial environmental conditions was currently unclear. It was noteworthy, however, that recent favourable recruitment events had also been estimated for skipjack (McKechnie et al., 2016a) and bigeye (McKechnie et al., 2017a) in the WCPO, and bigeye in the EPO (Aires-da Silva et al., 2017), which may give weight to the favourable environmental conditions hypothesis. Whether these trends are maintained in coming years will help separate these factors and will likely provide more certainty about the future trajectories of the stock. 6. There remained a range of other model assumptions that should be investigated either internally or through directed research. Briefly, the apparent non-linear impact of the weighing on the size composition data on population estimates, and the conflict between the abundance indices and the tagging data for region 8 were worthy of note. Also, biological

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 46

SCS Global Services Report

studies to improve our estimates of growth of yellowfin within the WCPO, for instance through direct ageing of otoliths as was done in bigeye, should be considered a high priority.

The impact of purse seine fishing based on free school sets is important and has been increasing over time, but it is spatially variable and is still less than the impact from other types of fishing (Figure 21). Over the period 1965-2014, recruitment on average displays very little trend and the uncertainty decreases substantially since the mid 1965s (Figure 22). Biomass has declined steadily over the model period but in the most recent years, that decline has slowed, and shows a small increase in the last two years (Figure 23). Although the age-specific selectivity patterns produce a much higher MSY in the early period of the fishery compared to the recent estimates, the catch has always been less than MSY (Figure 24).

Table 6. Yellowfin tuna: Summary of reference points over all 72 individual models in the structural uncertainty grid (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 47

SCS Global Services Report

a b C

d e F g

Figure 20. Yellowfin tuna: Majuro plots summarising the results for each of the models in the structural uncertainty grid. The plots represent estimates of stock status in terms of spawning biomass depletion (B/Bmsy - X-axis) and fishing mortality (F/Fmsy – Y-axis). The red zone represents spawning biomass levels lower than the agreed limit reference point, which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than F MSY ( F MSY is marked with the black dashed line). The points represent SB latest /SB F=0 for each model run except in panel (b) where SB recent /SB F=0 is also displayed. Panels (c)–(g) show the estimates for the different levels for the five axes of the grid. (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 48

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 21. Yellowfin tuna: estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing (fishery impact = 1 −SB latest /SB F=0 ) by region, and over all regions (lower right panel), attributed to various fishery groups for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Figure 22. Yellowfin tuna: estimated annual, temporal recruitment (in millions with 95% confidence intervals as the blue shaded regions) for the whole WCPO for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 49

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 23. Yellowfin tuna: estimated temporal spawning potential (in in thousands of tonnes, with 95% confidence intervals as the blue shaded regions) for the whole WCPO for the diagnostic case model (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Figure 24. History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) for the diagnostic case model compared with annual catch by the main gear types (from Tremblay-Boyer et al. 2017).

Management

As for skipjack tuna, there are three distinct levels of management for the UoA which are described more fully in Section 3.5: management by the WCPFC, management by the PNA, and management by the flag states in which fishing vessels are registered. This section provides some background to the first two of these levels of management.

WCPFC management

Yellowfin have been subject to the provisions of CMMs since CMM 2005-01 was passed which included the requirement that “CCMs shall take necessary measures to ensure that purse seine effort levels do not exceed either 2004 levels, or the average of 2001 to 2004 levels, in waters under their national jurisdiction, beginning in 2006.” The most recent measure is CMM 2016-01 and the

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 50

SCS Global Services Report purse seine effort control measures it contains are provided above under skipjack tuna. In addition to the measures in CMM 2016-01 to restrict purse seine effort that are described above, there are additional measures that are specific to yellowfin tuna:

Yellowfin tuna purse seine catch 28. CCMs agree to take measures not to increase catches by their vessels of yellowfin tuna. At its 2016 regular session the Commission will formulate and adopt appropriate limits for CCMs, based on recommendations from the Scientific Committee, and taking into account other measures in this CMM. At its 2016 regular session the Commission will also formulate and adopt any in-season reporting requirements needed to support full implementation of these limits.

29. The Scientific Committee at its 2016 regular session will provide advice to the Commission on the relative impact on fishing mortality for yellowfin, of FAD set measures and any increases of yellowfin purse seine catch in unassociated schools

Also, there was an addition to the footnote on page 1 of CMM 2016-01 introduced in 2016 that stated “In addition the Commission agreed that in respect of paragraph 28 and 43, no limits for yellowfin tuna would apply in purse seine and longline fisheries in 2017.”

Paragraph 28 is shown above and paragraph 43 is specific to longline fishing. These paragraphs could be considered to be an explicit agreement for CCM-specific limits on catches of yellowfin tuna (albeit from an unspecified baseline) and hence the revision to the footnote created some ambiguity as to whether they remained in force.

The apparent contradiction between the requirement for CCMs not to increase their catches of yellowfin tuna, and the footnote that states that no limits apply to yellowfin tuna, led to a joint letter from several Conformity Assessment Bodies (including SCS) being submitted to WCPFC to clarify the intent of the footnote. The response from WCPFC included9 “paragraph 28 of CMM 2016-01 has two elements: first, the requirement in the first sentence that CCMs not increase catches by their purse seine vessels of yellow fin tuna; and second, that the Commission will formulate and adopt appropriate purse seine limits, based on recommendations from the Scientific Committee and any in-season reporting requirements to implement these limits.” And that “Footnote 1 must be read together with the text of paragraphs 28 and 43. In the context of the discussion within the Scientific Committee and Commission, as well as the text of CMM 2016-01, the reference to “limits” in footnote 1 must be interpreted as specific limits on catch or effort. As such it therefore relates to the second element of paragraphs 28 and 43. The footnote does not remove the responsibility on CCMs set out in the first sentence of each paragraph not to increase catches by their purse seine or longline vessels of yellowfin tuna. “

9 The full text of the query and response are provided in Appendix 7.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 51

SCS Global Services Report

We have accepted that the response from WCPFC indicates that CCMs still have the responsibility to not increase catches by either gear type but that the WCPFC nevertheless plans to re-formulate these as separate limits for the purse seine and longline fleets. What form such revised limits would take (e.g. as catch or effort limits) or how they would be implemented (e.g. whether they would prescribed by a harvest strategy and whether or not there would be an allocation process) is yet to be specified.

From the perspective of our assessment of compliance with MSC Certification Requirements we note that the revised footnote should have no impact on current management arrangements, so long as all CCMs share and follow the same understanding as to its intent that the WCPFC has espoused.

The PNA Vessel Day Scheme

The PNA’s VDS is described above in the section for Skipjack tuna and its measures are applicable to all purse seine fishing effort, regardless of the target species. It contains no measures that are specific to yellowfin tuna, which is of secondary importance to skipjack tuna and accounts for about 25% of the total VDS catch (PNA 2015).

Harvest Strategy

The process that has been followed by WCPFC as it develops harvest strategies for tropical tunas has been described above for skipjack tuna.

For yellowfin tuna, there is an agreed limit reference point but the risk of breaching this reference point has not yet been agreed.

The workplan that WCPFC adopted in 2015 and revised in 2016 for yellowfin tuna (Table 7) indicates that there are still important decisions to be made concerning management objectives, target reference points and harvest control rules.

Table 7. Agreed work plan for yellowfin tuna for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06.

Year Activity 2016  Record management objectives for the fishery or stock (a).  Agree acceptable levels of risk (c). o Commission agree to acceptable levels of risk for breaching Limit Reference Point for yellowfin tuna. o Commission record management objectives for yellowfin and ask SC for advice on a range of target reference points. 2017  Agree Target Reference Point (b). o SC provide advice on a range of Target Reference Points for yellowfin. o Commission agree a Target Reference Point for yellowfin. 2018  Agree monitoring strategy (d).  Develop harvest control rules (e).  Management strategy evaluation (f).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 52

SCS Global Services Report

o SC provide advice on a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. o SC provide advice on a range of performance indicators to evaluate performance of harvest control rules. o Commission agree to a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. o Commission agree performance indicators to evaluate harvest control rules

Information

The information collected for yellowfin tuna is the same as described above for skipjack tuna.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 53

SCS Global Services Report

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

All species that are affected by the fishery and that are not part of the Unit of Certification are considered under Principle 2. This includes species that are retained for sale or personal use (assessed under Performance Indicator 2.1), bycatch species that are discarded (Performance Indicator 2.2), and species that are considered endangered, threatened or protected by the government in question or binding international agreements provided in FCRv2.0 SA3.1.5.2 (Performance Indicator 2.3). This section contains an evaluation of the total impact of the fishery on all components in P2 and includes both observed and unobserved fishing mortality. Unobserved mortality may occur from illegal, unregulated or unreported (IUU) fishing, biota that are injured and subsequently die as a result of coming in contact with fishing gear, ghost fishing, waste, or biota that are stressed and die as a result of attempting to avoid being caught by fishing gear. This section also considers impacts on marine habitats (Performance Indicator 2.4) and the ecosystem more broadly (Performance Indicator 2.5).

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

The WCPFC CMM 2007-01 establishes the WCPFC Regional Observer Programme (Commission ROP), with the objectives of collecting verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional information related to the fishery from the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission. This program has the objective “to collect verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional information related to the fishery from the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission.”

Each CCM of the Commission is required to ensure that fishing vessels fishing in the Convention Area, except for vessels that operate exclusively within waters under the national jurisdiction of the flag State, are prepared to accept an observer from the Commission ROP if required by the Commission. Furthermore, each CCM is responsible for meeting the level of observer coverage as set by the Commission and source observers for their vessels. The target coverage levels in the region are 100% coverage of purse seine10, 5% longline effort and all high seas transshipments.

The ROP is a collection of National and Regional observer programs that are required to be audited before being authorised join the ROP. The WCPFC have developed basic standards for the formation and operation of observer programmes that wish to be part of the ROP. The WCPFC ROP standards cover minimum data fields, observer training, observer trainers, code of conduct, sea safety, placement/deployment, briefing and debriefing, debriefing training, equipment and materials, communications, performance of observers, dispute mechanism, authorisation process, coverage, vessel safety certificate, insurance, and CMM adherence. These standards are available at

10 The requirement for 100% observer coverage for purse seine fishing between 20N and 20S was first established under the PNA’s Third Implementing Arrangement in 2008; then under WCPFC’s CMM 2011-01.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 54

SCS Global Services Report http://www.wcpfc.int/doc/wcpfc-regional-observer-programme-standards. The format of collection of required data fields is up to the observer providers, however a useful guide for a format are the SPC/FFA harmonised format, which is used by a number of programmes.

Roles and Responsibilities

All FFA member countries have trained observers and debriefers who meet with observers when they come back to port to check their data. Observer coverage for most fleets are through Pacific Islands national programmes operating via bilateral access arrangements. The two multilateral subregional arrangements, the USA Treaty (~ 40 purse seiners -FFA coordinated) and FSM Arrangement (around 67 purse seine vessels - PNA Observer Agency [MRAG] coordinated) also do not have their own observer pool but use observers from the national programmes through arrangements with the national programmes.

Neither SPC nor WCPFC are responsible for placing observers to provide coverage of any fleets; but both may hire observers from national programmes for specific projects such as new sampling techniques or electronic reporting trials. SPC has an additional role in that it provides development support and data management services for it Members but is also the data warehouse and scientific advisor for the WCPFC and its broader data requirements. WCPFC's role in the observer program is one of audit and oversight of programmes participating in the WCPFC ROP.

SPC is principal in supporting the development of national observer programmes of Members in cooperation with FFA. SPC provides training of observers, debriefers, trainers and programme managers under the Pacific Island Regional Fisheries Observer (PIRFO) accreditation scheme - a competency-based vocational set of qualifications that have been endorsed by FFA members.

PIRFO has developed some institutional arrangements with some of the better national maritime schools in the region to help provide training. For the most part the schools provide the sea safety, firefighting and first aid components and SPC provides and/or subcontracts national PIRFO trainers to deliver training. There is one school in Kavieng, and PNG has two PIRFO trainers on staff and have delivered PIRFO training essentially independently. Kavieng School has now reached sufficient national observer numbers and has recently ceased observer training. PIRFO has also provided training to other Pacific countries upon request, though this has occurred with a relatively low number of trainees.

Observers’ in Management and Compliance

Fisheries observers in the region both collect scientific data and report on compliance with fisheries regulations. As part of their Gen3 report (one of the six reports they fill while on board) observers note violations (such as illegal discard and retention) that otherwise are rarely identified by traditional dockside or at-sea enforcement resources.

Flag State Considerations The individual programs have been subject to an audit (in 2010 to 2012) covering all 23 programs in place at that time, which included programs for the fleets in the UOA (WCPFC 2012). The audit

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 55

SCS Global Services Report concluded that all programs were fully authorized, but that there needed to be a follow up audit in a couple of years’ time to ensure that all programs have improved their standards where required to be fully compliant with the Commission requirements for the ROP. The observer programmes of China and Chinese Taipei are scheduled to be audited again in 2017 (WCPFC 2016 - WCPFC13 -2016- IP10). The USA’s observer program was again audited in 2015 (WCPFC 2015 - WCPFC-TCC11-2015- RP02).

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

Achieved Coverage

The annual number of estimated trips by fleet for which there was a known observer placement and for which data has been received is provided in reports to the SC and TCC (e.g. Williams et al. 2017b) from which the data for the WPSTA fleets have been extracted (Table 8). These data suggest that over the 4 years up to 2015, the proportion of purse seine trips on which it was confirmed that there were observers present was 75%, 72% and 94% for trips by Chinese, Taiwanese and USA vessels respectively. These estimates are not, however, based on logbooks records of trips but on estimates based on VMS records that are known to be overestimates of the actual number of trips (Williams et al. 2017b). One of the report authors (Peter Willams pers. comm.) has indicated that the gap between the number of estimated trips and the number for which observer data have been received by SPC is most likely attributable to transit trips on which no fishing took place but that there may also have been some observed fishing trips for which the observer data was not forwarded to SPC. He also suggested that there may be rare instances of observed trips on which no fishing took place (due to events such as injury or engine problems) for which information on observer placement was not forthcoming. We have not been able to determine why there have been lower estimates of confirmed observer coverage for vessels from China and Taiwan than for the USA. For verified observed trips by all fleets, there is a consistent record of nearly all data being provided to the SPC.

Annual Reports of the ROP have also noted difficulties in obtaining reliable estimates of the actual level of observer coverage achieved. In 2012 the ROP Annual Report stated that “Many PI observer programmes audited were struggling to service the demand for observers when the 100% observer coverage of purse seiners commenced” but that “observer numbers for purse seine coverage in 2012 are near adequate in most programmes audited” (WCPFC9- 2012-IP02 1). In 2013 the ROP Annual Report stated that “there is no way of verifying that there is 100% observer coverage of all purse seine fleets” but later indicated that there were only a small number of trips for which it was not possible to determine that there had been an observer on board (WCPFC9-2013-IP01). In 2014 the ROP Annual Report stated that “Observer data received for purse seine trips is quite high, however this does not allow for an accurate calculation on the actual number of trip undertaken which would allow for a better determination of coverage” as there was a small number of observer programmes that did not supply the information on the total amount of ROP observer trips carried

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 56

SCS Global Services Report out on each vessel type. In 2014 the ROP Annual Report stated that “the Secretariat was able to verify most but not all placements, while the Secretariat ROP Section is reasonably sure 100% coverage of purse seiners occurred, the ROP section is unable to confirm positively that every purse seine vessel carried an observer during 2014” (WCPFC-TCC11-2015-RP02) and similarly in 2016 that “the Secretariat was able to verify most but not all placements and is also is unable to confirm positively that every purse seine vessel carried an observer during 2015” (WCPFC13 -2016-IP10). Overall, these reports suggest that the level of observer coverage is high, and approaches 100% for the USA purse seine fleet, but they do not allow us to determine how close the Chinese and Taiwanese fleets have come to the requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine fleets fishing between 20N and 20S. Nevertheless, we accept the advice from SPC that that the apparent shortfall for all these fleets is most probably reflects a recording problem rather than a compliance issue.

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

Table 8. Summary of Purse seine observer data received at SPC by flag and year (2012-2015) (from data provided in Williams et al. 2017b).

Trips with known Trips for which observer data was Estimated observer placements submitted Fleet Year number % of of trips* No. % No. % of total observed China 2012 88 52 59% 52 100% 59% 2013 131 89 68% 89 100% 68% 2014 146 108 74% 106 98% 73% 2015 96 95 99% 94 99% 98% Total 461 344 75% 341 99% 74% Taiwan 2012 266 196 74% 196 100% 74% 2013 274 207 76% 206 100% 75% 2014 316 230 73% 216 94% 68% 2015 302 204 68% 191 94% 63% Total 1158 837 72% 809 97% 70% USA 2012 279 264 95% 264 100% 95% 2013 298 274 92% 274 100% 92% 2014 331 311 94% 280 90% 85% 2015 280 264 94% 264 100% 94% Total 1188 1113 94% 1082 97% 91% * Estimated trips determined from VMS data. In some instances, trips identified in the VMS data where no fishing actually took place (e.g. returning to home port in Asia for annual maintenance)

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 57

SCS Global Services Report may have been included in the “Estimated” trips and so the estimated trips will be an over-estimate of actual fishing trips.

3.4.2 Overview of Non-target Catch

The analysis for P2 is made considering the UoAs as defined in Section 3.1.1 (i.e. three distinct Principle 2 evaluations by flag state). These UoAs all use the same fishing gear (purse seines set on free schools) to catch both skipjack and yellowfin tuna in the waters of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. They are subject to the same management measures of the WCPFC and requirements of the PNA VDS. Their key differences lie in the different domestic management arrangements that apply to the fleets. These differences are not considered material to the impact of this form of fishing on P2 species.

The evaluation of the non-target catch is based data sets provided by SPC for each of the UoAs and is based on both logbook and observer reports submitted to WCPFC. There is a high level of observer coverage in the fishery as discussed in the previous section. Records from vessels in the Unit of Assessment were obtained for the period 2014 and 2015 as the two most recent years for which the data were regarded as complete. The data provided included the year fished, fishing location (EEZ country or high seas), and the retained and discarded catch weight (or numbers) by species. The recorded fish catches for the Chinese fleet (Table 9), Chinese Taipei fleet (Table 10) and the USA’s fleet (Table 11), and for out-of-scope species (Table 12) show a high degree of overlap in the catch composition. What differences exist are consistent with different levels of fishing effort and the low likelihood of many of the taxa being caught leading to stochastic variation in catch composition.

Where information on stock status was not available from WCPFC stock assessments, the IUCN Redlist was used to determine whether species should be considered to be data deficient11. Under their categories, species that have been evaluated are classified as either of least concern or in one of the threatened categories unless they are data deficient (Figure 25). There are four species recorded as having been caught by the UoA fleets that could be considered to be data deficient to the extent that their status could not be determined: black marlin, devil rays (because one potentially caught species is data deficient), false killer whale, and long-beaked common dolphin. (Noting this determination of data deficiency was not used in any formal RBF determination, as it does not precisely align with that of Table 3 (FCRv2.0).) MSC Classification Criteria

Primary species

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

11 The only exception is for the flat backed turtle for which information was sought from the Australian Department of the Environment and Energy (http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine-species/marine- turtles/flatback) noting that all known breeding sites occur in Australia.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 58

SCS Global Services Report

Secondary species

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

For Primary and Secondary species, species may be considered “Main” based on either resilience/vulnerability and catch volume. Species that are not Main are Minor. Main and Minor species must meet different Performance Indicators (PIs) in P2. . Resilience/vulnerability: If the species is considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 2% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise it is considered Minor. . Catch volume: If the species is not considered "less resilient" and it is ≥ 5% of the catch, then it is considered Main, otherwise, it is considered Minor.

For all the UoAs being assessed, bigeye tuna is the subject of specific management measures as contained in CMM 2016-01 and is therefore considered to be a primary species. It is the only primary species and is considered to be a minor primary species because the total catch is less than 5% of the total catch and it is not a less resilient species.

Apart from the target species and bigeye tuna, nearly all other fish species that are caught are classified as secondary species and are minor secondary species because the catch volumes are so low as to indicate there is a negligible impact of all the UoAs on them. Table 3 of MSC FCRv2.0 indicates that the RBF would be triggered for most Secondary species. The RBF was not announced and has not been applied to this fishery for any Secondary species, as all Secondary species are minor and thus can be excluded from evaluation under the RBF in accordance with PF4.1.4.

The only exceptions to classification under Component 2.2 (Secondary species) are the few species of elasmobranchs that are classified as ETP species (Table 14) based on them species that are protected under specific WCPFC CMMs.

Because of the similarity in catch composition the Principle 2 scores for all UoAs will be the same and are provided in a single set of evaluation tables.

Management of Non-target Catch

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 59

SCS Global Services Report

Specific provisions for the management of non-target catch are discussed below under the relevant species or group. There are general WCPFC provisions that apply to all species, however, that are articulated under Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention Text which contains the “Principles and measures for conservation and management”:

(a) adopt measures to ensure long-term sustainability of highly migratory fish stocks in the Convention Area and promote the objective of their optimum utilization; (b) ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield, as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors, including the special requirements of developing States in the Convention Area, particularly small island developing States, and taking into account fishing patterns, the interdependence of stocks and any generally recommended international minimum standards, whether subregional, regional or global; (c) apply the precautionary approach in accordance with this Convention and all relevant internationally agreed standards and recommended practices and procedures; (d) assess the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on target stocks, non-target species, and species belonging to the same ecosystem or dependent upon or associated with the target stocks; (e) adopt measures to minimize waste, discards, catch by lost or abandoned gear, pollution originating from fishing vessels, catch of non-target species, both fish and non-fish species, (hereinafter referred to as non-target species) and impacts on associated or dependent species, in particular endangered species and promote the development and use of selective, environmentally safe and cost-effective fishing gear and techniques; (f) protect biodiversity in the marine environment; (g) take measures to prevent or eliminate over-fishing and excess fishing capacity and to ensure that levels of fishing effort do not exceed those commensurate with the sustainable use of fishery resources; (h) take into account the interests of artisanal and subsistence fishers; (i) collect and share, in a timely manner, complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities on, inter alia, vessel position, catch of target and non-target species and fishing effort, as well as information from national and international research programmes; and (j) implement and enforce conservation and management measures through effective monitoring, control and surveillance.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 60

SCS Global Services Report

Table 9. Catch Summary of Species caught by Chinese fleet (2014 and 2015). The status of non-target species under CITES, CMS and the WCPFC CMMs relevant to their status, is shown as the basis for classification of the non-target species. P1: Principle 1 species; P2: P Principle 2 Primary minor species; P2-S: Principle 2 Secondary minor species; ETP: Endangered, threatened or protected species.

Retained Discarded Total Catch % of CITES WCPFC Data MSC class Common Name Scientific name Catch (t) Catch (t) (t) Catch Status CMMs deficient^ Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis 9,320 7 9,327 75% 20016-01 No P1 Yellowfin Thunnus albacares 3,007 2 3,008 24% 20016-01 No P1 Bigeye Thunnus obesus 69 1 70 1% 20016-01 No P2-P Blue Marlin Makaira mazara 1 4 5 0.04% No P2-S Striped Marlin Tetrapturus audax 0 1 1 0.01% No P2-S Black Marlin Makaira indica 0 1 1 0.01% Yes P2-S Sailfish (Indo-Pacific) Istiophorus platypterus 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Rainbow Runner Elagatis bipinnulata 0 1 1 0.01% No P2-S Triggerfish Balistidae 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Ocean Triggerfish Canthidermis maculatus 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Mackerels Decapturus macarellus 0 2 2 0.01% No P2-S Mahi Mahi Coryphaena hippurus 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Sharptail Mola Masturus lanceolatus 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Barracudas Sphyraena barracuda 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Devil Manta Ray Mobula spp 0 2 2 0.01% App II Yes** P2-S Pelagic Sting-Ray Dasyatis violacea 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Blacktip Shark Carcharhinus limbatus 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis 0 8 8 0.06% App II* 2013-08 No ETP Whale Shark Rhincodon typus 0 2 2 0.02% App II 2012-04 No ETP Giant Manta Manta birostris 0 1 1 0.00% App II No P2-S Manta Rays (Unid) Mobulidae 0 0 0 0.00% App II Yes** P2-S

Total Catch 12,397 31 12,429 ^ Note: this determination of data deficiency was not used in any formal RBF determination, as it does not precisely align with that of Table 3 (FCRv2.0). * Effective after Oct 4 2017 ** For the shortfin devil ray (M. kuhlii) only, others not.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 61

SCS Global Services Report

Table 10. Catch Summary of Species caught by Chinese Taipei fleet (2014 and 2015). The status of non-target species under CITES, CMS and the WCPFC CMMs relevant to their status, is shown as the basis for classification of the non-target species. P1: Principle 1 species; P2: P Principle 2 Primary minor species; P2-S: Principle 2 Secondary minor species; ETP: Endangered, threatened or protected species.

Retained Discarded Total Catch % of CITES WCPFC Data MSC class Common Name Scientific name Catch (t) Catch (t) (t) Catch Status CMMs deficient^ Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis 30,140 1,612 31,753 84% 2016-01 No P1 Yellowfin Thunnus albacares 5,643 256 5,899 16% 2016-01 No P1 Bigeye Thunnus obesus 310 0 310 1% 2016-01 No P2-P Albacore Thunnus alalunga 3 0 3 0.01% 2005-03 No P2-P 2010-05 Frigate Tuna Auxis thazard 1 0 1 0.00% No P2-S Kawakawa Euthynnus affinis 0 0 0 0.00% No P2-S Blue Marlin Makaira mazara 4 8 12 0.03% No P2-S Black Marlin Makaira indica 1 2 3 0.01% Yes P2-S Striped Marlin Tetrapturus audax 1 0 1 0.00% No P2-S Devil Manta Ray Mobula spp 0 4 4 0.01% App II Yes** P2-S Whale Shark Rhincodon typus 0 11 11 0.03% App II 2012-04 No ETP Giant Manta Manta birostris 0 1 1 0.00% App II No P2-S Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis 0 13 13 0.03% App II* 2013-08 No ETP

Total Catch 36,105 1,910 38,015 ^ Note: this determination of data deficiency was not used in any formal RBF determination, as it does not precisely align with that of Table 3 (FCRv2.0). * After Oct 4 2017 ** For the shortfin devil ray (M. kuhlii) only, others not

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 62

SCS Global Services Report

Table 11. Catch Summary of Fish Species caught by USA fleet (2014 and 2015). The status of non-target species under CITES, CMS and the WCPFC CMMs relevant to their status, is shown as the basis for classification of the non-target species. P1: Principle 1 species; P2-P: Principle 2 Primary minor species; P2-S: Principle 2 Secondary minor species; ETP: Endangered, threatened or protected species. Retained Discarded Total % of CITES WCPFC CMMs Data MSC Common Name Scientific name Catch (t) Catch (t) Catch (t) Catch Status defiient^ class Skipjack Katsuwonus pelamis 169,566 2,143 171,709 87% 2016-01 No P1 Yellowfin Thunnus albacares 19,666 182 19,848 10% 2016-01 No P1 Bigeye Thunnus obesus 4,945 56 5,001 3% 2016-01 No P2-P Albacore Thunnus alalunga 0.15 0 0.15 <0.1% 2005-03, No P2-P 2010-05 Frigate Tuna Auxis thazard 0 2 2 <0.1% No P2-S Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri 57 13 70 <0.1% No P2-S Rainbow Runner Elagatis bipinnulata 24 228 253 0.13% No P2-S Mackerel Decapturus macarellus 9 101 110 <0.1% No P2-S Mahi Mahi Coryphaena hippurus 7 24 31 <0.1% No P2-S Triggerfish Balistidae 1 8 9 <0.1% No P2-S Ocean Triggerfish Canthidermis maculatus 2 24 26 <0.1% No P2-S Drummer (Blue Chub) Kyphosus cinerascens 2 3 4 <0.1% No P2-S Golden Trevally Gnathanodon speciosus 1 0 1 <0.1% No P2-S Bigeye Trevally Caranx sexfasciatus 1 1 2 <0.1% No P2-S Blue Marlin Makaira mazara 17 45 63 <0.1% No P2-S Black Marlin Makaira indica 5 20 25 <0.1% Yes P2-S Striped Marlin Tetrapturus audax 3 89 92 <0.1% No P2-S Sailfish (Indo-Pacific) Istiophorus platypterus 1 1 2 <0.1% No P2-S Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis 0 74 74 <0.1% App II* 2013-08 No ETP Whale Shark Rhincodon typus 0 43 43 <0.1% App II 2012-04 No ETP Giant Manta Manta birostris 0 18 18 <0.1% App II No P2-S Devil Manta Ray Mobula spp 0 5 5 <0.1% App II Yes** P2-S Manta Rays (Unid) Mobulidae 0 3 3 <0.1% App II Yes** P2-S Bronze Whaler Shark Carcharhinus brachyurus 0 2 2 <0.1% No P2-S Oceanic Whitetip Shark Carcharhinus longimanus 0 0.9 0.9 <0.1% 2011-04 No ETP Total Catch w 194,310 3,098 197,408 ^ Note: this determination of data deficiency was not used in any formal RBF determination, as it does not precisely align with that of Table 3 (FCRv2.0). * After Oct 4 2017 ** For the shortfin devil ray (M. kuhlii) only, others not

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 63

SCS Global Services Report

Table 12. Number of out-of-scope species recorded as caught by WPSTA fleets (2014 and 2015). All are classified as ETP species.

Fleet Category Common Name Scientific name Data # deficient^ caught China Mammals Risso's Dolphin Grampus griseus No 15 Turtles Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta No 1

Chinese Yes Taipei Mammals False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens 3 Turtles Green Turtle Chelonia mydas No 1

USA Mammals Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris No 12 False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens Yes 7 Rough-Toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis No 7 Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Delphinus capensis Yes 7 Risso's Dolphin Grampus griseus No 2 Turtles Green Turtle Chelonia mydas No 4 Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta No 2 Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea No 1 Flatback Turtle Natator depressus No* 1 Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata No 1 ^See preceding paragraph on ‘Secondary Species’ regarding the definition of data deficiency based on availability of information on stock status, noting this does not align directly with Table 3 (FCRv2.0) triggers for RBF. * Based on status assigned by Australian Government noting that the species is endemic to Australia and all known breeding sites of this species occur in Australia. (http://www.environment.gov.au/marine/marine- species/marine-turtles/flatback)

Figure 25. Structure of IUCN classification categories.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 64

SCS Global Services Report

3.4.3 Primary Species As outlined above in Table 9, Table 10 and Table 11, bigeye and albacore tuna are the only primary P2 species, and are considered minor species on the basis that their catch is <5% of the total catch and they are not considered to be less resilient species.

Bigeye Tuna: Primary Minor Species

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

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

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

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

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

The natural mortality rate of bigeye tuna is likely to vary with size, with the lower rates of around 0.5/yr for bigeye >40 cm FL (Hampton 2000). Tag recapture data indicate that significant numbers of bigeye reach at least eight years of age (Hampton and Williams 2005). The longest period at liberty

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 65

SCS Global Services Report for a recaptured bigeye tuna tagged in the western Pacific at about 1-2 years of age is currently 14 years (SPC unpublished data). Natural mortality of female bigeye is hypothesised to increase at around the age of reproductive maturity, due to the physiological stresses of spawning, resulting in male-biased sex ratios at larger size. A more detailed summary of bigeye tuna biology is provided by Molony (2008).

Status

The most recent stock assessment for bigeye tuna was undertaken in 2016 (McKechnie et al., 2017) and produced a more optimistic assessment of stock status than previous assessments had done. The general conclusions of this assessment were as follows: . All models that assumed the new growth function estimated significantly more optimistic stock status than the 2014 assessment, with the stock above 20% SB F=0 in all cases. . All models with the new growth estimated a significant recent recruitment event that has increased spawning potential in the last several years, and it was expected that for the old growth models these recruits would soon progress into the spawning potential and increase stock status, at least in the short-term. . Of the four sets of models in the structural uncertainty grid (the combinations of old/new growth and 2017/2014 regions), only the old growth/2014 regions models estimated spawning potential to be below 20% SB F=0 for all models in the set. These models estimated SB latest /SB F=0 to be between 0.08 and 0.17 which is slightly more pessimistic than the structural uncertainty grid of the 2014 assessment (between 0.1 and 0.2). . A substantial decline in bigeye abundance was estimated by all models in the assessment and recent estimates of depletion with respect to estimates earlier in the assessment period, and with respect to estimates in the absence of fishing, were significant and appeared to be ongoing, at least on a multi-year scale. . The significance of the recent high recruitment events and the progression of these fish to the spawning potential component of the stock were encouraging, although whether this was a result of management measures for the fishery or beneficial environmental conditions was currently unclear. It is noteworthy, however, that recent positive recruitment events had also been estimated for skipjack (McKechnie et al., 2016a) and yellowfin (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2017) in the WCPO, and bigeye in the EPO 8 (Aires-da Silva et al., 2017), which may give weight to the favourable environmental conditions hypothesis. Whether these trends are maintained in coming years will help tease these factors apart and will likely provide more certainty about the future trajectories of the stock.

The results are summarised in a ‘Kobe plot’ (Figure 26). Free school sets by purse seines also have a negligible impact on bigeye tuna (Figure 27). Management CMM 2016-01 contains the latest management measures introduced by the WCPFC for bigeye tuna (and for skipjack and yellowfin). It indicates that the objective is for the fishing mortality rate for bigeye tuna to be reduced to a level no greater than Fmsy, (i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1) by 2017. It contains a range of measures designed to achieve this intended reduction in the mortality on bigeye tuna including a

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 66

SCS Global Services Report mandatory three-month closure on the use of FADs, a choice of an additional one month (for 2014) or two month (for 2015 and 2016) period of FAD closure or adhering to a country-specific limit on the total number of FAD sets. Catch limits for longline fishing by China, Indonesia, Japan, Republic of Korea, Chinese Taipei, and the USA are also specified. Information Information available on bigeye tuna is generally the same as for the other target species and is collected mainly by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs as outlined in section 3.2 above. It includes data on catch weight and effort at an operational level for most fleets, size composition data from observers, tagging data and a range of biological data.

Figure 26. Estimated time-series (or “dynamic”) Kobe plots for four example models from the assessment (one from each of the combinations of old/new growth and 2017/2014 regions) (from McKechnie et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 67

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 27. Estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing (fishery impact =1 −SB latest /SB F=0 ) over all regions attributed to various fishery groups for the diagnostic model (McKechnie et al. 2017).

Albacore Tuna: Primary Minor Species

Biology Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) are found in all tropical and temperate oceans of the world but show separate concentrations north (20°−45°N) and south (10°−40°S) of the equator, and juveniles are found in temperate waters, (e.g. south of 30ºS in the WCPO) (Molony 2008). Separate northern and southern Pacific albacore stocks are recognised with the equator being accepted as the boundary.

Albacore are thought to spawn in tropical and sub-tropical waters, but juveniles (~40cm FL) are found around the sub-tropical convergence zone (~40 degree S; e.g. around New Zealand), from where they are thought to migrate gradually northwards. Seasonal north-south movements are also inferred from longline catch rates by latitude; these appear to coincide with the 23-28 degrees C isotherm (Harley et al., 2015 and references therein).

Albacore are thought to reach ~40-50cm FL in their first year, subsequent growth averages ~10cm per year until maturity (size at maturity ~85cm FL), after which growth rates slows. Male and female growth rates diverge after maturity, with males growing faster. Maximum recorded length is ~120cm. A significant number of fish are thought to reach 10 years or more; the maximum recorded period at liberty for a tagged fish is 11 years in the South Pacific and 15 years in the North Pacific. Status The key conclusions from most recent SPC stock assessment of the South Pacific stock (Harley et al. 2015) were that the current catch was either at or less than MSY, that recent levels of spawning potential were most likely above the level which would support the MSY, and above 20%SB F=0, and that recent levels of fishing mortality were lower than the level that would support the MSY. Stochastic projections undertaken in 2017 (Brouwer et al. 2017) estimated stock status to have improved slightly in that although the stock was projected to still decline from the 2013 level (SB latest

/SB F=0 = 0.40) to approximately SB 2033 /SB F=0 = 0.35, when compared to the biomass Limit Reference

Point (SB LRP ) the risk of SB 2033 /SB F=0 being less than SB LRP was only 7% rather than the 20% estimated by previous projections.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 68

SCS Global Services Report

For the North Pacific Stock, the most recent assessment (AWG 2017) concluded that the stock was likely to be not overfished relative to the limit reference point adopted by the Western and Central

Pacific Fisheries Commission (20%SSB current F=0 ) and that current fishing intensity (F 2012-2014 ) was below six of the seven potential reference points.

It is also important for this assessment to note that for both southern and northern stocks of albacore the impacts of purse seine fishing on stocks was estimated to be minimal compared to the impacts of the other fleets that target this species. Management There are separate WCPFC CMMs in force for the southern stock (CMM 2010-05) and the northern stock (CMM 2005-03). For both stocks, these CMMs have the objective that effort levels should not be increased above the levels occurring at the time of their adoption.

There are no other specific objectives for albacore fisheries other than that implied by Article 5b of the WCPFC Convention text concerning CMMs which requires members to cooperate to “ensure that such measures are based on the best scientific evidence available and are designed to maintain or restore stocks at levels capable of producing maximum sustainable yield”.

The workplan for the development of harvest strategies that has been developed under CMM 2014- 06 includes the Southern Albacore but the steps set down for 2016 were not achieved. There is no equivalent plan for northern albacore. Information

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

3.4.4 Secondary Species

There catch of non-target species (both retained and discarded) represents a small proportion of the total catch for the free school purse seine fishery. The data provided to the team by SPC (summarized in Table 9 for the Chinese fleet, Table 10 for the Chinese Taipei fleet, and Table 11 for the USA’s fleet) showed that the total catches of all such species (especially if bigeye tuna catches are excluded) represent a small proportion of the total catch (retained plus discards). Rainbow runners are the species which represent the highest quantities and proportion of discards by the WPSTA fleets as a whole but these still represent a very small proportion of the total catch (retained plus discarded). None of these secondary species meet the criteria for main secondary species for any of the fleets. Blue marlin is the only minor secondary species for which a stock assessment is available. In 2016 the SC concluded that, based on the results of a 2016 stock assessment update, the Pacific blue marlin stock was not currently overfished and was not experiencing overfishing. As is the case for all the billfish, hook fisheries are responsible for the large majority of the catch.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 69

SCS Global Services Report

For all minor secondary species, the management objectives are those outlined in the WCPFC Convention text as described above in Section 3.4.2. These include ensuring long term sustainability, preventing overfishing, monitoring the fishery and assessing its impacts, protecting biodiversity, and enforcing CMMs. Even though there are not stock assessments available, the status of most species is known at some level (e.g. according to IUCN categories) and the low levels of catch of secondary species by the UoAs greatly reduces the risks of these objectives not being achieved. Therefore, even if these species were below any biologically based limits, any catch by purse seine fleets fishing on free schools would not be hindering their recovery. Due to the low levels of catch of secondary species and their associated status as ‘minor’, secondary species are not considered in detail in the background. Shark finning considerations are detailed here (as shark finning is scored under PI 2.2.2).

Shark finning

Most sharks caught by the fishery are assessed as ETP species (see Section 3.4.6) but, when sharks are caught by the fishery, and they are not one of the target species, the FCR v2.0 requires an assessment of whether shark finning is taking place as part of the evaluation of the management strategies under Principle 2. The issue is therefore considered here as background to the evaluation provided under PI 2.2.2

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 70

SCS Global Services Report

The SC10 report noted that there were no specific documents to address the efficacy or effectiveness of this CMM and that the SC has not been able to assess the specification of the ratio of fins-to-carcass weight, as CMM 2010-07 required. Concerns had also been expressed at the TCC (TCC10 2014) about ambiguity in a number of provisions in this CMM, particularly the fin-to-carcass ratio, that made it is impossible to determine compliance standards for the measure. At SC12 these concerns were re-iterated and the SC concluded that

“SC12 was unable to confirm the validity of using a 5% fin to carcass ratio in CMM 2010-07 and forwards these concerns to TCC, noting that an evaluation of the 5% ratio is not currently possible due to insufficient information for all but one of the major fleets implementing these ratios. SC12 took note of SC12-EB-IP-02 that confirms that the information which can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of the WCPFC ban on shark finning (CMM 2010-07) is currently very limited.”

The subsequent TCC meeting agreed and recommended to the Commission that “WCPFC13 recognise that it is not possible for TCC to assess compliance related to the application of the 5% ratio prescribed in para. 7 of CMM 2010-07.”

Therefore although WCPFC has measures intended to prohibit the practice of shark finning it is not currently able to determine whether this objective is being achieved.

PNA measures

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

USA measures

Shark finning is prohibited under USA legislation, and the Shark Conservation Act requires that sharks be landed with fins naturally attached. Any potential breaches of this requirement reported by WCPFC observers are referred to NOAA for investigation. Following such investigations, any findings that actual infractions have occurred are made public on the NOAA website (http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html) where charging information and enforcement decisions and orders pertaining to all USA vessels can be found. Records for the years 2014-2016 contain no instances of breaches of the shark finning requirements by USA vessels in the WPSTA fleet.

Chinese measures

Shark finning is not prohibited under Chinese legislation but under an official Notification by the General Office of Ministry of Agriculture, compliance with WCPFC measures is mandatory Chinese

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 71

SCS Global Services Report fishing vessels. Thus there is the requirement that harvested sharks are fully utilized (other than oceanic whitetip shark which is not allowed to be retained). This is implemented by requiring that the total weight of shark fins retained on board shall not exceed 5% of the total weight of shark carcasses. This provision applies to fishing vessels and carrier vessels up to the first point of landing. (Nongbanyu 2013).

Chinese Taipei measures

Shark finning is not prohibited under Chinese Taipei legislation but the provisions of Article 59 of Chinese Taipei’s Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation follow those adopted by WCPFC in requiring that that “When sharks catches arrive at the first foreign port of landing, the weight of fins shall not be more than 5% of the weight of the shark catches.” These regulations also require that “Any tuna purse seine fishing vessel shall not engage in transshipment, supplying or refueling on the high seas, and shall land or transship in port” (Article 91) so the retained catches of individual fishing vessels are technically available for inspection. However, in the reportedly rare instance of a purse seine vessel in the UoA unloading sharks at a Taiwanese port, then the provisions of Article 3 of Directions on the Disposal of the Fins of the Shark Catches of Fishing Vessels would apply which require that fins of sharks be naturally attached to the carcass.

Incidents of shark finning by UoA vessels Observers are required to record any instances of shark finning and these data are recorded on the databases held by SPC.

For the Chinese UoC, we were not provided with data from the observer databases on the number of shark finning events recorded for the relevant vessels. Therefore, for this assessment, our scores instead reflect the low levels of shark finning that have been recorded on other WPFC purse seine vessels when observers are on board. Nevertheless, as described above in Section 3.4.1, there is some uncertainty about the level of observer coverage for this fleet, which reduces the certainty about the low levels of finning observed. Our assessment also reflects the general concerns expressed by the TCC (TCC 2014) about the level of reporting, the ambiguity of the fin-to-carcass ratio method for monitoring compliance, the subsequent inability of the WCPFC to determine compliance with this measure, and the lack of any clear sanctions for the few reported cases on non- compliance.

For the Chinese Taipei UoC, an extract from this database provided by SPC showed that there were only four trips on which shark finning events had been recorded since 2011 and none after 2013 (Table 13). All events involved silky shark. The number of sharks involved was not detailed but three events involved the fins being retained and the trunk discarded and one involved both the trunk and fins being retained. This represents a very low frequency of shark finning for observed trips. Nevertheless, as described above in Section 3.4.1, there is some uncertainty about the level of observer coverage for this fleet, and hence there is the potential for more frequent shark finning events than those recorded by observers. The general concerns expressed by the TCC noted above are also considered relevant to this UoC.

For vessels in the USA UoC, we were not provided with updated data from the observer databases on the number of shark finning events recorded for the relevant vessels, but do note the very few instances of shark finning previously reported by observers from the high levels of observer coverage for USA vessels (SCS 2015). This is supported by legislation requiring landing of sharks with

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 72

SCS Global Services Report fins attached, in addition to a more stringent and transparent system for addressing reported incidents that is noted above. Together these provide an objective basis for considering that the general concerns of the TCC about compliance with WCPFC’s shark finning measures are not relevant for this UoC.

Table 13. Number of trips on which shark finning events were recorded for the nine vessels in the Chinese Taipei UoC (data provided by SPC).

Vessel Start year End year Number of trips Year of events Vessel A 2013 2017 0 - Vessel B 2014 2017 0 - Vessel C 2014 2017 0 - Vessel D 2012 2017 1 2012 Vessel E 2012 2017 0 - Vessel F 2012 2017 1 2012 Vessel G 2012 2017 0 - Vessel H 2012 2016 0 - Vessel I 2012 2016 2 2012, 2013

3.4.5 Endangered, Threatened and Protected (ETP) Species There are three species of sharks, (Table 14) five species of cetaceans and five species of turtles (Table 12) which have been recorded as being caught by WPSTA vessels that require consideration as ETP species for at least one of the WPSTA fleets.

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

The cetaceans and turtles are classified as ETP species because as groups they are protected under CMM 2011-03 and CMM 2008-03 respectively. All of the species of turtles except the Flat-backed Turtle Natator depressus are also listed under Appendix 1 of the Convention on Migratory Species.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 73

SCS Global Services Report

Table 14. Summary of ETP species.

Group Common name Scientific name Fleet

Sharks Whale Shark Rhincodon typus All Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis All Oceanic Whitetip Shark Carcharhinus longimanus USA Mammals Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris USA Chinese Taipei, False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens USA Rough-Toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis USA Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Delphinus capensis USA Risso's Dolphin Grampus griseus China, USA Turtles Chinese Taipei, Green Turtle Chelonia mydas USA Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta China, USA Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea USA Flatback Turtle Natator depressus USA Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata USA

Whale Shark

Biology Whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) are globally distributed in tropical and warm temperate seas. Their populations are potentially part of a single, global meta-population (Sequeira et al. 2013). They are known to undertake multi-annual and very long-distance migrations including between different parts of the Pacific Ocean (Norman 2005). They are also known to be resident year round in some areas but to use a different habitat in different seasons, being visible on the surface at some times of year and swimming deeper and further away from shore at others, presumably in response to prey distributions (Cagua et al. 2015). Their life history is poorly known but they are known to be ovoviviparous and are reported as highly fecund (for a shark). Their life span has been estimated as 60 to over 100 years. Age at maturity has been variably reported as nine years (Norman 2005) and 30 years (Harley et al. 2013). More details of the biology of this species are provided in Molony (2008). Status Whale shark populations are reported as declining (Norman 2005). They have been considered likely to be a species with low population growth and therefore be vulnerable to fishing‐related mortality (Rice and Harley, 2012b). They have been the subject of some targeted fisheries and significant non‐ tuna related fishing mortality is likely to have occurred historically, particularly in the coastal waters of the northwest Pacific Ocean (Rice and Harley, 2012b).

The numbers of whale sharks recorded as having been caught in purse seines by the whole USA fleet (an average 89 per year over the four years, Table 7) is indicative of occasions when whale sharks were encountered after a skipper made a set on what was initially thought to be a free school of

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 74

SCS Global Services Report tuna. It has been previously reported that more than two‐thirds of sets where whale sharks were encountered in the net (i.e. “interactions”) were not recorded as a “whale shark-associated” set type (WCPFC 2012). Whale sharks are listed under Appendix II of CITES, not Appendix 1 but qualify as an ETP species under because of the binding CMM (2012-04) for them in the WCPFC which is also reflected in USA regulations (NOAA 2015).

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

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

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

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

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

For Chinese flagged vessels FCF have informed the assessment team that there are no domestic laws or regulations specifically concerning cetaceans but under a Notification from the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture (2013) (not seen by the team) there is a requirement for compliance with international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. Chinese Taipei purse seine fishing vessels are prohibited from making sets on a cetacean or a whale shark (Article 90 of Chinese Taipei’s “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”). More generally, these regulations also require that “Any seabird, sea turtle, whale shark, cetacean, penguin or prohibited species promulgated by the competent authority incidentally caught by any catching vessel shall be released when caught alive or discarded dead, and the number(s) be duly recorded on the logbooks and E-logbook system” (Article 51). These regulations add to the general requirements contained in Chinese Taipei’s Act for Distant Water Fisheries which bans the “Fishing for, retaining, transshipping, landing or selling

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 75

SCS Global Services Report prohibited species” (Article 13, clause 11) where such species are those “promulgated by the competent authority”.

There are complementary regulations for USA vessels operating in the WCPO for whale sharks (NOAA, 2015) that include requirements that: (a) Owners, operators, and crew of fishing vessels of the United States used for commercial fishing for HMS in the Convention Area shall not set or attempt to set a purse seine in the Convention Area on or around a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) if the animal is sighted at any time prior to the commencement of the set or the attempted set. (b) The crew, operator, and owner of a fishing vessel of the United States used for commercial fishing for HMS in the Convention Area must release any whale shark that is encircled in a purse seine net in the Convention Area, and take reasonable steps for its safe release, without compromising the safety of any persons. This paragraph does not apply to the territorial seas or archipelagic waters of any nation, as defined by the domestic laws and regulations of that nation and recognized by the United States.

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

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

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

Also as noted above, there are reporting requirements contained in the Chinese Taipei regulations concerning the treatment of whale sharks that are incidentally caught by purse seine vessels. These regulations also contains requirements concerning observers including that “Any tuna purse seine fishing vessel shall, during the period of port departure to port entry, carry on board the observer who meets the requirements of the international fisheries organization(s)” and that “For any tuna purse seine fishing vessel fishing in the exclusive economic zone of a foreign country with which the fisheries cooperation is engaged, such vessel shall carry the observer approved by that foreign country” (Article 88 of Chinese Taipei’s “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”).

There are also reporting requirements included in USA regulations for USA vessels operating in the WCPO (NMFS, 2015): (c) Whale shark encirclement reports. The owner and operator of a fishing vessel of the United States used for commercial fishing in the Convention Area that encircles a whale shark (Rhincodon typus) with a purse seine in the Convention Area shall ensure that the incident is

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 76

SCS Global Services Report

recorded by the end of the day on the catch report forms maintained pursuant to § 300.34(c)(1), in the format specified by the Pacific Islands Regional Administrator. This paragraph does not apply to the territorial seas or archipelagic waters of any nation, as defined by the domestic laws and regulations of that nation and recognized by the United States.

Silky Shark

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

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

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

The FAO considers the species to have a mid-range intrinsic rebound potential. Rice and Harley (2013) regard silky sharks as a low productivity species. A more detailed description of the distribution, biology and growth of silky sharks is contained in Rice and Harley (2013). Status A stock assessment of silky sharks in the West and Central Pacific Ocean using Stock Synthesis (Rice and Harley 2013) concluded that:

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

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 77

SCS Global Services Report

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

The assessment also estimated that catches by both the purse seine (associated sets) and longline sectors were important sources of fishing mortality but that the purse seine catch on free school sets was a minor contributor to the catch and fishing mortality (Figure 28). Silky shark catch rates are significantly higher on floating object sets (Leroy et al., 2013).

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

Figure 28. Annual estimated silky shark catch (in weight) in the WCPO by fleet (fishing method), 1995-2009 (from Rice and Harley 2013).

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 78

SCS Global Services Report

the status upon release (dead or alive), and report this information to the WCPFC in Part 1 of their Annual Reports.

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

Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. Therefore the measures described above for silky sharks are applicable to Chinese Taipei fishing vessels. No retained catch of silky shark was reported by Chinese Taipei vessels in 2014 or 2015.

The USA has also introduced domestic regulations to implement CMM 2010-01 (NMFS 2015b). Recent Annual Reports to the Commission (NFMS, 2014a, 2015a, 2016) by the United States and participating territories in the WCPFC Statistical Area, reported no retained catch of this species in the purse seine fishery between 2009 and 2016.

Recent Annual Reports to the Commission (NFMS, 2014a, 2015a) by the United States and participating territories in the WCPFC Statistical Area, reported no retained catch of this species in the purse seine fishery between 2009 and 2014. The assessment team is not aware of similar reporting by China and Chinese Taipei, but also acknowledges that the UoA comprises only select vessels within the each nation’s purse seine fleet.

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

Oceanic Whitetip Shark

Biology

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 79

SCS Global Services Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Management

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 80

SCS Global Services Report

In addition to its general CMM for sharks (CMM 2010-07), a specific CMM for oceanic whitetips (CMM-2011-04) came into force on January 1st, 2013. Specific measures include: . Prohibition of vessels of members, co-operating non-members and participating territories (CCMs) to retain and store on-board, transship, or land, in part or whole, any oceanic whitetip in the fisheries covered by the Commission. . Their release from fishing gear, in a manner that causes the least amount of practicable harm. . To record the number of releases and status (dead or alive) in Part 1 of member states’ Annual Report to the Commission through observer programme data or other means.

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

Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. For Chinese Taipei vessels, as noted above for whale sharks, the “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”) require that “Any seabird, sea turtle, whale shark, cetacean, penguin or prohibited species promulgated by the competent authority incidentally caught by any catching vessel shall be released when caught alive or discarded dead” (Article 51). As ocean whitetip shark have been designated as a prohibited species by the WCPFC, these regulations also make them a prohibited species for Chinese Taipei vessels. No oceanic whitetip shark were recorded as being caught by Chinese Taipei vessels in 2014 or 2015.

The USA has also introduced domestic regulations to to implement CMM 2010-07 (NMFS 2015) including a prohibition on the retention of oceanic whitetip sharks, and the mandated early release of any that are caught. Information

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 81

SCS Global Services Report

As noted above, Chinese purse seine fishing vessels are required to comply with WCPFC provisions, including those for data reporting, although, to our knowledge there are no explicit domestic laws or regulations that provide details of these requirements. Also as noted above, there are reporting requirements contained in the Chinese Taipei regulations concerning the treatment of prohibited species that are incidentally caught by purse seine vessels. These regulations also contains requirements concerning observers including that “Any tuna purse seine fishing vessel shall, during the period of port departure to port entry, carry on board the observer who meets the requirements of the international fisheries organization(s)” and that “For any tuna purse seine fishing vessel fishing in the exclusive economic zone of a foreign country with which the fisheries cooperation is engaged, such vessel shall carry the observer approved by that foreign country” (Article 88 of Chinese Taipei’s “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”).

The 2014 USA Annual Report to the Commission (NMFS, 2014a) reported that, based on the limited observer data that had been processed (~15%) in 2013, there were 13 releases of oceanic whitetip sharks but that no information was available on their status upon release. The 2015 report (NMFS 2015a) reported 58 releases of oceanic whitetip sharks. The assessment team is not aware of similar reporting by China and Chinese Taipei, but also acknowledges that the UoA comprises only select vessels within the each nation’s purse seine fleet.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 82

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 29. Oceanic whitetip shark: estimated fishing mortality by fleet for the reference case over the model periods (from Rice and Harley 2012a).

Cetaceans

There were 5 species of cetaceans recorded as having been caught during fishing operations by WPSTA vessels in 2014 or 2015: Spinner Dolphin Stenella longirostris, False Killer Whale Pseudorca crassidens, Rough-Toothed Dolphin Steno bredanensis, Long-Beaked Common Dolphin Delphinus capensis, and Risso's Dolphin Grampus griseus (Table 12). Small numbers of individuals of other cetacean species have also been recorded as having been caught by purse seines in these waters or by this fleet in other years. Measures to manage the bycatch of cetaceans are not species-specific so they considered here as a group. Management A CMM exists for cetaceans (CMM-2011-03) and came into force on January 1st, 2013. The requirements of the CMM include:

• CCMs shall prohibit their flagged vessels from setting a purse seine net on a school of tuna associated with a cetacean in the high seas and exclusive economic zones of the Convention Area, if the animal is sighted prior to commencement of the set. • CCMs shall require that, in the event that a cetacean is unintentionally encircled in the purse seine net, the master of the vessel shall:

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 83

SCS Global Services Report

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

Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. Chinese Taipei purse seine fishing vessels are prohibited from making sets on a cetacean (Article 90 of Chinese Taipei’s “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”). More generally, these regulations also require that “Any seabird, sea turtle, whale shark, cetacean, penguin or prohibited species promulgated by the competent authority incidentally caught by any catching vessel shall be released when caught alive or discarded dead, and the number(s) be duly recorded on the logbooks and E-logbook system” (Article 51). These regulations add to the general requirements contained in Chinese Taipei’s Act for Distant Water Fisheries which bans the “Fishing for, retaining, transshipping, landing or selling prohibited species” (Article 13, clause 11) where such species are those “promulgated by the competent authority”.

All marine mammals are protected from "take" under the USA Marine Mammal Protection Act. This Act states that the essential habitats used by marine mammals should be protected, and marine mammals should be protected from the harmful actions of man. Information Data on the bycatch of cetaceans is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in Section 3.2

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 84

SCS Global Services Report

Also as noted above, there are reporting requirements contained in the Chinese Taipei regulations concerning the treatment of cetaceans that are incidentally caught by purse seine vessels. These regulations also contains requirements concerning observers including that “Any tuna purse seine fishing vessel shall, during the period of port departure to port entry, carry on board the observer who meets the requirements of the international fisheries organization(s)” and that “For any tuna purse seine fishing vessel fishing in the exclusive economic zone of a foreign country with which the fisheries cooperation is engaged, such vessel shall carry the observer approved by that foreign country” (Article 88 of Chinese Taipei’s “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”).

There are also reporting requirements included in USA regulations for USA vessels operating in the WCPO (NMFS, 2015).

Marine Turtles There were 5 species of marine turtles recorded as having been caught during fishing operations by WPSTA vessels in 2014 or 2015: Green Turtle Chelonia mydas, Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta, Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea, Flatback Turtle Natator depressus, and Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata (Table 12). Small numbers of individuals of Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea have also been recorded as having been caught by purse seines in these waters or by this fleet in other years. Measures to manage the bycatch of turtles are not species-specific so they considered here as a group.

A review of turtle bycatch in the WCPFC (Anon 2001) concluded that, for purse seine caught animals, in most cases, turtles are encountered alive in the net and are subsequently scooped up and released over the side and that observers had reported a 17% mortality rate in the WCPO purse seine fishery. The report indicated that mortalities are mostly due to drowning after entanglement in the net but that some are crushed during the process of loading the net onboard. The report also indicated that marine turtle encounters in the purse seine fishery appear to be more prevalent in the western areas of the western Pacific Ocean. Set type was the main factor affecting marine turtle encounters in the WCPO purse seine fishery and animal-associated, drifting log and anchored-FAD sets had the highest incidence of marine turtle encounters, compared to drifting FAD and sets on free-swimming schools (free school sets). Status The status of turtles encountered by fisheries in the WCPO have not been specifically examined by WCPFC. Purse seine fisheries have been only been identified as one of the types of fisheries that constitute a threat for Olive Ridley turtles but the relative contribution of the different gear types is not indicated (SCS 2015). Management The WCPFC has adopted CMM 2008-03 for sea turtles which requires CCMs to implement the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations and to ensure the safe handling of all

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 85

SCS Global Services Report captured sea turtles, in order to improve their survival. Best practice guidelines to ensure the survival of captured sea turtles is also outlined and obligatory to follow.

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

Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. Under Article 51 of Chinese Taipei’s “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”) there is the requirement that “In case that any catching vessel finds any sea turtle during fishing operation, such vessel shall, where practicable, bring aboard any comatose or inactive sea turtle as soon as possible, and foster its recovery and return it to the sea at once after recovery.” Under Article 93 there is the requirement that “Any tuna purse seine fishing vessel shall carry the scoop/dip net to safely release any sea turtle incidentally caught.” And also that “In the event that a cetacean, whale shark or sea turtle is incidentally caught in the purse seine net or encircled in the FAD, the captain shall take all possible measures to safely release such species”. These regulations add to the general requirements contained in Chinese Taipei’s Act for Distant Water Fisheries which bans the “Fishing for, retaining, transshipping, landing or selling prohibited species” (Article 13, clause 11) where such species are those “promulgated by the competent authority”.

For USA flagged vessels, following the adoption of CMM 2008-03 for turtles, the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS) issued regulations to owners and operators of USA fishing vessels equipped with purse seine gear that are used to fish in the Convention Area (NMFS 2009) that included requirements for: . Carrying on-board and use specific gear . Following specific handling requirements in the course of interactions with sea turtles. . The encouragement, although not a requirement, to carry a turtle hoist to handle turtles. . Follow specific handling requirements in the course of interactions with sea turtles.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 86

SCS Global Services Report

. Prohibit the consumption or sale of any sea turtle, dead or alive. A sea turtle may be landed, offloaded, or kept below deck only if NMFS requests the retention of a dead sea turtle or a part thereof for research. Information

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

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

There has been a WCPFC requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. As noted above, Chinese purse seine fishing vessels are required to comply with WCPFC provisions, including those for data reporting, although, to our knowledge there are no explicit domestic laws or regulations that provide details of these requirements.

Also as noted above, there are reporting requirements contained in the Chinese Taipei regulations concerning the treatment of turtles that are incidentally caught by purse seine vessels. These regulations also contains requirements concerning observers including that “Any tuna purse seine fishing vessel shall, during the period of port departure to port entry, carry on board the observer who meets the requirements of the international fisheries organization(s)” and that “For any tuna purse seine fishing vessel fishing in the exclusive economic zone of a foreign country with which the fisheries cooperation is engaged, such vessel shall carry the observer approved by that foreign country” (Article 88 of Chinese Taipei’s “Regulations for Tuna Longline or Purse Seine Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Pacific Ocean for Fishing Operation”).

There are also reporting requirements included in USA regulations for USA vessels operating in the WCPO (NMFS, 2015).

3.4.6 Habitat Impacts

Overview

Habitat Impact Evaluation under the MSC Framework

When assessing the status of habitats and the impacts of fishing, teams are required to consider the full area managed by the local, regional, national, or international governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates (this is called the “managed area” for assessment purposes). In this case, the relevant managed areas include the WCPF Convention Area and the EEZs where the fleet under assessment operates. According to the data provided to the assessment team, the WPSTA purse seine fishery is undertaken in International waters and in the EEZs (i.e. not including any archipelagic waters) of Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Nauru, Solomon Islands, and Tokelau.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 87

SCS Global Services Report

According MSC FCRv2.0 SA3.13.3, the assessment team must determine and justify which habitats are commonly encountered, vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs), and minor (i.e., all other habitats) for scoring purposes, [where]: . “A commonly encountered habitat shall be defined as a habitat that regularly comes into contact with a gear used by the UoA, considering the spatial (geographical) overlap of fishing effort with the habitat’s range within the management area(s) covered by the governance body(s) relevant to the UoA; and . A VME shall be defined as is done in paragraph 42 subparagraphs (i)-(v) of the FAO Guidelines7 (definition provided in GSA3.13.3.212) [as having one or more of the following characteristics: uniqueness or rarity, functional significance, fragility, Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult, and/or structural complexity]. This definition shall be applied both inside and outside EEZs and irrespective of depth.”

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

Commonly Encountered Habitat The fishing gear does not physically interact with benthic habitat during its operation. Any impacts of the fishery will therefore be confined to direct or indirect effects on the surface waters in which the fishery operates. This is considered to constitute a single habitat type that is essentially open ocean water. The ability of this habitat to support the target fish populations is related to temperature, salinity and nutrient levels which determine the productivity of the lower trophic levels. These are primarily driven by variations in basin wide weather patterns through their effect on the frequency, location and strength of upwelling events, eddy systems and thermal fronts. Purse seine fishing is not considered capable of affecting these key habitat drivers at a broad scale or even local levels of productivity.

12 According to MSC FCRv2.0 GSA 3.13.3.2: “VMEs have one or more of the following characteristic, as defined in paragraph 42 of the FAO Guidelines: . Uniqueness or rarity – an area or ecosystem that is unique or that contains rare species whose loss could not be compensated for by similar areas or ecosystems . Functional significance of the habitat – discrete areas or habitats that are necessary for survival, function, spawning/reproduction, or recovery of fish stocks; for particular life-history stages (e.g., nursery grounds, rearing areas); or for ETP species . Fragility – an ecosystem that is highly susceptible to degradation by anthropogenic activities . Life-history traits of component species that make recovery difficult – ecosystems that are characterised by populations or assemblages of species that are slow growing, are slow maturing, have low or unpredictable recruitment, and/or are long lived . Structural complexity – an ecosystem that is characterised by complex physical structures created by significant concentrations of biotic and abiotic features”

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 88

SCS Global Services Report

It is therefore appropriate that no particular management measures are in existence which are designed to avoid or mitigate impacts on this marine habitat and no further consideration is given to habitats here.

Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (VME) The WPSTA fishery does not interact with any VMEs.

3.4.7 Ecosystem Impacts Status

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

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

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

Trophic Relationships

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 89

SCS Global Services Report

Allain et al. (2007) constructed a trophic mass-balance ecosystem model of the Warm Pool/Cold tongue pelagic ecosystem using Ecopath with Ecosim software (Figure 30). They describe the warm pool a s an oligotrophic system characterized by low salinity, low nitrates, high temperature, deep thermocline, low surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll located at 90m depth. Conversely, the cold tongue in the Eastern equatorial Pacific is described as an upwelling system with high salinity, high nitrates, low temperature, shallow thermocline, high surface chlorophyll and maximum chlorophyll at the surface. This model indicated that the ecosystem responds to both top-down and bottom-up processes, and has the characteristics of a complex form of ‘wasp-waist’ structure where the majority of the system’s biomass is comprised of mid-trophic level groups. Significant complexity was further added through the effects of climate change, including increased sea surface temperature leading to changes in ocean stratification dynamics and changes in the depth of the thermocline. A combination of increased fishing and climate change produced complex trophic cascades, causing unpredictable increases and decreases in the biomass of groups representing all trophic levels, similar to unpredictable wasp-waist ecosystems in productive temperate ecosystems. This study noted that skipjack tuna appears to be a very resilient species, such that it was nearly impossible to eliminate it from the system with a top-down control (i.e., fishing), which is probably related to its high production rate and internal density-dependence induced by cannibalism.

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

Warm Pool Pelagic Ecosystem Evaluation

A further study (Allain et al. 2015) has examined a more restricted area of the warm pool pelagic ecosystem (Figure 31) using Ecopath with Ecosim (www.ecopath.org) to provide information on the potential impacts of tuna fishing. This ecosystem model was characterised by five trophic levels, a high number of trophic links between groups, and a diverse pool of prey for predators. In the model, the majority (74%) of the ecosystem’s biomass was in trophic levels 1–2 (phytoplankton, zooplankton), whereas 89% of the industrial fish catch (tuna, edible bycatch and other top predators) was in trophic levels 3–5. The model was used to explore nine different scenarios of fishing effort, ranging from measures designed to reduce and/or increase the amount of bycatch, decrease and/or increase the amount of tuna harvested by altering the amount of longline fishing and purse-seine fishing effort on free swimming schools and on schools associated with FADs. The modelling showed that the warm pool ecosystem structure is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community). The intrinsic resistance of the ecosystem to perturbation appears to be related to the high diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey. The structure of the ecosystem was most sensitive to changes in the biomass of prey groups (e.g. small pelagic fish such as anchovy).

This more recent model of the warmpool (Allain et al. 2015), however, covered only a part of the WCPO (Figure 31) and substantial catches of skipjack (Figure 2) and yellowfin tuna (Figure 3) are taken from waters outside the modelled area, so it is unclear whether the findings of this study would apply to other areas of the WCPO.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 90

SCS Global Services Report

Pacific Ocean Ecosystem Evaluation

At a broader scale, Sibert et al. (2006) described biomass trends of exploited populations of top level predators in the whole Pacific Ocean (the WCPO and the Eastern Pacific Ocean combined) (Figure 32) and compares them to estimated biomass projections had the fishery never been exploited. This study found that the trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on the Pacific Ocean ecosystem were likely to be minor.

Additional Considerations

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

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 91

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 30. Spatial extent of the warm pool – cold tongue system in the Pacific Ocean (from Allain et al. 2007).

Figure 31. The boundaries of the area covered by the warm pool ecosystem model, and the exclusive economic zones of the countries included in the model. FSM = Federated States of Micronesia; PNG = Papua New Guinea (from Allain et al.2015).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 92

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 32. Trends in total biomass for eight stocks of large predators in the Pacific Ocean. The blue line represents the former case, the red line the latter. The single black line indicates the equilibrium biomass corresponding to maximum sustainable yield conditions, assuming current levels of recruitment and distribution of fishing mortality among fisheries. (from Sibert et al., 2006)

Management

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

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

Since 2005, the FFA has supported in-country work to generate EAFM reports intended to provide the basis for the development of operational and/or tuna management plans. To assist member

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 93

SCS Global Services Report countries implement EAFM, the FFA have developed a Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency EAFM Framework. This framework comprises a number of stages, which lead to the eventual identification and prioritization of issues related to the current state of tuna resources, environment and social- economics (Fletcher 2007). This then leads to the eventual programming of priority activities into operational framework and action plans. The process takes into account ecosystem considerations in the management of tuna fisheries. EAFM reports have been completed for the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Palau, Tonga and Vanuatu.

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

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

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 94

SCS Global Services Report

. assessment of habitat preferences and the effect of environmental changes.

This effort occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). Allain et al. (2011) discuss a number of projects which contribute to EAFM. These include but are not limited to: . Regional Observer Programme: has the objective to collect verified catch data, other scientific data, and additional information related to the fishery from the Convention Area and to monitor the implementation of the CMMs adopted by the Commission. The Programme is based on the use of existing regional, sub-regional and national observer programmes already in place amongst WCPFC members. Although there have been problems with data obtained under this programme, including biases introduced through operational changes and historically low coverage, recent improvements in the Programme, including 100% coverage in the purse seine fishery from 2010 and a minimum of 5% coverage in the longline fishery from 2012 should improve the quantity and quality of data available. . data on species’ diet has been used to develop Pacific Ocean food-web models (Eastern Tropical Pacific, Central North Pacific, Pacific Warm pool, and the Australian Eastern Tuna and Billfish Fisheries) developed with the Ecopath with Ecosim (EwE) modelling tool. . the bycatch mitigation information system (BMIS) is the result of a WCPFC project to centralise and make information available on the mitigation and management of bycatch in WCPO. The database is a reference and educational tool that supports the Commission's responsibilities with regard to the sustainable management of non-target, or bycatch, species in WCPO fisheries targeting highly migratory species, including tuna and billfish (see http://bmis.wcpfc.int/index.php) (Fitzsimmons, 2011).

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 95

SCS Global Services Report

. Review and identify appropriate qualitative and quantitative species population status determination methods for bycatch species; . Review data analyses to identify all fishery and non-fishery (e.g. oceanographic and physical) factors contributing to bycatch, taking into account the confidentiality rules of each RFMO; . Review existing bycatch mitigation measures including those adopted by each Tuna RFMO and consider new mitigation research findings to assess the potential utility of such measures in areas covered by other Tuna RFMOs taking into consideration differences among such areas; and . Review and compile information on by-catch research that has been already conducted or is currently underway to delineate future research priorities and areas for future collaboration.

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

Where relevant, the following section is adapted from Morison & Mcloughlin 2016.

3.5.1 Area of Operation and Relevant Jurisdictions The WPSTA fishery for yellowfin, Thunnus albacares, and skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, occurs in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) within the boundaries of the waters managed by the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Convention. The area covered by the Convention covers almost 20 per cent of the Earth’s surface (see Figure 4). Although the western boundary notionally extends to the east Asian seaboard, it is understood that the Convention Area does not include the South China Sea. In the east, the Convention Area adjoins, or overlaps, the area of competence of the Inter- American Tropical Tuna Commission. The southern boundary extends to 60 degrees south and the northern boundary extends to Alaska and the Bering Sea (https://www.wcpfc.int/frequently-asked- questions-and-brochures).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 96

SCS Global Services Report

Figure 33. WCPFC Convention area. EEZs in blue. Boundaries shown are those used for catch compilation estimates. Source: http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/tuna-fisheries/170-tuna-fisheries-of-the-western-and- central-pacific-ocean

. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC); . The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (the PNA Agreement); . The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) established under the Palau Arrangement; . The United States Multilateral Treaty (USAT) (also known as the South Pacific Tuna Treaty, SPTT) (USA fleet only); and . The Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (not a regulatory organisation but plays an important role in providing technical assistance to members). . Flag state governance systems of the fleets under assessment (United States, Chinese Taipei, China) The observer data provided to the assessment teams demonstrates that the fleet under assessment (free school purse seine sets only) operates in the EEZs of Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati,

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 97

SCS Global Services Report

Marshall Island, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Tokelau, in addition to international waters. Of these, only Tokelau is a non-PNA member, but Tokelau does participate in the VDS (as further described below).

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

The WCPFC Secretariat is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia and the Commission has three subsidiary bodies the ‘Scientific Committee’ (SC) the ‘Technical and Compliance Committee’ (TCC) and the “Northern Committee” (NC). The WCPFC comprises member nations, participating territories and the fishing entity of Chinese Taipei (also referred to as Chinese Taipei). The ‘Northern Committee’ was established to deal with management and conservation issues to the north of 20° N. The International Scientific Committee (ISC) was established in 1995 to enhance scientific research and cooperation for conservation and rational utilization of the species of tuna and tuna-like fishes which inhabit the North Pacific Ocean during a part or all of their life cycle. The ISC provides information to the WCPFC Scientific Committee (introduced below) and directly to the Northern Committee.

In addition to these bodies specified in the Convention, the Commission may establish other subsidiary bodies (e.g., the Finance and Administration Committee) and also employs ad hoc working groups as required. Ad hoc working groups have been established for data-related issues, the Commission’s vessel monitoring system, the regional observer program, and other issues.

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

The SC is required to work closely with the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission, particularly in areas of overlap. Flag states in areas of overlap must nominate whether they will apply IATTC or WCPFC measures. The USA has chosen to apply WCPFC measures in such areas. Neither the Chinese Taipei nor Chinese UoC fleet fish in the overlap area, however both Chinese Taipei and China apply WCPFC measures in this area. The SC also works closely with the International Scientific Committee (ISC).

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 98

SCS Global Services Report

. The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2); . The general principles in Article 5 of UNFSA including the application of the precautionary approach, incorporating the UNFSA Annex II Guidelines For The Application of Precautionary Reference Points (Article 5); . The application of these principles by parties in their cooperation under the Convention, including the application of these principles in areas under national jurisdiction, (Article 7); . Compatibility of measures established for the high seas and those adopted for areas under national jurisdiction (Article 8); . Application of the dispute settlement provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement to disputes between WCPFC Members (Article 31); and . Recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers, and of communities and small island states dependent for their food and livelihoods on tuna resources (Article 30). The Convention provides a framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, it also provides for participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission. The Convention specifically provides recognition of the special requirements of developing States, in particular small island developing states (SIDS) and cooperation with other RFMOs whose respective areas of competence overlap with the WCPFC.

The Commission has 26 Members, of which most are SIDS. The current members are: Australia, Canada, People‘s Republic of China, Cook Islands, European Union (EU), Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Korea, Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI), Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea (PNG), Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States of America (USA) and Vanuatu. Participating Territories include American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau and Wallis and Futuna. In addition, the following States are Cooperating Non-members: Ecuador, El Salvador, Mexico, Liberia, Vietnam, Panama and Thailand13.

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

Roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are clearly described in the Convention14, especially Articles 23 and 24, the Commission Rules of Procedure, Conservation and Management Measures, and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission.

13 Cooperating non-member roles and requirements are detailed in CMM 2009-11. A non-member of the Commission, with an interest in the fishery, or whose vessels fish or intend to fish in the Convention Area, may request the Commission for the status of Cooperating non-member (CNM). 14 Available online: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/text.pdf

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 99

SCS Global Services Report

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

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

The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) The Nauru Agreement is a regional agreement made to facilitate cooperation in the management of fisheries resources of common interest. The EEZs of the Pacific island states party to this Agreement collectively account for a significant bulk of the region’s tuna catch and the majority of the purse seine catch. The Nauru Agreement is a binding Treaty-level instrument considered to be a sub- regional or regional fisheries management arrangement from the perspective of the UNFSA and the WCPF Convention. The Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau, commonly referred to as the Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA), have worked collaboratively since 1982 to manage the tuna stocks within their national waters. Tokelau is not a member but in 2012 signed an agreement with the PNA countries to join the VDS. It has its own TAE, which it brings to the VDS and which is transferable with PNA members. This was initially established at 1000 days and is adjusted proportionately with changes in the PNA TAE.

This is an alliance of Pacific island states whose EEZs collectively account for a significant bulk of the region’s tuna catch and the majority of the purse seine catch. The PNA coordinates the implementation of management measures with a view to enhancing economic benefits from the fishery. The PNA secretariat is located in Majuro in the Marshall Islands. Its objectives are to enhance regional solidarity and to promote economic control and participatory rights over the tuna resources in PNA waters, with a primary focus to:

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 100

SCS Global Services Report

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

. The 1st Implementing Arrangement, 1983, setting minimum licensing standards, including reporting, inspection and on-board observation, vessel identification and “good standing” on the FFA regional register; . The 2nd Implementing Arrangement, 1990, adding additional conditions relating to VMS, high seas reporting and a prohibition on transshipment at sea; . The FSM Arrangement: 1994, establishing arrangements for preferential access among the parties for vessels meeting certain standards for the provision of domestic economic benefits; . The Palau Arrangement, 1995, limiting the purse seine fishery, initially by limiting vessel numbers, but now through the VDS which is described separately in more detail below; . The 3rd Implementing Arrangement (3IA) 2008, applying a FAD closure, 100% observer coverage and catch retention/no tuna discards in PNA EEZs, and prohibition of fishing in high seas pockets for licensed vessels. The Nauru Agreement is an important component of this assessment, as the unit of assessment encompasses PNA waters and because a large proportion of the WPSTA fleet tuna catch is taken from within PNA waters.

The Vessel Day Scheme (VDS)

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 101

SCS Global Services Report

a) Parties set the Total Allowable Effort (TAE) in fishing days for each Management Year (calendar years); b) A fishing day is defined as any day or part of a day where fishing activity occurs in the waters of a Party outside archipelagic waters; c) Initially, allowances for the FSM Arrangement fleet effort and the USA Treaty effort were deducted from the TAE. Current arrangements require individual PNA parties to contribute days from their PAEs into pools for the FSM Arrangements and the USA Treaty; d) The adjusted TAE is allocated amongst the Parties as their PAE for each management year based on the distribution of estimated biomass and historical effort; e) Parties may transfer days freely between themselves within a single management year; days cannot be transferred and/or borrowed between management years; f) Each Party is required to take all necessary measures to ensure that the number of fishing days by purse seine vessels in its EEZ does not exceed that Party’s PAE or adjusted PAE in any management year; g) As a capacity adjustment, a fishing day of a small vessel (<50 m length overall (LOA)) is counted as half of a fishing day, and large vessels (>80 m LOA) one and a half fishing days; h) The VDS is overseen and reviewed by an Inter-Party VDS Committee (VDSC), and reports to the annual meeting of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement. The role of the VDSC is to have oversight on the operational aspects of the VDS and provide recommendations as appropriate to the plenary meetings of the Parties to the Palau Arrangement: the committee may also be mandated to decide on certain operational aspects of the VDS.

Under the VDS, the TAE for 2016 and 2017 has been established at 44,890 and 44,605 days, respectively. With the addition of Tokelau this increases to 45,881 days for 2016 and 45,590 days for 2017. All members of the WPSTA purse fleet operates under the VDS. The FCF fleet comprises 27 purse seine vessels from 3 flag States- the USA, Chinese Taipei and China- that fall within the 60-80m length category of the VDS, meaning that one day fished in PNA waters requires one VDS day. The USA fleet operates through fishing days allocated via the USA Treaty when fishing in PNA waters. As of the 2016 USA Tuna Treaty (described in more depth under flag state governance descriptions below), the USA is provided 3200 days in the EEZs of PNA members and Tokelau where the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) is being applied, with the exception of Kiribati, for which it is provided an additional 300 days. There are no confirmed days for the Chinese and Chinese Taipei fleet, as VDS days are allocated based on bilateral agreements, based on annual communications between association of TW fleets(TTPSA) / CN(COFA) and PNA countries.

The VDS is a very large management programme being applied by a group of developing countries of varying capacities. Taken together with the various other conservation and management measures, the VDS provides a central element in the management of the key target stocks and is also an important element in the regional strategy to conserve bigeye tuna.

In PNA waters, use of VDS days is tracked via the PNA ‘Fisheries Information Management System’ (FIMS), which is based in Australia. The operational management of the FIMS system by PNA is not publically available.

VDS Implementation at the National Level

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 102

SCS Global Services Report

From the administration perspective, days are allocated to fleets, but permission for viewing usage is provided by vessel. FIMS doesn't know which vessel is allocated which days and is thus unable to display the information. If days were allocated by vessel or by Flag then FIMS would be able to display days allocated, but there are situations where an association is buying some days for the fleet, then the company goes and negotiates additional days for just their company’s vessels. Therefore, while from the management perspective the analysis of the VDS is useful, it says little in terms of compliance, which is left to both coastal and flag states.

It is up to each boat owner or association to provide data access to its flag state regarding VDS days usage. All boat owners have access to see their days usage and can provide access for the flag state authority to see their days usage. The USA flag fleet is different as access is granted under the USA Tuna treaty. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has access to data captured in FIMS for the USA fleet and provides a monthly summary of VDS fishing day usage to the Executive Director of the American Tuna Boat Association (ATA), who in turn notify all of the USA vessels of their VDS usage. Chinese Taipei vessels have provided data access to the Chinese Taipei Fisheries Agency, but this is not the case with China. This, and a lack of any Chinese government officials as registered users of the FIMS system, suggest that their Fisheries Agency does not currently have access to VDS data. Strengths and weaknesses of the VDS

A summary of the VDS core strengths as summarized by Banks et al. 2011 include:

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

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

. The lack of a clear link between the PAE and scientific advice on stock status; . PAE allocation has been unsettled, and difficulties have been addressed in part through increasing the TAE and individual PAEs through ad hoc adjustments; . Some Parties have overrun their PAEs, and it is not clear that the sanctions in the Scheme for over-runs are being applied; . Limits have only been partially applied at national level;

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 103

SCS Global Services Report

. There are inconsistencies in the treatment of non-fishing days, with apparently high provisions for non-fishing days for some Parties, while no provisions are made for other Parties; . The Scheme does not apply to archipelagic waters, and effort has increased substantially in archipelagic waters of the Parties since 2004; . The FSMA effort is capped at 3907 days but this looks likely to have been exceeded in 2010; . The need to bring USA effort under the VDS.

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

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

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 104

SCS Global Services Report

A number of the recommendations of the review would further address concerns over the VDS if implemented. Some of the key recommendations include: . the formal adoption of a clear and simple objective for the VDS. The review suggests an appropriate objective would be “to maximize fee revenues from the tuna fisheries on a sustainable basis”; . the durability of vessel day rights held by Parties should be strengthened. In particular, there are great efficiency advantages in the Parties having a long term share in the TAE that would be unaffected by the fishing in their EEZ and their own trading in their PAE; . it is recommended that steps be taken to substantially increase transferability. In particular, trades of the PAE to other Parties should not affect future years PAE; . It is recommended that a study be undertaken into the costs and benefits of altering VDS to a system where the fishing rights are in terms of harvest volume rather than effort; . the current process of determining PAE be replaced with an allocation mechanism which gives long-term certainty to Parties regarding their entitlement to a share of the VDS and increased flexibility in the way in which VDS can be transferred to other Parties without a penalty in the form of reduced future PAE; . as long as an effort-based system is retained, it is vital to continue the efforts by the PNAO to address fishing effort creep by more closely relating individual vessel performance to its calculated use of a standard VD; . the PA be amended or provision made in a new integrated legal instrument allowing for a range of appropriate mechanisms to be integrated into the VDS to manage effort creep. . the VDS-partners should do their utmost to exclude fishing from the high seas pockets (doughnut holes) between or bordering their EEZs; . free trading of VDs between partners be formally allowed within the VDS-structure . the VDS rules should be as clear and complete as possible to minimize the room for alternative interpretation and loopholes; . the rules and/or applicable legal instruments should have clear statements of the process of dealing with infringements as well as the type and level recompense for violations; . a clear system of sanctions for deviations from VDS rules designed to make deviations unattractive should be set up; . there is a considerable uncertainty about both the short run and long run optimal level of vessel days. Bio-economic analysis undertaken for the review indicates that the fee revenue maximizing vessel days could be somewhat higher than those today, however, the evidence is not very conclusive. This suggests that a more careful bio-economic study should be conducted before the current vessel day policy is altered; . there should be a substantially enhanced role of the PNAO with added functions including facilitating trades of VD, overseeing auctions of VDs, bio-economic research, expanded VD registry.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 105

SCS Global Services Report

PNA has subsequently developed a work plan to consider the key issues for implementation, with a particular focus on addressing the application of Non-Fishing Days (NFD) that is causing ‘leakage’ in the VDS (Blyth-Skyrme et al 2017). Differing definitions of non-fishing days (NFDs) has been raised as a particular concern because it can result in “leakage” in the VDS. The 3rd MSC surveillance audit for the PNA fishery examined this issue (SCS 2014). The audit team reports that PNA acknowledged the problem of inconsistent application of the definition of NFDs and processing on NFDs. PNA have undertaken measures including use of eReports for verification of NFDs, time limits for the submission of NFDs by vessel operators and for processing, which have led to a decrease in the percentage of NFDs (L. Clark, pers. comm) The surveillance audit concluded that “…this weakness in the VDS is not currently considered sufficient to compromise the effectiveness of the VDS as a tool for limiting fishing effort to the desired levels (SCS 2014).

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

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

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

The FFA Secretariat focuses its work on:

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

The Forum Fisheries Committee is comprised of one representative of each of the 17 members. The representative may be assisted by deputies. Observers may also participate and this allows review and engagement by other relevant organisations. The FFC meets once a year at its annual session, normally held in the first week of May and again in special meetings held at other times of the year, according to its discretion and agenda. Meetings are closed to the public and an attempt is made to reach decisions by consensus among member countries, although there is also the ability to take issues to a vote (each party has one vote and a two thirds majority is required of all parties present for the vote to pass).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 106

SCS Global Services Report

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

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

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

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

In addition to providing services to FFA Members, the FFA Secretariat supports the WCPFC regional Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), providing establishment, maintenance, diagnostic and support infrastructure and services, automatic location communicator (ALC) management services and communication gateways for the Commission VMS, along with training for Commission staff. For more on FFA’s role in MCS, see Section: Compliance and Enforcement.

Licensing

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 107

SCS Global Services Report

These conditions are updated from time to time by the FFA by agreement of all member countries and territories. The Harmonized Minimum Terms and Conditions (HMTCs) as they are known, are given national effect through vessel licensing conditions or by incorporation into national law as appropriate. The current HMTCs are as amended by FFC90 (30 June 2014) (available at http://www.ffa.int/system/files/MTC_FFC90_June%202014.pdf ). The HMTCs constitute a key strategic tool for FFA members to regulate access to their waters and set standards to protect, as well as maximise the benefits from, their fisheries resources. The current HTMCs include: . Compliance with national laws; . Vessels to carry Common Regional Licence Form on board at all times; . Vessels and operators to have “good standing” on the FFA Vessel Register; . Vessels to be registered on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels; . Transshipment: no purse seine vessel to transship at sea (except for group seiners), 72 hours notice to transship in port; submit full reports on transshipping; . Maintain and Submit Catch Logs in Zones and on High Seas; . Reporting: each Wednesday; within a reasonable time of entry into and departure from the zone; and entry into a port; . Observers to be allowed and assisted to undertake their duties; operators shall ensure 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels and at least 5% on longline vessels; . An agent to be appointed to receive and respond to any legal process; . Vessels in transit to have fishing equipment stowed or secured in such a manner that it is not readily available to use for fishing; . FFA members shall take measures through legislation or regulations and in accordance with international law to exercise powers of port State over fishing vessels in their ports; . Operators to comply with instructions and directions given by an authorised and identified officer; . Vessel monitoring system shall be implemented by the operator; . Fish Aggregating Devices to be clearly marked and identified; . Compulsory pre-fishing inspections to be carried out.

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 108

SCS Global Services Report

Flag State Governance Frameworks United States

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

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

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

The MSFCMA is the main overarching fisheries legislation governing management of fisheries operating in USA national waters and extends to USA fleets operating on the high seas. The WCPO

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 109

SCS Global Services Report purse seine fishery is also subject to the authority of the High Seas Fishing Compliance Act, which governs the conduct of USA fishing vessels on the high seas, and under which a high seas fishing permit is required for a USA fishing vessel to be used for commercial fishing anywhere on the high seas.

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

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

The USA Treaty was first implemented because USA legislation did not recognize national jurisdiction over trans-boundary fish stocks such as tuna, despite Pacific Island countries declaring their EEZs between 1977and 1984. USA legislation allowed sanctions to be imposed on coastal states that took action against USA vessels for breaching national laws. In order to ensure that USA vessels complied with national laws and to protect Pacific Island countries from trade sanctions, the Treaty was established in 1987. At this time, it was necessary to establish the Treaty with all Pacific Island Countries, not just those in the equatorial band with rich skipjack resources supporting purse seine fisheries. The Treaty was first enacted for a period of five years from 1988-1993. Since then it has been extended twice, spanning 25 years altogether. Following the completion of the latest 10-year agreement in 2013 there have been ongoing negotiations for a further agreement. Each of the phases of the Treaty has involved variations and different monetary values associated with the access.

Historically, the majority of these payments was made by the USA Government and the smaller component paid by industry. However, the industry component has increased markedly. USA Government funding of approximately USA$21 million is to meet an annual commitment under the Treaty and the associated Economic Assistance Agreement to support development in the region.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 110

SCS Global Services Report

The USA Treaty is administered by the Pacific Islands FFA on behalf of PIPs. The funds are paid to the Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) which then distributes funds to its member states. While USA purse seine vessels are licensed to fish in all PIP waters, the majority of fishing activity takes place within PNA waters. There is a maximum of 40 USA purse seine vessels permitted to operate under the USA Treaty. In the original text of the VDS, USA Treaty vessels were exempted from a limit on fishing days, unlike other fleets operating under bilateral access arrangements. Under the current arrangements, purse seine fishing days allocated to the USA fleet under the USA Treaty are now managed as part of the VDS.

In 2016 the USA and the respective Pacific Island Parties (PIPs) underwent a series of negotiations over the Treaty structure and terms. Permits for fishing under the auspices of the Treaty were not issued until March of 2016, and agreement on a restructuring of the Treaty was reached in June 2016. The new Treaty is considered valid through 2022, though prices have only been established through 2020. The total number of days made available via the new Treaty are similar to the past iteration, but there are several material differences to the structure of the agreement. The obligatory buy-in price is lower, as the Treaty stipulates a maximum, but not a minimum, number of days USA vessels may buy. There is more opportunity for vessels to establish bilateral arrangements with PIPs outside of the days and prices established by the Treaty. These vessels may still receive a Treaty license so long as they enter into one or more bilateral or multilateral agreements with PIPs under the Treaty. Vessels may sell days purchased under the Treaty. USA vessels have access to the days specified in the Treaty until July 1st of each year, at which point the PIPs are free to sell any days remaining to other fishing entities. Lastly, the 2016 Treaty removed the specification of USA limits on high seas days, which is otherwise specified in CMM 2016-01 (and its iterations). (USA Treaty 2016)

Days to be made available to USA Vessels under the Treaty are now as follows, with changes to the previous Treaty noted in italics: . 3200 days in the EEZs of PNA members and Tokelau where the Vessel Day Scheme (VDS) is being applied, with the exception of Kiribati (a decrease of 2200 days from the previous Treaty); . 300 days in the Kiribati EEZ; . 350 days in the Cook Islands EEZ (increase of 100 days); and . 600 days in the EEZs of Fiji, Niue, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu (increase of 300 days).

Effort limits on the high seas and within USAEEZ waters In addition to fishing days allocated to the USA fleet in PIPs EEZs under the USA Treaty, USA purse seine vessels have an allocation for high seas fishing and for fishing within the EEZ of USA territories. The USA fleet operates on the high seas under the allocation of USA high seas purse seine fishing days provided for in CMM 2016-01. Under para 25 of CMM 2016-01, the whole USA purse seine fleet has shared access to a competitive TAE of 1270 days fishing on the high sea. The applicable limit for the USA EEZ is the same as that implemented by NMFS since 2009, which is 558 fishing days per year. The USA combines these amounts for high seas and EEZs of the Territories referred to above, as well as the USA Pacific monuments of Palmyra Atoll, Howland and Baker Islands, and Kingman Reef, referring to this limit as the Effort Limit Area for Purse Seine (ELAPS) (See Figure 7). In 2013,

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 111

SCS Global Services Report collectively the USA ELAPS limit for the U.S purse seine fleet was 2588 fishing days, applying between the latitudes of 20°N and 20°S in the Convention area. This total number of fishing days was reduced to 1828 fishing days in 2014, to conform to the new WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure (CMM 2014-01) (USA Federal Register/Volume.79, No. 143/Friday July 25, 2014). The same limit is in place through 2017 (as codified in codifed as Federal Register Rule 81 FR 41239).

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

There is a recent example of this occurring. On 8 June 2015, NFMS issued a notice announcing that the purse seine fishery in the ELAPS would close as a result of reaching the limit of 1828 fishing days, effective 15 June 2015 until 31 December 2015 for all USA purse seine fishing vessels. In response, the Tri Marine Management Company made a request that “NOAA undertake an emergency rulemaking with respect to the 2015 ELAPS limits for fishing days on the high seas and that NOAA issue a rule exempting from that high seas limit any USA flag purse seine vessel which … delivers or will deliver at least 50 percent of its catch to tuna processing facilities based in American Samoa”. This request was subsequently denied by NOAA and the purse seine fishery in the ELAPs remained closed.

Chinese Taipei

The management of Chinese Taipei fishing both within its EEZ, on the high seas in the Pacific and in PICT waters is governed by a suite of legislation and regulations. The two key Acts in relation to this analysis are; the Fisheries Act (2016) and the Distant Water Fisheries Act (2016). These Acts have been in operation for less than a year (since January 2017). The new legislation was developed as a consequence of the identification of Chinese Taipei by the European Union as a possible non- cooperating nation in regards to IUU fishing (aka “yellow card”). This new legal framework is pivotal to the performance of the flag state fleet relative to the MSC standard, but having only been operational for less than a year, there is limited understanding of the implications of the new instruments.

The relevant new legislative arrangements include:

. Act Governing Distant Water Fisheries (遠洋漁業條例)

. Amendments to the Fisheries Act (漁業法) passed in early July 2016

. The Ordinance to Govern Investment in the Operation of Foreign Flag Fishing Vessels (投資經營非我國籍漁船管理條例

. The Enforcement Rules of the Fisheries Act.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 112

SCS Global Services Report

The Fisheries Act (2016) is the more general of the two Acts and deals predominantly with domestic fisheries management, aquaculture and enforcement. It has a range of provisions including who can be granted a license, build a fishing vessel, work on fishing vessels, receive access rights etc. It also has chapters on recreational fishing, fishery development, conservation and management and penalty provisions.

The Distant Water Fisheries (DWF) Act (2016) is specifically tailored to the management and enforcement of Chinese Taipei vessels fishing on the high seas or a third country’s EEZ15. It has as its general objectives to: . Ensure the conservation of marine fisheries resources; . Strengthen distant water fisheries management; . Curb IUU fishing; and . Improve traceability of catches and fisheries product; so as to promote the sustainable operation of distant water fisheries.

Article 5 of the DWF Act requires that the fisheries agency develop arrangements which have regard to the precautionary principle, ecosystem based approach and the use of the best available scientific advice. According to onsite meeting discussions with TFA staff, there is an established process by which CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation, although the documentation provided to the assessment team suggests that the process provides for potential modification to the CMMs in this process, and that legislation can be vetoed by the Legislative Yuan or the Committee of the Whole Yuan.

Roles and Responsibilities

In Chinese Taipei, central authority over commercial fisheries is vested in the Council of Agriculture. Under the Council of Agriculture, there are two separate government organizations: the Chinese Taipei Fisheries Agency (TFA) based in Kaohsiung and the Fisheries Research Centre based in Keelung, both of which have complex institutional histories and appear to have no formal overlap in shared responsibilities for fishery management.

The key fisheries management acts are administered by the Fisheries Agency (Council of Agriculture of the Executive Yuan). The Chinese Taipei Fishery Agency, Council of Agriculture has a Deep Sea Fisheries Division which is responsible for managing all aspects of fishing operations as they relate to distant water fishing, including issuing licenses, monitoring VMS, port inspections, recording data, monitoring quota or harvest limits, placement of observers, transshipment, enforcement (with the Coast Guard), prosecutions etc.

TFA’s organizational chart identifies a series of bodies dealing with its operations as a Distant Water Fishing Nation (DWFN).

15 Generally understood to mean an entity not party to an agreement between two other countries. Even more generally, the term is used to denote a country other than two specific countries referred to, e.g. in the context of trade relations.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 113

SCS Global Services Report

International Fisheries Affairs Section, International Economics and Trade Section, Marine Conservation Section: . Issuing the authorized operation permit . Issuing the permit of fisheries cooperation . VMS . Monitoring / inspection of unloading at port . Recording / monitoring the Digital data . Controlling/ monitoring the harvest quota . Punishment for the breach of legislation (power shared with the Coast Guard Administration) International Fisheries Affairs Section: (work with Coast Guard Administration) . Inspection at sea Centre of Applications for Fisheries: . Monitoring of transshipment/ unloading . Issuing certificates of Origin or other certificate documents Deep Sea Fisheries Planning Section: . Planning, employment and administration of fishery observers. . Position monitoring of deep-sea fishing vessels and their management. . Monitoring / inspection of unloading at port

Figure 34. Organizational Chart of TFA. Source: client documentation

China There is limited information on China’s Fisheries management objectives, and in particular management objectives for its Distant Water fleet. There are however broad management

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 114

SCS Global Services Report arrangements for distant water fisheries set out in the “Administrative Regulation on Distant Water Fisheries 2003”.

The overarching law controlling fishing is the Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China (China Fisheries Law). The China Fisheries Law was adopted on January 20, 1986 and promulgated by Order No.34 on January 20, 1986; amended for the first time in accordance with the Decision on Amending the Fisheries Law of the People's Republic of China adopted October 31, 2000. This provides a range of general provisions including; covering all fishing activity including fishing on the high seas and in other State’s EEZs (joint managed fishery zones defined in the agreement concluded between the People’s Republic of China and the countries concerned) and provides guidance on domestic jurisdictional arrangements. The law vests all key function relating to controlling fishing operations on the high seas and other EEZs with the Fisheries Authority under the State Council. It also contains specific enforcement and prosecution provisions.

The assessment team is not aware of any further review of this law.

The law is supplemented by a number of other regulations and policies, including “Provisions for the Administration of Pelagic Fishery” and the “Program of Action on the Conservation of Living Aquatic Resources of China (Promulgated by the State Council in February 2006).

These documents provide a range of provisions that constitute an effective national legal system and provide for organised and effective cooperation with other parties. Article 23 of the China Fisheries Law 2000 provides that “Those who intend to conduct fishing operation in the waters under the jurisdiction of other states shall be approved by the Fisheries Authority under the State Council and shall comply with relevant treaties and agreements signed or acceded by the People’s Republic of China and laws of states concerned.” Elsewhere reference is made to fulfilling China’s international obligations with the “Program for Action” providing that “.... the relevant obligations set out in international treaties and regulations that the government of China signed or acceded to should be responsibly fulfilled”. China’s Fisheries Act does not specify what criminal liabilities will be imposed, only that an individual “shall be investigated for criminal responsibility in accordance with the law.”

Coastal States Coastal states are those nations whose EEZ is fished by the UoA under the afore-described regional management framework. This is in contrast to a flag state, defined as a state with vessels fishing in the WCPO. The national laws of these coastal states are important to the extent that they influence fishing behaviour in the WCPFC convention area, and thus the UoA waters.

Chinese Taipei, China, and the USA are considered flag states in this assessment however some fishing may occur by USA flagged vessels in the USA EEZ.

National legislation requirements under WCPFC

As Parties to the WCPF Convention and members of the WCPFC, all members including the USA, Chinese Taipei and China are required to apply the precautionary approach to fisheries management in accordance with Articles 5 and 6 and Annex II of the UNFSA which is specifically referenced in the WCPF Convention. The approaches to implementation of these requirements in national laws across members and Pacific Island Parties (PIPs) are broadly similar, reflecting the long period of

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 115

SCS Global Services Report collaboration of the Parties in tuna management through PNA, FFA and more recently, the WCPFC. Most WCPFC CMMs and PNA arrangements apply obligations to Parties or Members, rather than vessels, but Members are expected to reflect CMM arrangements in their domestic laws and therefore apply them to their vessels. Implementing arrangements are then required at national level to legally bind boat owners and operators based on these flag state obligations. These arrangements can take the form of legislation, regulations, Gazette Notices, Authority decisions (which in some cases have the power of regulations), access agreement provisions or licence conditions.

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

As WCPFC Members, the Pacific Island nations provide Annual Reports in two parts to the WCPFC:

Part 1. Research and Statistics – reports for 2015 available at http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/11th-regular-session-scientific-committee ; Part 2. Management and Compliance. These reports are confidential to the WCPFC Secretariat and CCMs.

National legislation requirements for FFA members

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 116

SCS Global Services Report

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

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

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

Table 15. Membership of WCPFC and FFA, signatories to UNFSA for PNA Parties.

PNA members WCPFC UNFSA FFA EAFM Management/Development Plan report FSM M   `  Kiribati M    Marshall Islands M    Nauru M    Palau M     PNG M     Solomon Islands M    Tuvalu M    M=member; P=participating territory; EAFM=Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management; FEP=Fishery Ecosystem Plan

Consultation Processes

Consultation The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states and the committees formed under Commission control (SC, NC, and TCC) in relation to consultative processes. The Commission and its committees have well defined operating procedures and terms of reference, and the roles and responsibilities of members and non-members are well defined in the Convention, in the Rules of Procedure and in relevant CMMs. The Commission Secretariat facilitates effective engagement by stakeholders including Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other interested parties. Attendance at Commission and related meetings (including SC and TCC) are comprehensive and meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management of the tuna fisheries; noting that some of these meetings are held in

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 117

SCS Global Services Report closed session (in particular some important aspects relating to compliance with CMMs by CCMs) and thus do not offer transparent and open opportunity for meaningful involvement.

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

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

National Considerations

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

Below the consultation processes for the flag states under assessment are described:

USA Fleet: The MSA (Section 302(g)) directs the Councils to ‘establish, maintain, and appoint members to committees and advisory panels’, and specifies the roles and responsibilities of the individuals involved in the management process. There is an advisory body comprised of 15-20 “individuals from various groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the WCPFC Convention.”

At the national fishery management level, the WPFMC holds three regular meetings per year that are open to the public. Closed meetings may be held upon occasion, but minutes are taken and shared. There are additional conferences and meetings held by the Council Coordination Committee (CCC).

Chinese Taipei:

Documentation regarding formal consultative processes for Chinese Taipei as they pertain to stakeholder involvement in developing a national position for WCPFC was not provided, but anecdotal explanations and evidence from WCPFC meetings suggests Chinese Taipei has developed consultation arrangements prior to WCPFC meetings that provide opportunity for at least some interested and affected parties.

When CMMs are proposed, the Chinese Taipei Fishery Agency (TFA) and the Overseas Fishery Department of Council (OFDC) summarize existing CMMs, any related meeting reports published on WCPFC website about the change of CMMs and new proposed CMMs. This occurs one month before any WCPFC Regular Meeting Commission. In this period before a Commission meeting, the

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 118

SCS Global Services Report

TFA and OFDC gather all related parties, such as Purse-Seiner Association, Tuna Association, and Longline Association to discuss and gather all opinions in order to attempt to achieve a common stances on proposals, that can then become a national position to be addressed by TFA and OFDC in WCPFC on behalf of Chinese Taipei. After the meeting and in order to adopt the CMM into Chinese Taipei domestic regulations, the Deep sea water division of TFA under the Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan (central government) and overseas Fisheries Development Council of the Republic of China will propose the adoption of CMMs into Chinese Taipei domestic legislation. The Executive Yuan will send the proposal to the Legislative Yuan to carry out examination and revision. After passing the regulation, the Council of Agriculture, under Executive Yuan, will be assigned to establish the policy and procedures associated with the regulation. The team received records of prior notices to members of industry.

When new regulations are proposed, the assessment team was told that domestic law obliges the TFA to provide a pre-notice, for a period of 3-4 weeks, for the public to provide input on changes in legislation, which are then considered by the agency. There is no obligation on the part of the agency to provide explanation of what is, or is not decided, or why. The team has yet to receive official laws or policies to demonstrate evidence of the processes described above.

China:

Limited documentation regarding formal consultative processes for China as they pertain to national stakeholder involvement and consultation on WCPFC management arrangements was provided. Some evidence relating to consultation on amendment to “Management of Distant Water Fishery Regulation of 2003” was provided. Anecdotal information from WCPFC meetings suggests China has developed consultation arrangements prior to WCPFC meetings that provide opportunity for at least some interested and affected parties. These provide for discussion and input from stakeholders via the China Overseas Fisheries Association (COFA) and other groups, a pre meeting (if needed), the development of a national positions on key arrangements, and approval of these prior to the meeting. Delegation lists from WCPFC meetings confirm broad participation in these meetings, including by officials from the Bureau of Fisheries (Deep Sea Fishing Division), Ministry of Agriculture, the COFA, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, China Transport and Communications, the Shanghai Ocean University and numerous individual fishing companies.

Decision-making

The decision-making processes adopted by WCPFC, use the best available information and seek to apply the precautionary approach, and are well documented. Decision-making is by Commission Members and is generally based on consensus during annual meetings. If consensus cannot be reached, voting, grounds for appealing decisions, conciliation and review are all part of the established decision-making process, as described in Article 20 of the Convention. This includes a provision for a two-chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted (WCPFC 2004a; Rule 22). This voting provision has not been used for deciding on conservation and management measures. In addition, there are provisions for a decision to be reviewed by a review panel at the request of a Member (WCPFC 2000; Annex II). The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 119

SCS Global Services Report

Decision-making is open, with the process, outcomes and basis for decisions recorded in detail in records of Commission sessions and publicly available papers. The subsidiary bodies of the Commission provide extensive, detailed reports to the Commission, including advice and recommendations (see meeting reports at http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings).

In the context of regional fisheries management, the WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted relatively quickly in an extensive set of CMMs and strategies to respond to sustainability issues. However, the degree to which the decision making processes at the Commission result in measures that achieve fishery specific objectives could be questioned in respect of the historic control of fishing effort on bigeye tuna. Stock assessment and studies presented at the SC identify serious issues at regional level. These are addressed through regionally agreed CMMs (For a summary of current CMMs see Table 16 below).

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

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

Table 16. WCPFC binding conservation management measures (CMM) and Resolutions of particular relevance to the Units of Assessment. Purpose CMM

Bigeye, yellowfin & skipjack CMM 2016-01 (longline and purse seine fisheries) Pacific Bluefin CMM 2016-04 North Pacific Striped Marlin CMM 2010-01 Swordfish CMM 2009-03 Striped marlin in the West Pacific CMM 2006-04 Non-target species Resolution 2005-03 Silky shark CMM 2014-05; CMM 2013-08; CMM 2011-04; Oceanic whitetip shark CMM 2010-07; CMM 2012-04 Sharks Whale sharks (purse seines) Sea turtles CMM 2008-03 Seabirds CMM2015-03 Cetaceans (purse seines) CMM 2011-03 Scientific observers CMM 2016-03; CMM 2007-01; CMM 2006-07 Monitoring, control and surveillance activities CMM 2015-07; CMM 2014-03; CMM 2014-02; CMM 2013-10; CMM 2013-05; CMM 2013-04; CMM 2010-06; CMM 2009-10; CMM 2009-09;

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 120

SCS Global Services Report

CMM 2009-06; CMM 2004-03 High seas controls CMM 2016-02; CMM 2009-02; CMM 2008-04

3.5.2 Fishery-Specific Management

Objectives for the Fishery

Long-term objectives

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

As the fishery is a transnational fishery, the long term objectives of the fishery are agreed to under the umbrella of the WCPFC, which in principle operates under the precautionary approach. The long term objectives of the legislation of the individual flag states outside of the RFMO are not considered consequential for scoring purposes. However, long term objectives are also laid out in some national plans, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS. For example, the USA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) authorizes fishery management councils to create fishery management plans (FMP). Encompassing USA Pacific purse seine fishing, the Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP) as an FMP, consistent with the MSFCMA and the national standards for fishery conservation and management.

Fishery-specific objectives

CMM 2016-01 is the primary measure for the management of bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna in the WCPO. The CMM provides explicit short and long term objectives, as follows: General 1. Compatible measures for the high seas and exclusive economic zones (EEZs) are implemented so that bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna stocks are, at a minimum, maintained at levels capable of producing their maximum sustainable yield as qualified by relevant environmental and economic factors including the special requirements of developing States in the Convention Area as expressed by Article 5 of the Convention. The Commission will amend, or replace the objectives with target reference points after their adoption. Skipjack 2. the Fishing Mortality Rate (F) for skipjack will be maintained at a level no greater than Fmsy, i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 121

SCS Global Services Report

Bigeye 3. the fishing mortality rate for bigeye tuna will be reduced to a level no greater than Fmsy, i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1. This objective shall be achieved through step by step approach through 2017 in accordance with this Measure. Yellowfin 4. the fishing mortality rate is not greater than Fmsy, i.e. F/Fmsy ≤ 1.

The objectives are consistent with the MSC Principles 1 and 2, but there remain some deficiencies in the definition and measurability of the objectives, as noted in conditions applied to the harvest strategy and control rule.

Compliance and Enforcement

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

A range of sanctions exist to deal with non-compliance at regional level, notably though black listing of IUU vessels, and Port State Measures. Port inspection reports provide evidence that they are being applied. Logbook data are supplied as part of licence requirements. An extensive VMS system is in operation, as well as a 100% observer programme for large scale purse seiners. Observers report data from catches in EEZ waters, with special provisions through a MoU to allow observers to operate in the waters of several EEZs. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance.

As described in Banks et al. (2011) the WCPFC has largely established and is implementing a comprehensive compliance programme, including the following elements: . Requirements for vessels, including support vessels operating outside their own waters to be on the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorisation to Fish (CMM 2013-10) . Responsibilities and process for Cooperating Non Members (CMM 2009-11) . Specifications, Markings and Identification of Vessels (CMM 2004-03) . High seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures (CMM 2006-08) . Regional observer programme (CMM 2006-07) . High seas Vessel Monitoring System (CMM2014-02) with the option of “flip the switch16” arrangements within EEZs and a blacklist of IUU Vessels (CMM2010-06) . Regulation of Transshipment, including ban on purse seine vessels transshipping at sea (CMM 2009-06)

16 Essentially flipping the switch allows coastal States to have the WCPFC VMS monitor all vessels reporting to the WCPFC within their EEZ

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 122

SCS Global Services Report

. Charter Notification Scheme (CMM 2016-05) . Monitoring Landings of Purse Seine Vessels (CMM 2009-10) . Rules for Provision of Scientific Data and Data Dissemination Additional measures have been introduced in recent years, including: . Conservation and Management Measure to establish a List of Vessels presumed to have carried out Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing activities in the WCPO (CMM 2010-06) . Conservation and Management Measure on daily catch and effort reporting (CMM 2013-05) . WCPFC Implementation of a Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI) (CMM 2013-04) . WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorization to Fish (CMM 2013-10) . Conservation and Management Measure for Commission VMS (CMM 2014-02) . Standards, specifications and procedures for the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels (CMM 2014-03) . Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2015-07), to ensure compliance with obligations arising under the Convention and CMMs adopted by the Commission.

The strengths and weaknesses of regional MCS arrangements were analysed by MRAG (2009) and reported on in Banks et al. (2011). MRAG (2009) identified the strengths in regional national fisheries licensing systems with good databases and good regional systems, most notably the Pacific VMS, but also others within FFA, WCPFC and SPC. Compliance risks identified with the region were as follows: . Under-reporting of catches in vessel logs or weekly reports; . Under-reporting of bycatches; . CCMs not reporting details on catch and effort to WCFPC; . Failure to inspect vessels on landing; . Landings into foreign ports; . Failure to implement pre fishing inspections to check licence and other details (e.g. ships master); . High observer turnover; . Observer reports of violations not acted upon; . Weaknesses in implementation of fisheries violations in some countries; . Weak system of information exchange and data base management.

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 123

SCS Global Services Report

The role of FFA

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

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

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

Four annual regional multilateral fisheries surveillance operations support the MCS tools and communications of Pacific Island countries. These are Operation KURU KURU, BIGEYE/ISLAND CHIEF, TUI MOANA and RAI BALANG, and are executed by the QUAD operational Working Group. The QUAD nations comprise the aerial and naval arms of Australia, France, New Zealand and the USA. They provide aerial and surface assets to assist regional surveillance. The FFA SOO has the responsibility for facilitating the coordination of the surveillance assets provided by the QUAD nations, in support of national and multilateral fishing surveillance and response activities. The SOO, and thus the RFSC, is in many cases the conduit between the QUAD nations and FFA members.

All FFA members have access to the FFA RFSP covering both their respective EEZ’s and the high seas. The three information sources (FFA VMS, WCPFC VMS and AIS) are used to correlate additional sighting reports from QUAD and FFA member assets, potentially highlighting ‘dark’ vessel contacts not polling on VMS or AIS. These vessels are referred to individual nations for further management/enforcement action.

The RFSP is linked to the extensive FFA secure databases containing a range of fisheries information that are designed to assist national MCS officers to assess the relative level of compliance of all vessels on the FFA VMS. In the RFSP, all vessels are ‘traffic-light’ colour coded to indicate the level of compliance risk (Compliance Index (CI)) (see next section for further description), which can then be used by member countries to plan MCS activities and operations for their Pacific Patrol Boats (PPB’s), with red indicating the possibility of a high-risk/non-compliant vessel, green indicating a greater probability of a low-risk/compliant vessel.

Regional reporting and transparency

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 124

SCS Global Services Report

The WCPFC TCC is tasked with examining compliance with CMMs adopted by the Commission. Members and CCMs submit a Part 2 Annual Report on the implementation of Commission measures. This leads to the development of a Compliance Monitoring Report. There is a lack of transparency with this reporting as much of the material is treated as confidential, including the Part 2 Annual Reports. Discussion of identified compliance issues are held in closed session.

CMM 2015-07 provides an update from CMM 2014-07 pertaining to the WCPFC Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS). This CMM is relevant to MSC scoring and in particular Performance Indicator 3.2.3. The stated purpose of the CMS is: (i) assess CCMs’ compliance with their obligations; (ii) identify areas in which technical assistance or capacity building may be needed to assist CCMs to attain compliance; (iii) identify aspects of conservation and management measures which may require refinement or amendment for effective implementation; (iv) respond to non-compliance through remedial options that include a range of possible responses that take account of the reason for and degree of noncompliance, and include cooperative capacity-building initiatives and, in case of serious non-compliance, such penalties and other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to promote compliance with CMMs and other Commission obligations; and (v) monitor and resolve outstanding instances of non-compliance.

CMM 2015-07 differs from its predecessor primarily in its detail of additional scope provisions in Section 2, which focus on Capacity Assistance and Investigation Status Reports. The 2016 Final Compliance Monitoring Report (Covering 2015) accordingly added two new categories for Capacity Assistance Needed and Flag State Investigation in its Compliance or Implementation Status tables, which classify flag state areas of noncompliance by CMM or data provision article. The assessment team recognizes there has been an increasing level of detail provided in these compliance tables in recent years that demonstrates progress toward greater transparency. There is no indication that the WCPFC is actively considering application of sanctions or penalties to flag states demonstrating systematic or serious noncompliance.

Both CMMs 2014-07 and 2015-07 foreshadow an “intersessional working group to develop a process to complement the CMS [compliance, monitoring and surveillance] that shall identify a range of responses to non-compliance that can be applied by the Commission through the implementation of the CMS, including cooperative capacity-building initiatives and, as appropriate, such penalties and other actions as may be necessary to promote compliance with Commission CMMs.” However, the assessment team has confirmed that the working group has not been active to date (A. Cole, pers. Comm).

There is also a new online system that was launched in 2016 called the Compliance Case File online system. This system tracks individual alleged violations relevant to the CMS. There are four lists currently published in this new system that are accessible to relevant flag CCMs and the Secretariat: . Article 25-2 compliance cases (non-observer prompted flag state investigations),

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 125

SCS Global Services Report

. FAD set alleged infringements (from observer data), . observer obstruction alleged infringements (from observer data), and . shark catch alleged infringements (from observer data).

There is ongoing discussion in meeting documents regarding allowing participation by observers in closed TCC sessions, including the session which considers the draft Compliance Monitoring Report (CMR) or working group sessions considering the provisional CMR, subject to confidentiality restrictions (WCPFC 2016a & 2016b). However, no commitment to such access have been made at this point, and it is unlikely that observers will be provided increased participation at the upcoming WCPFC meeting (A. Cole, pers. comm). In addition to the ongoing developments within the current MCS program, there is an ongoing independent review of the WCPFC CMS expected to be completed in 2018.

Whilst there is progress at WCPFC in examining compliance information and the need for responses to non-compliance, the WCPFC continues to underperform relative to other tuna RFMOs in some regards. In contrast to other tuna RFMOs (ICCAT, IOTC, CCSBT and IATTC), observers are not allowed in the compliance working group meetings and no detailed information on infringements or responses to them are released publically.

National MCS Programs and Records While the Regional organizations (WCPFC and FFA) set up conditions, general policies, capacity building operational support for Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) activities in the WCPO tuna fishery, none of these organizations has enforcement capacity per se and therefore rely completely on coastal and flag state enforcement actions.

United States

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 126

SCS Global Services Report

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

The USA as a flag state has proven evidence of prosecutions of its vessels for non-compliance with management measures: a search on the NOAA website17 provides evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to USA vessels under the UoA.

. In 2009, the owners, operators and fishing masters of several fishing vessels (Ocean Encounter, Ocean Conquest, Sea Honor, Sea Quest and Pacific Ranger) were charged with five counts of setting their purse seine net on whales, which is a violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, ten counts of setting on or within one nautical mile of a FAD and two counts of deploying FADs during the 2009 FAD closure in violation of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Convention Implementation Act WCPFCIA. All seventeen counts were proven and resulted in a civil penalty of USA$953,054.18 . In March of 2015, NOAA denied a petition for administrative review for a Notice of Violation and Assessment of Administrative Penalty to the FV Pacific Ranger, with five counts of prohibited take of a marine mammal in violation of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), 16 USAC. § 1372(a)(1), and with a single count of setting a purse seine fishing net within one nautical mile of Fish Aggregating Device in violations of the WCPFCIA, 16 V.S.C. § 6906(a)(l)19 . In a further case, the FV Ocean Conquest on October 27, 2010 set their purse seine fishing gear on a live whale, thereby taking a marine mammal on the high seas, in violation of16 V.S.C. § 1372(a)(1) and 50 C.F.R. § 216.ll(a) and has been prosecuted.20

While these procedures provide evidence of the enforcement abilities of USA fisheries authorities, the repetitive nature of the offences cast doubt on the performance of some the vessels within the UoA.

Chinese Taipei

The new arrangements put in place in response to the EU yellow card tighten regulations and raise the fines for illegal fishing, “fish laundering” and other significant violations. The Act Governing

18 (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/ole/newsroom/stories/13/04_090413_purse_seine_fad_case.html)

19 http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2015/2015_Administrator_Pacific_Ranger_ocr.pdf

20 http://www.gc.noaa.gov/documents/2015/2015_ALJ_Ocean_Conquest_ocr.pdf

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 127

SCS Global Services Report

Distant Water Fisheries lists 19 activities as “major violations,” including undertaking distant fishing without registration; failing to install a VMS and a system to report each vessel’s catch; unloading and transshipping fish and fishing in foreign waters without official approval; counterfeiting and hiding identification markers, such as the name and number of a fishing boat; fishing in excess of the authority’s announced quotas; fishing, possessing, transshipping, unloading or selling banned species; avoiding or obstructing inspection and cooperating with boats that have been undertaking illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Chapter IV of the new Distant Water Fisheries Act provides extensive Penal Provisions in Articles 35 to 45. These provisions provide for escalating fines and/or suspension and cancellation of concessions where there are multiple and repeat offenses over a period of time.

The Act stipulates that business operators or employees who perpetrate any of the major violations will be severely fined and their fishing permits will be revoked for up to two years. The enforcement rules impose fines that are categorized in proportion to the size of the boat in question and the number of times in recent years the offence has been detected. If the fines are “less than the value of seized fishery products, the perpetrator would instead be fined up to five times of the value of the seized products.” The act also stipulates that repeated violations are subject to more severe punishment.

As this Act has been in operation for less than a year there is limited evidence to know if the sanctions are being consistently applied and are an effective deterrent.

In addition to the revised Distant Water Fisheries Act, amendments to the Ordinance to Govern Investment in the Operation of Foreign Flag Fishing Vessels prohibit Chinese Taipei from investing in or operating boats that are non-Chinese Taipei without official permission. If investments are planned for boats that are known to have undertaken IUU fishing, the permission would not be granted, or, if already granted, would be revoked, according to the amendment. The TFA also adopted a Strategy Plan for Auditing Industry Related to Distant Water Fisheries, however no plans, logistics or timeframes were presented.

As described above, both TFA and the Coast Guard Administration have the power to detect, identify, and issue punishments for infringements. Chinese Taipei’s NPOA provides for an annual exchange of information between the Chinese Taipei Coast Guard Administration and the Fisheries Agency regarding international fisheries management. Both the Coast Guard and the Fisheries Agency can conduct boarding and inspection of vessels but it is unclear what coordination is legally required between the two institutions. The Maritime and Port Bureau in the Ministry of Transportation and Communication also wields legal authority to inspect Chinese Taipei flagged vessels in order to deter IUU fishing (Telesetsky, 2015) and it remains to be clarified how these responsibilities differ from other agencies responsible for aspects of enforcement.

As noted above, until the new legislation governing the Distant Water fleet is implemented and tested it will not be possible to fully evaluate the sufficiency of the MCS system and respective compliance performance, but there is some available information on compliance performance and application of sanctions. Information has been provided in regards to enforcement records relating to enforcement activities, violations encountered, and sanctions applied. Chinese Taipei has a Distant Water Fisheries Sanction Issued List which is available on the Fishery Agency website, but not

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 128

SCS Global Services Report in English (as the main language used for official WCPFC documentation), impeding transparency and collaboration with other CCMs. A translated list of sanctions for the period March –September 2017 relating to 36 vessels/operators was provided, however only two of these related to purse seine vessels, one related to the Chinese Taipei longline vessel on the WCPFC IUU Vessel list and three were foreign fishing or carrier vessels apprehended by Chinese Taipei.

In an article in Focus Chinese Taipei on 15 August 2017 (also reported in FIS Worldnews 16 August 2017), it is reported that the Government had imposed fines in 109 cases of illegal fishing involving Chinese Taipei deep-sea fishing vessels from January to July 2017. The article states this is in an effort to ensure the European Union removes Chinese Taipei from a watch list of countries that have not taken sufficient action to curb IUU fishing. Most of the penalties were under the amended Fisheries Act , however 24 were fines based on the new Distant Water Fisheries Act, which came into force on 20 January 2017.

An issue that needs to be resolved is the matter of the Yu Fong 168 being on the WCPFC IUU Vessel list (see 3.2.3a). While the note on the vessel list suggests that Chinese Taipei has sought to take effective action in relation to this matter, the question remains as to why authorities have not removed the Chinese Taipei flag from this vessel. Article 44 of the Distant Water Fisheries Act states:

Article 44: ..... “In the event that a fishing vessel whose fishing license was withdrawn pursuant to the Fisheries Act before this Act becomes effective and which is listed on the IUU fishing vessel list(s) of the international fisheries organization(s) fails to comply with the order of the competent authority to return to domestic ports within designated timeframe, the competent authority may confiscate such fishing vessel, and apply to the navigation authority for re-registry of its ownership, followed by the revocation of its registration and cancel of its certificate of nationality.”

This would seem to provide a head of power to deal with the vessel and owner.

China

Chapter V (Articles 38 to 49) of the Chinese Fisheries Act 2000 provides details of the penalties provisions (fines and suspension/cancellation provisions and in serious cases confiscation of gear and or vessel) under the legislation. These provisions cover both wild capture fisheries and aquaculture. There do not appear to be specific provisions for high seas fisheries or fishing in third party EEZs. The sanctions available cover the key areas needed for effective enforcement, destructive fishing, fishing in violation of regulations, use of prohibited gear etc. They also include provisions relating to illegal foreign fishing within the Chinese EEZ and corruption by individuals or authorities in implementing the fisheries law.

China has published a “Notice of the Ministry of Agriculture General Office on Fishing Violation of Distant Water Corporation and Fishing Vessels” which provides details of “serious measures against the corporations, fishing vessels and responsible persons that violate the law”. This is not a substantial document but it does provide information on actions taken and fines imposed. Evidence was not provided to indicate if this is published on a regular basis. One recent report from the

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 129

SCS Global Services Report

Australian Fisheries Management Authority said the Australian Government welcomed the news that Chinese authorities have taken action against the operator of the Chinese fishing vessel Yuan Da 19, one of three vessels found to have misreported it catch of southern bluefin tuna. The report stated Chinese authorities had terminated all of the company’s fishing licenses and banned it from engaging in deep sea fishing activities as well as imposing a USAD $300,000 fine.

Monitoring and Management Evaluation

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

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

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 130

SCS Global Services Report only five of the nine national audits reported that internal policies and procedures to support consistency in decision-making were in place.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 131

SCS Global Services Report

4. Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonized Fishery Assessment

FCR v2.0 requires CABs to harmonize overlapping fishery assessments in order to ensure consistency of outcomes. The nature of overlap with other fisheries that are MSC certified or under MSC assessment may vary based on MSC Principle. Harmonization requirements are governed by FCRv2.0 Annex PB. A complete list of fisheries overlapping with the Units in Assessment is provided in Table 17.

Scope:

For this assessment, harmonization is required as follows: Principle 1 harmonization considerations include MSC fisheries targeting WCPO skipjack and/or yellowfin tuna stocks. Principle 1 scores for skipjack and yellowfin underwent a pilot harmonization workshop in April 2016 that was held in Hong Kong. The scores and associated rationales resulting from the workshop were deemed to be non-binding in any formal sense, but as stated in the record of the workshop: “This is a working document prepared by all involved assessors to inform and guide CAB teams as they assess tuna fisheries in the WCPFC area. It is intended as a point of reference for multiple ongoing assessments as of April 2016. As mentioned above, if new information becomes available, harmonisation between assessment teams will still be required. New information of relevance may come from fisheries under assessment, the WCPFC, other tuna fisheries under assessment in different regions, MSC interpretations, etc.” SCS considers that the best available harmonized scores are those produced at the 2016 Hong Kong meeting and that between then and now, none of the new material information that has been presented – including consideration of the PNA stakeholder submission (see Appendix 3) - suggests that these scores should be revised at this time.

Principle 2 harmonization considerations include MSC fisheries employing purse seine gear in pursuit of skipjack and/or yellowfin in the WCPO.

As Principle 2 evaluates fleet specific impacts, the scores may vary based on each fleet’s catch behavior and interactions. Therefore, harmonization is considered for consistency, but scores may vary. Explanations for these differences are provided only in cases where results vary more than a score of 15 points on the same performance indicators, among assessments. MSC v2.0 requires additional considerations under Principle 2 for Cumulative Impacts. v2.0 of the MSC standard requires that any fishery under assessment that has spatial overlap with the Units of Assessment of any other MSC certified fisheries, be explicitly considered in Principle 2 for cumulative impacts. To ensure that the cumulative impact of all MSC fisheries is within sustainable limits, a UoA assessed against standard v2.0 may need to consider the combined impact of itself and other overlapping UoAs. This determination will include other UoAs assessed against

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 132

SCS Global Services Report earlier versions of the CR (e.g., v1.3). However, the MSC Interpretations log21 has clarified that “...the first two paragraphs of guidance on ‘MSC UoAs and the assessment of cumulative impacts’ in Table GSA3 may be taken as a suggestion and does not need to be implemented. The expectation would be that fisheries assessed against v2.0 of the standard shall only be required to consider cumulative impacts with other v2.0 fisheries”. In this case SCS has only considered cumulative considerations for this v2.0 fishery, relative to other overlapping v2.0 fisheries. ‘Overlapping UoAs’ are assessed at different levels depending on which PI is evaluated. For P2 primary species, teams need to evaluate whether the cumulative impact of overlapping MSC UoAs hinders the recovery of ‘main’ primary species. For secondary species, cumulative impacts only need to be considered in cases where two or more UoAs have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being 10% or more or the total catch. For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC UoAs needs to be evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits for ETP species. All of the requirements for cumulative impacts for species are applicable to their respective Outcome PIs. For habitats, in contrast, cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (2.4.2). The requirements here aim to ensure that vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) are managed such that the impact of all MSC UoAs does not cause serious and irreversible harm to VMEs.

There are no ‘main’ primary species in the WPSTA, therefore there is no need to evaluate the cumulative impact across v2.0 fisheries. Similarly, for secondary species, none of the v2.0 fisheries have catches that approach the catch threshold which would require evaluation of cumulative impacts. And for ETP species, none have catch limits set by national and/or international requirements so again, there is no requirement to evaluate cumulative impacts.

Therefore, cumulative impacts are considered specifically only for Talley’s New Zealand skipjack tuna purse seine and PNAFTF which were all assessed on v2.0. The other tuna fisheries listed are v.1.3 and/or are undertaken with different gears or in different areas (i.e. outside WCPFC waters) to the WPSTA Fishery, such that Principle 2 scoring would not necessarily be expected to be similar.

Principle 3: harmonization considerations include MSC fisheries employing purse seine gear in pursuit of skipjack and/or yellowfin in the WCPO. As in Principle 2, the overlap is considered partial, in this case due to the multi-jurisdictional management. All identified fisheries operate under the WCPFC and PNA jurisdictions, but flag states and the distribution of fishing effort varies. Therefore, harmonization is considered for consistency, but scores may vary. Explanations for scores that differ among assessments, more than a score of 15, are provided.

Table 17. Fisheries in the MSC System Considered for Harmonization.

MSC Conformity Principles for Fishery CR Status Assessment Harmonization Version Body 1 American Samoa EEZ Albacore 2.0 Certified P1 (YFT) MEC and Yellowfin Longline Fishery 2 French Polynesia albacore and 2.0 In assessment P1 (YFT) MEC yellowfin longline fishery

21 http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/assessing-p2-species- cumulatively-between-v2-0-and-1-3-fisheries/

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 133

SCS Global Services Report

3 Japanese Pole and Line 2.0 Certified P1 (SKJ) Acoura skipjack and albacore tuna fishery 4 PNA Western and Central 2.0 Certified P1, P2, P3 Acoura Marine Pacific skipjack and yellowfin, unassociated / non FAD set, tuna purse seine 5 PT Citraraja Ampat, Sorong 2.0 In assessment P1 (SKJ, YFT) DNV GL Business pole and line Skipjack and Assurance Yellowfin Tuna Norway 6 Solomon Islands skipjack and 1.3 Certified P1 (SKJ, YFT), P2 MRAG yellowfin tuna purse seine (unassociated anchored FAD and PS), P3 unassociated, and pole and line 7 SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Islands 1.3 Certified P1 (YFT) MacAllister, EEZ South Pacific albacore & Elliott and yellowfin longline Partners 8 Talley’s New Zealand Skipjack 2.0 Certified P1 (SKJ), P2, P3 Acoura Marine Tuna Purse Seine 9 Tri Marine Western and 1.3 Certified P1 (SKJ, YFT), P2, SCS Central Pacific Skipjack and P3 Yellowfin Tuna 10 Walker Seafood Australian 1.3 Certified P1 (YFT) ME Certification albacore, yellowfin tuna, and swordfish longline

Process

As noted above, in April 2016, MSC held a pilot harmonization workshop in Hong Kong to facilitate harmonized scoring outcomes across the fisheries currently certified, or in assessment at the time. At the time of this workshop, the fishery had already been scored and was entering its final stages of assessment. SCS attended the workshop in Hong Kong on behalf of a different MSC WCPO purse seine skipjack and yellowfin fishery (PNA). SCS has since aligned the scores produced at this workshop with the overlapping Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna fishery (#9).

Building upon the Harmonization Workshop of 2016, there have been ongoing efforts to maintain and build harmonization between different aspects of WCPFC’s overlapping and certified/in assessment fisheries. In this assessment, consistency of scoring among this and other comparable WCPFC fisheries, was designed via team structure (shared membership between the surveillance audit and full assessment team for the Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Fishery and the current fishery).

In October of 2016, SCS was asked by the CAB conducting the re-assessment of the PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin, unassociated/non FAD set, purse seine fishery to participate in an additional round of harmonization consultation focused on PI 1.2.1. A conference call was held between the Principle 1 assessors and CAB representatives of Acoura for PNA & Talley’s, SCS for Tri Marine, and MRAG for the Solomon Islands (Tri Marine). The outcome of this call was that the majority of assessors and CAB representatives considered that no new material

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 134

SCS Global Services Report information relevant to scoring had emerged since the 2016 harmonization meeting, and therefore the score for 1.2.1a should remain at SG60. The recently published PCDR for this re-assessment maintained the harmonized score of 70 for overall PI at 1.2.1.

The PNA filed an objection to a 2017 Final Report for Talley’s New Zealand Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine fishery, in April of 2017, which objected to the scoring of PI 1.2.1 at 70, rather than at 80. PNA submitted a stakeholder comment for consideration in this assessment, articulating their position regarding the scoring of 1.2.1a for skipjack (see Appendix 3). The objection proceedings did not result in a change to Talley’s or harmonized scores.

There were additional harmonization discussions during the scoring period related to the 1st annual surveillance of the Solomon Islands (#6) and Tri Marine (#9) fisheries prior to completion of the Client Draft of this assessment. During the course of CAB discussions on harmonization over this period (June-August 2017), scoring of other PIs, primarily in PI 3.2.2 and 3.2.3, were also discussed amongst CABs. Multiple CABs evaluating WCPO albacore fisheries had determine that PI 3.2.2 merited a decrease in score to 75 due to a lack of WCPFC response to declining Southern Albacore catch rates. It was determined that because PI 3.2.2 deals with fishery-specific management, the concern over albacore does not apply to the tropical tunas, managed under a different CMM. The consideration of flag state performance relative to concerns for WCPFC lack of transparency in responding to non-compliance in evaluating PI 3.2.3 was also discussed. The majority of CABs considered that despite the lack of transparency at the WCPFC level (which is considered problematic), a UoA can achieve the SG80 if it can demonstrate how the deficiencies that have now been identified at the WCPFC level are accounted for by national structures. SCS has aligned its approach to scoring with this harmonized CAB interpretation.

Results Harmonization results are provided as follows. As noted above, Principles 2 and 3 are considered to have partial overlap, thus differences in scores may occur. Explanations are included for differences of greater than or equal to 15 in scores. Fisheries are indicated by numbers as indicated in Table 17:

1 American Samoa EEZ Albacore and Yellowfin 6 Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine Longline Fishery anchored FAD and unassociated, and pole and line 2 French Polynesia albacore and yellowfin 7 SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Islands EEZ South Pacific longline fishery albacore & yellowfin longline 3 Japanese Pole and Line skipjack and albacore 8 Talley’s New Zealand Skipjack Tuna Purse Seine tuna fishery 4 PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and 9 Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and yellowfin, unassociated / non FAD set, tuna Yellowfin Tuna purse seine 5 PT Citraraja Ampat, Sorong pole and line 10 Walker Seafood Australian albacore, yellowfin tuna, Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna and swordfish longline

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 135

SCS Global Services Report

Table 18. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization: Principle 1 Skipjack tuna Included in this table are all WCPFC fisheries that are relevant to harmonization of Principle 1, because they all target skipjack as a P1 species

Fishery PI Comments WPSTA 3 4 5 6 8 9 1.1.1 100 100 100 TBD 100 100 100 Scores harmonised 1.1.2 TBD Scores harmonised N/A N/A N/A 90 N/A 90 (v1.3) 1.2.1 70 70 70 TBD 70 70 70 Scores harmonised 1.2.2 60 60 60 TBD 60 60 60 Scores harmonised 1.2.3 90 90 90 TBD 90 90 90 Scores harmonised 1.2.4 95 95 95 TBD 95 95 95 Scores harmonised

Table 19. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization: Principle 1 Yellowfin tuna Included in this table are all WCPFC fisheries that are relevant to harmonization of Principle 1, because they all target yellowfin as a P1 species

Fishery PI Comments WPSTA 1 2 4 5 6 7 9 10 Scores 1.1.1 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 harmonised 1.1.2 Scores N/A N/A N/A 90 90 90 N/A (v1.3) harmonised Scores 1.2.1 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 harmonised Scores 1.2.2 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 harmonised Scores 1.2.3 80 80 90 90 80 80 80 harmonised Scores 1.2.4 95 95 95 95 95 95 95 harmonised

Table 20. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization: Principle 2, Unassociated purse seine sets. Scores with difference of 15 or greater highlighted and provided explanation. Included in this table are all WCPFC fisheries relevant to harmonization of Principle 2 scores, because all of these fisheries use free school sets.

Fishery

PI WPSTA WPSTA WPSTA Comments China Chinese USA #4 #6 # 8 #9 Taipei

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 136

SCS Global Services Report

Consideration of PIs 2.1.x (retained species) under CRv1.3 is not necessarily the same as consideration of PI 2.1.x (primary species) under CRv.2.0. #6: ‘Retained’ species included 2.1.1 100 100 100 100 80 100 80 species for which there is little information on status. #9: Bigeye scored as a main retained species. Not likely to be within biologically based limits, so score limited to 80. #9- shark finning was scored under 2.1.2 100 100 100 100 85 95 75 2.1.2 and a condition applied. #6: ‘Retained’ species included species for which there is little information on status. 2.1.3 100 100 100 100 85 100 85 #9: ‘Retained’ species included species for which there is little information on status. 2.2.1 80 80 80 100 80 90 80 NA #8:Shark finning (assessed under 2.2.2 75 75 85 85 85 90 85 2.1.2) not considered an issue for this fishery. 2.2.3 100 100 100 90 90 100 85 #9 – SI wording different in v1.3 2.3.1 85 85 85 85 95 80 95 NA 2.3.2 85 85 85 75 90 75 80 NA 2.3.3 85 85 85 85 90 80 80 NA 2.4.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA 2.4.2 100 100 100 100 100 95 100 NA 2.4.3 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 NA 2.5.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 80 NA #9: Under v2.0 new guidance that a 2.5.2 100 100 100 90 90 90 85 specific ecosystem strategy may not be necessary. 2.5.3 90 90 90 100 90 90 90 NA

Table 21. Alignment of Scores for Harmonization: Principle 3. Scores with difference of 15 or greater highlighted and provided explanation. Included in this table are all WCPFC fisheries relevant to harmonization of Principle 3 scores, because all of these fisheries are licensed and managed as purse seine vessels fishing in the WCPFC Convention Area, with efforts focused in PNA waters.

WPSTA WPSTA WPSTA PI China Chinese USA #4 #6 #8 #9 Comments Taipei Differences pertain to UoA scope 3.1.1 75 75 80 80 85 90 80 difference: flag state performance of Chinese Taipei and China

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 137

SCS Global Services Report

Differences pertain to UoA scope 3.1.2 75 75 85 95 95 90 95 difference: flag state performance of Chinese Taipei and China 3.1.3 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 NA 3.2.1 90 90 80 90 90 90 90 NA #4 Differences pertain to weight of flag state consideration. This assessment 3.2.2 75 75 80 90 80 85 80 explicitly the flag state performance of Chinese Taipei and China 3.2.3 75 75 80 80 85 80 80 NA 3.2.4 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 NA

4.2 Previous assessments

The WPSTA Western and Central Pacific unassociated (free school) purse seine fishery for skipjack and yellowfin is undergoing MSC full assessment for the first time. Thus, there are no previously open conditions to report.

4.3 Assessment Methodologies This assessment was conducted by SCS Global Services, an accredited MSC conformity assessment body. The fishery was assessed using the MSC Certification Requirements Version 2.0, October 1, 2014, and the reporting template used in this report is also v2.0. The default assessment tree was used without adjustments. The fishery will remain on Annex SA of v2.0 of the Certification Requirements for all performance requirements (PISGs) for the five year duration of the certificate cycle, should the fishery be found capable of scoring at a level that confers certification. FCR and GCR process requirements are likely to be updated during the five year duration of the certificate and as updates to either of these requirements are released, they will be used by the CAB in subsequent audit steps (e.g. subsequent surveillance audit).

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits

The assessment team selected sites to visit, and interviewees based on information needed to assess key aspects of management operations of the unit of assessment. The client group and other relevant stakeholders helped identify and contact fisheries management, research, compliance, and habitat protection personnel and agency representatives. Before the site visit and meetings were conducted, an audit plan was provided to the client and relevant stakeholders.

The on-site meetings took place in Beijing, China, and Taipei City, Chinese Taipei, between June 13- 19, 2017. The assessment team visited agency offices including the China Overseas Fisheries Association (COFA) and Chinese Taipei Fisheries Agency (TFA). Several internal team meetings also took place at hotels and restaurants in the two locations. The assessment team did not conduct onsite meetings in the USA on the basis of the availability of harmonized assessment materials and the accessibility of management information online. Mr. Sandy Morison, Mr. Frank Meere, and Mrs. Jennifer Humberstone conducted a phone interview with Ms. Alexa Cole, WCPFC TCC Chair and

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 138

SCS Global Services Report

WCPFC TCC Chair and NOAA Office of General Counsel Deputy Section Chief, on August 29, 2017, regarding updates to the WCPFC CMS and the USA monitoring and enforcement systems.

The lead auditor and original Principle 3 expert attended the on-site meetings in person. The Principle 1 and 2 assessor attended remotely, as the focus of evaluation under those Principles is based primarily on publicly available regional science and management and observer records specific to the Unit of Assessment. There was also uncertainty when the project started, as to whether an additional MSC harmonization workshop to update scores in Principle 1 would be held in 2017.

Table 22 provides a list of meeting attendees and Table 23 provides a summary of the audit meetings.

Table 22. Audit Plan: Attendees

Table 2: Anticipated Meeting Attendees (in expected order of meetings) Name Role Affiliation Dr. Sian Morgan Lead Auditor SCS Global Services (SCS) Mr. Alexander Morrison P1 & P2 Expert Team Member SCS Global Services (SCS) Mr. Peter Sharples P3 Expert Team Member SCS Global Services (SCS) Mr. Zhao Gang Deputy Secretary General COFA Mr. Zhang Kairu Project Manager COFA Mr. Zhun Zijou Project Manager COFA Mr. Zang Mengyi Project Coordinator COFA Mr. Meng Wang Project Officer COFA Mr. Xiao Mengjie Deputy Director High Seas Fisheries Department Mr. Xioabing Liu COFA Advisor Independent Consultant (COFA) Prof. Xiaojie Dai Professor Shanghai Ocean University (SOU) Prof. Xu Liuxiong Professor Shanghai Ocean University (SOU) Mr. Wei Zan Senior Vice President Zhejiang Ocean Family Co. Ltd. (ZOF) Mr. Zhu Lin Company representative Zhejiang Ocean Family Co. Ltd. (ZOF) Mr. Zhang Yum Bo Assistant to the Secretary COFA General Mr. Max Chou Executive Vice President FCF Fishery Co. Ltd. (FCF) Mr. Fong Lee Sustainability Project Manager FCF Fishery Co. Ltd. (FCF) Mr. Harry Chen Sustainability team FCF Fishery Co. Ltd. (FCF) Mr. Eddie Chiang Sustainability team FCF Fishery Co. Ltd. (FCF) Ms. Jubby Sun Sustainability team FCF Fishery Co. Ltd. (FCF) Mr. Ronald Ro Sustainability team FCF Fishery Co. Ltd. (FCF) Mr. Chi-chao Liu Senior Specialist Chinese Taipei Fisheries Agency (TFA) Mr. Wenying Wang Section Chief Chinese Taipei Fisheries Agency (TFA) Ms. Joy Hsiangyi Yu Specialist Chinese Taipei Fisheries Agency (TFA) Mr. David Chang CEO OFDC Mr. Wi-yang Liu Secretary General OFDC

Table 23. Audit Plan: Key Meetings and Locations

Meeting Date Location Topic and Times COFA offices June 13, 2017 Beijing, China 09:00 – 09:30 China Opening meeting. Introductions (SCS, COFA, Mr. Liu, SOU, ZOF, FCF)

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 139

SCS Global Services Report

09:30 – 10:30 SCS gives introductory explanation to attendees regarding the MSC framework, MSC process for producing reports, stakeholder engagement. Question and Answer period. (SCS, COFA, SOU, ZOF, FCF) 10:30 – 11:00 COFA to explain overall structure of governance system, departments, division of roles and responsibilities between Bureau of Fisheries, COFA and WCPFC, diagram of relationships, important staff roles that relate to MSC considerations (SCS, COFA, SOU, ZOF, FCF) 11:00 – 12:00 Onsite interview: Principles 1 and 2 (SCS, COFA, SOU, ZOF, FCF) 13:30-17:00 Onsite interview: Principle 3 questions – Compatibility of laws or standards, Compliance and enforcement (SCS, COFA, SOU, ZOF, FCF) COFA offices June 14, 2017 Beijing, China 9:00 – 12:00 Visit to MSC China office (SCS) 14:00 – 17:00 Onsite interview: Principle 3 – Dispute resolution, Performance evaluation of management and monitoring, Consultation, Record requests. (SCS, COFA, ZOF, FCF) COFA offices June 15, 2017 Beijing, China 9:00 – 12:00 Onsite interview - outstanding questions. Document gathering: acquire hard copies and (preferably) electronic copies of procedures, policies and requested records. Depart COFA (SCS, COFA, ZOF, FCF) 14:00 – 17:00 SCS Internal meeting, Scoring work (SCS) TFA Offices, June 16, 2017 Taipei, Chinese Taipei 14:30 – 15:15 Chinese Taipei Opening meeting. General introductions, SCS introductory explanation to attendees regarding MSC process for producing reports, stakeholder engagement. Question and Answer period. (TFA, OFDC, SCS, FCF) 15:15 – 16:00 TFA to explain overall structure of governance system, departments, division of roles and responsibilities between TFA & WCPFC (and industry as relevant), diagram of relationships, important staff roles that relate to MSC (TFA, OFDC, SCS, FCF) 16:00 – 18:00 Onsite interview: Principle 3 questions – Legal Framework for management, Compliance and Enforcement (TFA, OFDC, SCS, FCF) TFA Offices, June 19, 2017 Taipei, Chinese Taipei 09:00 – 10:00 Onsite interview: Principle 2 questions (TFA, SCS, FCF) 10:00 – 12:00 Onsite Interview: Principle 3 questions – Compliance and enforcement cont’d, Responsibilities and Consultation (TFA, SCS, FCF) 14:00 – 15:30 Onsite interview: Principle 3 – Management performance evaluation. Outstanding P3 questions. Assembly of draft document list with TFA and FCF. Depart TFA (TFA, SCS, FCF) 16:30 – 18:30 Team discussion at hotel (SCS only) 18:30 – 19:30 Closing meeting (SCS, FCF)

4.4.2 Consultations In addition to the meetings and attendees list above (Section 4.4.1), consultations have included large numbers of phone and email exchanges. The fishery’s formal entry into public full assessment was

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 140

SCS Global Services Report announced on the MSC website and emailed directly to over 300 individuals from organizations spanning the government, private, and non-profit sectors. Responses to the fishery announcement were received from the following stakeholders: - PNA Office (Maurice Brownjohn, Kudwig Kumoru, Les Clark and Richard Banks) - International Pole and Line Foundation (Martin Purves, John Burton) - New Zealand Tuna Management Association (Rob Tilney, Clement & Associates Ltd.) - ISSF (Ana Justel, Susan Jackson, Victor Restrepo) - Flow Collaborative (Katherine Short)

Of these stakeholders, only PNA has submitted comment prior to the PCDR (See Appendix 3). M. Brownjohn initially expressed interest in attending the on-site meeting, but decided not to attend. IPNLF requested a Skype meeting with the team following the onsite, but declined to attend this meeting or it’s rescheduling. SCS invited IPNLF to submit written comments which were not received by the team prior to scoring. At the PCDR stage, one set of comments was received from ISSF. This comment letter, and the assessment team response is available in Appendix 3. The assessment team also received a Technical Oversight report from the MSC, which is also included with the assessment team responses in Appendix 3.

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

Documentation and Information Gathering

One of the most critical aspects of the MSC certification process is ensuring that the assessment team receives a complete and thorough grounding in all aspects of the fishery under evaluation. In even the smallest fishery, the assessment team typically needs documentation in all areas of the fishery from the status of stocks, to ecosystem impacts, through management processes and procedures. Under the MSC program, it is the responsibility of the applying organizations or individuals to provide the information required proving the fishery or fisheries comply with the MSC standards. It is also the responsibility of the applicants to ensure that the assessment team has access to relevant scientists, managers, and fishers that the assessment team identifies as necessary to interview in its effort to properly understand the functions associated with the management of the fishery. Last, it is the responsibility of the assessment team to make contact with stakeholders that are known to be interested, or actively engaged in issues associated with fisheries in the same geographic location. A summary of the stakeholder outreach conducted by the assessment team and input received is described in the Consultation Section above, and stakeholder comments received throughout the assessment process are provided in Appendix 3. In addition to the client representatives of F.C.F. Fishery Co., Ltd, SPC, WCFPC, COFA, TFA, and NOAA facilitated provision of key documentation, including observer reports. National and international management agency representatives were helpful and cooperative throughout the process.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 141

SCS Global Services Report

Scoring and Report Development Process

1. Onsite Visit: Scoring was initiated during the site visit and completed iteratively through phone calls, emails and skype teleconferences between June and October 2017. As noted in the executive summary, and due to factors outside of SCS’ control, a change to the assessment team was needed. Mr. Frank Meere replaced Mr. Peter Sharples as the Principle 3 assessor during the client draft and scoring stage. This was announced on the MSC website on October 3, 2017.

2. Additional Document Submission: Following the onsite visit, the team requested a list of documents for the client to obtain and submit, prior to scoring.

3. Client Draft: Rationales and associated background were developed by assigning assessment team members portions of the report, which were then cross read by team members and SCS staff to produce the client draft report. Scoring was completed by consensus through this review process and team meetings by phone and email. The fishery received a total of 14 conditions within 7 performance indicators across the 6 UoAs. The team finalized scoring and submitted the Client Draft in the first week of October 2017. Following initial receipt of the client draft of the report, a conference call was held with the assessment team to clarify some findings. A suite of additional documentation was provided for the assessment team’s further review. As a result of the review, revisions to the report background and scoring rationales were made but no overall scores changed and the conditions assigned remained in place.

4. Peer Review: Based on comments from peer reviewers the team clarified content related to all three Principles, but made no adjustments to scores. The PCDR was published to the MSC on March 7, 2018, subsequent to approval of a timeline extension for publication of the PCDR from the MSC.22 The report is now subject to a 30 day stakeholder comment period.

5. Stakeholder Comment on PCDR: One stakeholder comment letter was received from ISSF, in addition to a Technical Oversight (TO) report from MSC. Both of these are included in Appendix 3 with assessment team responses. These comments did not result in any material changes to the report, but in some cases resulted in additional clarifications and corrections to the text. These revisions have been incorporated into the Final Report, which once posted will be subject to a 15-working day stakeholder objection period.

6. Final Report and Objection Period: No objections were received during the 15-day working period that comprised the objection period, which closed on May 25, 2018.

Just after the objection period ended, a report was released by Greenpeace that documented cases of forced and slave labor in distant water tuna fishing by longline vessels, which named FCF as linked to trading tuna from cases identified. Because successful prosecution of forced labor is a scope criteria (FCRV2.0 7.4.1.4) that applies to all members of the client group (including all vessels in the UoA), SCS

22 https://cert.msc.org/FileLoader/FileLinkDownload.asmx/GetFile?encryptedKey=GjQXQNuVFd90TMMhrmqhSe 2+HBNufClTGMSZvJDzfmzboRlBHtPpKt4yw5ypG9JR

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 142

SCS Global Services Report considered it necessary to conduct an expedited audit prior to the certification decision, in keeping with FCRV2.0 7.23.22 and IS) 17065 7.11. Details of this audit are found in Appendix 8, and the assessment team reached a conclusion that the client group remains compliant with the scope eligibility criteria in question.

Scoring Methodology

The assessment team followed guidelines in MSC FCR v2.0 Section 7.10 “Scoring the fishery”. Scoring in the MSC system occurs via an Analytical Hierarchy Process and uses decision rules and weighted averages to produce Principle Level scores. There are 28 Performance Indicators (PIs), each with one or more Scoring Issues (SIs). Each of the scoring issues are considered at the 60, 80, and 100 scoring guidepost levels. The decision rules described in Table 24 (and FCRv2.0) determine the Performance Indicator score, which must always be in an increment of 5. If there are multiple ‘elements23’ under consideration in Principle 2 (e.g. multiple main primary species), each element is scored individually for each relevant PI, then a single PI score is generated using the same set of decision rules described in Table 24.

Table 24. Decision Rule for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores based on Scoring Issues, and for Calculating Performance Indicator Scores in Cases of Multiple Scoring Elements. (Adapted from MSC FCRv2.0 Table 4)

Score Combination of individual SIs at the PI level, and/or combining multiple element PI scores into a single PI score. <60 Any scoring element/SI within a PI which fails to reach SG60 shall not be assigned a score as this is a pre-condition to certification. 60 All elements (as scored at the PI level) or SIs meet SG60 and only SG60. 65 All elements/SIs meet SG60; a few achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but most do not meet SG80. 70 All elements/SIs meet SG60; half* achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80, but some do not meet SG80 and require intervention action to make sure they get there. 75 All elements/SIs meet SG60; most achieve higher performance, at or exceeding SG80; only a few fail to achieve SG80 and require intervention action. 80 All elements/SIs meet SG80, and only SG80. 85 All elements/SIs meet SG80; a few achieve higher performance, but most do not meet SG100. 90 All elements/SIs meet SG80; half achieve higher performance at SG100, but some do not. 95 All elements/SIs meet SG80; most achieve higher performance at SG100, and only a few fail to achieve SG100. 100 All elements/SIs meet SG100. *MSC FCRv2.0 uses the word ‘some’ instead of half. SCS considers ‘half’ a clearer description of how the methodology is expected to be implemented.

When calculating the Principal Indicator scores based on the results of the Scoring Issues (SI), SCS interprets the terms in Table 2 as follows: . Few: Less than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, one SI out of 3 is considered few.

23 MSC FCRv2.0 7.10.7: In Principle 1 or 2, the team shall score PIs comprised of differing scoring elements (species or habitats) that comprise part of a component affected by the UoA.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 143

SCS Global Services Report

. Some: Equal to half. Ex: if there are a total of four SIs, two SIs out of 4 is considered some. . Most: More than half. Ex: if there are a total of three SIs, two SIs out of 3 is considered most.

The catch composition was evaluated across each flag state separately in order to categorize species for MSC evaluation (Primary, Secondary, ETP, Main/Minor). Elements evaluated in the scoring of the fishery are detailed in Section: Overview of Non-target Catch and specifically in the following tables: Table 9, Table 10, Table 11, and Table 12.

The tables referenced above indicate whether species are data deficient based on available information regarding stock status. We note that this does not directly align with the Table 3 (FCRv2.0 criteria for triggering the RBF). There are minor secondary species for which there are no reference points available. However, all these species are caught in extremely low volume, and it was determined that the RBF was not a necessary or useful tool in evaluating the risk of impact on these species.

The approach to scoring in light of the complex scope structure of this assessment (with 6 total UoAs) was also approached as most efficient and clear on a Principle basis. At the beginning of each Principle section in Appendix 1, there is a detailed explanation of the approach to scoring.

In summary, for Principle 1 there are two sets of tables, one for each target stock. In Principle 2, the catch composition has been evaluated on a fleet specific basis, but there is just one set of scoring tables provided because the target stocks are pursued together using the same gear and the catch composition, and scoring outcomes are similar across the three fleets (China, Chinese Taipei, and U.S.A.). The element tables (9-12) demonstrate material alignment in the outcome of the main species classifications for the purposes of MSC scoring (which is primarily based on catch by weight as a proportion of the total catch of the given flag state fleet), with slightly difference in minor species. These results are then presented as largely grouped scores in a single set of scoring tables, due to this alignment in main species, with differences in scoring due to difference in the composition of minor species catches between the nation state fleets, noted accordingly.

Also notable under Principle 2, because skipjack and yellowfin are scored thoroughly under Principle 1, they are not scored a second time as primary species. A target species that is certified under Principle 1 and has obtained an overall score >80 for P1, will have already be assessed under a higher standard of performance than those for main retained/primary under Principle 2, thus it is expected to obtain a score >80 for the relevant Principal Indicators under P2. If in a subsequent assessment one of the target P1 target species fails and is no longer considered as certified, it will then be scored under Principle 2.

Scoring under Principle 3 considers all applicable biological and/or jurisdictional levels that apply to the management system of the UoA (GSA4.1.1). The applicable jurisdictions are determined on a PI, and SI, basis, because the relevant jurisdictions that affect performance relative to the respective scoring guideposts vary based on the aspect of the governance and fishery management system being assessed. For transparency, the scope of scoring is stated explicitly at the beginning of each rationale. The potentially relevant jurisdictions include the WCPFC, PNA, and the three licensing flag states of the fleet under assessment (USA, China, and Chinese Taipei). Each flag state comprises two distinct species-based UoAs. For reader-friendliness and to minimize duplicative text in the report,

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 144

SCS Global Services Report the following scoring tables include consideration of UoAs strictly as they relate to flag states, recognizing that scoring will not differ in P3 on a species-basis. Differences in scores across the three sets of nation state scores (based on flag state performance and other relevant considerations) are noted. Although WCPFC performance is considered in each SI, it is not ‘scored’ as an element as per individual species or guilds in Principle 2, but instead is incorporated with the flag state score to generate an overall UoA score for each nation stage fleet (USA, China, Chinese Taipei). Where there is no difference in scores between UoAs, the score is followed by “(All)”. The MSC provides a mandatory Excel template that facilitates the calculation of Principle level scores. Within the Excel template (and provided in Section 6.2) PIs are organized into components, where each PI within a component is weighted equally (PI weight), where the sum of PI weights per component equals 1. Multiple components make up each Principle, and components are likewise weighted (evenly, except in Principle 1) (Component weight), where the sum of component weights per Principle equals 1. The PI weight within the component multiplied by the component weight within the Principle provides a weight for each PI within the Principle (PI weight * Component weight = PI Principle weight). Each PI score is then multiplied by its weight within the Principle (PI Principle weight), and all weighted PI values are summed to generate a Principle level score, reported to the nearest one decimal place in accordance with MSC FCRv2.0 (7.10.3)

The decision rule for MSC certification is based on the resulting Principle level scores and is as follows: . No individual PIs may score below 60 . The aggregate score for each Principle, rounded to the nearest whole number, is 80 or above

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 145

SCS Global Services Report

5. Traceability

5.1 Eligibility Date The eligibility date is the date of certification. The fleet under assessment participates in the MSC certificate of an overlapping unit, and is thus aware of the traceability and segregation systems required to ensure the separation of any certified product from non-certified product, and that Chain of Custody in such fisheries must begin at sea due to the traceability risks described below. Prior to using the MSC certificate and MSC claim, the client will need to acquire an MSC Chain of Custody Certification.

The risk of mixing certified and non-certified product appears high among wells and among vessels (transhipment), and arises from two key issues: 1. Multiple set types occurring on the same vessel on the same trip 2. Transshipment

Tenders are not used to transport product between fishing vessels and shore. Processing does not take place on-board fishing vessels. Vessels do not conduct mixed trips inside and outside the WCPFC Convention Area.

WPSTA currently has vessels conducting MSC trips under the PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna fishery. In order for product caught by WPSTA vessels within the scope of this assessment to be eligible for the MSC ecolabel under PNA’s fisheries certificate, WPSTA vessels joined the PNA Group CoC certificate, which covers fish from harvest to the first point of landing. In addition, client group member FCF has established the FCF Sustainability Program (FSP) that consists of a CoC Standard as well as FAD-free Recognition by a third party to ensure free school catches of those vessels under FSP are not mixed with FAD sets from the same fishing trip, and are kept separately on the carrier vessels en route to customers.

At present, it is required that segregation policies and procedures are employed from the point of onboard landing that are compliant with the MSC CoC Standard to cover the catch from this UoC, and that a valid CoC certificate be in place before any product may be landed or otherwise enter into the market with an MSC-certified claim from this assessment. WPSTA is currently in the process of preparing the Chain of Custody procedures to undergo MSC CoC verification by trained MSC CoC auditors. General procedures proposed by the fishery to operationally separate MSC and non-MSC eligible fish are presented below, but do not represent a final or verified CoC protocol.

The fishery assessment team has an obligation to identify and describe the existing traceability risks and control measures available to address the risks related to segregation and substitution of product from outside the UoA entering the UoC, such that it would be eligible to carry the MSC label. The assessment team has not performed verification of these procedures and controls, which will be undertaken, and properly so, by qualified CoC auditors. The MSC CoC requirements, as written, mandate that the content and substance of a CoC report is confidential and explicitly not in the public domain, other than the scope of certification as reflected on the MSC CoC Certificate.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 146

SCS Global Services Report

Traceability Risks and Systems

In a single trip, vessels may fish with different gear sets within the UoA. In this fishery only one set type, free-swimming school (termed free school/FAD-free), has been assessed and is therefore eligible to carry the label (aka MSC eligible). Other set types are also are conducted on the same trips by vessels within the Unit of Assessment, which may set in association with FADs (these are not MSC- eligible, for FAD definition See footnotes 3 and 4 pg. 9). Therefore, the Chain of Custody (CoC) traceability system must start during fishing operations at the set level. Information needed to start the traceability system includes: . the determination and verifiable record for each set as to whether or not it was made on an free-swimming school of tuna; . a record of the MSC-eligible status of tuna in each well and which set number it is derived from; and, a record of the estimated quantity of such product by species. . geo-referenced information by set number

Only product from sets identified as free school will be considered MSC-eligible. 24 Hence, under WPSTA’s CoC management system, sets will be defined as MSC-eligible versus not MSC-eligible only when procedures and records of activities from setting and brailing to storing are verified at WPSTA central office. (Note: This categorization and the necessary records required will be assessed by MSC CoC auditors). Once tuna are brailed from the main net, they are transported down a chute to the fish wells for freezing. MSC-eligible catches will be kept physically separate at all times from non-MSC catches on-board the fishing vessel and will be stored in separate, MSC-labelled wells. MSC wells will be opened and unloaded separately from non-MSC wells at the conclusion of the fishing trip to maintain segregation.

Under existing legal requirements, all fishing masters must complete an official logbook which records information about the fishing vessel’s activities including inter alia set location, type of set, catch volumes by species and well numbers. A FV vessel stowage diagram is completed for each trip which identifies which wells catches are stored in, with MSC wells clearly indicated. These documents will be used to trace MSC-eligible catches back to individual sets. These and related records will also be made available on request to the CoC auditor. If multiple parties record different aspects of the CoC systems, all records must be available and consistent with one another.

The WPSTA fleet will continue to operate with 100% observer coverage and in compliance with the Regional Observer Programme requirements given in CMM 2007-01, but there are no current plans to use observers for MSC eligibility/CoC verification purposes. The adequacy of the CoC policies and procedures from the point of onboard landing through to change of ownership is not within the scope

24 Only skipjack and yellowfin tuna caught on free schools (i.e. not caught on FADs) in the WCPFC Convention Area (in FAO statistical area 71 and 77) shall be eligible under this certificate. See more detail on this definition in Section 3.1 of this report. Set types are recorded by observers at the time a set commences, and the assessment team evaluated the impacts of this fishery based on observer records of observer identified free school sets. WPSTA will use this definition of an unassociated set, such that the Unit of Certification is equivalent to the Unit of Assessment. This complies with FCRV2.0 7.4.9 that states that Unit cannot be defined based on the species caught as determined at the time of fishing.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 147

SCS Global Services Report of the fishery assessment, and is to be evaluated/verified independently by a qualified MSC CoC auditor.

Conclusion

The scope of the fishery certificate shall only include product caught from free school sets, which are defined by the scope of the UoC as eligible to carry the MSC label, also called “MSC-eligible” by WPSTA. The assessment team has determined that the required manner in which to identify this is to consider as UoC product, only that which has been verified ‘FAD-free’ after the catch has been cleared from the net. Therefore, from a traceability standpoint, the fishery certificate will terminate at the point of onboard landing of eligible product (at sea). As describe above, chain of custody will begin at the set level at the point of landing on board the vessel, and must include a process to verify sets as associated or free school that is equivalent to the observer determination made at the start of the set, as well as within the geographic scope of the assessment, and must be able to demonstrate the ability to maintain separation from on-board landing through to the next link in the chain of custody.

WPSTA vessels have established and implemented CoC procedures (as referenced above) for the PNA MSC certification that are compliant with MSC CoC and is in the process of developing the CoC procedures for use with any certificate issued.

A MSC Chain of Custody certification specific to the UoC of this fishery is necessary to ensure that traceability systems are sufficient, and the chain is defined to begin at the point of set and at the point when catch is brailed onboard. This group chain of custody certificate must be held by any vessels in the UoA, in order for it to be included in the UoC.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 148

SCS Global Services Report

Table 25. Traceability Factors within the Fishery:

Traceability Factor Description of risk factor if present. Where applicable, a description of relevant mitigation measures or traceability systems (this can include the role of existing regulatory or fishery management controls) Yes. The UoA operates both free school (MSC eligible) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used and associated or FAD sets (Non-MSC eligible) sets on a within the fishery single trip. UoA/UoC vessels do not operate outside of the UoA Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish (WCPFC Convention waters) on a single trip. outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same trips or different trips) Yes. There are many vessels (purse seine and other gear Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or types) that target the WCPO skipjack and yellowfin client group fishing the same stock stocks. There are significant risks (see narrative above). For this Risks of mixing between certified and non- reason CoC must begin on-board the vessel at the set certified catch during storage, transport, or level. handling activities (including transport at sea and on land, points of landing, and sales at auction) Due to the risks beginning at the set level, Chain of Risks of mixing between certified and non- Custody must begin at the set level as well. This certified catch during processing activities restrictive scope for the fishery certificate mitigates (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of traceability risks prior to the start of Chain of Custody. Custody) Chain of Custody must begin before any transshipment Risks of mixing between certified and non- and thus this risk does not apply to the fishery certificate. certified catch during transhipment Having Chain of Custody begin at the set level should Any other risks of substitution between fish mitigate the at-sea risks described above. No additional from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from comments. outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.2 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Product from the client’s fleet will be eligible to enter further certified chains of custody once there is a certified chain of custody program specific to the UoC in place. The initial chain of custody needs to commence from the point at which product is taken on board vessels in the UoC for all products derived from the fishery. MSC chain of custody certifications will need to be undertaken on a separate and individual basis for those entities that may wish to identify and/or label products derived from the fishery.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 149

SCS Global Services Report

All traceability and chain of custody procedures described above shall be set forth in a documented WPSTA CoC policy. This evaluation does not represent an audit of such policies applicable to this certification and traceability systems beyond the extent of the requirements germane to the fishery certificate: the client fishery will require separate chain of custody assessment. Measures presented here are used to describe traceability risks in this fishery and current plans, as they exist, for managing traceability risks. A CoC certificate may be obtained after a successful evaluation from an accredited Certification Assessment Body such as SCS.

5.3 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practically Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Tuna species tend to swim in single species schools but mixed species schools are not uncommon, particularly for sets on FADs. With high volume fisheries like the purse seine fishery, where individual fish are not handled during the catching process, separation of the catch by species is not feasible. Therefore, the catch of all species is usually stored together in the holds on purse seine vessels and on carrier vessels.

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

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 150

SCS Global Services Report

6. Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores Table 26. Final Principle Scores – Skipjack tuna

Final Principle Scores Principle China Chinese USA Taipei Principle 1 – Target Species 85.8 85.8 85.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 93.3 93.3 94.0 Principle 3 – Management System 80.0 80.0 83.8

Table 27. Final Principle Scores – Yellowfin tuna

Final Principle Scores Principle China Chinese USA Taipei Principle 1 – Target Species 80.8 80.8 80.8 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 93.3 93.3 94.0 Principle 3 – Management System 80.0 80.0 83.8

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 151

SCS Global Services Report

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores Table 28. Summary of Performance Indicator Scores and Associated Weights Used to Calculate Principle Scores. Score- Chinese Principle Component Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score- China Score- USA Taipei SKJ YFT SKJ YFT SKJ YFT 1.1.1 Stock status 1.0 100 90 100 90 100 90 Outcome 0.333 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.0 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 70 70 70 70 70 70 One 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 60 60 60 60 60 60 Management 0.667 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 90 80 90 80 90 80 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 95 95 95 95 95 95 2.1.1 Outcome 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 Primary species 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.2.1 Outcome 0.333 80 80 80 80 80 80 Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.333 75 75 75 75 85 85 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.3.1 Outcome 0.333 85 85 85 85 85 85 Two ETP species 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.333 85 85 85 85 85 85 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.333 85 85 85 85 85 85 2.4.1 Outcome 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.4.3 Information 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.5.1 Outcome 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.333 100 100 100 100 100 100 2.5.3 Information 0.333 90 90 90 90 90 90 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.333 75 75 75 75 80 80 Governance and 0.5 3.1.2 Consultation, roles & responsibilities 0.333 75 75 75 75 85 85 policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.333 90 90 90 90 90 90 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 90 90 90 90 90 90 Three Fishery specific 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 75 75 75 75 80 80 management 0.5 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 75 75 75 75 80 80 system Monitoring & management performance 3.2.4 0.25 80 80 80 80 80 80 evaluation

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 152

SCS Global Services Report

6.3 Summary of Conditions Table 29. Summary of Conditions

Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised condition? number Indicator (Y/N/NA) All fleets: By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is responsive to the 1 state of the stock and the elements of the harvest 1.2.1a NA strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points All fleets: SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for skipjack tuna that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide 2 1.2.2a,b,c NA evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules for skipjack tuna are robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use for skipjack tuna are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. All fleets: By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is responsive 3 to the state of the stock and the elements of the 1.2.1a NA harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points All fleets: SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for yellowfin tuna that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide 4 1.2.2a,b,c NA evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules for yellowfin tuna are robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use for yellowfin tuna are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. 5 For China (Skipjack and yellowfin) 2.2.2d NA

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 153

SCS Global Services Report

Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised condition? number Indicator (Y/N/NA) By the third surveillance audit provide evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place For Chinese Taipei (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the second surveillance audit provide evidence 6 2.2.2d NA that is sufficient to demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place For China (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence of an effective national legal system and organised and 7 3.1.1a NA effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. For Chinese Taipei (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence of an effective national legal system and organised and 8 3.1.1a NA effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. For China (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the third surveillance audit provide evidence to demonstrate that clear and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant 9 3.1.2b NA information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels. For Chinese Taipei (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the second surveillance audit provide evidence to demonstrate that clear and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant 10 3.1.2b NA information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels. For China (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the third surveillance audit provide evidence that Decision-making processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues 11 3.2.2b NA identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. For Chinese Taipei (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the second surveillance audit provide evidence that Decision-making processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues 12 3.2.2b NA identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. 13 For China (Skipjack and yellowfin) 3.2.3b NA

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 154

SCS Global Services Report

Related to previously Condition Performance Condition raised condition? number Indicator (Y/N/NA) By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that at the national level sanctions to deal with non- compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. For Chinese Taipei (Skipjack and yellowfin) By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that 14 at the national level sanctions to deal with non- 3.2.3b NA compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

6.4 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

With the information available, the WPSTA Western and Central Pacific free school purse seine skipjack and yellowfin fishery meets the minimum requirements for being awarded certification which includes meeting the SG60 for all Performance Indicators and an average score of 80 or greater for all three Principle scores. The team discussed the merits and shortfalls of the fishery and by consensus recommended certification for the fishery.

In accordance with MSC Certification Requirements, the report was made open to objection by interested parties for a period of 15 working days from publication of the Final Report with the positive certification determination, through May 25, 2018. No objections were received. The SCS Certification Board reviewed the report, Performance Indicator rationales, peer reviews and stakeholder comments and agreed with the Assessment Team’s recommendation to re-certify the fishery. The certificate will be awarded after the Public Certification Report is posted to the MSC website: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/wpsta-western-and-central-pacific-skipjack-and- yellowfin-free-school-purse-seine/@@assessments.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 155

SCS Global Services Report

References Aguila, R., Perez, S., Catacutan, B., Lopez, G., Barut, N., and Santos, M. 2015. Distinct yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) stocks detected in western and central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) using dna microsatellites. PLoS ONE, 10(9):e0138292. Aires-da-Silva AM, Maunder MN, Schaefer KM, Fuller DW 2015. Improved growth estimates from integrated analysis of direct aging and tag–recapture data: An illustration with bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) of the eastern Pacific Ocean with implications for management. Fisheries Research. 163: 119-126. Aires-da Silva, A., Minte-Vera, C., and Maunder, M. N. 2017. Status of bigeye tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2016 and outlook for the future. IATTC, Scientific Advisory Committee, Eighth Meeting, SAC-08-04a. Allain V., Griffiths S., Bell J. and Nicol S. 2015. Monitoring the pelagic ecosystem effects of different levels of fishing effort on the western Pacific Ocean warm pool. Issue-specific national report. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Nouméa, New Caledonia. Allain V., Nicol S., Essington T., Okey T. Olson R.J. & Kirby D. 2007. An Ecopath with Ecosim model of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean warm pool pelagic ecosystem. Third regular session of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 13-24 Aug. 2007. Honolulu, USA. WCPFC-SC3 – EB SWG/IP-8: 1-42. Allain, V., Nicol, S.; Polovina, J.; Coll, M.; Olson, R.; Griffiths, S.; Dambacher, J.; Young, J.; Molina, J.J.; Hoyle, S.; Lawson, T. 2011. International workshop on opportunities for ecosystem approaches to fisheries management in the Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries. DOI 10.1007/s11160-011-9220-z. Anon. 2001. A review of turtle bycatch in the western and central Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries. Report prepared for the South Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) by the Oceanic sFisheries Program, SPC. AWG 2017 - Stock Assessment Of Albacore Tuna In The North Pacific Ocean In 2017. (Report of the Albacore Working Group). WCPFC-NC13-2017/IP-05 (Rev.01) Banks R., Clark L., Huntington T., Lewis T. and Hough A. 2011. MSC Assessment Report for PNA Western and Central Pacific Skipjack Tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) unassociated and log set purse seine Fishery. Moody Marine Ltd. Berger, A.M., Pilling, G.M., Kirchner, C. and Harley, S.J. 2013. Determination of appropriate time- windows for calculation of depletion-based limit reference points. WCPFC-SC9-2013/MI-WP-02. Bonfil, R. 2008. The biology and ecology of the silky shark, Carcharhinus falciformis. pp. 114–127. In: Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation (eds M.D. Camhi, E.K. Pikitch and E.A. Babcock). Blackwell Publishing, Oxford, UK. Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M., Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2015.2. . Downloaded on 23 July 2015. Brouwer et al. 2017 - Trends In The South Pacific Albacore Longline And Troll Fisheries. WCPFC-SC13- 2017/SA-WP-08 Cagua, E. F., Cochran, J. E., Rohner, C. A., Prebble, C. E., Sinclair-Taylor, T. H., Pierce, S. J., & Berumen, M. L. 2015. Acoustic telemetry reveals cryptic residency of whale sharks. Biology letters, 11(4), 20150092.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 156

SCS Global Services Report

Clarke, S., Yokawa, K. Matsunaga, H., Nakano, H. (2011) Analysis of North Pacific Shark Data from Japanese Commercial Longline and Research/Training Vessel Records. WCPFC‐SC7‐EB‐WP‐04. Croll, D. A. et al. (2016). Vulnerabilities and fisheries impacts: the uncertain future of manta and devil rays. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems. 26: 562–575. Davies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J. and McKechnie, J. 2014. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-04. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. Dunn, S., Rodwell, L. and Joseph, G. (2006). The Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Pacific Purse Seine Fishery - Management Scheme (Vessel Day Scheme). Conference paper presented at “Sharing the Fish 2006”. March 2006, Perth Western Australia. http://www.fishallocation.com/papers/pdf/papers/GlenJoseph.pdf Farley, J., Eveson, P., Krusic-Golub, K., Sanchez, C., Roupsard, F., McKechnie, S., Nichol, S., Leroy, B., Smith, N., and Chang, S.-K. (2017). Age, growth and maturity of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-01, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 9–17 August 2017. Fletcher, W.J. 2007. A Guide to Implementing an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM) within the Western and Central Pacific Region. Forum Fisheries Agency, Honiara, Solomon Islands. Francis, M and Jones, E. (2017). Movement, depth distribution and survival of spinetail devilrays ( Mobula japanica ) tagged and released from purse-seine catches in New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 27:219–236. Gaertner, D., Gado de Molina, A., Ariz, J., Pianet, R., and Hallier, J.P. 2008. Variability of the growth parameters of the skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) among areas in the eastern Atlantic: analysis from tagging data within a meta‐analysis approach. Aquat.Living Resour. 21: 349‐356. (Cited in McKechnie et al. 2014). Galván-Tirado G, Díaz-Jaimes P, García-de León FJ, Galván-Magaña F, Uribe-Alcocer M. 2013. Historical demography and genetic differentiation inferred from the mitochondrial DNA of the silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) in the Pacific Ocean. Fisheries Research 147: 36– 46. Gillett, R. 2007. A short history of industrial fishing in the Pacific Islands, Rap Publication 2007/22. Available at: ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/ai001e/ai001e00.pdf. Grewe, P., Feutry, P., Hill, P., Gunasekera, R., Schaefer, K., Itano, D., Fuller, D., Foster, S., and Davies, C. (2015). Evidence of discrete yellowfin tuna (thunnus albacares) populations demands rethink of management for this glglobal important resource. Nature Science Reports, 5(16915). Grewe, P.M., and Hampton, J. 1998. An assessment of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) population structure in the Pacific Ocean based on mitochondrial DNA and DNA microsatellite analysis. SOEST 98‐05, JIMAR Contribution 98‐330; Hampton et al. 1998. Grewe, P., Irianto, H., Proctor, C., Adam, M., Jauhary, A., Schaefer, K., Itano, D., Killian, A., and Davies, C. (2016). Population structure and provenance of tropical tunas: recent results from high throughput genotyping and potential implications for monitoring and assessment. WCPFC-2016- SC12/SA-WP-01, CSIRO, Stones Hotel, Kuta, Bali, Indonesia. Grewe, P.M., and Hampton, J. 1998. An assessment of bigeye (Thunnus obesus) population structure in the Pacific Ocean based on mitochondrial DNA and DNA microsatellite analysis. SOEST 98‐05, JIMAR Contribution 98‐330; Hampton, J., Bigelow, K. and Labelle, M. 1998. A summary of current information on the biology, fisheries and stock assessment of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) in the Pacific Ocean, with

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 157

SCS Global Services Report recommendations for data requirements and future research. Technical Report No. 36. Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia. 58 pp. Hall, M and M. Roman 2013. Bycatch and non-tuna catch in the tropical tuna purse seine fisheries of the world. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 568. Rome FAO. 249 pp. Hampton, J. 2000. Natural mortality rates in tropical tunas: size really does matter. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2000, 57(5): 1002-1010, 10.1139/f99-287. Hampton, J., and Williams, P. 2005. A description of tag‐recapture data for bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. SCRS 2004/058. Col. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 57(2), 85‐93. Hampton, J. and Williams, P. 2011. Misreporting of purse seine catches of skipjack and yellowfin- bigeye on logsheets. WCPFC-SC7-2011/ST-WP-02. Hampton, J. and Williams, P. 2015. Annual estimates of purse seine catches by species based on alternative data sources and a review of current purse-seine catch estimation issues and future plans. WCPFC-SC11-2015/ST WP-2. Harley S, Williams P and Rice J 2013. Spatial and temporal distribution of whale sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean based on observer data and other data sources WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP- 01. Harley et al. 2015 - Stock assessment for south Pacific albacore tuna W CPF C-SC11-2015/SA-WP-06 Rev 1 (4 August 2015). Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Harley, S., and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. No. WCPFC‐SC7‐2011/SA‐WP‐04 REV1. Hutchinson, M. Poisson, F. and Swimmer, Y. 2017. Developing best handling practice guidelines to safely release mantas and mobulids captured in commercial fisheries. WCPFC-SC13-2017/ SA-IP-08. Ianelli, J., Maunder, M., and Punt, A. E. 2012. Independent review of the 2011 WCPO bigeye tuna assessment. WCPFC SC8‐SA‐WP‐01, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7‐15 August 2012. Jones, E and Francis, M. 2017. Protected rays – occurrence and development of mitigation methods in the New Zealand tuna purse seine fishery. WCPFC-SC13-2017/EB-IP-12. Kitchell JF, Boggs C, He X, Walters CJ. 1999. Keystone predators in the Central North Paciﬁc. Proceedings of the Wakeﬁeld Symposium on Ecosystem Considerations in Fisheries Management. University of Alaska Sea Grant. P 665–83 850 pp. Lawson, T. 2011. Estimation of Catch Rates for Key Shark Species in Tuna Fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean using Observer Data. WCPFC–SC7–2011 / EB–IP–02. Lawson et al. 2017. Sympathy for the devil: a conservation strategy for devil and manta rays. PeerJ 5:e3027; DOI 10.7717/peerj.3027. Lehodey P. 2004. Climate and fisheries: an insight from the Central Pacific Ocean, in: Stenseth, N.Ch. et al. (Ed.) 2004. Marine ecosystems and climate variation. The North Atlantic: a comparative perspective. pp. 137-146. Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A., and Picaut, J. 1997. El Niño Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389: 715-718. Lehodey, P. 2001. The pelagic ecosystem of the tropical Pacific Ocean: dynamic spatial modelling and biological consequences of ENSO. Progress in Oceanography 49: 439‐468. Lehodey P., F. Chai and J. Hampton. 2003. Modelling climate-related variability of tuna populations from a coupled ocean-biogeochemical-populations dynamics model. Fisheries Oceanography, 12 (4- 5): 483–494.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 158

SCS Global Services Report

Lehodey P., J. Alheit, M. Barange, T. Baumgartner, G. Beaugrand, K. Drinkwater, J.-M. Fromentin, S. R. Hare, G. Ottersen, R. I. Perry, C. Roy, C. D. van der Lingen, and F. Werner. 2006. Climate variability, Fish and Fisheries. Journal of Climate, 19: 5009-5030. Lehodey, P.; Senina, I.; Murtugudde, R. 2008. A spatial ecosystem and populations dynamics model (SEAPODYM) – Modelling of tuna and tuna-like populations. Progress in Oceanography. 78: 304-318. Lehodey, P.; Senina, I.; Calmettes, B.; Hampton, J.; Nicol, S. 2013a. Modelling the impact of climate change on Pacific skipjack tuna population and fisheries. Climatic Change. Volume 119 (1), pp95-109. Lehodey P., Nicol S., Hampton J., Caillot S., Williams P.G. 2013b. Project 62: SEAPODYM applications in WCPO [EB WP 03]. [Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia]: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Scientific Committee Regular Ninth Regular Session. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. 6‐14 August 2013. Leroy, B.; Phillips, J.S.; Nicol, S.; Pilling, G.M.; Harley, S.; Bromhead, D.; Hoyle, S.; Caillot, S.; Allain, V.; Hampton, J. 2013. A critique of the ecosystem impacts of drifting and anchored FADs use by purse- seine tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Aquatic Living Resources. Volume 26, pp 49-61. McKechnie, S, Hampton, J, Pilling, GM, and Davies, N. 2016a. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-04. McKechnie, S, Hampton, J, Pilling, GM, and Davies, N. 2016b. Additional analyses to support the 2016 stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Additional analyses to support WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-04 McKechnie, S, Pilling, GM, and Hampton, J 2017. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-05 Rev1 04-August. Marshall, A., Bennett, M.B., Kodja, G., Hinojosa-Alvarez, S., Galvan-Magana, F., Harding, M., Stevens, G. & T. Kashiwagi 2011. Manta birostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2011: e.T198921A9108067. Maunder, M.N. 2001. Growth of skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) in the eastern Pacific Ocean, as estimated from tagging data. Bulletin. Inter‐American Tropical Tuna Commission La Jolla CA.Vol.22 (cited in McKechnie et al. 2014). Molony, B. 2008. Fisheries biology and ecology of highly migratory species that commonly interact with industrialised longline and purse-seine fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC4-2008/EB-IP-6. MSC (2014). MSC fisheries certification requirements and guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp. MSC (2015). Marine Stewardship Council MSC-MSCI vocabulary, V1.1, 20 th February 2015. MSC, London, 25 pp. Muir, J., Filmalter, J., Forget, J., Dagorn, L., Holland K. and Restrepo, V. 2013. Summary of Research Activities and Results of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation’s (ISSF) Second Bycatch Project Cruise WCPO-2 in the Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). WCPFC‐SC9‐2013/EB‐WP‐07. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009. Purse Seine Environmental Assessment Compliance Guide. WCPFC5. National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration. USA Department of Commerce. Available at: http://www.fpir.noaa.gov/Library/IFD/AX60%20WCPFC5%20Purse%20Seine%20EA%20Compliance %20Guide.pdf

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 159

SCS Global Services Report

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014a. Annual Report to the Commission Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research, and Statistics WCPFC-SC10-AR/CCM-27. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014b. 2014 Shark Finning Report to Congress. Pursuant to the Shark Finning Prohibition Act (Public Law 106-557). Available at www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/laws_policies/.../shark_finning_report_2014.pdf National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015a. Annual Report to the Commission Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research, and Statistics WCPFC-SC11-AR/CCM-27 Rev 1. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2015b. International Fisheries: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly Migratory Species; Fishing Restrictions Regarding the Oceanic Whitetip Shark, the Whale Shark, and the Silky Shark. 80 FR 8807, pgs 8807-8816. FR Doc Numbre 2015-03388. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016. Annual Report to the Commission Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research, and Statistics WCPFC-SC13-AR/CCM-27 Rev2 (22 August 2017). Nicol S, Bunce S, and Fitzsimmons L (2013). Progress on Kobe III bycatch Technical Working Group WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-04. NOAA 2015. Compliance Guide Fishing Effort Limits in Purse Seine Fisheries for 2015, May 2015. NOAA Fisheries Pacific Islands Regional Office. Nongbanyu 2013. Notification by General Office of Minitry of Agriculture on Strictly Comply with International Tuna Measures [title translated]. Nongbanyu (2013) No.21. Offically stamped 20 February 2013. Norman, B. 2005. Rhincodon typus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.1. . Downloaded on 19 July 2015 Pilling et al. 2017a - A compendium of fisheries indicators for tuna stocks. WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA- WP-02 Pilling et al. 2017b. Review of research into drifting FAD designs to reduce species of special interest bycatch entanglement and bigeye/yellowfin interactions. WCPFC-SC13-2017/EB-WP-02 Pilling et al. 2017c. Updating indicators of effort creep in the WCPO purse seine fishery. WCPFC- SC13-2017/MI-IP-04. PNA 2010. A Third Arrangement Implementing the Nauru Agreement Setting Forth Additional Terms and Conditions of Access to the Fisheries Zones of the Parties. PNA 2015. Review of the PNA Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme - Final Report. Parties to the Nauru Agreement Office, Majuro, Marshall Islands (July 2015). Independent review of the PNA purse seine vessel day scheme undertaken by Hagrannsoknir sf, completed 30 October 2014. PNA 2016. Palau Arrangement for the Management of the Western Pacific Fishery as Amended - Management Scheme (Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme) (Amended October 2016). PNA 2017. Purse Seine VDS TAE for 2018-2020. Parties to the Palau Arrangement. 22nd Annual Meeting 5-7 April 2017. Majuro, Marshall Islands. PA22/WP.4; VDS-T&SC6/WP.1 Poisson, F., J. D. Filmalter, A.-L. Vernet and L. Dagorn. 2014. Mortality rate of silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) caught in the tropical tuna purse seine fishery in the Indian Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2014, 71(6): 795-798, 10.1139/cjfas-2013-0561. Poisson, F.; Séret, B.; Vernet, A.L.; Dagorn, L. 2012. Good Practices to Reduce the Mortality of Sharks and Rays Caught Incidentally by the Tropical Tuna Purse Seiners. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012. Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/ EB-IP-12.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 160

SCS Global Services Report

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012a. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC‐SC8‐2012/SA‐WP‐06 Rev 1. Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012b. Assessment of the whale shark as a key shark species. WCPFC-SC8- 2012/EB-WP-04. Rice, J. and S. Harley. 2013. Updated stock assessment of silky sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Scientific Committee WCPFC-SC- 2013/SA-WP-03. Rice, J., Harley, S., Davies, N. and Hampton, J. 2014. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC- SC10-2014/SA-WP-05 Rev 1. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. SCS 2015. Unassociated Purse Seine Fishery for Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna from Western and Central Pacific Ocean by Tri Marine International (PTE) MSC Full Assessment: Final Report. SCS Global Services, Emeryville CA, USA. Sequeira, A.M.M., Mellin, C., Meekan, M.G., Sims, D.W., and Bradshaw, C.J.A. 2013. Inferred global connectivity of whale shark Rhincodon typus populations. Journal of Fish Biology (2013) 82, 367–389. doi:10.1111/jfb.12017. Sibert, J. and J. Hampton. 2003. Mobility of tropical tunas and the implications for fisheries management. Marine Policy 27: 87 – 95. Sibert, J.R., Hampton, J., Fournier, D.A., and Bills, P.J. 1999. An advection‐diffusion‐reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 56: 925‐938. Sibert, J.; Hampton, J.; Kleiber, P.; and Maunder, M. (2006) Biomass, Size, and Trophic Status of Top Predators in the Pacific Ocean. Science. 314: 1773-1776 SPC-OFP 2014. Consideration of acceptable levels of risk of exceeding Limit Reference Points for the four main tuna stocks: uncertainty and implications for Target Reference Points and Harvest Control Rules. MOW3-WP/02. Tanabe, T., Kayama, S., and Ogura, M. 2003. Precise age determination of young to adult skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) with validation of otolith daily increment. 16th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 916 July 2003, Mooloolaba, Australia. Working Paper SKJ8. 2003. 2003. (Cited in McKechnie et al. 2014). Tremblayer-Boyer, L, McKechnie, S, Pilling, GM, and Hampton, J, 2017. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean WCPFC-SC13-2017/SA-WP-06. Rev1 August 4th. Walls, R.H.L., Pardo, S.A., Bigman, J.S., Clark, T.B., Smith, W.D. & J.J. Bizzarro 2016. Mobula thurstoni. (errata version published in 2016) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T60200A100016879. Ward, R., Elliott, N., and Grewe, P. (1994). Allozyme and mitochondrial dna variation in yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) from the Pacific Ocean. Marine Biology, 118:531–539. WCPFC 2012. Summary of Regional Observer Programme Audits. WCPFC‐SC8‐2012/ ST‐IP‐03. WCPFC 2014b. Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2014-01. WCPFC 2016. 8th Annual Report For The Regional Observer Programme. WCPFC13 -2016-IP10 Williams, P. and Terawasi, P. 2014. Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 161

SCS Global Services Report

Williams, P, Terawasi, P. and Reid C. 2017. Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions – 2016. WCPFC-SC13-2017/GN-WP-01.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 162

SCS Global Services Report

Appendices

Appendix 1. Scoring and Rationales

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 163

SCS Global Services Report

Principle 1 There are two sets of Principle 1 scoring tables presented below. The first set of scores are for the target stock of Western and Central Pacific skipjack tuna, and the second set, immediately following, is for Western and Central Pacific yellowfin tuna.

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

Met? Y Y Y Justific The reference case from the 2016 stock assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016) estimated that ation the spawning potential of the stock was most probably at or close to the target reference

point of 50%SBF=0 and was well above the limit reference point, 20%SBF=0 .5 . The analysis of model structural uncertainty in the assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016), using a crosswise grid of alternative model formulations, produced results which were spread relatively closely around the target reference point and well away from the limit reference point, and no models met, or even approached the thresholds of formal definitions of “overfishing" or “overfished" (Figure 11). Previous modelling had indicated that a biomass of this level for skipjack tuna had a greater than 95% likelihood of being above the limit reference point of 20% of unfished levels (SPC-OFP 2014). A stock above this limit reference point is considered to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Furthermore, Pilling et al. (2014a) used stochastic projections under status quo conditions to estimate that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the skipjack stock would fall below

either the limit reference point level or SBMSY level by 2032, or that fishing mortality will

increase above FMSY levels, under alternative future recruitment assumptions. Updated stochastic 10-year projections, using the proposed reference case model and assuming future status quo catches at 2015 levels found that, in 2025, median SB/SB F=0 was estimated to be 0.49, and there was zero risk of the stock falling below the limit reference point (McKechnie et al. 2016). There is, therefore, a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which meets the requirements of scoring issue a at the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 164

SCS Global Services Report

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y Justific The 2016 assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016) provides estimates of recent and current

ation spawning biomass (SB) relative to unfished levels (SBF=0) and that which would support

MSY (SBMSY), for the selected stock assessment models, sensitivities and the structural

uncertainty analysis. These include estimates for the ‘recent’ biomass (SBrecent) which is the

average over the period 2011‐2014 and ‘latest’ (SBlatest) which is for 2015. The target

reference point (TRP) for skipjack tuna was set at an initial level of 50% SBF=0 in CMM 2015- 06.

The 2016 assessment estimated SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.52 and SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.62 for the reference case and ranged between 0.41 and 0.68 across the one off sensitivity models explored. From the structural uncertainty grid, the medians and 95% confidence intervals

for SB recent /SB F=0 and SB latest/SB F=0 were 0.49 (0.40 – 0.57) and 0.51 (0.39 – 0.67) respectively.

These results indicate that the stock is at or close to the target reference point of 50%SB F=0 50%.

The 2016 assessment also estimated SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.56 and SBrecent/SBMSY = 2.31 for the reference case and ranged between 1.81 and 2.93 across the one off sensitivity models explored). From the structural uncertainty grid, the medians and 95% confidence intervals

for SB recent /SB MSY and SB latest/SB MSY were 2.04 (1.58 – 2.65) and 2.15 (1.60 – 3.08) respectively. These results indicate that there is much less than a 5% chance of the stock being below

BMSY over the period 2011-2015.

These results are more optimistic than the previous assessment which had estimated SB

latest/SB F=0 to be 0.48.

These results indicate that there is a high degree of certainty that is has been above a level consistent with MSY over recent years. This meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

McKechnie et al. 2016 References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status Type of reference point Value of reference point relative to reference point

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 165

SCS Global Services Report

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

Reference point Level of spawning biomass SBF=0 = 7,221,135 t 0.2X SBF=0 SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.58 > LRP used in scoring in the absence of fishing = 1,444,227 t SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.52 > LRP stock relative (SBF=0) to PRI (SIa) LRP: 20% SBF=0

Reference point Level of spawning biomass SBF=0 = 7,221,135 t SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.58 > TRP used in scoring in the absence of fishing 0.5XSBF=0=3,610,568 t SBrecent/SBF=0 = 0.52 > TRP stock relative (SBF=0) to MSY (SIb) TRP: 50% SBF=0

Level of spawning biomass SBMSY=1,626,000 t SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.56 relative to MSY (SBMSY) SBrecent/SBMSY = 2.31

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 166

SCS Global Services Report

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

Met? Not scored Not scored Justific Not scored- Stock does not require rebuilding ation b Rebuilding evaluation Guidep Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence ost determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly likely stock within the specified timeframe. modelling, exploitation based on simulation rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Met? Not scored Not scored Not scored Justific Not scored- Stock does not require rebuilding ation References Not OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: scored CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 167

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 Skipjack tuna – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is ost expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y N Not scored Justific The harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack has several contributing components, with WCPFC, ation PNA and national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. There are, however, no formal harvest control rules. The conservation and management measures applied to skipjack tuna and the elements they contain are assessed as being expected to achieve stock management objectives meeting the requirements of the SG 60 level. The skipjack stock is well above levels that would raise concerns about potential impairment of recruitment, so measures to reduce the catch have not been required to date. Nevertheless, the absence of agreed harvest control rules within WCPFC or PNA for any other tuna species, and the record of failing to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna so that they have now become overfished (see PI 2.1.1), reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy would be responsive to the state of the stock or that the elements will work together when required to do so to achieve the management objectives. The original PNA skipjack assessment (Banks et al. 2011) scored that fishery as meeting the SG 80 level on the basis that “the Commission responded to the change in the results of the skipjack assessment and the more cautionary tone of the scientific advice in 2010 by deciding to address the management of skipjack explicitly in the preparation of a CMM to replace CMM 2008-01 beyond 2011.” At the time of that assessment the specific measures to be contained in the CMM had not been agreed or adopted. CMM 2012-01 (and subsequent tuna CMMs) do contain measures to restrict purse seine fishing effort but there is no explicit linkage to stock status of any species. These concerns prevent the conclusion that the elements of the strategy are working together to achieve stock management objectives. This conclusion is consistent with the results of extensive harmonisation discussions among CABs as described in detail in Section 4.1. Furthermore, we have considered a submission from the PNAO concerning PI 1.2.1 for skipjack as outlined in SCS (2017). This submission contained an account of the processes followed by WCPFC and PNA in making adjustments to management arrangements for skipjack tuna. This submission has also been considered by other CABs as part of harmonisation discussions on this issue. We, and the other CABs, remained of the view that the deficiencies in the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna identified in the initial

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 168

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place assessment still remain, particularly while there was no harvest control rule. Specifically, core concerns in the scoring of skipjack under PI 1.2.1 relative to PNA have been identified as: A) There is a lack of a clear link between the PAE and scientific advice on stock status B) There is no clear linkage between potential catch and allocated effort C) It is not possible to transparently understand how the VDS/PAE will deal with effort creep and concomitant increase in Q. D) Because Principle 1 is evaluated stock-wide, If PNA unilaterally develops their own HCR, it will become necessary for a formal commitment from PNA to reduce effort to compensate for removals by non-PNA fishery participants in the WCPO, if necessary to assure that overall PNA removals remain compliant with any HCR and the overall PNA HS.

Skipjack tuna is therefore considered to meet the SG 60 level of this scoring issue but not the SG 80 or SG 100 levels. b Harvest strategy evaluation Guidep The harvest strategy is likely The harvest strategy may The performance of the ost to work based on prior not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been experience or plausible but evidence exists that it is fully evaluated and evidence argument. achieving its objectives. exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y Not scored Justific The skipjack stock is assessed as being above its target and the status quo stock projections ation undertaken concluded that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the skipjack stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014). Furthermore, the most recent stock assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016) indicates that

fishing mortality for skipjack tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock

has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. The harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated. Therefore skipjack tuna is considered to meet the requirements of both the SG 60 and SG 80 of this scoring issue. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidep Monitoring is in place that is ost expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 169

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Justific Monitoring in place for the purse seine fishery for skipjack tuna include mandatory ation logbooks with records of catch and effort for each fishing operation, a VMS, 100% observer coverage of fishing operations including detailed recording of catch composition, tagging data, biological studies and port inspections. These support a sophisticated stock assessment process that provides robust estimates of stock status that is sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. This meets the SG 60 requirements. d Harvest strategy review Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Not scored Justific Not scored as not all SG 80 requirements are met. ation e Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific Sharks are not a target species of this fishery. This PI is therefore not relevant. Shark ation finning is addressed, however, under PI 2.1.2 f Review of alternative measures Guidep There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biannual review ost the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness of the potential and practicality of and practicality of effectiveness and alternative measures to alternative measures to practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch related mortality of of the target stock. of the target stock and they unwanted catch of the are implemented as target stock, and they are appropriate. implemented, as appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific CMM 2015-01 (and its predecessors) requires that “To create a disincentive to the capture ation of small fish and to encourage the development of technologies and fishing strategies designed to avoid the capture of small tunas and other fish, CCMs shall require their purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and on the high seas within the area bounded by 20ºN and 20ºS to retain on board and then land or transship at port all bigeye, skipjack, yellowfin tuna.” Exceptions to this requirement are possible where the fish are unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size or when serious malfunction of equipment occurs. Reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and Observer Programs (100% observer coverage). Compliance with CMM 2015-01 (and its predecessors) is verified by observers, with any violations (such as illegal discards) being reported to the WCPFC via the Observer authority. Reported discards for the UoA represented 1.3% of the total catch

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 170

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place for 2014 and 2015. Discarded catches of skipjack across the whole fleet are also estimated to be minor and are ignored in the stock assessment (McKechnie et al. 2016). The rules in place indicate that this scoring issue is not relevant to the UoA.

McKechnie et al. 2016 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant):

By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna is 1 responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 171

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 Skipjack tuna – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guidep Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to ost are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating at are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced or above a target level exploitation rate as the as the PRI is approached, consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment are expected to keep the another more appropriate impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating around a level taking into account the approached. target level consistent with ecological role of the stock, (or above) MSY, or for key most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N Not scored Justific A generally understood HCR is taken here to mean one that is not well defined, as ation otherwise there is no distinction between requirements at the SG60 and SG80 levels. This PI is also assessed taking account the guidance for scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 containing in SA2.5.2, SA2.5.3 and SA2.5.5. The first option for scoring ‘available’ HCRs is intended to cover the situation where even generally understood HCRs are not yet clearly in place for a fishery. For WCPFC fisheries, including skipjack tuna, there are measures for controlling fishing effort through closures, limits on fishing capacity and, for vessels involved, through limits on fishing days under the VDS. There are expectations about responses and examples of how actions have been implemented for species such as bigeye tuna, but there is no clear linkage or explicit process that links changes in stock status to emergent associated management actions. Therefore we do not consider that there are even generally understood HCRs that are also “in place” ; the options for ‘available’ HCRs are therefore evaluated below. The second question to address, is whether there are HCRs that meet the requirements for being considered as ‘available’. The guidance in SA2.5.2a indicates that teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs in cases where, “…Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2 generation times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within the next 5 years”. As noted at PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the 2016 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (McKechnie et al, 2016). The stock assessment estimates spawning

biomass for skipjack tuna, SB, to be at 48% of unfished levels (SBF=0) and 2.56 times SBMSY.

The stock is estimated to have never been reduced to SBMSY and has hence been above

SBMSY in all years. According to WCPFC (2014a), paragraph 48, “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) was robust to assumptions on future recruitment. Under either assumption, spawning biomass remained relatively constant and it is exceptionally unlikely

(0%) for the stock to become overfished (SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or for the spawning biomass to

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 172

SCS Global Services Report

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

fall below SBMSY, and it is exceptionally unlikely (<1%) for the stock to become subject to

overfishing (F>FMSY).” An estimate of the generation time of skipjack tuna using the MSC definition (Box GSA4 in CR v2.0) is not available but SPC have produced an estimate of 2 years by a different method (Berger et al. 2013) and by any method of estimation 2 generation times will be much less than the 20 years used in the projections mentioned above. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are therefore considered to be ‘available’. The third question to address is whether these available HCRs meet the requirement for reducing the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The guidance in SA2.5.3 requires that “Teams shall recognise ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where, a. HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control of the same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; or b. An agreement or framework in place that requires the management body (in this case WCPFC) to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below Bmsy”. There are CMMs that are in place for a range of tuna species within the WCPFC (including skipjack) that contain a range of management measures that are designed to constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, none are considered to be more highly developed than the measures currently in place for skipjack tuna and therefore they do not offer an example of effectiveness in reducing exploitation as the PRI is approached. Option a. is therefore not considered to be met. Option b. examines plans for the introduction of an effective HCR. WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2014-06 (WCPFC, 2014) sets out definitions of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The Commission agreed to adopt a work plan at its 2015 annual meeting, which was revised in 2016, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was progressed through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. We note that there is no specific requirement in CMM 2014-06 linking implementation of the HCRs to stock projections. Nevertheless, given that skipjack tuna are projected to

remain well above BMSY for many years and that the process CMM 2014-06 describes has already been initiated – considered in place - we have considered that the requirements of Option b. SA2.5.3b are met. The requirements of the SG60 level are therefore considered to be met. In summary, generally understood HCRs are not in place. Skipjack is a stock that has not previously been reduced below MSY, which has always been maintained well above the TRP and has an improbably low likelihood of becoming overfished or to experience overfishing. Therefore this stock meets the requirements to be considered against "availability" requirements. In the WCPF, HCRSs are not effectively used in any other WCPFC-managed UoAs. However, there is a framework that is in place, expected to develop further that will require the WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any

detectable, projected risk that skipjack stock status could decline below BMSY.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 173

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidep The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a ost robust to the main wide range of uncertainties uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? N Not scored Justific The ‘available’ harvest control rules are not sufficiently articulated to allow an evaluation ation of the extent to which they are robust to the main uncertainties. When well-defined HCRs are developed they can be evaluated as to whether this is the case. The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met. c HCRs evaluation Guidep There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that ost tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are effective implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation levels required under the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation HCRs. controlling exploitation. levels required under the HCRs. Met? Y N Not scored Justific As noted under scoring issue “a” above, following SA2.5.3b, we have recognised ‘available’ ation HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’. SA2.5.5b, which requires that teams shall include in their rationale a description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs. The agreement is contained in CMM 2014-06 whose objective is “To agree that the Commission shall develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for each of the key fisheries or stocks under the purview of the Commission according to the process set out in this conservation and management measure.” This CMM contains general principles (including a description of a harvest strategy) and principles and elements of the proposed harvest strategies (which are consistent with the MSC definitions). The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules (or “harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The specified timelines are that: “The Commission shall agree a workplan and indicative timeframes to adopt or refine harvest strategies for skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, South Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin and northern albacore tuna by no later than the twelfth meeting of the Commission in 2015. This workplan will be subject to review in 2017.” Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated before this CMM was passed through the Management Objectives Workshop process and requires no additional trigger for their development. The requirements of SA2.5.5b are therefore considered to be met.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 174

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Furthermore, SA2.5.6 requires that, in scoring issue (c) for “evidence” teams shall include consideration of the current levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available. The most recent stock assessment for skipjack tuna (McKechnie et al. 2016) and the earlier status quo projections (Pilling et al. 2014a) provide some evidence that the tools in use (the VDS and WCPFC effort limits) are effective in controlling exploitation of skipjack tuna and achieving the exploitation levels that are required. As noted above, these indicate that fishing mortality for skipjack tuna has always been below the FMSY level, that the stock has not declined below BMSY and that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality will increase above the FMSY level by 2032. The current levels of exploitation are therefore acceptable and the requirements of SA2.5.6 are met. This meets the requirements of the SG60 level. The HCRs are only regarded as being ‘available’ in scoring issue (a) and not ‘in place’, so we have considered that it is not possible to score more than 60 for issue (c) since the SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery and not the tools ‘in use or available’. In any case, not all available evidence indicates that current exploitation is adequately contained by the existing main tools (VDS and WCPFC effort limits) as catches of skipjack are still increasing and, although fishing mortality remains below the FMSY level, it has increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing. So the effectiveness of the CMM 2014-01 for restricting fishing mortality to previous levels is not well demonstrated. The requirements of the SG80 level are therefore not clearly met. Berger et al. 2015, McKechnie et al. 2016, Pilling et al. 2014a, WCPFC (2014a), WCPFC 2014 References (CMM for HCRs)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for skipjack tuna that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. 2 SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules for skipjack tuna are robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use for skipjack tuna are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 175

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 Skipjack tuna – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guidep Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of ost related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other data composition, stock strategy. is available to support the abundance, UoA removals harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y Y Justific The monitoring system that is in place for the fishery collects a comprehensive range of ation information on related to the fishery: this includes mandatory logbooks with records for each fishing operation, a VMS, 100% observer coverage of fishing operations providing a detailed record of catch composition, and port inspections. Information is also available on stock structure (from tagging and other work), and all other key aspects of the species’ biology. Data on environmental conditions is collected and is known to be important for understanding shifts in the distribution of the stock and the fishery. This information has been used to produce complex models of the ecological system (SEAPODYM) that are beyond what is needed for implementation of the harvest strategy. This is considered to meet the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 176

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Delays in the finalization of data from the most recent year prevented the most recent data being used in the assessment and, particularly for a short lived species such as skipjack tuna, this could lead to a mismatch between estimates of stock status from the assessment, management actions, and the actual stock status on the water (Rice et al. 2014). Furthermore, the Japanese pole-and-line fishery, which provides the standardised CPUE indices in regions 1, 2, and 3, represents less than 10% of the total catch of skipjack tuna and even less in the main equatorial zone, but remains the only fishery that can provide long-term information on relative biomass levels (McKechnie et al. 2016). These authors also report that there is a limited understanding of the factors driving the patterns observed in these data which are the basis for the key index that drives estimated abundance trends. Nevertheless, the accuracy and coverage of the estimates of removal and abundance have been shown to be sufficient to support an assessment and harvest strategy. Operational level data are also not provided by some WCPFC members (although some who do not provide it to WCPFC make their country’s data available for assessment purposes).

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

This meets the requirements for the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not the SG 100 level. c Comprehensiveness of information Guidep There is good information ost on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justific Other fishery removals from the stock include catches by other WCPFC members including ation removals with fishing gears other than purse seine. Catches by members are required to be reported to the WCPFC. Article 5 of the Convention requires CCMs to “collect and share, in a timely manner, complete and accurate data concerning fishing activities on, inter alia, vessel position, catch of target and non-target species and fishing effort, as well as information from national and international research programmes.” This scoring issue was the subject of particular attention in the PNA skipjack tuna assessment (Banks et al. 2011) and in particular whether there was good information on the level of fishery removals from some countries. The conclusion was that “despite a number of deficiencies in compilation and analysis from the Indonesia and Philippines, this reaches SG 80”. Since that assessment there has been additional work to improve the level of data available (noted in the Surveillance Reports for the PNA skipjack tuna: Lewis and Scott 2012, Scott and Stokes 2013) and we conclude that the requirements of the SG 80 level are also met for this fishery. References Banks et al. 2011; Lewis and Scott 2012; McKechnie et al. 2016; Scott and Stokes 2013

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 177

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy

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

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 Skipjack tuna – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes into ost appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of rule. the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justific The most recent assessment applied to skipjack tuna (McKechnie et al. 2016), like other ation recent assessments, is an integrated, model-based assessment that is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment program at the SPC. It takes into account major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the fishery. It therefore meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue.

b Assessment approach Guidep The assessment estimates The assessment estimates ost stock status relative to stock status relative to generic reference points reference points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock and category. can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justific The assessment reports provide a wide range of estimates of stock status relative to ation indicators of interest to management including both the target and limit reference points that have been agreed for skipjack tuna. This therefore meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guidep The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into ost major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 178

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Justific The assessment of skipjack tuna has provided explicit commentary on the major sources of ation uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue d Evaluation of assessment Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justific There is an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and approaches by the ation staff in the SPC-OFP. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required.

Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data and a suite of sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. The assessment for skipjack tuna has been shown to be robust and therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue. We note that there has been no simulation testing of the model but such testing is not necessary to meet the requirements. e Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justific Internal reviews are undertaken by SPC and there has been an external review of the ation assessment of Bigeye tuna (Ianelli et al. 2012) which provided recommendations that were also applicable to other similar assessments such as for skipjack tuna. Many of those recommendations have been addressed with the latest skipjack assessment. There have also been external reviews commissioned of different aspects of the data analyses that feed into the skipjack and other tuna assessments. There is also a level of external review provided by submission to the scientific committee of the WCPFC, at which experienced scientific staff from several countries attend, but we consider this to be internal to WCPFC processes. Therefore, there has been no external review of the skipjack tuna stock assessment and we consider that this scoring issue is met at the SG 80 level but not at the SG 100 level

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 179

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

Ianelli et al. 2014, McKechnie et al. 2016 References

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 180

SCS Global Services Report

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

Met? Y Y Y Justific The diagnostic case from the 2017 stock assessment (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) ation estimated that the spawning biomass was at 40% of unfished levels in 2015 and was well

above the WCPFC limit reference point, 20%SBF=0 .5. Recruitment was also estimated to have been stable since the mid 1960s (Figure 22). In the analysis of model structural uncertainty in the assessment (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017), using a crosswise grid of 72 alternative model formulations, only two runs (<5%) fell below the limit reference point. Previous modelling had also indicated that a biomass of this level for yellowfin tuna had a greater than 95% likelihood of being above the limit reference point of 20% of unfished levels (SPC-OFP 2014). A stock above this limit reference point is considered to be above the point where recruitment would be impaired. Furthermore, Pilling et al. (2014) used stochastic projections under status quo conditions to estimate that it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the

FMSY level by 2032, and dependent upon the future recruitment assumption, it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%; long-term recruitment deviate assumption) or very unlikely

(<10%; recent recruitment assumption) to fall below BMSY. There is, therefore, a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which meets the requirements of scoring issue a at the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating There is a high degree of ost around a level consistent certainty that the stock has with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N Justific There is no explicit target reference point for yellowfin tuna but there is considered to be

ation an implicit target of BMSY (supported by CMM 2016-01).

The grid medians for both SBrecent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY in the most recent assessment were 1.42 (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) which is well above this (default) target

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 181

SCS Global Services Report

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of PI 1.1.1 recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 reference point and, given the estimated stock trajectory, would have done so over the whole period modelled. This meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 80 level. Following SA2.2.1.3 a high degree of certainty means greater than or equal to the 95th percentile of a distribution. This assessment (unlike the previous one) does not provide

95% confidence intervals for the ratios SBrecent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY but across the grid of

uncertainties only two runs (<5%) fell below the chance of the stock being below BMSY over recent years. This finding might suggest that that yellowfin tuna now meets the requirements of scoring issue b at the SG 100 level. Nevertheless, previous assessment scores for Yellowfin tuna, based on the 2014 stock assessment (Rice et al. 2014), were that the SG 100 level was not met because the lower

95% confidence intervals for B/BMSY was less than 1 and the upper 95% confidence interval

for F/FMSY was greater than 1. The 2017 assessment was slightly more optimistic but as the stock has recently been estimated to have been below that threshold the SG 100 requirement that stock be above MSY over recent years is still not met.

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

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Current stock status relative to Type of reference point Value of reference point reference point

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

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

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 182

SCS Global Services Report

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

Met? Not scored Not scored Justific Not scored- Stock does not require rebuilding. ation b Rebuilding evaluation Guidep Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence ost determine whether the rebuilding strategies are that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are rebuilding stocks, or it is strategies are rebuilding effective in rebuilding the likely based on simulation stocks, or it is highly likely stock within the specified timeframe. modelling, exploitation based on simulation rates or previous modelling, exploitation performance that they will rates or previous be able to rebuild the stock performance that they will within the specified be able to rebuild the stock timeframe. within the specified timeframe. Met? Not scored Not scored Not scored Justific Not scored- Stock does not require rebuilding. ation [List any references here] References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: NA CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 183

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 Yellowfin tuna – Harvest strategy PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Harvest strategy design Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is ost expected to achieve stock responsive to the state of responsive to the state of management objectives the stock and the elements the stock and is designed to reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. of the harvest strategy work achieve stock management together towards achieving objectives reflected in PI stock management 1.1.1 SG80. objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y N Not scored Justific The harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin has several contributing components, with ation WCPFC, PNA and national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. There are, however, no formal harvest control rules. This conclusion is consistent with the results of extensive harmonisation discussions among CABs as described in detail in Section 4.1. The measures applied to yellowfin tuna take the same form as those applied to skipjack tuna and the elements are similarly assessed as being expected to achieve stock management objectives meeting the requirements of the SG 60 level. Given the greater level of depletion of yellowfin tuna than for skipjack tuna, the general stock decline (albeit with a recent increase in stock size), the absence of agreed harvest control rules within WCPFC or PNA for any other tuna species, and the record of failing to reduce fishing mortality on bigeye tuna so that they have now become overfished (see PI 2.1.1), reduces the level of confidence that the harvest strategy would be responsive to the state of the stock or that the elements will work together when required to do so to achieve the management objectives The original skipjack assessment also noted that it was not clear that coherent management actions are applied throughout the range of the stock, particularly in Indonesia and the Philippines. Similar concerns apply to yellowfin tuna and prevent the conclusion that the strategy is designed to achieve stock management objectives. Yellowfin tuna is therefore considered to meet the SG 60 level of this scoring issue but not the SG 80 or SG 100 levels.

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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 184

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Justific Yellowfin tuna are in a more depleted condition than skipjack tuna but it is still assessed as ation being above its target and the status quo stock projections undertaken indicate that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit

reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014a). Furthermore, the most recent stock assessment (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) indicates

that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the

stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. Therefore, as for skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna is considered to meet both the SG 60 and SG 80 levels of this scoring issue c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidep Monitoring is in place that is ost expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justific The same monitoring is also in place for yellowfin as for skipjack tuna and SG 60 ation requirements are also met for yellowfin tuna. d Harvest strategy review Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Not scored Justific Not scored as not all SG 80 requirements are met. ation e Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant) Not relevant Not relevant Justific Sharks are not a target species (or even a main retained species) of this fishery. This PI is ation therefore not relevant. f Review of alternative measures Guidep There has been a review of There is a regular review of There is a biannual review ost the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness of the potential and practicality of and practicality of effectiveness and alternative measures to alternative measures to practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related measures to minimise UoA- mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch related mortality of of the target stock. of the target stock and they unwanted catch of the are implemented as target stock, and they are appropriate.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 185

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place implemented, as appropriate.

Met? Not relevant) Not relevant Not relevant Justific CMM 2015-01 (and its predecessors) requires that “To create a disincentive to the capture ation of small fish and to encourage the development of technologies and fishing strategies designed to avoid the capture of small tunas and other fish, CCMs shall require their purse seine vessels fishing in EEZs and on the high seas within the area bounded by 20ºN and 20ºS to retain on board and then land or transship at port all bigeye, skipjack, yellowfin tuna.” Exceptions to this requirement are possible where the fish are unfit for human consumption for reasons other than size or when serious malfunction of equipment occurs. Reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and Observer Programs (100% observer coverage). Compliance with CMM 2015-01 (and its predecessors) is verified by observers with any violations (such as illegal discards) being reported to the WCPFC via the Observer authority. Reported discards for the UoA represented 0.9% of the total catch for 2014 and 2015. Discarded catches of yellowfin across the whole fleet are also estimated to be minor and are ignored in the stock assessment (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017). The rules in place indicate that this scoring issue is not relevant to the UoA.

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

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition

By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is 3 responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 186

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 Yellowfin tuna – Harvest control rules and tools PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a HCRs design and application Guidep Generally understood HCRs Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected to ost are in place or available that place that ensure that the keep the stock fluctuating at are expected to reduce the exploitation rate is reduced or above a target level exploitation rate as the as the PRI is approached, consistent with MSY, or point of recruitment are expected to keep the another more appropriate impairment (PRI) is stock fluctuating around a level taking into account the approached. target level consistent with ecological role of the stock, (or above) MSY, or for key most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N Not scored Justific A generally understood HCR is taken here to mean one that is not well defined, as ation otherwise there is no distinction between requirements at the SG60 and SG80 levels. This PI is also assessed taking account the guidance for scoring ‘available’ HCRs at SG60 containing in SA2.5.2, SA2.5.3 and SA2.5.5. The first option for scoring ‘available’ HCRs is intended to cover the situation where even generally understood HCRs are not yet clearly in place for a fishery. For WCPFC fisheries, including yellowfin tuna, there are measures for controlling fishing effort through closures, limits on fishing capacity and, for vessels involved, through limits on fishing days under the VDS. There are expectations about responses and examples of how actions have been implemented for species such as bigeye tuna, but there is no clear linkage or explicit process that links changes in stock status to emergent associated management actions. Therefore we do not consider that there are even generally understood HCRs that are also “in place” ; the options for ‘available’ HCRs are therefore evaluated below. The second question to address, is whether there are HCRs that meet the requirements for being considered as ‘available’. The guidance in SA2.5.2a indicates that teams shall accept ‘available’ HCRs in cases where, “…Stock biomass has not previously been reduced below the MSY level or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time that is at least longer than 2 generation

times of the species, and is not predicted to be reduced below BMSY within the next 5 years”. As noted at PI 1.1.1 scoring issue (b), the 2017 assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017). The stock assessment estimates spawning

biomass for yellowfin tuna, SB, to be at 46% of unfished levels (SBF=0) and 1.58 times SBMSY.

The stock is estimated to have never been reduced to SBMSY and has hence been above

SBMSY in all years. According to WCPFC (2014a), paragraph 37, “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) depends upon assumptions on future recruitment. When spawner-recruitment relationship conditions are assumed, spawning biomass is predicted to increase and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished

(SB2032<0.2SBF=0) or to fall below SBMSY, nor to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY). If

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 187

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place recent (2002-2011) actual recruitments are assumed, spawning biomass will remain relatively constant, and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished or to become subject to overfishing, and it was very unlikely (2%) that the spawning biomass

would fall below SBMSY.” An estimate of the generation time of yellowfin tuna using the MSC definition (Box GSA4 in CR v2.0) is not available but SPC have produced an estimate of 5 years by a different method (Berger et al. 2013) and by any method of estimation 2 generation times will be much less than the 20 years used in the projections mentioned above. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are therefore considered to be ‘available’. The third question to address is whether these available HCRs meet the requirement for reducing the exploitation rate as the LRP is approached. The guidance in SA2.5.3 requires that “Teams shall recognise ‘available’ HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ only in cases where, c. HCRs are effectively used in some other UoAs, that are under the control of the same management body and of a similar size and scale as the UoA; or d. An agreement or framework in place that requires the management body (in this case WCPFC) to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below Bmsy”. There are CMMs that are in place for a range of tuna species within the WCPFC (including yellowfin) that contain a range of management measures that are designed to constrain fishing mortality to acceptable levels. Nevertheless, none are considered to be more highly developed than the measures currently in place for yellowfin tuna and therefore they do not offer an example of effectiveness in reducing exploitation as the PRI is approached. Option a. is therefore not considered to be met. Option b. examines plans for the introduction of an effective HCR. WCPFC Conservation and Management Measure CMM 2014-06 (WCPFC, 2014) sets out definitions of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules or (“harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The Commission agreed to adopt a work plan at its 2015 annual meeting, which was revised in 2016, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. In fact, work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was progressed through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. We note that there is no specific requirement in CMM 2014-06 linking implementation of the HCRs to stock projections. Nevertheless, given that yellowfin tuna are projected to

remain well above BMSY for many years and that the process CMM 2014-06 describes has already been initiated – considered in place - we have considered that the requirements of Option b. SA2.5.3b are met. The requirements of the SG60 level are therefore considered to be met. In summary, generally understood HCRs are not in place. Yellowfin is a stock that has not previously been reduced below MSY, which has always been maintained well above the TRP and has an improbably low likelihood of becoming overfished or to experience overfishing. Therefore this stock meets the requirements to be considered against "availability" requirements. In the WCPF, HCRSs are not effectively used in any other WCPFC-managed UoAs. However, there is a framework that is in place, expected to

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 188

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place develop further that will require the WCPFC to take action on HCRs before there is any

detectable, projected risk that yellowfin stock status could decline below BMSY. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidep The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account of a ost robust to the main wide range of uncertainties uncertainties. including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties. Met? N Not scored Justific The ‘available’ harvest control rules are not sufficiently articulated to allow an evaluation ation of the extent to which they are robust to the main uncertainties. When well-defined HCRs are developed they can be evaluated as to whether this is the case. The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met. c HCRs evaluation Guidep There is some evidence that Available evidence indicates Evidence clearly shows that ost tools used or available to that the tools in use are the tools in use are effective implement HCRs are appropriate and effective in in achieving the exploitation levels required under the appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation HCRs. controlling exploitation. levels required under the HCRs. Met? Y N Not scored Justific As noted under scoring issue a above, following SA2.5.3b, we have recognised ‘available’ ation HCRs as ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’. SA2.5.5b, which requires that teams shall include in their rationale a description of the formal agreement or legal framework that the management body has defined, and the indicators and trigger levels that will require the development of HCRs. The agreement is contained in CMM 2014-06 whose objective is “To agree that the Commission shall develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for each of the key fisheries or stocks under the purview of the Commission according to the process set out in this conservation and management measure.” This CMM contains general principles (including a description of a harvest strategy) and principles and elements of the proposed harvest strategies (which are consistent with the MSC definitions). The definitions include target and limit reference points and decision rules (or “harvest control rules”), with a clear intention that harvest control rules, tested using simulation approaches, will be part of the implemented harvest strategies. The specified timelines are that: “The Commission shall agree a workplan and indicative timeframes to adopt or refine harvest strategies for skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, South Pacific albacore, Pacific bluefin and northern albacore tuna by no later than the twelfth meeting of the Commission in 2015. This workplan will be subject to review in 2017.”

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 189

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated before this CMM was passed through the Management Objectives Workshop process and requires no additional trigger for their development. The requirements of SA2.5.5b are therefore considered to be met. Furthermore, SA2.5.6 requires that, in scoring issue (c) for “evidence” teams shall include consideration of the current levels of exploitation in the UoA, such as measured by the fishing mortality rate or harvest rate, where available. The most recent stock assessment for yellowfin tuna (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017) and the earlier status quo projections (Pilling et al. 2014a) provide some evidence that the tools in use (the VDS and WCPFC effort limits) are effective in controlling exploitation of yellowfin tuna and achieving the exploitation levels that are required. As noted above, these indicate that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level, that the stock has not declined below BMSY and that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality will increase above the FMSY level by 2032. The current levels of exploitation are therefore acceptable and the requirements of SA2.5.6 are met. This meets the requirements of the SG60 level. The HCRs are only regarded as being ‘available’ in scoring issue (a) and not ‘in place’, so we have considered that it is not possible to score more than 60 for issue (c) since the SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery and not the tools ‘in use or available’. In any case, not all available evidence indicates that current exploitation is adequately contained by the existing main tools (VDS and WCPFC effort limits) as catches of yellowfin (although slightly lower in 2015) are still generally increasing and, although fishing mortality remains below the FMSY level, it has increased continuously since the beginning of industrial tuna fishing. So the effectiveness of the CMM 2014-01 for restricting fishing mortality to previous levels is not well demonstrated. The requirements of the SG80 level are therefore not clearly met. Berger et al. 2015, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017, Pilling et al. 2014a, WCPFC (2014a), WCPFC 2014 (CMM for HCRs) References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for yellowfin tuna that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control 4 rules for yellowfin tuna are robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use for yellowfin tuna are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 190

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.3 Yellowfin tuna – Information and monitoring PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Range of information Guidep Some relevant information Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range of ost related to stock structure, information related to stock information (on stock stock productivity and fleet structure, stock structure, stock composition is available to productivity, fleet productivity, fleet support the harvest composition and other data composition, stock strategy. is available to support the abundance, UoA removals harvest strategy. and other information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justific Stock structure - the WCPO yellowfin fishery is assessed and managed as a single stock. ation However, suggestive evidence for population structure is emerging for the tropical tunas (e.g. Kolody et al., 2013).

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

Overall, given the size and complexity of the fishery, the range and comprehensiveness of the data available is impressive and improving all the time. Nonetheless, these data gaps do constrain stock assessments – as does bias and lack of precision in some of the data sets, particularly historical data. Perhaps more importantly, the stock assessment continues to rely on commercial CPUE as an index of stock abundance, and although these data are carefully analysed and standardised as far as possible, there are no fishery- independent data sets with which they can be compared, while issues such as spatial and

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 191

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy temporal changes in catchability remain problematic. On this basis, the team concluded that SG80 is met, but SG100 is not met.

b Monitoring Guidep Stock abundance and UoA Stock abundance and UoA All information required by ost removals are monitored and removals are regularly the harvest control rule is at least one indicator is monitored at a level of monitored with high available and monitored accuracy and coverage frequency and a high degree with sufficient frequency to consistent with the harvest of certainty, and there is a support the harvest control control rule, and one or good understanding of rule. more indicators are inherent uncertainties in the available and monitored information [data] and the with sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest control and management to this rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justific The information and monitoring system that is in place for skipjack tuna catches is also ation applicable to yellowfin tuna. Therefore the same rationale and scores also applicable to yellowfin tuna. As noted in the original assessment for skipjack tuna (Banks et al. 2011) stock abundance and removals are monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage that is sufficient to support the harvest control measures in place. There is not, however, a high degree of certainty about all the information required, with operational level data not provided for some parts of the fishery. This meets the requirements for the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not the SG 100 level. c Comprehensiveness of information Guidep There is good information ost on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justific This scoring issue was the subject of particular attention in the original skipjack tuna ation assessment (Banks et al. 2011) and in particular whether there was good information on the level of fishery removals from some countries. The conclusion was that “despite a number of deficiencies in compilation and analysis from the Indonesia and Philippines, this reaches SG 80”. Since that assessment there has been additional work to improve the level of data available (noted in the Surveillance Reports for skipjack tuna) and we conclude that the requirements of the SG 80 level are also met for yellowfin tuna Banks et al. 2011, Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 192

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Condition

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 Yellowfin tuna – Assessment of stock status PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration Guidep The assessment is The assessment takes into ost appropriate for the stock account the major features and for the harvest control relevant to the biology of rule. the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justific The most recent assessment applied to skipjack tuna (Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017), like ation other recent assessments, is an integrated, model-based assessment that is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment program at the SPC. It takes into account major features relevant to the biology and the nature of the fishery. It therefore meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue

c Uncertainty in the assessment Guidep The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes into ost major sources of uncertainty into account. account uncertainty and is uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y Justific The assessment of yellowfin tuna has provided explicit commentary on the major sources ation of uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels of this scoring issue

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 193

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

d Evaluation of assessment Guidep The assessment has been ost tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justific There is an ongoing program of review of assessment assumptions and approaches by the ation staff in the SPC-OFP. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required. Model structure has been updated to reflect the availability of new data or new interpretations of existing data and a suite of sensitivity analyses have been undertaken to explore the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. Furthermore, retrospective analyses have been undertaken to explore any systematic biases in the model and the results used to adjust the reference case. The assessment for yellowfin tuna has been shown to be robust and therefore meets the requirements of this scoring issue. We note that there has been no simulation testing of the model but such testing is not necessary to meet the requirements. e Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has been ost status is subject to peer internally and externally review. peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justific Internal reviews are undertaken by SPC and there has been an external review of the ation assessment of Bigeye tuna (Ianelli et al. 2012) which provided recommendations that were also applicable to other similar assessments such as for yellowfin tuna. Many of those recommendations have been addressed with the latest yellowfin assessment. There have also been external reviews commissioned of different aspects of the data analyses that feed into the assessments. This is also a level of review provided by submission to the scientific committee of the WCPFC, at which experienced scientific staff from several countries attend, but we consider this to be internal to WCPFC processes. . We note, as discussed in the background, there have been two earlier reviews of the previous yellowfin tuna assessment (Haddon 2010 and Maguire 2010) which were commissioned by the USA through the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). A response to these reviews was provided by SPC to SC7 (SPC-OFP 2011) but there was no reference to the findings of this review or the response in the subsequent stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014). Given the manner of its initiation (it was not commissioned by the WCPFC or

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 194

SCS Global Services Report

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status SPC) and the lack of a clear response in the subsequent assessment we are inclined to take a conservative approach in not considering scoring the last scoring issue to have been met at the SG 100 level. An effective external review should lead to an acknowledgment of deficiencies identified and evidence of a response in the subsequent assessment. Therefore we consider that this scoring issue is met at the SG 80 level but not at the SG 100 level.

Davies et al. 2014, Haddon 2010, Ianelli et al. 2012, Maguire 2010, SPC-OFP 2011, References Tremblayer-Boyer et al. 2017 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 195

SCS Global Services Report

Principle 2

The catch composition was evaluated across each flag state separately in order to categorize species for MSC evaluation (Primary, Secondary, ETP, Main/Minor). Tables in the background present the catch composition for each flag state separately. The recorded fish catches for the Chinese fleet (Table 9), Chinese Taipei fleet (Table 10) and the USA’s fleet (Table 11), and for out-of-scope species (Table 12) demonstrate material alignment in the outcome of the main species classifications for the purposes of MSC scoring (which is primarily based on catch by weight as a proportion of the total catch of the given flag state fleet), with slightly difference in minor species. These results are then presented as largely grouped scores in a single set of scoring tables below, due to this alignment in main species, with differences in scoring due to difference in the composition of minor species catches between the nation state fleets, noted accordingly.

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome, All UoAs The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guidep Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of ost likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above the certainty that main primary PRI species are above the PRI and are fluctuating around a OR level consistent with MSY. OR If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has measures If the species is below the in place that are expected to PRI, there is either evidence ensure that the UoA does of recovery or a not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective rebuilding. strategy in place between all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? N/A N/A N/A Justific There are no main primary species for any of the UoAs so this scoring issue is not ation applicable 25 b Minor primary species stock status Guidep For minor species that are ost below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and

25 http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/p2-species-outcome-pis-scoring-when-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both/

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 196

SCS Global Services Report

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of PI 2.1.1 primary species if they are below the PRI. rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justific Bigeye and albacore tuna are the only minor primary species. ation Bigeye tuna have previously been assessed as being close to their limit reference point but, as described in the P2 background section, the most recent stock assessment has estimated the stock to be in a healthier condition (Figure 26). The impact of purse seine fishing on free school tuna schools on bigeye tuna is also negligible (Figure 27). Therefore none of the UoAs could be considered to hinder the rebuilding of bigeye tuna even if this was still considered to be necessary. As detailed in the background, both northern and southern stocks of albacore have been assessed as not overfished and not subject to overfishing. And the impacts of purse seine fishing on stocks was estimated to be minimal compared to the impacts of the other fleets that target this species. None of the UoAs could be considered to hinder the rebuilding of albacore tuna. This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level. References Harley et al. 2015; McKechnie et al. 2017 100 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE:

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Click here to enter text.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 197

SCS Global Services Report

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 PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in place There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost for the UoA, if necessary, place for the UoA, if for the UoA for managing that are expected to necessary, that is expected main and minor primary maintain or to not hinder to maintain or to not hinder species. rebuilding of the main rebuilding of the main primary species at/to levels primary species at/to levels which are likely to above which are highly likely to be the point where recruitment above the point where would be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y Y Y Justific There are no main primary species for any of the UoAs. Therefore, the measures and ation partial strategy in SG60 and SG80 are not considered necessary, and the requirements of the SG60 and SG80 levels are met.

Bigeye (all UoAs) and albacore (Chinese Taipei and USA fleets) tuna are the only two minor primary species.

The key measures that contribute to the strategies for these species include the CMMs applicable to bigeye tuna (CMM 2016-01) and albacore (CMM 2005-03, 2010-05) and the data collection, stock assessments and observer programs that support them. The most recent stock assessments for both species indicate their respective strategies are effective for maintaining stocks above the point where recruitment would be impaired.

Purse seine fishing on free school sets also has minimal catch of minor primary species. The other important measure to maintain this low catch is to ensure such sets are appropriately classified and that they do not include fishing on a FAD (as defined by the WCPFC – see text box in Section 3.1). Compliance with this measure is maintained through the requirement for 100% observer coverage and through the additional traceability checks applied to ensure that catches which are deemed eligible for certification do not include catches from FAD sets. These measures are intended to achieve the objectives outlined in Section 3.4.2 which include ensuring long term sustainability, preventing overfishing, monitoring the fishery and assessing its impacts, protecting biodiversity, and enforcing CMMs.

This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level.

Management strategy evaluation

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 198

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. b Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g., general will work, based on some based on information experience, theory or information directly about directly about the fishery comparison with similar the fishery and/or species and/or species involved. fisheries/species). involved. Met? Y Y Y Justific There are no main primary species for any of the UoAs so measures are not required for ation main primary species and the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels are considered to be met Catch data clearly demonstrate that the strategy being employed by all WPSTA fleets to minimise the catches of bigeye and albacore tuna is effective, with catches of both species being under 5% of the total. The latest stock assessment for bigeye (McKechnie et al. 2017) has continued to confirm that “Bigeye in purse catches are taken almost exclusively from sets on natural and artificial floating objects (FADs)” as illustrated by the very low impact of free school purse seine fishing on the spawning potential of bigeye tuna in the WCPO (Figure 27). And, as noted above, the impacts of purse seine fishing on stocks of albacore was estimated to be minimal compared to the impacts of the other fleets that target this species. Overall, it is considered that testing (i.e., collection of detailed catch data, stock assessments and analysis of the impact of different fisheries on stocks of both species, showing that the free school fishery has very little impact) supports high confidence that the partial strategy/strategy will work, based on information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. This meets the SG100 requirements. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justific There are no main primary species for any of the UoAs so the requirements of the SG 80 ation level are met. As noted above, there continues to be a negligible impact of free school purse seine fishing on stocks of bigeye and albacore tuna in the WCPO. The combination of ongoing monitoring programs, stock assessments, and successive refinements to CMMs all provide evidence that the strategies for both species are effective in meeting the objectives of preventing fishing by free school purse seines, contributing to overfishing or preventing rebuilding if necessary. The requirements of SG 100 are met.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 199

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of PI 2.1.2 primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific No shark species is a primary species. This PI is therefore not relevant. ation e Review of alternative measures Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related unwanted catch of main mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch primary species. of main primary species and of all primary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? NA NA Y Justific There are no main primary species for any of the UoAs so the requirements of the SG 60 ation and SG 80 levels are considered to be not applicable.

There is already a minimal level of unwanted catch of bigeye and albacore tuna, (the only primary species), which are valuable species, such that measures to further reduce it are unnecessary. This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level. References See Background, Section 3.4.3 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 200

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and is adequate to impact of the UoA on the is adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main primary species with impact of the UoA on the certainty the impact of the respect to status. main primary species with UoA on main primary respect to status. species with respect to status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.1.1 for the UoA: adeqaute to estimate Some quantitative productivity and information is adequate to susceptibility attributes for assess productivity and main primary species. susceptiblity attributes for main primary species. Met? Y Y Y Justific There are no main primary species for any of the UoAs but we have interpreted SA3.3.1 to ation mean that we are still required to score this PI. There is good information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in all WPSTA fleets (requirement is for 100% coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records. This provides quantitative data that, should there be a change in catch composition that leads to main primary species being identified in the future, it would be adequate to assess, with a high degree of certainty, the impact of the UoA on them. Therefore, the requirements of SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels are met. .

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justific Good quantitative information is available from the ROP and logbooks, sufficient for the ation impact of all UoAs on bigeye tuna to have been well estimated by an integrated stock assessment model (e.g. McKechnie et al. 2017). The status of albacore has also been determined and the impact of all UoAs well estimated. This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 201

SCS Global Services Report

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the PI 2.1.3 risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main primary manage main Primary manage all primary species, species. species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justific There are no main primary species for any of the UoAs but we have interpreted SA3.3.1 to ation mean that we are still required to score SG 60 and SG 80 of this PI. Information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in all WPSTA fleets (requirement is for 100% coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records is adequate to support a strategy to manage all primary species, including any main primary species if there was a change in catch composition that leads to such species being identified in the future. This information demonstrates that the bigeye tuna catch is maintained at a low proportion of the total catch. These data are adequate to support the strategies to manage bigeye and albacore tuna and to evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether they are achieving their objectives. They are also considered likely to be similarly adequate should there be any main primary species identified in the future. This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level.

References McKechnie et al. 2017; Background Section 3.4.4 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 202

SCS Global Services Report

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

If below biologically based If below biologically based limits, there are measures in limits, there is either place expected to ensure evidence of recovery or a that the UoA does not demonstrably effective hinder recovery and partial strategy in place such rebuilding. that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? N/A N/A N/A Justific As outlined in the background, there are no main secondary species to this scoring issue is ation not applicable. For a complete list of Secondary species by fleet, see: Table 9, Table 10, and Table 11.

b Minor secondary species stock status Guidep Minor secondary species are ost highly likely to be above biologically based limits. OR If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 203

SCS Global Services Report

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

Met? Not scored Justific Blue marlin is the only minor secondary species for which a stock assessments is available. ation In 2016 the SC concluded that, based on the results of a 2016 stock assessment update, the Pacific blue marlin stock was not currently overfished and was not experiencing overfishing. Other secondary species, all caught in very low levels, do not have available stock assessments and reference points. Regardless, the very low catch levels of all minor secondary species indicates that there is a negligible interaction between the WPSTA fleets and these other secondary species such that, even if these species were below any biologically based limits, any catch by purse seine fleets fishing on free swimming schools would not be hindering their recovery. The MSC v2.0 requirements (Table 3) trigger use of the RBF for any secondary (or primary) species without reference points, regardless of whether the impact of the fishery can be assessed. MSC requirement Annex PF 4.1.4 allows the assessment team to not conduct the required RBF evaluation (a Productivity Susceptibility Analysis (PSA)) on minor species, in which case the outcome PI cannot be scored above 80. The assessment team elected not to conduct the RBF because the very low levels of catch indicates low impact by the UoA on these species, and due the time and cost implications of conducting an RBF. Therefore, although there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of any secondary species, should any be below biologically based limits, due to requirement Annex PF 4.1.4 the fishery must be scored as meeting SG80, only. . SC report 2016 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 204

SCS Global Services Report

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 PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost place, if necessary, which place, if necessary, for the for the UoA for managing are expected to maintain or UoA that is expected to main and minor secondary species. not hinder rebuilding of maintain or not hinder

main secondary species rebuilding of main at/to levels which are highly secondary species at/to likely to be within levels which are highly likely biologically based limits or to be within biologically to ensure that the UoA does based limits or to ensure not hinder their recovery. that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y Y Justific As outlined in the background, there are no main secondary species. ation This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels by default. Purse seine fishing on free school sets also has minimal catch of minor secondary species. The key measure to maintain this low catch is to ensure such sets are appropriately classified and that they do not include fishing on a FAD (as defined by the WCPFC – see text box in Section 3.1). Compliance with this measure is maintained through the requirement for 100% observer coverage and through the additional traceability checks applied to ensure that catches which are deemed eligible for certification do not include catches from FAD sets. These measures apply to all UoAs. For all minor secondary species, the management objectives are those outlined in the WCPFC Convention text as described above in Section 3.4.2. These include ensuring long term sustainability, preventing overfishing, monitoring the fishery and assessing its impacts, protecting biodiversity, and enforcing CMMs. Although there are not CMM’s that explicitly address all minor secondary species, there is evidence of the Commission taking actions based on these management objectives to prevent impacts on non-target species when needed (e.g. CMM 2010-07 concerning sharks). This is considered to be a management strategy and to meet the SG 100 requirements.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 205

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Justific The data from the observer programmes that demonstrates low levels of minor secondary ation species (and no main secondary species) provide an objective basis for confidence about the strategy and provide information directly about the fishery. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 level. There has been no formal testing of the strategy and there are also no stock assessments for most of the minor secondary species so there is not a high confidence that the strategy will work. The requirements of the SG 100 level are not considered to be met. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justific The data from the observer programmes and logbooks provides clear evidence that the ation strategy is being implemented successfully, in that there continues to be such a low level of catch of all secondary species that fishing by free school purse seine sets is not causing overfishing or hindering the recovery of any species. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 and SG 100 levels. d Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark finning It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost is not taking place. finning is not taking place. certainty that shark finning is not taking place. Met? All - Y China – N; Chinese Taipei – USA - N N; USA - Y Justific WCPFC and all three national jurisdictions have prohibitions on shark finning as detailed in ation the background. Data for the Chinese Taipei vessels (Table 13) indicate that shark finning events have been very infrequent and none have been recorded since 2012. There are also very few instances of shark finning reported by observers from the high levels of observer coverage for USA purse seine vessels (SCS 2015) but updated observer data from the USA fleet under assessment here, and data specifically for vessels from China, have not been provided. Nevertheless, the low levels of shark finning that have been recorded on other WPFC purse seine vessels when observers are on board and the prohibition measures that are in place lead us to conclude that it is likely that shark finning is not taking place in any systematic way in any of the fleets. This meets the requirements of the SG 60. For the Chinese and Chinese Taipei fleets we do not, however, consider that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place given the lack of data on the Chinese fleet, the potentially lower levels of observer coverage for both these fleets (Table 8), the concerns expressed by the TCC (TCC 2014) about the level of reporting, the ambiguity of the fin-to-

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 206

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain PI 2.2.2 or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. carcass ratio method for monitoring compliance, the subsequent inability of the WCPFC to determine compliance with this measure, and the lack of any clear sanctions for the few reported cases on non-compliance. For these fleets we do not consider the SG 80 requirements to be met. For the USA fleet, the public record of the results of investigations available, and its lack of any infractions concerning shark finning by USA-flagged vessels, means that there is greater confidence that shark finning is not taking place on such vessels. Further, the US 2010 Shark Conservation Act and 2016 final rule prohibit removal of shark fins at sea or possessing, transferring or landing shark fins unless they are naturally attached. The requirements of SG 80 level are considered to be met for this UoC. Even for the USA fleet, the concerns about the integrity of the WCPFC’s monitoring and compliance capabilities on this issue mean that there is not a high degree of certainty to this finding and the requirements of the SG 100 level are not considered to be met. e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justific There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ation potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures t alternative measures to related mortality of unwanted catch of main o minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related secondary species. mortality of unwanted catch mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary species of all secondary species, and and they are implemented they are implemented, as as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Guidep There are no main secondary species so all fleets meet SG 60 and SG 80 requirements by ost default. The level of catch of secondary species by the WPSTA fleets is clearly already very low, but we were not satisfied that a regular review of alternative measures to minimise UoA- related mortality of unwanted catch of all secondary species was undertaken. The requirements of the SG 100 level are therefore not met.

Background Section 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.4, TCC (2014) References

China – 75 Chinese Taipei OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: – 75 USA - 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 5 & 6 (for Condition 5: By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that is sufficient to China and demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place in the Chinese UoA Chinese fleet. Taipei)

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 207

SCS Global Services Report

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 208

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 A Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is available and available and adequate to impact of the UoA on the adequate to assess the assess with a high degree of main secondary species impact of the UoA on main certainty the impact of the with respect to status. secondary species with respect to status. UoA on main secondary OR species with respect to OR status. If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is Some quantitative adequate to estimate information is adequate to productivity and assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for susceptibility attributes for main secondary species. main secondary species. Met? Y Y Y Justific There are no main secondary species, but we have interpreted SA3.3.1 to mean that we ation are still required to score this PI. There is good information from the high level of observer coverage on vessels in all WPSTA fleets (requirement is for 100% coverage), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records. This provides quantitative data that, should there be a change in catch composition that leads to main secondary species being identified in the future, it would be adequate to assess, with a high degree of certainty, the impact of the UoA on them. Therefore, the requirements of SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels are met.

B Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guidep Some quantitative ost information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y Justific There are data on all species caught from observers who are on all purse seine trips and ation regularly take spill samples of the catch to determine species composition. Catch data are collected routinely and are comprehensive. On the basis of the demonstrated low levels of catch of minor secondary species, data are sufficient to estimate the impact of the WPSTA fleets with respect to status. This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 209

SCS Global Services Report

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to PI 2.2.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to support a partial strategy to support a strategy to manage main secondary manage main secondary manage all secondary species. species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y Y Y Justific There are no main secondary species but we have interpreted SA3.3.1 to mean that we are ation still required to score SG 60 and SG80 of this PI.. The strategy to manage secondary species aims to restrict fishing to free school sets, as such sets have negligible unwanted catch. The evidence needed to evaluate whether this strategy is successful is therefore provided by the 100% observer coverage which records whether sets are free school or not, and the catch obtained from such sets. This information is adequate to support a strategy to manage all secondary species, including any main secondary species if there was a change in catch composition that leads to such species being identified in the future. Nevertheless, we do not consider it necessary to undertake a stock assessment on all these secondary species to meet the SG 100 requirements because the strategy does not aim to estimate their stock status but to ensure that the fishery continues to have negligible unwanted catch and therefore to have minimal impact on them. This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level.

References See background sections 3.4.1, 3.4.2, 3.4.4 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 210

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guidep Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or ost international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of the there is a high degree of the population/stock are MSC UoAs on the certainty that the combined known and likely to be population/stock are known effects of the MSC UoAs are within these limits. and highly likely to be within within these limits. these limits. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific There are no national and/or international requirement that set limits for the ETP species ation that interact with the WPSTA fleets. This SI is therefore considered to be not relevant.

b Direct effects Guidep Known direct effects of the Known direct effects of the There is a high degree of ost UoA are likely to not hinder UoA are highly likely to not confidence that there are no recovery of ETP species. hinder recovery of ETP significant detrimental species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y – All elements Y – All elements Y – Silky shark; Oceanic White Tip Shark N – Other elements Justific The ETP species considered here are listed in Table 14. The basis for the inclusion of fish ation species (i.e. sharks) is listed in Table 9 for the Chinese fleet, Table 10 for the Chinese Taipei fleet, Table 11 for the USA fleet.

Whale shark A purse seine set that catches a whale shark is technically not a free school set. Their inclusion here is to conservatively assess the impact of the occasions when whale sharks were encountered after a skipper made a set on what was initially thought to be on a free school of tuna. Whale sharks have represented less than 0.1% of the total catch of all fleets in 2014 and 2015. For 2014 and 2015 combined the number of animals caught was 2 for the Chinese fleet, 4 for the Chinese Taipei fleet and 26 for the USA fleet. The fate of these is not known but data in Clarke (2015) suggests that survival would approach 90%. At these levels of catch and mortality it considered highly likely that the fishery is not hindering the recovery of whale shark populations, should such a recovery be required. In the absence of better information on the status of whale sharks, however, we could not place a higher degree of confidence in this conclusion. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 211

SCS Global Services Report

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

Silky shark The stock assessment of silky shark (Rice and Harley 2013) concluded that silky sharks have been subject to overfishing in the WCPO and were likely to be in an overfished state. The estimates of the impact of different gear types on the stock, however, indicated that purse seine fishing on free schools of tuna sets was a minor contributor to the catch and fishing mortality. This reflects the very low catch of silky sharks by the UoA fleets. Such a quantitative estimate of impact provides a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects on silky shark. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Oceanic whitetip shark The stock assessment of oceanic whitetip shark (Rice and Harley 2012) concluded that oceanic whitetips have been overfished and remain subject to overfishing. As for silky shark, however, the assessment also indicated that free school purse seine sets have a negligible contribution to the total fishing mortality. Such a quantitative estimate of impact provides a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental effects on oceanic whitetip shark. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans The numbers of interactions with all species of cetaceans is very low. Survival after these encounters is not known but even if none survived the impact would be low. At these levels of catch and mortality it is considered highly likely that the fishery is not hindering the recovery of any cetacean populations, should such a recovery be required. In the absence of better information on the status of cetaceans, however, we could not place a higher degree of confidence in this conclusion. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Marine turtles The numbers of interactions with all species of marine turtles is very low. Survival after these encounters is not known but even if none survived the mortality would be low. At these levels of catch and mortality it considered highly likely that the fishery is not hindering the recovery of any turtle populations, should such a recovery be required. In the absence of better information on the status of turtles, however, we could not place a higher degree of confidence in this conclusion. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level. c Indirect effects Guidep Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of ost considered and are thought confidence that there are no to be highly likely to not significant detrimental

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 212

SCS Global Services Report

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species create unacceptable indirect effects of the impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y – All elements N – All elements Justific Indirect trophic effects of fishing for tuna on the tropical pelagic ecosystem have been ation considered through a variety of modelling approaches (Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Lehodey et al. 2014) and, although the impacts are not negligible, they have not been considered irreversible and no particular impacts on ETP species have been identified. The warm pool ecosystem was found to be resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community) a feature apparently related to the high diversity of predators in the food web that consume a wide range of prey (Allain et al. 2015). The indirect effects have thus been considered and are unlikely to create unacceptable impacts on any ETP species but the level of evidence is insufficient to assign a high degree of confidence to this conclusion. The requirements of the SG 80 level but not of the SG 100 level are therefore considered to be met for each of the elements.

Clarke 2005, Croll et al. 2016, Francis and Jones 2017, Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, References Allain et al. 2007, 2015, Lehodey et al. 2014, Rice and Harley 2012, 2013

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

PI 2.3.1 Scoring Calculation

UoA Element SI a SI b SI c Element PI score score

Whale shark N/A 80 80 80

Silky shark N/A 100 80 90

All Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 100 80 90 85

Cetaceans N/A 80 80 80

Marine turtles N/A 80 80 80

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 213

SCS Global Services Report

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

Also, the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of ETP species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place (national and international requirements) Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that minimise the UoA- for managing the UoA’s strategy in place for related mortality of ETP impact on ETP species, managing the UoA’s impact species, and are expected to including measures to on ETP species, including be highly likely to achieve minimise mortality, which is measures to minimise national and international designed to be highly likely mortality, which is designed requirements for the to achieve national and to achieve above national protection of ETP species. international requirements and international for the protection of ETP requirements for the species. protection of ETP species. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific There are no national and/or international requirement that set limits for the ETP species ation that interact with the WPSTA fleets. This SI is therefore considered to be not relevant.

b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guidep There are measures in place There is a strategy in place There is a comprehensive ost that are expected to ensure that is expected to ensure strategy in place for the UoA does not hinder the the UoA does not hinder the managing ETP species, to recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. ensure the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Y – all Y – All Y – Silky shark and oceanic whitetip shark N – Whale shark, cetaceans, marine turtles Justific Whale shark ation CMM 2012-04 includes the requirement that “CCMs shall prohibit their flagged vessels from setting a purse seine on a school of tuna associated with a whale shark if the animal is sighted prior to the commencement of the set” and that “in the event that a whale shark is not deliberately encircled in the purse seine net, the master of the vessel shall ensure that all reasonable steps are taken to ensure its safe release”. A good practice guide has also been produced and distributed to fishers that describes the best techniques for such releases of sharks and rays, including whale sharks (Poisson et al., 2012). CMM 2010-07 also contains measures to reduce mortality of sharks generally. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirement to avoid overfishing, apply to whale shark.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 214

SCS Global Services Report

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. For USA flagged vessels there are complementary National regulations to enforce WCPFC provisions that are outlined in the background (NMFS 2015b). For Chinese flagged vessels FCF have informed the assessment team that there are no domestic laws or regulations specifically concerning whale sharks but under a Notification from the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture (2013) (not seen by the team) there is a requirement for compliance with international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. As detailed in Section 3.4.5, under Chinese Taipei regulations purse seine fishing vessels are prohibited from making sets on a whale shark and also require that any whale shark incidentally caught to be released when caught alive or discarded if dead. These WCPFC measures, with which all UOA fleets are required to comply, are considered to constitute a strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of whale shark populations, but without any assessment of the status of whale shark populations the measures are not considered to be a comprehensive strategy. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels for all UoAs but the SG 100 level is not met.

Silky shark CMMs 2013-08 contains specific conservation measures for silky sharks and CMM 2010-07 also contains measures to reduce mortality of sharks generally. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirement to avoid overfishing, apply to silky shark. There is monitoring in place, high levels of observer coverage, a stock assessment has been undertaken (Rice and Harley 2013), and CMM 2013-08 responded to its findings. This combination constitutes a comprehensive strategy as defined in Table SA8 of the FCR v2.0. For USA flagged vessels there are complementary National regulations to enforce WCPFC provisions that are outlined in the background (NMFS 2015b). For Chinese flagged vessels FCF have informed the assessment team that there are no domestic laws or regulations specifically concerning silky sharks but under a Notification from the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture (2013) (not seen by the team) there is a requirement for compliance with international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. These WCPFC measures, with which all UOA fleets are required to comply, are considered to constitute a comprehensive strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of silky shark populations. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels for all UoAs.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 215

SCS Global Services Report

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.

Oceanic whitetip shark CMMs 2011-04 contains specific conservation measures for oceanic whitetip sharks that responded to evidence of stock declines for this species. CMM 2010-07 also contains measures to reduce mortality of sharks generally. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirement to avoid overfishing, apply to oceanic whitetip shark. There is monitoring in place, high levels of observer coverage, a stock assessment has been undertaken (Rice and Harley 2012a). This combination constitutes a comprehensive strategy as defined in Table SA8 of the FCR v2.0. For USA flagged vessels there are complementary National regulations to enforce WCPFC provisions that are outlined in the background (NMFS 2015b). For Chinese flagged vessels FCF have informed the assessment team that there are no domestic laws or regulations specifically concerning oceanic whitetip shark but under a Notification from the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture (2013) (not seen by the team) there is a requirement for compliance with international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. No oceanic whitetip shark were recorded as being caught by Chinese vessels in 2014 or 2015. For Chinese Taipei flagged vessels ocean whitetip shark have been designated as a prohibited species by the WCPFC and by domestic regulation. No oceanic whitetip shark were recorded as being caught by Chinese Taipei vessels in 2014 or 2015. These WCPFC measures, with which all UOA fleets are required to comply, are considered to constitute a comprehensive strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of oceanic whitetip shark populations. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans CMM 2011-03 contains measure specifically designed to reduce the impacts of fishing on cetaceans, as detailed in the background, including a prohibition on the deliberate setting of purse seines on them and the requirement for safe release for unintentionally captured animals. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirements to assess impacts on non-target species and protect biodiversity, apply to cetaceans. For USA flagged vessels there is additional and complementary legislation protecting marine mammals via the MMPA (see Background Section 3.4.5 for more detail). For Chinese flagged vessels FCF have informed the assessment team that there are no domestic laws or regulations specifically concerning cetaceans but under a Notification from the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture (2013) (not seen by the team) there is a requirement for compliance with international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. As detailed in Section 3.4.5, under Chinese Taipei regulations purse

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 216

SCS Global Services Report

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. seine fishing vessels are prohibited from making sets on any cetaceans and also require that any cetacean incidentally caught to be released when caught alive or discarded if dead. These WCPFC measures, with which all UoA fleets are required to comply, are considered to constitute a strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of any cetacean populations, but without any assessment of the status of such populations the measures are not considered to be a comprehensive strategy. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels for all UoAs but the SG 100 level is not met.

Marine turtles CMM 2008-03 contains measures specifically designed to reduce the impacts of fishing marine turtles. As detailed in the background, these include avoiding encirclement of sea turtles, and if a sea turtle is encircled or entangled, take practicable measures to safely release it. The general provisions of Article 5 of the WCPFC Convention, including the requirements to assess impacts on non-target species and protect biodiversity, apply to marine turtles. For USA flagged vessels there are complementary National regulations to enforce WCPFC provisions that are outlined in the background (NMFS 2009). For Chinese flagged vessels FCF have informed the assessment team that there are no domestic laws or regulations specifically concerning marine turtles but under a Notification from the General Office of the Ministry of Agriculture (2013) (not seen by the team) there is a requirement for compliance with international tuna measures such as the CMMs adopted by WCPFC. Following the passing of Chinese Taipei’s Distant Water Fisheries Act in 2016, there is an established process by which WCPFC CMMs are incorporated into domestic legislation. For marine turtles, as detailed in background section 3.4.5, the domestic regulations include the requirements for their safe release if they are caught, and for all purse seine vessels to carry a scoop or dip net to facilitate their safe release. These WCPFC measures, with which all UoA fleets are required to comply, are considered to constitute a strategy that is sufficient to ensure that the UoAs do not hinder the recovery of marine turtle populations, but without any assessment of the status of such populations the measures are not considered to be a comprehensive strategy. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels for all UoAs but the SG 100 level is not met. c Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is an objective basis The ost considered likely to work, for confidence that the strategy/comprehensive based on plausible measures/strategy will strategy is mainly based on argument (e.g., general work, based on information information directly about experience, theory or the fishery and/or species

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 217

SCS Global Services Report

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. comparison with similar directly about the fishery involved, and a quantitative fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work. Met? Y – All Y – All Y – Silky shark and oceanic whitetip shark N – Whale shark, cetaceans and marine turtles Justific Whale shark ation Information from observers and logbooks provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for whale sharks will be effective. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

Silky shark Information from observers and logbooks provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for silky sharks will be effective. And the quantitative analysis of stock status (Rice and Harley 2013) supports a higher level of confidence in this conclusion. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Oceanic whitetip shark Information from observers and logbooks provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for oceanic whitetip shark will be effective. And the quantitative analysis of stock status (Rice and Harley 2012a) supports a higher level of confidence in this conclusion. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans Information from observers and logbooks provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for cetaceans will be effective. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels.

Marine turtles Information from observers and logbooks provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy in place for marine turtles will be effective. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels. d Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/strategy is the strategy/comprehensive

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 218

SCS Global Services Report

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. being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y – All N – All Justific All elements ation There is evidence that the most requirements of the strategy are being implemented successfully through the data collected from the observer programs (with 100% observer coverage) and through the information on mortalities contained in the National Reports to the WCPFC. The level of mortalities are low for all ETP species and groups for all UoAs.

The lack of transparency about Part 2 reports to the WCPFC, that contain details of compliance with CMMs means that there is not clear evidence of their successful implementation. This meets the requirements of the SG 80 level but not of the SG 100 level

E Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guidep There is a review of the There is a regular review of There is a biennial review of ost potential effectiveness and the potential effectiveness the potential effectiveness practicality of alternative and practicality of and practicality of measures to minimise UoA- alternative measures to alternative measures to related mortality of ETP minimise UoA-related minimise UoA-related species. mortality of ETP species and mortality ETP species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y – All Y – All Y - All Justific Whale shark, silky shark, oceanic whitetip shark ation There is a WCPFC Shark Research Plan (WCPFC-SC13-2017/EB-IP-09) that contains a detailed list projects concerning sharks that include updated assessments, improved data collection, stock discrimination studies, mitigation practices, training guides, and other activities. Actions specific to whale sharks and silky sharks are included in this plan together with other general shark work. Progress against this plan is regularly reviewed as SC meetings. Proposals to improve mitigation measures are also considered at SC meetings (e.g. Jones and Francis 2017). WCPFC has also supported the Common Oceans (ABNJ) Project that has initiated a range of projects including studies on post-release survival of sharks (WCPFC-SC13-2017/EB-IP-06). For the sharks considered here, this is evidence of an ongoing commitment to the review of the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Data on bycatch are collected by observers on all trips, results are presented annually to the relevant meetings, bycatch is a standing item on the agenda of the SC and the SC reviews

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 219

SCS Global Services Report

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 relevant CMMs at each annual meeting. So, in practice, the effectiveness of measures is reviewed annually, and any need for alternative measures would be detected more promptly than biennially. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans and marine turtles There are no research programs for cetaceans and marine turtles that are comparable to that for sharks. Nevertheless, there is ongoing attention to areas where interactions are considered a problem for various groups from specific fishing methods such as turtle entanglements in FADs (e.g. Pilling et al 2017b). Data on interactions with cetaceans and marine turtles are collected by observers on all trips and presented annually to the relevant meetings, bycatch is a standing item on the agenda of the SC and the SC reviews the relevant CMMs at each annual meeting. So, in practice, the effectiveness of measures is reviewed annually and any need for alternative measures would be detected more promptly than biennially. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Francis and Jones 2017, Jones and Francis 207, Pilling et al. 2017b, Poisson et al. 2012, Rice References and Harley 2012a, 2013,

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: Score CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 85

PI 2.3.2 Scoring Calculation

UoA Element SI a SI b SI c SI d SI e Element PI score score

Whale shark N/A 80 80 80 100 85

Silky shark N/A 100 100 80 100 95 All 85 Oceanic whitetip shark N/A 100 100 80 100 95

Cetaceans N/A 80 80 80 100 85

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 220

SCS Global Services Report

Marine turtles N/A 80 80 80 100 85

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 221

SCS Global Services Report

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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is ost adequate to estimate the information is adequate to available to assess with a UoA related mortality on assess the UoA related high degree of certainty the ETP species. mortality and impact and to magnitude of UoA-related determine whether the UoA impacts, mortalities and may be a threat to injuries and the OR protection and recovery of consequences for the status

the ETP species. of ETP species. If RBF is used to score PI

2.3.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.3.1 for the UoA: productivity and susceptibility attributes for Some quantitative ETP species. information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y - All Y - All Y – Silky shark and oceanic whitetip shark N – Whale shark, cetaceans, marine turtles Justific Whale shark ation Information available on the key shark species is collected mainly by the combination of vessel logbooks and observer programs (with 100% observer coverage) as outlined in section 3.2. It includes data on catch weight and effort at an operation level for most fleets, and some size composition data and biological data. These measures are supported by a Shark Research Plan that provides additional information on specific topics of relevance to the assessment of the impact of purse seine fishing. A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available but not of the consequences for the status of whale sharks. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level. Silky shark Information available on the key shark species is the same as for whale shark. These measures are supported by a Shark Research Plan that provides additional information on specific topics of relevance to the assessment of the impact of purse seine fishing. . A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available and, for silky sharks, there is

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 222

SCS Global Services Report

Oceanic whitetip shark Information available on the key shark species is the same as for whale shark. These measures are supported by a Shark Research Plan that provides additional information on specific topics of relevance to the assessment of the impact of purse seine fishing. . A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available and, for oceanic whitetip shark, there is also a stock assessment that has provided an estimated of the consequences of the UoA for their status. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans Data on the bycatch of cetaceans is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in Section 3.2. There has been a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available but not of the consequences for the status of any cetaceans. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Marine turtles Data on the bycatch of marine turtles is collected by observers under the ROP following the data collection protocols outlined in Section 3.2. There has been a requirement for 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels since 2010. A quantitative assessment of the level of mortality is available but not of the consequences for the status of any species of marine turtles . This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level. b Information adequacy for management strategy Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost support measures to measure trends and support support a comprehensive manage the impacts on ETP a strategy to manage strategy to manage impacts, species. impacts on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 223

SCS Global Services Report

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. strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y – All Y – All Y – Silky shark and oceanic whitetip shark N – Whale shark, cetaceans, marine turtles Justific Whale shark ation The information described under SI a is adequate to measure trends and support that strategy to manage the impacts of the UoAs on whale sharks. It is not, however, sufficient to determine with a high degree of certainty whether objectives are being achieved because population level data are not available. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Silky shark The information described under SI a is adequate to measure trends and support that strategy to manage the impacts of the UoAs on silky shark. It has also proved to be sufficient to support a quantitative stock assessment, and supports a comprehensive strategy, which has shown, with a high degree of certainty, that no UoAs are hindering the recovery of silky sharks. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Oceanic whitetip shark The information described under SI a is adequate to measure trends and support that strategy to manage the impacts of the UoAs on oceanic whitetip shark. It has also proved to be sufficient to support a quantitative stock assessment, and supports a comprehensive strategy, which has shown, with a high degree of certainty, that no UoAs are hindering the recovery of oceanic whitetip shark. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Cetaceans The information described under SI a is adequate to measure trends and support that strategy to manage the impacts of the UoAs on cetaceans. It is not, however, sufficient to determine with a high degree of certainty whether objectives are being achieved because population level data are not available. This meets the requirements of the SG 60 and SG 80 levels but not of the SG 100 level.

Marine turtles The information described under SI a is adequate to measure trends and support that strategy to manage the impacts of the UoAs on marine turtles. It is not, however, sufficient

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 224

SCS Global Services Report

See background section 3.4.5 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

PI 2.3.3 Scoring Calculation

UoA Element SI a SI b Element PI score score

Whale shark 80 80 80

Silky shark 100 100 100

All Oceanic whitetip shark 100 100 100 85

Cetaceans 80 80 80

Marine turtles 80 80 80

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 225

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the commonly function of the commonly reduce structure and encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a function of the commonly point where there would be point where there would be encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justific As noted in the background, there is no possibility that the fishery would routinely contact ation demersal habitats and no potential for serious or irreversible harm to pelagic habitats. Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as the sea areas where the fleet operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant impacts on seabed habitats from the fishery. In 2010, the WCPFC adopted measures for 100% coverage of purse seine vessels operating between 20°N and 20°S. Data from logbooks, VMS tracks of vessels and observer reports, provides good evidence that the fishery operates in areas and in a manner in which there is no serious or irreversible harm to habitats. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

b VME habitat status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the ost reduce structure and reduce structure and UoA is highly unlikely to function of the VME function of the VME reduce structure and habitats to a point where habitats to a point where function of the VME there would be serious or irreversible harm. there would be serious or habitats to a point where irreversible harm. there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific As noted in the background, the fishery does not interact with any VMEs and so this ation scoring issue is not relevant.

c Minor habitat status Guidep There is evidence that the ost 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

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 226

SCS Global Services Report

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, PI 2.4.1 considered on the basis of the area(s) covered by the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Justific As noted for scoring issue a, there is no possibility that the fishery would routinely contact ation demersal habitats and no potential for serious or irreversible harm to pelagic habitats (whether minor or not). Evidence is provided from the same sources (VMS, observer records and logbooks). This meets the requirements of the SG 100 level.

See background section 3.4.6 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 227

SCS Global Services Report

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 pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy in place ost place, if necessary, that are place, if necessary, that is for managing the impact of expected to achieve the expected to achieve the all MSC UoAs/non-MSC Habitat Outcome 80 level of Habitat Outcome 80 level of fisheries on habitats. performance. performance or above. Met? Y Y Y Justific Purse seine free school sets do not interact with any seafloor habitat during fishing ation operations and free school purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. No management strategy is therefore required. However 100% observer coverage provides confidence that catches are being appropriately reported by set type This is considered to be a strategy that would ensure that any change to this situation would be detected. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met.

b Management strategy evaluation Guidep The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high ost considered likely to work, basis for confidence that the confidence that the partial based on plausible measures/partial strategy strategy/strategy will work, argument (e.g. general will work, based on based on information experience, theory or information directly about directly about the UoA comparison with similar the UoA and/or habitats and/or habitats involved. UoAs/habitats). involved. Met? Y Y Y Justific Knowledge in relation to the way purse seine fishing gear is used as well as the sea areas ation where the fleet operates (open ocean, deep waters) is sufficient to discount any significant impacts on seabed habitats from the fishery and free school sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat. In 2010, the WCPFC adopted measures for 100% coverage of purse seine vessels operating between 20°N and 20°S. This enables monitoring of the reporting of catches by set type, providing high confidence on information from the fishery and meeting SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative ost evidence that the evidence that the partial measures/partial strategy is strategy/strategy is being being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justific Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse-seine ation fishing gear is collected by at-sea observers (100% Observer coverage) and by VMS (100%

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 228

SCS Global Services Report

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.4.2 serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. coverage), and thus there is accurate monitoring that provides quantitative evidence of successful implementation in that free school sets are identified and required data are reported. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guidep There is qualitative evidence There is some quantitative There is clear quantitative ost that the UoA complies with evidence that the UoA evidence that the UoA its management complies with both its complies with both its management requirements management requirements requirements to protect and with protection and with protection VMEs. measures afforded to VMEs measures afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where MSC fisheries, where relevant. relevant. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific The fishery does not interact with any VMEs. ation See Section 3.4.1 for details of the operation of the observer program. References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 229

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidep The types and distribution The nature, distribution and The distribution of all ost of the main habitats are vulnerability of the main habitats is known over their broadly understood. habitats in the UoA area are range, with particular known at a level of detail attention to the occurrence relevant to the scale and of vulnerable habitats. OR intensity of the UoA.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA:

If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Met? Y Y Y Justific The fishery takes place in the epipelagic habitat and so does not interact with benthic ation habitat during its operation. The distribution of the pelagic habitat is known over the spatial range within which the fishery operates from widely available sea charts and bathymetric maps of the Western Pacific Ocean. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of the ost broadly understand the allow for identification of gear on all habitats have nature of the main impacts the main impacts of the been quantified fully. of gear use on the main UoA on the main habitats, habitats, including spatial and there is reliable overlap of habitat with information on the spatial fishing gear. extent of interaction and on the timing and location of OR use of the fishing gear.

If CSA is used to score PI OR 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI Qualitative information is 2.4.1 for the UoA: adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial Some quantitative attributes of the main information is available and habitats. is adequate to estimate the

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 230

SCS Global Services Report

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the PI 2.4.3 effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y Y Justific Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse seine ation fishing gear is collected by at-sea observers (100% Observer coverage) and by VMS (100% coverage) and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Free school purse seine sets are not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat and does not interact with benthic habitat during its operation. The fishery meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. c Monitoring Guidep Adequate information Changes in habitat ost continues to be collected to distributions over time are detect any increase in risk to measured. the main habitats. Met? Y Y Justific For the free school fishery, the habitat under consideration is the pelagic water column ation and no hard substrate is impacted by the fishery. The physical, chemical and biological properties of the WCPO are regularly monitored. The client vessels all operate under a VMS scheme and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. See background Section 3.4.6 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 231

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem PI 2.5.1 structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guidep The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly unlikely to There is evidence that the ost disrupt the key elements disrupt the key elements UoA is highly unlikely to underlying ecosystem underlying ecosystem disrupt the key elements structure and function to a structure and function to a underlying ecosystem point where there would be point where there would be structure and function to a a serious or irreversible a serious or irreversible point where there would be harm. harm. a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y Y Justific As described in the background, there have range of models of the structure and ation functioning of the pelagic ecosystems that support the main tuna fisheries and their responses to fishing and climate change (e.g. Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Kitchell et al. 1999, Lehodey et al. 2013, Leroy et al. 2013, Sibert et al. 2006). There have been substantial impacts from the depletion of the main target species, but although the trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, no such decrease was apparent in the population trophic level (Sibert et al., 2006). Other modelling (Allain et al. 2015) suggests that the structure of the warm pool/cold tongue ecosystem is resistant to considerable perturbation (e.g. large changes in the harvest of the surface fish community). Overall, findings indicated that tuna fishery impacts on top-level predators in the Pacific Ocean were substantial but that ecosystem impacts were likely to be minor. These studies suggests it is unlikely that neither the WPSTA fishery in particular nor the whole WCPFC tuna fishery, are having an irreversible impact on ecosystem structure or functioning to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Kitchell et al. 1999, Lehodey et al. 2013, Leroy et al. References 2013, Sibert et al. 2006.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 232

SCS Global Services Report

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 serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guidep There are measures in There is a partial strategy in There is a strategy that ost place, if necessary which place, if necessary, which consists of a plan, in place take into account the takes into account available which contains measures to potential impacts of the information and is expected address all main impacts of fishery on key elements of to restrain impacts of the the UoA on the ecosystem, the ecosystem. UoA on the ecosystem so as and at least some of these to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y Y Justific At the regional level, the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries is used as ation the framework for sustainable fisheries for an “Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries Management (EAFM)”. Tuna are important predatory species in the Pacific Ocean. The WCPFC’s application of the FAO code extends to the highly migratory fish species including tuna through Conservation and Management Measures such as CMM 2014-01 on the management of bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack, as well as to the management of non-target species, in particular through Resolution 2005-03 on Non-Target Fish Species and CMMs to improve the protection of sharks. Although not specifically designed to manage impacts on the ecosystem, the range of measures in place is considered to represent a strategy that works to achieve the intended outcome. We note that there is not specific ecosystem management plan for the WCPO but also SA3.17.3.2 states that ‘It may not be necessary to have a specific “ecosystem strategy” other than that which comprises the individual strategies for the other components under P1 and P2.’ There are measures in place to address the main impacts of the UoA as these would arise from the directed fishing at skipjack and yellowfin tuna. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels.

ation measures have been successful in maintaining target species about the BMSY level. The strategy considers the significant sources of fishery related risks to the WCPO ecosystem, namely the removal of target species, risks associated with impacts of bycatch and discarding of a wide range of non-target species. Overall, the strategy is considered likely to work. The extensive ecosystem modelling (described under PI 2.5.1), together with the

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 233

SCS Global Services Report

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or PI 2.5.2 irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. current and projected future healthy status of skipjack tuna, a key predator and prey species, are results of a form of testing for the specific ecosystem that provides high confidence that the strategy will work. This meets the requirements of the SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 levels. c Management strategy implementation Guidep There is some evidence that There is clear evidence that ost the measures/partial the partial strategy/strategy strategy is being is being implemented implemented successfully. successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justific As previously indicated, regional stock assessments show that current harvest strategies ation and management measures have largely been successful in maintaining target species at

about the BMSY level. Available ecosystem modelling suggests it is unlikely the client fishery is having an irreversible impact on ecosystem functioning. The introduction of 100% observer coverage for the purse seine fisheries provides a valuable mechanism for gathering information relevant to monitoring ecosystem impacts. Overall, there is evidence that measures are being implemented successfully. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. Allain et al. 2007, Allain et al. 2015, Fletcher 2007. Kirby and Hobday, 2007 References

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 234

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guidep Information is adequate to Information is adequate to ost identify the key elements of broadly understand the key the ecosystem. elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justific A number of organisations are collecting data to improve the knowledge of the structure ation of the Pacific Ocean pelagic ecosystem. This occurs through observer programmes (e.g. bycatch composition and quantities), trophic analyses (e.g. stomach contents, stable isotopes), and mid-trophic level sampling (e.g. acoustics and net sampling of micronekton and zooplankton). The adoption of 100% observer coverage for the purse seine fleet will improve the availability of relevant data. However, trophic analyses and mid-trophic level sampling are conducted on a project-by-project basis and are not continuous in space and time. Information is adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem, meeting SG 80.

b Investigation of UoA impacts Guidep Main impacts of the UoA on Main impacts of the UoA on Main interactions between ost these key ecosystem these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can be from existing information, from existing information, inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail. Met? Y Y N Justific Trophic structure of pelagic ecosystems in the Pacific, including the WCPO, has been ation characterised using Ecopath and Ecosim models based on diet data (Allain et al. 2007). SEAPODYM is a dynamic system model developed for investigating spatial tuna population dynamics under the influence of both fishing and environmental effects (Lehodey et al., 2013b). The continued development and application of the SEAPODYM model to the work of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, including its application to tuna and billfish fisheries in the South Pacific, is facilitated through the multi-agency Project 62 which affiliates the independently funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013b). A list of current projects is given in Lehodey et al. (2013b). Main impacts of the fishery on the key ecosystem elements can be inferred from existing information and some have been investigated in detail, though not to the extent to meet SG 100. SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met.

c Understanding of component functions Guidep The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA on ost components (i.e., P1 target P1 target species, primary, species, primary, secondary secondary and ETP species and ETP species and and Habitats are identified Habitats) in the ecosystem and the main functions of are known.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 235

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. these components in the ecosystem are understood. Met? Y Y Justific Information on target and non-target species (bycatch and ETP species) is gathered by the ation SPC through logbook data and the regional observer programme, as well as being available via a number of historical research projects. Sufficient information is available to identify the range of species that are impacted and to determine their respective roles e.g. their trophic level and potential roles in transfer of energy and nutrients between various pelagic habitats (epipelagic, mesopelagic and bathypelagic) or between pelagic and demersal habitats. In order to improve the availability of data, the Kobe Bycatch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim to Identify, compare and review the data fields and collection protocols of logbook and observer bycatch data being employed by each Tuna RFMO. The KBTWG provides guidance for improving data collection efforts and, to the extent possible, the harmonization of data collection protocols among tuna RFMOs. These data will improve future analysis of ecosystem functions. The information gathered is sufficient to identify species impacted and understand the main functions of the ecosystem components. SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are met. d Information relevance Guidep Adequate information is Adequate information is ost available on the impacts of available on the impacts of the UoA on these the UoA on the components components to allow some and elements to allow the of the main consequences main consequences for the for the ecosystem to be ecosystem to be inferred. inferred. Met? Y Y Justific Data are collected on the key target and non-target tuna and billfish species taken by the ation fishery through logbooks. The observer programme provides support for the collection of retained and non-retained species data. Coverage for the purse seine fishery is 100% of fishing operations. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components and allow the main consequences for the ecosystem to be inferred. SG 80 and SG 100 are met. e Monitoring Guidep Adequate data continue to Information is adequate to ost be collected to detect any support the development of increase in risk level. strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justific As indicated above, data are collected on the key target and non-target tuna and billfish ation species taken by the fishery through logbooks and the regional observer programme. Information available is sufficient to allow ecosystem modelling to detect an increase in risk levels to ecosystem components. SG 80 is met, however, in the absence of a

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 236

SCS Global Services Report

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. comprehensive strategy for ecosystem management which incorporates the collection of broader ecosystem information than existing systems, SG 100 is not met.

Allain et al. 2007; Lehodey et al. 2013b; and other references as described in the References background section 3.4.7.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Condition

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 237

SCS Global Services Report

Principle 3

The potentially relevant jurisdictions include the WCPFC, PNA, and the three licensing flag states of the fleet under assessment (USA, China, and Chinese Taipei). Each flag state comprises two distinct species-based UoAs. For reader-friendliness and to minimize duplicative text in the report, the following scoring tables include consideration of UoAs strictly as they relate to flag states, recognizing that scoring will not differ in P3 on a species-basis. Differences in scores across the three sets of nation state scores (based on flag state performance and other relevant considerations) are noted. Although WCPFC performance is considered in each SI, it is not ‘scored’ as an element as per individual species or guilds in Principle 2, but instead is incorporated with the flag state score to generate an overall UoA score for each nation stage fleet (USA, China, Chinese Taipei). Where there is no difference in scores between UoAs, the score is followed by “(All)”.

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 Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management Guidep There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective ost national legal system and a national legal system and national legal system and framework for cooperation organised and effective binding procedures with other parties, where cooperation with other governing cooperation with parties, where necessary, to necessary, to deliver other parties which delivers deliver management management outcomes management outcomes outcomes consistent with consistent with MSC MSC Principles 1 and 2. consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y (All) Y (USA) N (All) N (TW, CH) Justific ation Regional At the regional level, as described by Banks et al. (2011), Medley and Powers (2015) and Morison and McLoughlin (2016), the WCPFC Convention, the Nauru Agreement, relevant coastal fisheries laws and national tuna management plans are consistent with the provisions of UNCLOS and UNFSA. UNCLOS makes specific provisions for straddling stocks and highly migratory fish stock in Articles 63 and 64 and requires that “... States ...cooperate directly or through appropriate

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 238

SCS Global Services Report

Nauru Agreement The Nauru Agreement is a regional agreement made to facilitate cooperation in the management of fisheries resources of common interest. The Agreement is a binding treaty-level regional fisheries management instrument established in the 1980’s to manage tuna stocks within national waters. The Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) are Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Nauru, Federated States of Micronesia and Palau.

The objectives of the Agreement are to enhance regional solidarity and to promote economic control and participatory rights over the tuna resources in PNA waters, with a primary focus to:  Develop strategic fisheries conservation and management initiatives;  Develop initiatives to maximise the sustained direct and indirect economic benefits to the Parties; and  Maximise the profitability of the fishery and ancillary industries within the PNA. The PNA have consistently sought to develop and implement arrangements designed to improve the sustainability of tuna stocks in their waters and maximise the economic return

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 239

SCS Global Services Report

USA A comprehensive suite of legislation, in particular, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries (WCPF) Convention Implementation Act, governs the management of USA fisheries, including vessels fishing on the high seas in the Pacific, in Pacific Island Country or Territory (PICT) waters and in USA waters.

The MSFCMA is the primary law governing fisheries management in the USA. The Act, which was most recently amended in 2007, includes the following key purposes. To:

. Conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast of the United States; . Support and encourage the implementation and enforcement of international fishery agreements for the conservation and management of highly migratory species, and to encourage the negotiation and implementation of additional such agreements as necessary; . Promote domestic commercial and recreational fishing under sound conservation and management principles; . Provide for the preparation and implementation of fishery management plans; . Establish Regional Fishery Management Councils to steward fishery resources through the preparation, monitoring, and revising of plans which (A) enable stake holders to participate in the administration of fisheries and (B) consider social and economic needs of the States; . Developing underutilized fisheries; and . Protect essential fish habitats

Additionally, the law calls for reducing bycatch and establishing fishery information monitoring systems.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA/NMFS) is the USA government agency responsible for all aspects of the conservation and management of USA fisheries and marine protected resources. NOAA is an agency of the USA Department of Commerce.

The MSFCMA has created eight Regional Fishery Management Councils. The Councils develop fishery management plans and management measures for the USA fisheries operating within their adjacent EEZs and for USA-flagged vessels operating on the high seas outside the EEZ. NOAA/NMFS approves and implements these plans and measures.

The Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council (WPRFMC) has developed a Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), consistent with the MSFCMA and the national standards required for fishery conservation and management. The Plan provides information and the rationale for measures set out in the plan; discusses the key components of the Western Pacific Region’s pelagic ecosystem, including an overview of the region’s pelagic fisheries;

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 240

SCS Global Services Report

The Western and Central Pacific Fishery (WCPF) Convention Implementation Act provides a range of specific provisions to enable the USA to fulfil obligations under the WCPFC. It provides arrangements that:  Enable the appointment of Commissioners and Advisory Committees;  Set out the authority, responsibility and rulemaking of the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Commerce;  Establish enforcement powers and provides for consistency with other USA laws;  Establish Prohibited Acts;  Provide for cooperation in carryout the Convention;  Enable Territorial participation; and  Authorize appropriations.

The arrangements in these Acts provide a comprehensive suite of management and enforcement powers designed to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. They also provide for organized and effective (structurally explicit) cooperation with other parties with the MSFCCA making specific reference to the management of international fisheries and the WCPF Convention Implementation Act providing specific arrangements to participate in the WCPFC. There is also evidence that the USA reliably coordinates with other WCPFC parties to contribute scientific data from their purse seine fisheries for collective use by SPC on behalf of all WCPFC Parties (GSA 4.3.2.3.). Similarly, the USA. undertakes enforcement patrols in WCPFC waters and facilitates patrols for some other nation states in a form of close collaboration. Therefore SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. While the WCPFC provides arrangements for organised and effective cooperation they are not guaranteed to bind other parties (those who choose not to be a Party or do not abide by all CMMs), therefore SG100 is not met.

Chinese Taipei The management of Chinese Taipei fishing both within its EEZ, on the high seas in the Pacific and in PICT waters is governed by a suite of legislation and Regulations. The two key Acts in relation to this analysis are; the Fisheries Act (2016) and the Distant Water Fisheries Act (2016). These Acts, which have been in operation for less than a year, are administered by the Fisheries Agency (Council of Agriculture of the Executive Yuan). The Chinese Taipei Fishery Agency, Council of Agriculture has a Deep Sea Fisheries Division which is responsible for managing all aspects of fishing operations, including issuing licenses, monitoring VMS, port inspections, recording data, monitoring quota or harvest limits, placement of observers, transshipment, enforcement (with the Coast Guard), prosecutions etc.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 241

SCS Global Services Report

The Fisheries Act is the more general of the two Acts and deals predominantly with domestic fisheries management, aquaculture and enforcement. It has a range of provisions including who can be granted a license, build a fishing vessel, work on fishing vessels, receive access rights etc. It also has chapters on recreational fishing, fishery development, conservation and management and penalty provisions.

The Distant Water Fisheries (DWF) Act (2016) is specifically tailored to the management and enforcement of Chinese Taipei vessels fishing on the high seas or a third country’s EEZ. It has as its general objectives to:  Ensure the conservation of marine fisheries resources;  Strengthen distant water fisheries management;  Curb IUU fishing; and  Improve traceability of catches and fisheries product; so as to promote the sustainable operation of distant water fisheries.

Article 5 of the DWF Act requires that the TFA develop arrangements which have regard to the precautionary principle, ecosystem based approach and the use of the best available scientific advice with the aim to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and specifically requires “Cooperation with other countries and international fisheries organizations” (from pg. 473 of FCRv2.0). Furthermore, the TFA has demonstrated in its responsiveness to the EU yellowcard26 that it is open to scrutiny, review and adaptation (GSA 4.3). However, there is also evidence that Chinese Taipei mainly, but not always, coordinates with other WCPFC parties to contribute scientific data from their purse seine fisheries for collective use by SPC on behalf of all WCPFC Parties (e.g. 2016 purse seine data received a tier I score due to absence of operational catch/effort data, Williams 2015) (GSA 4.3.2.3.). Similarly, as part of the EU yellow card process TFA has acknowledged that they haven’t historically been able to design/resources systems to fully control their DWF vessels, and that they have therefore set up a nascent auditing program that will undertake port inspections in major transshipment hubs used by Chinese Taipei vessels, under the new DWFA. As such, the SG60 is met, but there is not yet evidence that the SG80 is fully met: evidence of national performance at this level should become available as the new DWFA and its measures come into effect.

China China has a number of laws and regulations that deal with fisheries management. The overarching law controlling fishing is the Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China

26 Refers to the EU’s implementation of its IUU regulation as regards third countries. For more information, see https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/illegal_fishing/info_en. An up-to-date list of third country status may be found here: https://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/sites/fisheries/files/illegal-fishing-overview-of-existing- procedures-third-countries_en.pdf.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 242

SCS Global Services Report

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. (China Fisheries Law) 2000. This provides a range of general provisions including; covering all fishing activity including fishing on the high seas and in other State’s EEZs (joint managed fishery zones defined in the agreement concluded between the People’s Republic of China and the countries concerned) and provides guidance on domestic jurisdictional arrangements. The law vests all key functions relating to controlling fishing operations on the high seas and other EEZs with the Fisheries Authority under the State Council. It also contains specific enforcement and prosecution provisions. The law is supplemented by a number of other regulations and policies, including “Provisions for the Administration of Pelagic Fishery” and the “Program of Action on the Conservation of Living Aquatic Resources of China (Promulgated by the State Council in February 2006). In addition, important arrangements relating to how the law is implemented and who is responsible for what aspects (often shared between central and provincial authorities) are contained in the Administrative Regulation on Distant Water Fisheries, which entered into force in June 2003. These documents provide a range of provisions that constitute an effective national legal system and provide for organised and effective cooperation with other parties. Article 23 of the China Fisheries Law 2000 provides that “Those who intend to conduct fishing operation in the waters under the jurisdiction of other states shall be approved by the Fisheries Authority under the State Council and shall comply with relevant treaties and agreements signed or acceded by the People’s Republic of China and laws of states concerned.” Elsewhere reference is made to fulfilling China’s international obligations with the “Program for Action” providing that “.... the relevant obligations set out in international treaties and regulations that the government of China signed or acceded to should be responsibly fulfilled”. The 2003 Regulations provide more detailed arrangements, including licensing and reporting arrangements. These arrangements, together with reducing fishing capacity, science-based fishing limits and broader ecosystem requirements, should deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. There is also evidence that China reliably coordinates with other WCPFC parties to contribute scientific data from their purse seine fisheries for collective use by SPC on behalf of all WCPFC Parties (consistent Level III scores for data provision, Williams, 2015) (GSA 4.3.2.3.). While the team received evidence that prosecutions of Chinese vessels do systematically occur, are publicly available once sanctioned, and are taken seriously, it is not clear that China is meeting all of its cooperative obligations with WCPFC parties by exerting enforcement measures capable of apprehending its own vessels in international waters, or how it uses specific national provisions/in situ monitoring to assure compliant behavior commensurate with the scale of its numerous international vessels fishing in high seas fisheries or fishing in third party EEZs. As such, the SG60 is met but evidence received has yet to fully support a score of SG 80.

Resolution of disputes

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 243

SCS Global Services Report

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. b Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism for the law to a transparent law to a transparent resolution of legal disputes mechanism for the mechanism for the arising within the system. resolution of legal disputes resolution of legal disputes which is considered to be that is appropriate to the effective in dealing with context of the fishery and most issues and that is has been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA. Met? Y (All) Y (All) N (All) Justific ation In relation to the UoA there are two management systems where disputes could arise and may need to be addressed and resolved - the WCPFC and the national flag state management system. Predominant is the WCPFC system because it develops and implements binding CMMs that Members are then required to implement in domestic legislation. Once these arrangements are implemented in domestic legal frameworks most disputes would centre on individual fishers or vessels not abiding by the national law. This would mainly then be an enforcement issue domestically: it would be rare that disputes for international fisheries would use national-level dispute resolution mechanisms. Therefore, the management system is evaluated for this scoring issue. The WCPFC dispute resolution mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. Essentially, this Article implements the dispute settlement arrangements established in the UNFSA and binds all WCPFC Members to those arrangements whether or not they are Parties to the UNFSA. These arrangements are set out in Part VIII of the Agreement where Article 30 set out the Procedures for the Settlement of Disputes. These arrangements mirror the provisions of Part XV of UNCLOS. The UNFSA/UNCLOS dispute settlement mechanism also applies to the Nauru Agreement, the Palau Arrangement and the VDS by virtue of the fact that all Parties to these Agreements have ratified both UNCLOS and the UNFSA. The Palau Arrangement sets out a general dispute settlement mechanism in Article 8 for issues related to the purse seine fishery and the VDS. The WCPFC has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two- chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. Article 20 (with details in Annex 2) of the Convention allows for the establishment of a Panel to review decisions of the Commission in certain defined circumstances. These are: a) The decision is inconsistent with the provisions of this Convention, the Agreement or the 1982 Convention; or b) The decision unjustifiably discriminates in form or in fact against the member concerned.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 244

SCS Global Services Report

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. This review process has not been used to date. Under Article 21 of the Convention, the Commission is required to promote transparency in its decision-making processes and other activities. Independent observers, including IGOs and NGO can participate in committee and commission meetings and are able to observe discussions. Article 21 states that “Such intergovernmental organizations and non-governmental organizations shall be given timely access to pertinent information subject to the rules and procedures which the Commission may adopt”. Observers are also allowed to make presentations to members, subject to approval of the Chairperson. However not all sessions of all meetings are open to observers. The WCPFC has well defined arrangements for consideration of proposals prior to decisions being taken. Decisions can take the form of binding Conservation and Management Measures or non-binding resolutions. Commission meetings are held annually and are supported by annual Scientific Committee and Technical and Compliance Committee meetings. Member and observers can attend these meetings but may not be able to participate in all sessions. Non-parties to the Convention can apply to become Co-operating Non-members, and are required to implement binding arrangements adopted by the WCPFC. This system is transparent in that it makes sure that all members are fully informed of the issues under consideration and are able to participate in informed discussion prior to a decision being taken. Any disputes resolved through the WCPFC meeting system would still not necessarily be entirely transparent in the sense that how a resolution is reached may not be fully reported (Medley and Powers 2015). WCPFC systems meet SG60 and SG80 requirements, however SG100 is not met because the WCPFC dispute and review arrangements have not been tested and proven to be effective. c Respect for rights Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost has a mechanism to has a mechanism to observe has a mechanism to generally respect the legal the legal rights created formally commit to the rights created explicitly or explicitly or established by legal rights created explicitly established by custom of custom of people or established by custom of people dependent on dependent on fishing for people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood food or livelihood in a fishing for food and in a manner consistent with manner consistent with the livelihood in a manner the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC Principles consistent with the Principles 1 and 2. 1 and 2. objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y (All) Y (All) N (All)

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 245

SCS Global Services Report

In relation to the UoA, the primary management system where legal rights are created explicitly or established by custom for people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood is the WCPFC. The Convention establishes safeguards and recognizes the rights of communities dependent on fishing for food or their livelihoods. In addition, the nature of fishing undertaken by vessels in this UoA is one of vessels from distant water fishing nations fishing for industrial tuna stocks and operating on the high seas or within EEZs where traditional fishing arrangements and areas are safeguarded. The WCPF Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within its framework for sustainability. The Convention further requires that the needs of SIDs, territories and possessions, and coastal communities dependent on stocks including those taken in the fishery be recognised in the allocation of catch or effort (Art 10 (3) and Resolution 2008-01) and their capacity strengthened (see CMM 2013-06 Conservation and Management Measure on the criteria for the consideration of conservation and management proposals and CMM 2013-07 Conservation and Management Measure on the special requirements of Small Island Developing States and Territories). Article 30 of the Convention further provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC. To date, the Commission has not allocated fishing rights but has sought and received external advice on allocation mechanisms and options. Further, Article 30 of the Convention provides for recognition of the interests of small scale and artisanal fishers within the overall management framework in the WCPFC Convention. The Convention explicitly recognizes the rights of subsistence, small-scale and artisanal fishers and fishworkers, as well as indigenous people in developing States Parties, particularly small island developing States Parties, and territories and possessions. The WCPFC has an explicit relationship with the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency, which represents the interests of the independent island States in the region. These interests demonstrably protect their people’s traditional rights to these resources. The WCPFC Performance Review identified the ambiguity in the Convention concerning consistent management throughout oceanic, territorial and archipelagic waters and a lack of criteria for allocating fishing quotas as legal issues to resolve (Medley and Powers 2015). National fisheries legislation and management strategies contained in tuna management plans for PNA members have strong mechanisms to protect the interests of traditional and small-scale fishers, as described by Banks et al. (2011). WCPFC has a management system that outlines and seeks to observe the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 246

SCS Global Services Report

UNCLOS; UNFSA; WCPFC Convention; FFA Convention; Nauru Agreement; Banks et al. 2011; Medley and Powers 2015; PASAI 2013; Morison and McLoughlin 2016; MSFCMA; WCPF Convention Implementation Act; Chinese Taipei Fisheries Act 2016; Chinese Taipei References Distant Water Fisheries Act 2016; China Fisheries Law 2000; Chinese Provisions for the Administration of Pelagic Fishery (China); Program of Action on the Conservation of Living Aquatic Resources of China; National plans and laws; WCPFC Meeting Reports.

USA 80 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CH 75 TW 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 7 (China): Provide evidence of an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. 7 and 8 Condition 8 (Chinese Taipei): Provide evidence of an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 247

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Regional Organisations and individuals involved in the management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction at the WCPFC, PNA and national levels, as well as support organisations FFA and SPC. The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states (in particular, Articles 23 – Obligations of members of the Commission and 24 – Flag State duties) and the key committees formed under Commission control (Scientific Committee and Technical and Compliance Committee). CMMs provide clear requirements for such things as sharing information, meeting obligations, conservation measures, and applying appropriate levels of surveillance and enforcement. There are extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the PNA, and FFA and other regional & international fora and national levels, including consultation with bilateral partners and domestic stakeholders. FFA plays an important role as a conduit for Pacific nations.

Flag States At the flag State level, functions, roles and responsibilities are defined by legislation, policy and processes, these are set out in more detail in 3.1.1a. The level of detail varies

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 248

SCS Global Services Report

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 depending on the flag, as does potentially the level of involvement and understanding at the individual company/vessel level. The USA arrangements are the most formalized with the Advisory Committee set up under the WCPF Convention that feeds into management positions as well as the formal role and stakeholder involvement in the WPRFMC. This meets the SG100 level. Taiwan and China both have established arrangements that involve industry associations and individual stakeholders. These are built into government processes but it is unclear if all areas of responsibility and interaction are explicitly defined and well understood. Taiwan and China would therefore meet the SG80 level, only. At national and international levels the functions, roles and responsibilities of organisations involved in the management processes are explicitly defined and well understood for key areas of responsibility. SG 60, SG 80 requirements are met for Taiwan and China. The USA and WCPFC meet SG 100 level as functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. b Consultation processes Guidep The management system The management system The management system ost includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information from seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant the main affected parties, information, including local information, including local including local knowledge, knowledge. The knowledge. The to inform the management management system management system system. demonstrates consideration demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. of the information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Yes (All) Yes USA No (All) No CH and TW Justific ation Key management decisions in relation to this Scoring Issue are taken at the regional level (WCPFC) with members (flag and coastal States) required to implement agreed decisions. Members can feed into the management system by providing data, preparing proposals and contributing to the discussion/decision process. As part of this process, at the SG 80, Members also need to have transparent domestic systems in place (GSA 4.4.1) which solicit and assess “relevant information” which is then built into regional management system consideration/decisions and that feeds back out of regional management processes into domestic measures. GSA4.1.1 also requires that information obtained provides input “into a broad range of decisions, policies and practices within the management system” and this includes domestic management arrangements (as necessary). Flag state processes to transparently input “relevant information” in both of the above processes are

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 249

SCS Global Services Report

Regional The management/decisions making system of the WCPFC involves annual meetings of the Commission, which are proceeded by meetings of the two key subsidiary committees – the Scientific Committee and the Technical and Compliance Committee. There are also extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes through the PNA and FFA at the regional level. All those with an interest in the fishery are able to participate in these meetings (except for some agenda items at TCC meetings). At the PNA level there is also the opportunity for local knowledge/information from the PNA FIMS system to provide near real time input into management. These processes regularly seek and accept relevant information in relation to the management of the fishery and the outcomes of these processes demonstrate consideration of the information. For example, scientific reports state exactly what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information that may be rejected. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. This is evidenced by management decisions that involve the setting of binding catch limits that may involve trade-offs between different fleets or species. Aspects of decisions taken by the TCC also lack transparency and it is not possible to understanding how certain information is used or not used. The WCPFC management system seeks and accepts relevant information and demonstrates that this information is considered in decision making, therefore SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met at the regional level. However, SG 100 is not met because the management system cannot demonstrate consideration of all the information or explain how it uses such information in decisions across all responsible jurisdictions and a variety of management and enforcement decisions.

Flag States At the flag state level the systems for generating, accepting and acting on information transparently vary.

USA As outlined above in SIa, the USA system is the most comprehensive with the Advisory Committee set up under the WCPF Convention that feeds into management positions as well as the formal role and stakeholder involvement in the WPFRMC. These arrangements provide a clear, written, transparent framework for soliciting and assessing relevant information therefore SG60 and SG80 requirements are met for the USA.

China and Taiwan

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 250

SCS Global Services Report

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 The situation in Taiwan and China is less clear. To meet SG80 requirements there are two key requirements; i) the management system must have processes that “regularly seek and accept relevant information” and ii) the “management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained”. This is assessed both for input to regional arrangements and domestic management. While there is evidence that non-formalized but longstanding consultative processes do occur in Taiwan and similar evidence that pre WCPFC meetings occur in China, providing an opportunity for certain stakeholders to be involved. It is neither clear nor transparent (sensu GSA 4.4.1), the extent to which these systems regularly seek and accept “relevant information”, where this requirement is considered to apply to both WCPFC decision-making frameworks and domestic policy- making. Evidence that consultation is implemented in Taiwan was received in the form of anonymized participant lists associated with annual stakeholder meetings preceding WCPFC meetings. Information was also provided for China showing the process by which consultation is conducted leading to a country position on changes to management arrangements. However, for both Taiwan and China, documentation in the form of policies or procedures were not available, that define how particular stakeholders are contacted or why by the competent authority, or for what matters or how often (regularity), nor are generalized minutes or transparent records of consulted participants available. It is not clear whether these arrangements are formalized in policy or legislation. It is also unclear if they can be initiated at any time, rather than just in the lead up to the WCPFC annual meeting. Therefore, there is evidence of the management system obtaining local stakeholder input ahead of WCPFC meetings as described above (meeting the SG60). However, it is difficult to understand transparently how and from whom stakeholder input is sought, with what regularity (the requirement for SG80). In terms of the second half of clause in the SG80 criteria- i) information being accepted as well as point ii) the extent to which management decisions demonstrate consideration of the information obtained- the team could not find evidence to support these requirements. The team looked for evidence in official documents to explain stakeholder information that was considered and used or not used in decision-making at either the national level, or why some forms of information versus others may be passed forward by the competent authority at the regional levels, but this was not available. To meet the SG80 there is not necessarily an expectation that sensitive trade-offs made in confidential management discussions would be publicly available, but that general reasoning and evidence of using stakeholder input is apparent. SG60 requirements are met for Taiwan and China, however the higher-level requirements at the SG80 of demonstrating the regularity of stakeholder consultation opportunities and transparency to demonstrate that information is sought, accepted and considered, are not met. c Participation Guidep The consultation process The consultation process ost provides opportunity for all provides opportunity and encouragement for all interested and affected

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 251

SCS Global Services Report

Regional The WCPFC has a comprehensive governance structure that provides for Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members. It also allows observers (intergovernmental and non-government) to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the SC, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee (although they are restricted from some sections of some of these meetings). All relevant Small Island Developing States are members or participating territories and additional access and support is provided through the participation of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency. Attendance at Commission and related meetings is comprehensive, and logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance, meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management. Participation in PNA meetings is open to Nauru agreement parties, to FFA members and observers, including industry partners and NGOs, on application to the PNA Secretariat.

Flag states Individual flag State participation varies depending on national consultative processes.

USA For the USA, the MSA (Section 302(g)) directs the Councils to ‘establish, maintain, and appoint members to committees and advisory panels’, and specifies the roles and responsibilities of the individuals involved in the management process. There is an advisory body comprised of 15-20 “individuals from various groups concerned with the fisheries covered by the WCPFC Convention.” Individuals/companies can apply to be part of the USA Government delegation. At the national fishery management level, the WPFMC holds three regular meetings per year that are open to the public. Closed meetings may be held upon occasion, but minutes are taken and shared. There are additional conferences and meetings held by the Council Coordination Committee (CCC). The USA consultation processes meet the SG80 requirements.

Taiwan

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 252

SCS Global Services Report

This information suggests that when CMMs are proposed, the Taiwan Fishery Agency (TFA) and the Overseas Fishery Department of Council (OFDC) summarize existing CMMs, any related meeting reports published on WCPFC website about the change of CMMs and new proposed CMMs. This occurs one month before any WCPFC Regular Meeting Commission. In this period before a Commission meeting, the TFA and OFDC gather all related parties, such as Purse-Seiner Association, Tuna Association, and Longline Association to discuss and gather all opinions in order to attempt to achieve a common stances on proposals, that can then become a national position to be addressed by TFA and OFDC in WCPFC on behalf of Taiwan. After the WCPFC meeting and in order to adopt the CMM into Taiwan domestic regulations, the Deep Sea Water division of TFA under the Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan (central government) and overseas Fisheries Development Council of the Republic of China will propose the adoption of CMMs into Taiwanese domestic legislation. The Executive Yuan will send the proposal to the Legislative Yuan to carry out examination and revision. After passing the regulation, the Council of Agriculture, under Executive Yuan, will be assigned to establish the policy and procedures associated with the regulation. The team received records of prior notices to members of industry.

When new regulations are proposed, the assessment team was told that domestic law obliges the TFA to provide a pre-notice, for a period of 3-4 weeks, for the public to provide input on changes in legislation, which are then considered by the agency. No evidence was provided demonstrating how nascent legislation arising from CMMs is open to stakeholder consultation: the team did receive evidence that consultation on the new Distant Water Fisheries Act received stakeholder input which was diverse and included members of industry, academia and eNGOs. There does not appear to be an obligation on the part of the agency to provide explanation of what is, or is not decided (see SIb), based on stakeholder inputs or why.

China Specific fisheries documentation regarding formal consultative processes for China as they pertain to national stakeholder involvement was not provided. Anecdotal explanations and evidence from WCPFC meetings suggests China has developed consultation arrangements prior to WCPFC meetings that provide opportunity for interested and affected parties to be

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 253

SCS Global Services Report

For both China and Taiwan, based on the onsite visit, there was anecdotal reports that interested parties have the opportunity to participate in consultation processes. Documentation was received to support these assertions as described. Formal arrangements are demonstrably in place at the WCPFC/PNA level to facilitate effective engagement. Chinese and Taiwanese authorities both described processes to engage with interested parties prior to meetings, in formulating positions on CMMs, and that delegations include government, non-government and industry groups. The USA has more formal arrangements that ensure all interested parties have the opportunity to be involved in these processes and that all parties are able to understand clearly how consultation occurs. Therefore, while there is some range in performance, the fundamental SG 80 requirements are met at the flag level for all nation state fleets. At the regional level, arrangements do facilitate and encourage effective engagement, thereby meeting SG100 level, while the SG 100 is not yet met at the national level because it is not clear that flag States actively encourage and facilitate all interested and affected parties in consultation and meeting processes. Because the regional arrangements do not compensate fully for the deficiencies at the national level, the SG100 is not awarded overall.

WCPFC, SC and TCC meeting records; WCPFC Rules of Procedure and flag State legislation References and policy. USA 85 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: CH 75 TW 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 9 (China): Provide evidence to demonstrate that clear and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels. 9 and 10 Condition 10 (Taiwan): Provide evidence to demonstrate that clear and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 254

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guidep Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives ost guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, that guide decision-making, consistent with the MSC consistent with MSC consistent with MSC fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the fisheries standard and the precautionary approach, are precautionary approach are precautionary approach, are implicit within management explicit within management explicit within and required policy. policy. by management policy. Met? Y (All) Y (All) Partial (All)

Justific GSA 4.5 states that ation

“The emphasis of this PI is on the presence or absence of long term objectives at the broader management level, i.e., the objectives of the management agency for all UoAs under its control. Where UoAs fall under dual control (e.g., internationally managed UoAs where management falls to both a national agency and a bilateral/multilateral agreement or organisation, or federally managed UoAs which have some provincial or state management component), the subject of PI 3.1.3 should be the wider organization”. Furthermore, GSA 4.5 also states: “This PI forms an important part of the overall understanding of the use or otherwise of a precautionary approach in the UoA but is not concerned with the operational implementation of the precautionary approach within the ‘day-to-day’ management of the UoA itself.”

In relation to the UoA and the fishery being considered, the long-term objectives that guide decision-making consistent with MSC fisheries standards and the precautionary approach are therefore those established by the WCPFC. Arrangements in PNA waters are required to implement binding WCPFC CMMs and are thus be consistent with the explicit WCPFC objectives. Flag States are also required to fully apply all binding CMMs implemented by the WCPFC. The WCPF Convention provides clear long-term objectives that guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach. The Convention requires that Commission be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and does not use the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (Medley and Powers 2015). This approach is explicit within applicable WCPFC CMMs, however it is not clear that the precautionary approach has been fully applied in the past. Precautionary LRPs have been set and CMMs updated but these actions have not for example to date sufficiently reduced exploitation levels on bigeye stocks (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017).

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 255

SCS Global Services Report

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are PI 3.1.3 consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. As indicated in Banks et al. (2011), the Nauru agreement (the core PNA instrument) does not explicitly require objectives consistent with the precautionary approach and other important principles that are required to be applied under the WCPF Convention. While not explicit, these are implicit as the PNA rely on healthy and sustainable stocks to underpin domestic management arrangements and economic returns. PNA members have all ratified the UNFSA, which requires the application of the precautionary approach and all commit to fully implement WCPFC CMMs. Overall, there are explicit objectives incorporating the precautionary approach and ecosystem-based management that meet the MSC fisheries standards in WCPFC management arrangements, meeting SG 60 and SG 80. However, there are elements of the management system where it is not yet clear that the precautionary approach is applied in practice across all stocks thus SG 100 is not fully met and a score of 90 awarded. Banks et al. 2011, Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017, Palau Agreement, Nauru Agreement, WCPF References Convention. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 256

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guidep Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and ost broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and long- achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving term objectives, which are expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed by demonstrably consistent Principles 1 and 2, are MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, with achieving the implicit within the fishery- are explicit within the outcomes expressed by specific management fishery-specific MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, system. management system. are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y (All) Y (All) Partial (All) Justific ation This PI requires that the management system have specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed in MSC’s Principles 1 and 2 and seeks to establish whether these objectives are implicit, explicit and/or well defined and measurable. The key focus remains the regional level arrangements, as this is where fisheries management arrangements of the fishery are established. The WCPFC is responsible for the sustainability and management of target stocks and for considering and minimizing the impact of the fishery on ecosystem components. The primary focus is therefore the WCPFC Tropical Tuna CMMs as implemented by PNA arrangements and by flag States. There are a large number of WCPFC CMMs that relate directly to P1 and P2 outcomes, these cover target, bycatch and ecosystem outcomes. CMMs are developed and endorsed by the Commission pursuant to the requirements of the Convention and the advice from both the SC and TCC and aim to provide explicit outcomes. For example CMM 2016-01 (the Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean) includes explicit and measurable operational objectives for all three key tuna species. CMM 2016-01 incorporates high seas purse seine effort limits and requires the establishment of limits for non-PNA Pacific Island Parties. In this regard it covers all the fishing for the UoA target species. WCPFC short and long-term objectives are consistent with achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, meeting SG 60 and SG 80 requirements and this is consistent with other current MSC assessments of the skipjack and yellowfin tuna fisheries. The emphasis of objectives in WCPFC CMM’s focus on ecological versus direct social/economic objectives, consistent with guidance in GSA 4.7. Although aspects of the SG100 requirements may be met, for example with the explicit

incorporation of FMSY as a measurable default target reference point in recent CMMs, considering the deficiencies in the harvest strategy and control rules for skipjack and yellowfin (See PIs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2) and bigeye, it cannot be concluded that well defined and measurable objectives are applied throughout the specific fishery management system. A partial score of 90 is therefore awarded.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 257

SCS Global Services Report

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to PI 3.2.1 achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. WCPF Convention; WCPFC CMMs; Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017 and Morison and McLoughlin References 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 258

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guidep There are some decision- There are established ost making processes in place decision-making processes that result in measures and that result in measures and strategies to achieve the strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. fishery-specific objectives. Met? Yes (All) Yes (All) Justific According to FCRv2.0 ation “The focus for this PI is on the decision-making processes themselves, and if they actually produce measures and strategies within the fishery-specific management system. It is not an evaluation of the quality of those measures and strategies as this is covered elsewhere in the tree structure under P1 and P2 (GSA 4.8)”…. “Established” decision-making processes should be understood to mean that there is a process that can be immediately triggered for fisheries-related issues, the process has been triggered in the past and has led to decisions about sustainability in the fishery”

In this fishery this Scoring Issue again relates primarily to the role and operations of the WCPFC as it is the body tasked with developing and implementing management arrangements. The WCPFC effectively sets the arrangements that result in measures and strategies being developed aimed at achieving fishery-specific objectives. The decision-making processes have resulted in a comprehensive set of CMMs and strategies to achieve the specific objectives for the purse seine fishery. PNA and flag States are required to implement binding CMMs developed by the Commission. At the Commission level, the Convention provides direct guidance on decision-making, review of decisions and dispute settlement. Decision-making is generally open and seeks to use the best available information with advice being channeled via the SC and TCC. Decisions are documented. Decision-making by the Commission is by consensus; however, if consensus cannot be reached a system of voting, as detailed in the Convention, can be applied (See Section 3.5.1 of the background). The Convention also provides clear guidance in relation to overarching fisheries management arrangements, which requires that the precautionary approach be applied consistent with Articles 5 and 6 as well as Annex II of the UNFSA. The Convention also requires the use the best scientific information available and CMMs be based on ecosystem based fisheries management. Decision-making processes relating to fishery objectives are therefore well documented, and in most cases assumed to be established at the WCPFC level although certain aspects of decision-making that could become necessary based on poor stock status or

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 259

SCS Global Services Report

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. conservation concerns have yet to be triggered, given that WCPFC is a relatively new management structure. Certainly aspects of measures and strategies related to data collection and review as well as the production and updating of stock assessments and relevant management measures and strategies to achieve fishery-specific objectives are established. Therefore, both SG 60 and SG 80 are met. b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guidep Decision-making processes Decision-making processes Decision-making processes ost respond to serious issues respond to serious and respond to all issues identified in relevant other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. Met? Yes (All) Yes – USA No (All) No – TW and CH Justific ation Key decision making for this fishery occurs at the regional level, with WCPFC being at the highest level and PNA one level below. Flag States have an important role in these two levels of decision-making and a further requirement to respond to serious and other important issues within their fleets, by bringing such domestic issues to the WCPFC for consideration in the applicable regional decision-making processes or dealing with them at the domestic level if they are not regional level issues.

Regional WCPFC decision-making processes allow consideration of serious and important issues through its committees (SC and TCC) and at the Commission itself. Stock assessments and studies presented at the SC identify serious issues, such as overfishing (e.g. Bigeye tuna) at the regional level. These issues are addressed through agreed CMMs, for example 2016-01 (the Conservation and Management Measure for Bigeye, Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean). The system allows Commission members to be fully informed of the issues under consideration and enable participation in informed decision- making. The Commission can be shown to react to important issues in a transparent manner. The timeliness of decision-making is less clear and to some extent this is a result of the governance arrangements applying to cooperative regional fisheries management (consensus decision making, annual meetings etc.). Within this context, the WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted in a suite of CMMs and strategies to respond to sustainability issues and to achieve the specific objectives in the purse seine fishery. The PNA has established effective decision-making processes which respond to issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation. All PNA members have management plans that are applied at the national level. Importantly, the PNA

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 260

SCS Global Services Report

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. management system is underpinned by a custom-made fishery information system, the Fisheries Information Management System (FIMS) that enhances the decision-making system and allows for near real-time decisions. This system (used by fishery observers) as well as the VMS system are effective tools accessible to members and managed through the PNA office as well as linked to the FFA and WCPFC. Decision-making processes at the WCPFC and PNA level respond to serious and other important issues in a timely manner indicating SG 60 and SG 80 are met.

Flag States USA At the flag State level, the need to respond to serious and other important issues will vary, as will responses to these issues. At the regional level, flag States are part of the system which identifies serious and important issues and they participate in decision at the WCPFC to address these issues. At a national level, while there may be some regional issues identified, it is more likely flag States will need to respond to fleet-specific issues. The USA has processes to respond to serious and other important issues and to allow for consultation and participation in both regional decision-making and fleet issues via the WPRFMC and the stakeholder Advisory Committee set up as part of the WCPFC Implementation Act. These arrangements allow the USA to respond to serious and other important regional and domestic issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner. This occurs via publically available meeting agendas, minutes of meetings and meeting outcomes published on the websites of the WPRFMC (http://www.wpcouncil.org/meetings-2/) and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC) (https://www.pcouncil.org/council-operations/council-meetings/past-meetings/). At the flag State level the USA arrangements also would meet the SG60 and SG80 levels.

China and Taiwan The situation for Taiwan and China is less clear. Evidence was not received to indicate that it is clear and well documented that responsive (transparent, timely, adaptive) domestic decision-making arrangements are in place to respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation. Evidence of consultation processes to support decision-making relevant to the fishery management system are described under SI 3.1.2b. The assessment team received evidence of Taiwanese and Chinese pre-meeting arrangements that provide one process for consultation on WCPFC issues prior to decisions being made at the regional level to develop a national position on proposed CMMs. Both State’s meeting delegations provide for participation by a range of stakeholders in regional decision making as participants at the WCPFC. This is considered sufficient to support the conclusion that the domestic management system is equipped to respond to serious issues as prioritized for WCPFC consideration, where decisions and wider implications are taken into account in the regional context (i.e. at WCPFC meetings) in a sufficiently transparent manner. As noted in SI 3.1.2b, it is not clear whether these arrangements are formalized in policy or legislation. It is also unclear if they can be initiated at any time, rather than just in the lead up to the WCPFC annual meeting. It is therefore not clear whether the domestic fishery

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 261

SCS Global Services Report

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. management systems of Taiwan and China are structured to respond to serious and other important issues that may be identified by domestic stakeholders outside of the annual WCPFC pre-meeting or that apply to domestic policymaking relevant to the fishery specific management system. Together, then, it cannot be said that Taiwan and China have arrangements that are as well-developed or responsive (transparent, timely, adaptive) as regional processes, nor that national measures routinely apply to serious and other important domestic (flag State) issues, so only SG60 is met.

None of the jurisdictions have decision-making process that respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, so SG100 is not met for any of the flag states. c Use of precautionary approach Guidep Decision-making processes ost use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Yes (All) Justific ation As with SI 3.2.2a, assessment of this Scoring Issue is primarily related to the processes and management decisions taken at the fishery specific management level – therefore the focus is WCPFC as the institution responsible for fishery management measures. The role of the PNA and flag States is essentially to ensure agreed CMMs and management arrangements are implemented. The WCPF Convention requires that Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members of the Commission, directly and through the Commission, apply the precautionary approach. The Convention, in its compliance with UNFSA requirements, requires that Commission be more cautious when information is uncertain, unreliable or inadequate and does not use the absence of adequate scientific information as a reason for postponing or failing to take conservation and management measures (Medley and Powers 2015). In all cases, decisions are required to be based on the best scientific information available per the WCPF Convention text, and the Commission makes adequate provision for this to be achieved. Banks et al. (2011) concluded in the initial PNA MSC assessment that at the PNA level it is clear that the best available information is used for decision- making, but there is a lack of clarity in the links between decisions on the VDS and the requirements of WCPFC the best available scientific information be used. A condition was set in relation to this issue. The 2nd surveillance audit for the PNA fishery (Scott & Stokes, 2013) examined progress against this condition and concluded that the Client Action Plan had sufficiently addressed this shortcoming and that SG 80 requirements are met for that fishery (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017). Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2017) indicate that the PNA process, both within their own systems as well as the conditions set by the previous MSC certification, have evolved positively. Timely decisions are made using the integrated fishery information system. While the precautionary approach has not been explicitly adopted by the PNA, member

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 262

SCS Global Services Report

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. commitments to the WCPFC demonstrate an implicit commitment to the precautionary approach in management of the purse seine fishery. Based on the above information it is evident that decision-making processes for the WCPFC and PNA are based on precautionary approach and use the best available information, meeting SG 80. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guidep Some information on the Information on the fishery’s Formal reporting to all ost fishery’s performance and performance and interested stakeholders management action is management action is provides comprehensive generally available on available on request, and information on the fishery’s request to stakeholders. explanations are provided performance and for any actions or lack of management actions and action associated with describes how the findings and relevant management system recommendations emerging responded to findings and from research, monitoring, relevant recommendations evaluation and review emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Yes (All) Yes (All) No (All) Justific The highest level of accountability for this fishery rests with the WCPFC as the body ation responsible for the overall management of the resource and as the “decision making” entity. Information and recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity are published formally. Papers and reports from WCPFC plenary sessions, the SC and the TCC are also published formally and are publicly available on the Commission’s website. These papers and reports provide a good level of transparency, showing how scientific and other information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission. As part of this process, each year the TCC receives a two-part Annual Report from each Member. The purpose of this report is to provide to the Commission with information on fisheries, research and statistics during the preceding calendar year (Part 1), and management and compliance issues since the previous report (Part 2). National Part 2 reports are not publicly available. This reporting process represents good practice. However, while reports are available, it is not clear that they represent all the information that is used in decision-making. There is no formal, detailed explanation linking the information provided to the decision that results. In an international context it is recognized that it is very difficult to give full explanations for all decisions, since this might undermine co-operation. Decisions are often negotiated outcomes with the trade-offs not always apparent.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 263

SCS Global Services Report

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Overall, SG 60 and SG 80 requirements are met at the WCPFC level, however, not all information is publicly available (National Part 2 Reports) and information is not comprehensive for all elements of the management system or available to all interested stakeholders, therefore SG100 is not met. e Approach to disputes Guidep Although the management The management system or The management system or ost authority or fishery may be fishery is attempting to fishery acts proactively to subject to continuing court comply in a timely fashion avoid legal disputes or challenges, it is not with judicial decisions rapidly implements judicial indicating a disrespect or arising from any legal decisions arising from legal defiance of the law by challenges. challenges. repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Yes Yes No Justific The primary management system in relation to this Scoring Issue is the WCPFC. The ation Commission is the overarching management authority; it sets management arrangements and seeks to assess compliance by Members with the arrangements. It also has dispute resolution and review arrangements which have not as yet been used. WCPFC Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members are party to all decisions at the WCPFC as they can participate in the SC, the TCC, and WCPFC annual meetings where regional level final decisions are taken. Disputes/disagreements are typically resolved at WCPFC annual meetings. Members, Participating Territories and Cooperating Non-members are all bound by WCPFC CMMs. The Commission has a consensus-based decision-making process, with provision for a two- chambered voting process requiring a 75% majority in both chambers if all efforts to reach a decision by consensus have been exhausted. As such it meets SG 60 and SG80 requirements. As established in 3.1.1 b. the WCPFC dispute resolution mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention. Essentially, this Article implements the dispute settlement arrangements established in the UNFSA/UNCLOS and binds all WCPFC Members to those arrangements whether or not they are Parties to the UNFSA. To date there have been no legal challenges to the management system at the regional level and the Commission has not sought to proactively deal with management issues which may cause legal challenges. Therefore it is considered that this S.I. does not meet SG100 requirements.

Banks et al. 2011, Medley & Powers 2015, Scott & Stokes 2013, Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017, References WCPF Convention 80 – USA OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 - CH 75 – TW

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 264

SCS Global Services Report

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes PI 3.2.2 that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 11 (China): Provide evidence that Decision-making processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of 11 and the wider implications of decisions 12 Condition 12 (Taiwan): Provide evidence that Decision-making processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 265

SCS Global Services Report

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guidep Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive ost surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are implemented been implemented in the surveillance system has in the fishery and there is a fishery and has been implemented in the reasonable expectation that demonstrated an ability to fishery and has they are effective. enforce relevant demonstrated a consistent management measures, ability to enforce relevant strategies and/or rules. management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y (All) Y (All) N (All) Justific ation In relation to the UoA, the effectiveness of MCS arrangements considered in this Scoring Issue need to be considered at three levels – Regional; PNA/FFA and flag State. While the WCPFC develop and set the management and MCS measures, it is up to the PNA (at the subregional level) and flag States to ensure they fully implement and enforce agreed CMMs/management measures.

Regional At this level there is a well-developed MCS system that has demonstrated if applied diligently by Members, can enforce management arrangements. This system is underpinned by the Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS) – CMM 2015- 07. The purpose of the CMS is to ensure that Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories (CCMs) implement and comply with obligations arising under the Convention and CMMs adopted by the Commission. The CMS is designed to: (i) assess CCMs’ compliance with their obligations; (ii) identify areas in which technical assistance or capacity building may be needed to assist CCMs to attain compliance; (iii) identify aspects of conservation and management measures which may require refinement or amendment for effective implementation; (iv) respond to non-compliance through remedial options that include a range of possible responses that take account of the reason for and degree of non- compliance, and include cooperative capacity-building initiatives and, in case of serious non-compliance, such penalties and other actions as may be necessary and appropriate to promote compliance with CMMs and other Commission obligations; and (v) monitor and resolve outstanding instances of non-compliance. The CMS includes requirements relating to: (i) catch and effort limits for target species; (ii) catch and effort reporting for target species;

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 266

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. (iii) reporting including with respect to implementation of measures for non- target species; (iv) spatial and temporal closures, and restrictions on the use of fish aggregating devices; (v) authorizations to fish and the Record of Fishing Vessels, observer, VMS coverage, transshipment and the High Seas Boarding and Inspection Scheme; (vi) provision of scientific data through the Part 1 Annual Report (and its addendum) and the Scientific Data to be provided to the Commission; and; (vii) submission of the Part 2 Annual Report, including compliance with the obligations in paragraph 36, and compliance with other Commission reporting deadlines.

The annual TCC reports reflect the status of fishery compliance in the WCPFC and the extent to which CCMs not only report, but how well they comply. The TCC summary reports publicly identify member compliance (or non- compliance). The WCPFC maintains an IUU vessel list which currently lists three vessels, one of which, the Yu Fong 168, is flagged to Chinese Taipei. In a note to the WCPFC IUU Vessel list for 2017, Chinese Taipei confirmed that with respect to Yu Fong 168, the license was revoked in 2009 and the owner of the vessel has been penalized through repeated monetary punishment for violating the rules of not returning to port. Chinese Taipei further advised that the most recent information was received from Thailand’s notification to IOTC that the vessel landed their catches in the port of Phuket in the year 2013. The Regional Observer program plays an important part in the MCS system as there is a target of 100% observer coverage on purse seine vessels and observers provide a suite of important MCS information, including on the application of CMMs relating to both target and by-catch species. There is some significant uncertainty as to the achieved coverage rates, and the background of this report provides a summary of the available WCPFC information on actual coverage rates for the flag states assessed in this fishery (Table 8). The Background (see section 3.4.1) further summarizes available information on achieved coverage, noting for example that in 2014 the ROP Annual Report stated that “the Secretariat was able to verify most but not all placements, while the Secretariat ROP Section is reasonably sure 100% coverage of purse seiners occurred, the ROP section is unable to confirm positively that every purse seine vessel carried an observer during 2014” (WCPFC-TCC11-2015-RP02) and similarly in 2016 that “the Secretariat was able to verify most but not all placements and is also is unable to confirm positively that every purse seine vessel carried an observer during 2015” (WCPFC13 -2016-IP10). Ultimate responsibility for vessels fishing in the WCPFC rests with the flag State, and as outlined above, the CMS now provides detailed information on compliance or non- compliance with CMMs. The final 2016 Compliance Monitoring Report is 45 pages and provides information on both relatively minor and more serious breaches of CMMs.

PNA/FFA The FFA is the main service organisation providing MCS support for the coastal States in the WCPO. The arrangements are comprehensive and include a regional MCS strategy endorsed by Forum Fisheries Committee Ministers, (covers regional operations and cooperation), a regionally agreed benchmark level of observer coverage and at-sea and in-

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 267

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. port inspections. The FFA Surveillance Centre (RFSC) undertakes regional coordination of MCS activity and assesses the risk of non-compliance by vessels. The RFSC monitors fishing vessel activity using a combination of the Vessel Monitoring System (VMS), Automatic Identification System (AIS) and Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR). MCS arrangements are also supported by the QUAD Operational Working Group. This group comprises the aerial and naval arms of Australia, France, New Zealand and the USA who provide aerial and surface assets to assist regional surveillance. The Nauru Agreement and Te Vaka Moana Arrangement (a subregional arrangement between the Cook Islands, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Tokelau and Tonga) promote regional cooperation between parties on MCS activities. Regional (WCPFC and FFA) MCS systems includes harmonized Terms and Conditions of Access, a regional VMS system, Regional Register of Foreign Fishing Vessels and a range of regional MCS cooperation programmes, including the Niue Treaty (a multilateral treaty of members of the FFA to enhance their ability to enforce effectively their fisheries laws, and deter breaches). An important part of the overall compliance system at the sub-regional level is the effort management (VDS) implemented by PNA. While this only applies to about 60% of the fleet (PNA vessels) Blyth-Skyrme et al. believe it has proven effective. The VDS is however undergoing regular review and improvement – it remains primarily an economic management tool, indirectly linked to the long-term status and sustainability of the resource (skipjack and yellowfin primarily).

Flag States There are three flag States to consider with respect to PI 3.2.3. In the UoA, the USA has 14 vessels, Taiwan 9 vessels and China 4 vessels. All three jurisdictions have fisheries legislation which provide monitoring, control and surveillance systems to implement WCPFC CMMs. The level of system development varies depending on the jurisdiction. The USA system appears the most highly developed based on its national legislation, its relationship with the FFA, the QUAD and through the “Shiprider” scheme, its work with individual FFA members. (The Shiprider scheme enables Pacific Island nations to place local law enforcement personnel on board USA Coast Guard vessels and give the Coast Guard authority to patrol their waters and conduct vessel boardings). The USA also publishes enforcement information on the internet (see 3.2.3b for more information). Based on the information available, Taiwan’s new fisheries law appear comprehensive but is yet to be fully tested. China’s legislation is not as comprehensive as the other two flags. (see 3.1.1a for more detail). China has published a “Notice of the Ministry of Agriculture General Office on Fishing Violation of Distant Water Corporation and Fishing Vessels” which provides details of “serious measures against the corporations, fishing vessels and responsible persons that violate the law”. This is not a substantial document but it does provide information on actions taken and fines imposed. Evidence was not provided to indicate if this is published on a regular basis. Taiwan has a Distant Water Fisheries Sanction Issued List which is available on the Fishery Agency website, but not in English (as the main language used for official WCPFC documentation), impeding transparency and collaboration with other CCMs.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 268

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. All these individual flag State systems include licensing, vessel identification, the application of catch limits, data requirements, VMS, bans on transhipment at sea, the carriage of observers, allowable gear etc. In addition there are defined penalty provisions for breaches of MCS requirements (see 3.2.3 SIb for more information). In the case of Taiwan and China there is less evidence available to demonstrate that the MCS system has the ability to enforce relevant management measures. Based on this, there is evidence that all jurisdictions have monitoring, control and surveillance systems in place and have demonstrated an ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. SG60 and SG80 levels are met for the WCPFC, the PNA/FFA and the flag States. None are considered to achieve SG100.

b Sanctions Guidep Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- Sanctions to deal with non- ost compliance exist and there compliance exist, are compliance exist, are is some evidence that they consistently applied and consistently applied and are applied. thought to provide effective demonstrably provide deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y (All) Y – USA N (All) N – CH and TW Justific In relation to this Scoring Issue, the primary focus is the PNA and the flag States. While the ation WCPFC develops and implements (via Members) management and MCS arrangements, it has few if any, sanctions available to it should flag States or vessels/companies fail to abide by CMMs. The WCPFC does provide some reporting on compliance performance that could provide evidence on consistent application of sanctions, but due to a lack of transparency in noncompliance reporting and responses to noncompliance, the WCPFC CMS activities and reporting are not considered to achieve the SG80. The WCPFC CMS is described here to provide background and context.27 It is accepted that the PNA States do have a role in MCS processes as coastal States, however in terms of how this consideration is weighted for scoring purposes, it is important to acknowledge coastal state’s often extensive EEZs; their limited MCS resources, including at sea resources available to police their waters; the limited ports used for transhipment in the PNA and the low level of inspections in these ports. These constraints along with administrative arrangements between states related to infractions limit the extent to which information from PNA States could properly inform or confirm SG80 requirements - as such the primary focus of scoring remains with the flag States. The obligation of flag States to monitor and discipline their vessels is codified in ITLOS Advisory Opinion No 21 - Request for an Advisory Opinion submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), affirming that the flag State have important "due diligence" obligations. Regional

27 This weighing of flag state performance in regards to 3.2.3b aligns with harmonization discussions in July- August 2017, during which the majority of CABs considered that despite the lack of transparency at the WCPFC level, a UoA can achieve the SG80 if it can demonstrate how the deficiencies that have now been identified at the WCPFC level are accounted for by national compliance systems and procedures.

Version 4-0 (September 2017) | © SCS Global Services | Full Assessment Report MSC v2.0 Page 269

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. The WCPFC Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMS), as part of the TCC processes, is relevant to performance against this scoring issue. The TCC discusses compliance issues based on available information on infringements from observers and other sources. These discussions are held in closed session. Responses to transgressions are considered at the TCC and reported to the Commission in the Compliance Monitoring Report (WCPFC 13 Summary Report Attachment U). The Report provides a matrix of compliance with CMMs by CCM, and some progress has been demonstrated towards transparency in reporting on flag State compliance as additional detail on the compliance status of each flag State has been added in recent years. The report still does not provide information on outcomes of investigations into non-compliance, nor specific cases, such that a reader may judge whether non-compliance is dealt with consistently (SCS 2017) or provides effective deterrence. The CMS is currently not a sanctioning tool but provides information on non- compliance and may provide some deterrence in so far as flag States would not wish to be rated non-compliant or priority non-compliance over time. The only other significant tool directly available to the WCPFC is the IUU Vessel list, which is aimed at vessels presumed to have carried out IUU fishing. Where IUU fishing is detected, flag States are notified and asked to take appropriate enforcement action, including ensuring that the vessel leaves the Convention area. At present, there are three vessels on the IUU Vessel list including one flagged to a Member. This sanction appears to be consistently applied and provides effective deterrence in relation to proven IUU fishing.

PNA There are some capacity differences between the PNA and other PICTs, but weaknesses are addressed through joint initiatives and support from FFA Regional coordination as outlined in 3.2.3 SIa. However, as outlined above, the resource constraints are substantial when compared to larger and wealthier states. Each of the PNA States has a system of sanctions and some of these are in the process of transition to reflect higher risk offences and implement appropriate minimum and maximum fine schedules. Sanctions are contained in national fishery acts and range from USA$ 50,000 to USA$ 1 million (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017). Vessels are usually detained until settlement of a sanction. In a number of States, the fishery authorities may implement administrative fines. This process may not always lead to public information being available as to the nature of the offenses or the administrative penalty imposed. Blyth-Skyrme et al. (2017) report that the frequency of fines of free school purse seiners is very rare. They suggest that this is in part due to the requirement for high rates of observer coverage, and the nature of free school fishing. At the PNA level, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are applied consistently and are thought to provide effective deterrence. As such, the PNA arrangements meet SG60 and SG80 arrangements. However, given the relative small number of prosecutions under national laws it is difficult to conclude that they demonstrably provide effective deterrence and thus do not meet the SG100 level.

Flag States

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. USA The USA has an active surveillance and enforcement regime in the Pacific through its nine “Shiprider” agreements. These agreements enable Pacific nations to place local law enforcement personnel on board USA Coast Guard vessels and give the Coast Guard authority to patrol their waters and conduct vessel boardings. As well as enabling direct surveillance and enforcement action in relation to USA vessels, these arrangements also enable FFA States to undertake additional MCS activity. There is clear evidence of legal requirements being enforced by USA authorities and transcripts of legal proceedings provide evidence of the sanctions that have been implemented. The NOAA website provides evidence of fisheries enforcement cases in relation to USA vessels (from 2010) including Enforcement Decisions and Orders (see http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html) and Enforcement Charging Information (see http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office7.html). It also provides information on prohibitions, landing restrictions, and catch documentation schemes. The USA also independently reviews all its vessels’ WCPFC observer records, beyond those flagged for potential non-compliance by the WCPFC (A. Cole, pers. comm). SG60 and SG80 requirements are met in the case of the USA but it is unclear whether the available information demonstrably indicates effective deterrence so SG100 is not met.

Taiwan Chapter IV of the new Distant Water Fisheries Act provides extensive Penal Provisions in Articles 35 to 45. These provisions provide for escalating fines and/or suspension and cancellation of concessions where there are multiple and repeat offenses over a period of time. As this Act has been in operation for less than a year there is limited evidence to know if the sanctions are being consistently applied and are an effective deterrent. In an article in Focus Taiwan on 15 August 2017 (also reported in FIS Worldnews 16 August 2017), it is reported that the Government had imposed fines in 109 cases of illegal fishing involving Taiwanese deep-sea fishing vessels from January to July 2017. The article states this is in an effort to ensure the European Union removes Taiwan from a watch list of countries that have not taken sufficient action to curb IUU fishing. Most of the penalties were under the amended Fisheries Act, however 24 were fines based on the new Distant Water Fisheries Act, which came into force on 20 January 2017. An issue that needs to be resolved is the matter of the Yu Fong 168 being on the WCPFC IUU Vessel list (see 3.2.3a). While the note on the vessel list suggests that Taiwan has sought to take effective action in relation to this matter, the question remains as to why authorities have not removed the Taiwanese flag from this vessel. Article 44 of the Distant Water Fisheries Act states: Article 44: ..... “In the event that a fishing vessel whose fishing license was withdrawn pursuant to the Fisheries Act before this Act becomes effective and which is listed on the IUU fishing vessel list(s) of the international fisheries organization(s) fails to comply with the order of the competent authority to return to domestic ports within designated timeframe, the competent authority may confiscate such fishing vessel, and apply to the navigation authority for re-registry of its ownership, followed by the revocation of its registration and cancel of its certificate of nationality.” This would seem to provide a head of power to deal with the vessel and owner.

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. A translated list of sanctions relating to 36 vessels/operators was provided, however only two of these related to purse seine vessels, one related to the Taiwanese longline vessel on the WCPFC IUU Vessel list and three were foreign fishing or carrier vessels apprehended by Taiwan. The sanctions in Articles 35 to 45 suggest that it is highly likely, if they are applied consistently (similar consequences for similar offences) and at sufficiently punitive level, that they will provide an effective deterrence. It is acknowledged that the level at which sanctions are issued may vary based on the decisions of individual judges, particularly with the advent of a new Act. (In some jurisdictions, courts have judges specialized in fisheries law to assure consistent application of sanctions). In light of the fact the new Act has operated for less than a year and the limited information on prosecutions, SG60 requirements are met, however without more information on the consistent application of sanctions over time and their deterrence effect, SG80 requirements are not yet met.

China Chapter V (Articles 38 to 49) of the Chinese Fisheries Act 2000 provides details of the penalties provisions (fines and suspension/cancellation provisions and in serious cases confiscation of gear and or vessel) under the legislation. These provisions cover both wild capture fisheries and aquaculture. There do not appear to be specific provisions for high seas fisheries or fishing in third party EEZs. The sanctions available cover the key areas needed for effective enforcement, destructive fishing, fishing in violation of regulations, use of prohibited gear etc. They also include provisions relating to illegal foreign fishing within the Chinese EEZ and corruption by individuals or authorities in implementing the fisheries law. There is limited information available on whether these provisions are applied consistently and if they provide an effective deterrent, although authorities do provide public information on companies and vessel masters who have been sanctioned as a result of illegal activity. One recent report from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority said the Australian Government welcomed the news that Chinese authorities have taken action against the operator of the Chinese fishing vessel Yuan Da 19, one of three vessels found to have misreported it catch as southern bluefin tuna. The report stated Chinese authorities had terminated all of the company’s fishing licenses and banned it from engaging in deep sea fishing activities as well as imposing a USAD $300,000 fine. This action occurred following investigations instigated on information supplied by Australian and New Zealand authorities. Based on the information available, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied, SG60 requirements are therefore met. However, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude they are consistently applied and provide an effective deterrence, meaning SG80 requirements are not met. c Compliance Guidep Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of ost thought to comply with the demonstrate fishers comply confidence that fishers management system for the with the management comply with the fishery under assessment, system under assessment, management system under

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. including, when required, including, when required, assessment, including, providing information of providing information of providing information of importance to the effective importance to the effective importance to the effective management of the fishery. management of the fishery. management of the fishery. Met? Y (All) Y (All) N (All) Justific In relation to the UoA and this Scoring Issue, the appropriate management system is the ation WCPFC management system that includes the MCS arrangements implemented in the fishery. Individual flag States play an important role in ensuring arrangements are complied with at the individual fisher level and from an overall flag State performance perspective, however the overall efficiency and effectiveness of management arrangements rests with the WCPFC. All WCPFC Members and in this case the USA, Taiwan and China are bound to implement all WCPFC CMMs and any detected noncompliance with these arrangements are reported in National Part 2 Reports and annually assessed by the TCC. CCMs performance is reported in the Compliance Monitoring Report and available to the Commission. A review of the 2016 CMR indicates that identified non-compliance with CMMs by some flags and vessels remains a problem. Overall, however the information from the report suggests overall fishers comply with the management system including providing necessary information. There are generally thought to be good levels of compliance by fishers in the PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin, unassociated / non-FAD set, tuna purse seine fishery (PNAFTF) (Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017). Demonstrating this is challenging, as without intensive surveillance, evidence will always be limited. As in any fishery some level of non- compliance is expected. The WCPFC has a comprehensive MCS system in place supported by at-sea compliance monitoring undertaken through high rates of observer coverage and this is believed to minimize non-compliance and assist in identifying inaccurate reporting. The MCS system also requires that logbook and other data be supplied as part of licence requirements. VMS and regional MCS operations support the implementation of WCPFC management system. In the recent (August 2017) Operation Island Chief, a ten-day annual operation involving 10 participating FFA member nations - Fiji, FSM, Kiribati, Palau, PNG, Nauru, the Marshall Islands, the Solomon Islands, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu, 117 at sea and in-port vessel boardings were undertaken. Infringements involving four vessels - three flagged to China and one to Chinese Taipei were detected. The infringements involved non-reporting or misreporting of information, and unmarked gear and are being followed up by national authorities. While a zero percent non-compliance rate is highly desirable this is not achievable and the 3.5 percent non-compliance rate detected in this recent operation (four vessels out of 117 inspections) provides evidence that the vast majority of fishers comply with WCPFC management systems. It is noted that with respect to this recent Operation, the infringements detected involved vessels from two of the three flag States in the UoA. It is not known whether the infringing vessels are purse seine vessels. The SG80 level only requires that some evidence exists that fishers comply with the management system and provide necessary information. The CMR would seem to support that this is the case. The TCC reports, observer reports, logbook and other data requirements and regional MCS operations coordinated by FFA, provide some evidence that there is compliance with the management system. Generally, information required for effective management is being

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. supplied, although there is some evidence that the timeliness and quality could be improved. Overall SG 80 is met. At the SG 100 level it cannot be said that there is a high degree of confidence that fishers comply with all aspects of the management system. d Systematic non-compliance Guidep There is no evidence of ost systematic non-compliance. Met? Y (All) Justific The focus for this Scoring Issue is flag states at the WCPFC level. Regional arrangements ation for highly migratory fish stocks aim to involve all those with a “real interest” in the fishery and the involvement and breadth of WCPFC membership attests to this. PICTs have a particular interest in ensuring that management arrangements are as comprehensive, as robust as possible and non-compliance is minimized. The information presented in PI 3.2.3 SIa-SIc suggests that there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. The CMS report tabled at WCPFC 13 (Attachment U Appendix 2) identifies breaches by all three flag States in the UoA. While there are some breaches of compliance by the USA, there are more breaches and more flag State investigations in relation to Taiwan and China (some relate to purse seine fishing others to longline fishing activity). Often these are breaches of reporting deadlines or data not being provided in the required format. Some are more serious, for example, reporting entry and exit in management areas or not fully complying with the regional observer program. The most recent report on Scientific Data Available to the WCPFC indicated that Taiwan was ranked Tier I for not having provided operational catch and effort data for purse seine vessels to WCPFC, although other forms of data were provided (Williams, 2017). Overall however, there is no evidence at the flag State level of systematic non-compliance. It is noted that even in well-managed domestic fisheries, with effective MCS systems in place, some non-compliance will occur. The challenge of managing non-compliance is more complex at the regional level. The question is, the extent and nature of this non-compliance. The TCC 12 CMR report to the Commission in December 2016 identifies that non-compliance occurs and that the range of offences varies from minor (such as late submissions of reports), to more serious issues, such as not complying with the conditions of FAD closures or unauthorized fishing. However, there does not appear to be evidence of systematic non-compliance at either the regional or flag level and as such SG 80 is met.

CMM 2015-07; WCPFC IUU Vessel List; WCPFC13 Summary Report Attachment U; Nauru Agreement; Te Vaka Moana Arrangement; Blyth-Skyrme et al. 2017; Morison and Humberstone 2017; http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office6.html; http://www.gc.noaa.gov/enforce-office7.html; A. Cole, pers. comm; Focus Taiwan; FIS References Worldnews; http://www.afma.gov.au/chinese-authorities-impose-penalties-illegal-fishing- operators/; http://www.pina.com.fj/index.php?p=pacnews&m=read&o=24716539259929153e2a1888 43d1a4;

SCS Global Services Report

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in PI 3.2.3 the fishery are enforced and complied with. 80 – USA OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 – CH 75 – TW CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Condition 13 (China): Provide evidence that at the national level sanctions to deal with non- compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. 13 and Condition 14 (Chinese Taipei): Provide evidence that at the national level sanctions to deal with 14 non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence.

SCS Global Services Report

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 PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guidep There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in ost place to evaluate some place to evaluate key parts place to evaluate all parts of parts of the fishery-specific of the fishery-specific the fishery-specific management system. management system management system. Met? Y (All) Y (All) N (All) Justific For this Scoring Issue the fishery-specific management system considered is the ation management arrangements developed and implemented by the WCPFC, as it is the body with overall responsibility for the sustainability and management of the target stocks, and the fishery impact on non-target species and the marine ecosystem. The WCPFC has well developed arrangements to provide a range of information to the Secretariat and Commission Members, these include the Scientific Committee, and the Technical and Compliance Committee. Both these committees are established by the Convention, which sets out the functions for each. Both have key roles to play in monitoring and evaluating key parts of the fishery-specific management system. The Scientific Committee functions required it to, among other things: a. recommend a research plan; b. review the assessments, analyses, other work and recommendations prepared for the Commission by the scientific experts; c. review the results of research and analyses of target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species in the Convention Area; d. report to the Commission its findings or conclusions on the status of target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species in the Convention Area; e. in consultation with the Technical and Compliance Committee, recommend to the Commission the priorities and objectives of the regional observer programme and assess the results of that programme; f. make reports and recommendations on the conservation and management of and research on target stocks or non-target or associated or dependent species in the Convention Area. The TCC’s functions are to: a. provide the Commission with information, technical advice and recommendations relating to the implementation of, and compliance with, conservation and management measures; b. monitor and review compliance with conservation and management measures adopted by the Commission and make such recommendations to the Commission as may be necessary; and c. review the implementation of cooperative measures for monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement adopted by the Commission and make such recommendations to the Commission as may be necessary.

SCS Global Services Report

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific PI 3.2.4 management system against its objectives. There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Both Committees are made up of representatives from CCMs, technical advisors/experts and observers (both IGO and NGO). SG60 and SG80 requirements are met as there are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the fishery-specific management system. SG100 is not met as it is not clear that these arrangements cover all parts of the fishery-specific management system. b Internal and/or external review Guidep The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific ost management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular internal subject to regular internal internal review. and occasional external and external review. review. Met? Y (All) Y (All) N (All) Justific The focus of this Scoring Issue is the same as that outlined in 3.2.4 SIa that is, the WCPFC. ation The Commission has overall responsibility for developing and implementing a fishery specific management system, CCMs are bound by the arrangements in the management system and required to implement these in domestic legislation and policy. As outlined in 3.2.4 SIa the WCPFC has well developed arrangements for the regular internal review of the fishery-specific management system by virtue of the two committees established by the Convention – the Scientific Committee and the Technical and Compliance Committee. The WCPFC has commissioned one independent review of its performance which was delivered to the Commission in February 2012. The commissioning of a performance review is consistent with the approach adopted by other RFMOs and as recommended by the Kobe process. The Review Team comprised four external experts (Dr. Denzil Miller, Dr. Fábio Hazin, Mr. Ichiro Nomura and Dr. Judith Swann), and three Commission members from the European Union (Mr. John Spencer), Nauru (Hon. Min. Rolland Kun), and the Philippines (Mr. Malcolm Sarmiento). The panel composition reflected the Commission decision that the review team should include independent experts and Commission members, including SIDS representation. An independent review (MRAG, 2009) has been conducted of the Commission’s science structure and functions resulting in overhauling of the operation of the SC, the adoption of a peer review process and a number of other changes to the data and science functions. The WCPFC fishery-specific management system is subject to regular internal review via the work of the SC and TCC. There has been one external performance review of the WCPFC and a separate review of the science structure and functions. While it is acknowledged that full external performance reviews are resource intensive, it is not clear that there is a commitment to this being a regular undertaking. As such, SG 60 and SG 80 are met but SG100 is not met.

WCPF Convention; WCPFC Performance Review 2012; Independent Review of the References Commission’s Transitional Science Structure and Functions – MRAG 2009.

SCS Global Services Report

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

The RBF was not used in this assessment. See Section 4.4.3 for more information.

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Table 30. Condition 1 (Skipjack; all fleets) Performance 1.2.1a Indicator Score 70

Rationale See rationale for PI 1.2.1a: Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 Skipjack tuna – Harvest strategy All fleets: By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for Condition skipjack tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the

harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. In relation to skipjack, the milestones in the updated Proposed Revisions to Harvest Strategy Work plan (WCPFC14-2017-DP27_rev2):

2019: SC to provide advice on performance of candidate HCRs; TCC to consider the implications of candidate HCRs; Commission to consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. Score 70.

2020: As above. Score 70.

Milestones 2021: SC to provide advice on performance of candidate HCR; TCC to consider the implications of candidate HCRs; Commission to consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules; Commission to initially adopt a HCR. Score 70.

2022: Harvest Strategy for Skipjack is fully functioning and in place. Score 80.

The WCPFC workplan ends in 2021. The work towards a formal harvest strategy for skipjack is due to be in place as of 2021; a harvest strategy meeting the MSC SG80 requirements is required by Year 4, which would be the surveillance audit of 2022.

General approach to P1 conditions: The P1 conditions for each species (1.2.1 – harvest strategy, 1.2.2 – harvest control rule and tools) are linked. The harvest strategy PI considers how the various elements of a strategy work together (i.e. monitoring, stock assessment, management decision-making and implementation), while the subsequent PIs in Principle 1 consider these elements individually in more detail. In this case, a well-defined harvest control rule and associated tools for Client action plan implementation are the key missing elements of the harvest strategy for both yellowfin and skipjack.

A harvest strategy and control rule for WCPO skipjack and yellowfin is not something that WPSTA members can put in place. Therefore, the general approach that WPSTA proposes to take in addressing this condition is to lobby key organizations, particularly the UoC relevant Competent Authorities with the aim of ensuring that WCPFC puts in place a harvest strategy following the plan set out in the WCPFC14-2017-DP27 rev2: Proposed Revisions to Harvest

SCS Global Services Report

Strategy Work plan, as updated at WCPFC14 (December 2017), in keeping with the PISGs at the 80 level in the MSC Standard. WPSTA also intends to participate in MSE consultation opportunities presented by the WCPFC, whether as an entity, or as part of the relevant nation-state delegations, as these processes become more clearly defined.

Action Plan Year 1(2019) Activities: 1. WPSTA members will organize at least one meeting (in person or remote) with members of each of the three relevant WCPFC delegations to encourage them to continue supporting progress at WCPFC15 as per the agreed harvest strategy workplan. 2. WPSTA will submit a letter to each of the three delegations, prior to WCPFC15, setting out the case for a harvest strategy for skipjack and asking them to support the work of WCPFC15 to this end, in line with the agreed workplan and in keeping with MSC timeline requirements. Any discrepancies between the Workplan commitments and MSC timelines within the duration of the certificate will be clearly articulated in letters. 3. WPSTA members will make contact with members of the Scientific Committee (SC) from the three relevant countries (in person or by email, letter or other suitable means), prior to the annual meeting of the WCPFC Scientific Committee (~August 2018) to ask them to ensure that the SC provides clear advice on the performance of candidate HCRs to the Commission, as required by the workplan agreed at WCPFC14. 4. Participate in consultative MSE processes by WCPFC, as available to the WPSTA. 5. WPSTA members will make contact with members of the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) from the three relevant countries (in person or by email, letter or other suitable means), prior to the annual meeting of the WCPFC TCC (~September 2018) to ask them to ensure that the TCC provides clear advice on the implications of candidate HCRs to the Commission, as required by the workplan agreed at WCPFC14. 6. WPSTA members will submit present a letter setting out position, in advance of WCPFC15 to each of the national authorities, setting out the case for a well-defined harvest strategy and control rule for WCPO skipjack and asking delegations to ensure that progress is made according to the agreed workplan.

Auditable items for each Activity: 1. Meeting requests, agendas and summaries 2. Letter/email 3. Meeting request / agenda / summary or letter/email 4. Meeting request / agenda / summary or letter/email 5. Position letter and covering letter/email

Action Plan Year 2(2020) Activities: 1. WPSTA will conduct a review of activities and progress in Year 1. The review will evaluate which activities, in the view of WPSTA, have been most successful in raising awareness and making progress towards a harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack, and which activities, if any, have not

SCS Global Services Report

been useful. It will also evaluate other new activities which might be useful. 2. WPSTA will continue the activities in Year 1, but adapt them according to the outcome of the review exercise. Activities which have been shown by the review not to be making a useful contribution will be dropped, while any new activities suggested by the review will be added. 3. Participate in consultative MSE processes by WCPFC, as available to the WPSTA.

Auditable items: 1. Publicly available WPSTA memo setting out review and conclusions. 2. Meeting requests, agendas and summaries; letters and emails – as for Year 1 3. Evidence of MSE attendance.

Action Plan Year 3(2021) Activities: As Year 2 (by end of 2020 during the regular session meeting WCPFC 17, according to the work plan, the HCR will be adopt by per plan timeline )

Auditable items: 1. As Year 2 and the comprehensive WCPFC HCR plan. 2. Report giving evidence that the TCC has considered the implications of candidate HCRs 3. Report giving evidence that the Commission has consider the advice and adopted a HCR

End Year 3 milestone and score: At the end of Year 3, there will have been some progress towards the development of a harvest strategy for WCPO skipjack at SC, TCC then review at the Commission; e.g. a small number of candidate HCRs are being carefully evaluated, discussion are to be finalized and the a HCR to be adopted at Commission meeting in 2020. Then a harvest strategy will be in place for WCPO skipjack, including a formal HCR from 2021 onward, meeting the requirements of MSC SG80 for PI 1.2.1. Score: 80.

Action Plan Year 4 (2022) As in Year 3, if necessary.

Letters of support have been obtained from the management agencies for all flag states and from the WCPFC. Prior to the Final Report, an additional letter Consultation on of support was provided from the Bureau of Fisheries that articulates a more condition specific understanding of the conditions and action plan. This revised letter was required to be received prior to certificate issuance, per FCR 7.11.4.

Table 31. Condition 2 (Skipjack; all fleets)

Performance 1.2.2 Indicator Score 70

SCS Global Services Report

Rationale See rationale for PI 1.2.2a,b,c: Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 Skipjack tuna – Harvest control rules and tools All fleets: SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for skipjack tuna that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a Condition target level consistent with (or above) MSY. SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules for skipjack tuna are robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use for skipjack tuna are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. In relation to skipjack, the milestones in the updated Proposed Revisions to Harvest Strategy Work plan(WCPFC14-2017-DP27_rev2):

2019: SC to provide advice on performance of candidate HCRs; TCC to consider the implications of candidate HCRs; Commission to consider advice on progress towards harvest control rules. Score 70.

2020: As above. Score 70.

2022: Harvest Strategy for Skipjack is fully functioning and in place. Score 80.

General approach to P1 conditions: See under Condition 1

Client action plan

Action Plan for Years 1-3: As Condition 1

Consultation on As Condition 1 condition

Table 32. Condition 3 (Yellowfin; all fleets) Performance 1.2.1a Indicator Score 70

Rationale See rationale for PI 1.2.1a: Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.1 Yellowfin tuna – Harvest strategy Condition All fleets:

SCS Global Services Report

By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. In relation to yellowfin, the milestones in the updated Proposed Revisions to Harvest Strategy Work plan(WCPFC14-2017-DP27_rev2):

2019: SC and WCPFC discussion of management objectives for fisheries and /or stocks, and subsequent development of candidate TRPs for yellowfin. Score 70.

2020 : SC provide advice on potential Target Reference Points for yellowfin; Commission agree a TRP for yellowfin. SC to provide advice on performance of candidate HCRs; Commission to consider advice on progress towards HCR. Milestones Score 70.

2021: SC to provide advice on performance of candidate HCRs; TCC consider the implications of candidate HCRs; Commission consider advice on progress toward HCRs. Score 70.

2022: same as year 3; adopt a HCR. Score 80.

The WCPFC workplan ends in 2021. By then, the work towards a formal harvest strategy for yellowfin will be adopted; a harvest strategy meeting the MSC SG80 requirements is required by Year 4.

General approach to P1 conditions: See Condition 1

Action Plan Year 1 Activities: 1. WPSTA members will organize at least one meeting (in person or remote) with members of each of the three relevant WCPFC delegations to encourage them to continue supporting progress at WCPFC15 as per the agreed harvest strategy workplan. 2. WPSTA will submit a letter to each of the three delegations, prior to WCPFC15, setting out the case for a harvest strategy for yellowfin and Client action plan asking them to support the work of WCPFC15 to this end, in line with the agreed workplan. 3. WPSTA members will make contact with members of the Scientific Committee (SC) from the three relevant countries (in person or by email, letter or other suitable means), prior to the annual meeting of the WCPFC Scientific Committee (~August 2018) to ask them to ensure that the SC provides clear advice on a suitable TRP range for yellowfin to the Commission, as required by the workplan agreed at WCPFC14. 4. Participate in consultative MSE processes by WCPFC, as available to the WPSTA. 5. WPSTA members will submit a letter articulating their position, in advance of WCPFC15 to each of the national authorities, setting out the case for a well-defined harvest strategy and control rule for WCPO yellowfin and

SCS Global Services Report

asking delegations to ensure that progress is made according to the agreed workplan.

Auditable items for each Activity: 1. Meeting requests, agendas and minute summaries 2. Letter/email 3. Meeting request / agenda / summary or letter/email 4. Position letter and covering letter/email

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: 1. WPSTA will conduct a review of activities and progress in Year 1. The review will evaluate which activities, in the view of WPSTA, have been most successful in raising awareness and making progress towards a harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin (including the adoption of a TRP), and which activities, if any, have not been useful. It will also evaluate other new activities which might be useful. 2. WPSTA will continue the activities in Year 1, but adapt them according to the outcome of the review exercise. Activities which have been shown by the review not to be making a useful contribution will be dropped, while any new activities suggested by the review will be added. 3. Participate in consultative MSE processes by WCPFC, as available to the WPSTA.

Auditable items: 1. WPSTA memo setting out review and conclusions. 2. Meeting requests, agendas and summaries; letters and emails – as for Year 1 3. Evidence of MSE attendance

Action Plan Year 3 Activities: 1. As Year 2 2. In addition, WPSTA members will make contact with members of the Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC) from the three relevant countries (in person or by email, letter or other suitable means), prior to the annual meeting of the WCPFC TCC (~September 2020) to ask them to ensure that the TCC provides clear advice on the implications of candidate HCRs to the Commission.

Auditable items: 1. As Year 2 2. Letter, email and/or meeting agenda and summary

Action Plan Year 4 Activities: As Year 3

Auditable items: As Year 3

SCS Global Services Report

Consultation on As Condition 1 condition

Table 33. Condition 4 (Yellowfin; all fleets) Performance 1.2.2 Indicator Score 70

Rationale See rationale for PI 1.2.2a,b,c: Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.2 Yellowfin tuna – Harvest control rules and tools All fleets: SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for yellowfin tuna that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a Condition target level consistent with (or above) MSY. SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that the selection of the harvest control rules for yellowfin tuna are robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide evidence that indicates that the tools in use for yellowfin tuna are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the harvest control rules. Milestones As condition 3

General approach to P1 conditions: See Condition 1 Client action plan Action plan for Years 1-4: As Condition 3

Consultation on As Condition 1 condition

Table 34. Condition 5 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only) Performance 2.2.2d Indicator Score 75

See rationale for PI 2.2.2d: Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

For the Chinese and Taiwanese fleets we do not, however, consider that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place given the lack of data on Rationale these fleets, the potentially lower levels of observer coverage (Table 8), the

concerns expressed by the TCC about the level of reporting, the ambiguity of the fin-to-carcass ratio method for monitoring compliance, the subsequent inability of the WCPFC to determine compliance with this measure, and the lack of any clear sanctions for the few reported cases on non-compliance. For these fleets we do not consider the SG 80 requirements to be met. For China (skipjack and yellowfin) Condition By the third surveillance audit provide evidence that is sufficient to

demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place

SCS Global Services Report

Year 1(2019): Evidence recorded by observer and provided through SPC clearly demonstrates that there is highly unlikely that the shark finning is taking place in UoC China fleets from year 2014 to 2017. Score 75

Year 2(2020): Evidence recorded by observer and provided through SPC clearly demonstrates that there is highly unlikely the shark finning is taking place in Milestones UoC China fleets for year 2018. Score 75

Year 3(2021): Evidence recorded by observer and provided through SPC clearly demonstrates that there is highly unlikely the shark finning is taking place in UoC China fleets for year 2019. Given record of consecutive 5 years, CAB concludes that it’s highly unlikely shark finning is happening in UoC China fleets. Score 80.

General approach Shark finning (with discarding of the carcass) is not permitted in this fishery under WCPFC CMM 2010-07 (transposed into Chinese law based on Article 23 of the Fisheries Law of the PRC; further CMMs on this subject shall be transferred into Chinese law on the same basis). One missing element resulting in the scoring of this PI <80 is that there is a lack of clear evidence to demonstrate that shark finning is not taking place (e.g. evidence from regional observers records) and that sanctions, where merited, have been issued. The second missing element is a sufficient level of certainty in SPC’s observer data records for purse seiners from this flag state. The condition can therefore be addressed by supporting vessels in the Chinese UoC fleet to provide an auditable record of shark finning inspection with sufficient coverage, whether from the flag state authority, from coastal states or via the Regional Observer Programme. (Evidence of a decrease in uncertainty associated with observer records and sanctions as merited).

Action Plan Year 1 Client action plan Activities:

1. WPSTA will work with Bureau of Fisheries and make request to SPC for the observer records of alleged shark finning recorded by Observers for 2014 to 2017. 2. WPSTA will discuss with BoF/COFA concerns over ROPs adequately delivering records to SPC. WPSTA may choose to work directly with SPC to ascertain other causes of uncertainty regarding records of trip coverage at SPC. WPSTA may also choose to work with BoF/COFA to demonstrate flag state control/transparency of which observers (and observer programmes) all vessels are carrying. 3. The CAB will evaluate if the number and nature of events and sanction program indicates that the shark finning is highly unlikely taking place in UoC China fleets. 4. If the number of events were a concern, WPSTA will develop a Code of Conduct (CoC) for shark finning and training program to ensure that all sharks landed by China fleets in the UoA will follow the requirements of CMM 2010-07. WPSTA will implement the CoC and training program that will appoint a suitable person or team to be trained according to the CoC standard then training to fleets by trainer will continue according to singed

SCS Global Services Report

CoC until all training requirements identified in the training needs assessment are met.

Auditable items: 1. Observer record of shark finning provided by SPC for 2014 to 2017. 2. Training program and Code of Conduct(CoC) (if determined by CAB the number of shark finning events remain a concern). 3. Training evidence provided to CAB by trainer. Training schedule, curriculum and materials. 4. Training attendance record.

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: 1. WPSTA will work with Bureau of Fisheries and make request to SPC for the observer records of alleged shark finning recorded by Observer for 2018. 2. Seek evidence of decreased uncertainty in observer records documented by SPC. 3. The CAB will evaluate if the number and nature of events and sanction program indicates that shark finning is highly unlikely to be taking place in UoA from WPSTA China fleet.

Auditable items: Observer record of shark finning provided by SPC for 2018.

Action Plan Year 3 Activities: 1. WPSTA will work with Bureau of Fisheries and make request to SPC for the observer records of alleged shark finning recorded by Observer for 2019 as evidence to demonstrate that shark finning is highly unlikely taking place in UoC China fleets in consecutive 5 years. 2. Or clear record and evidence demonstrate that shark finning is highly unlikely to be taking place in UoC China fleets after the training program in place since 2018.

Auditable items: Observer record of shark finning provided by SPC for 2019.

See letter from Bureau of Fisheries in support of MSC process and conditions. Prior to the Final Report, an additional letter of support was provided from the Consultation on Bureau of Fisheries that articulates a more specific understanding of the condition conditions and action plan. This revised letter was required to be received prior to certificate issuance, per FCR 7.11.4.

Table 35. Condition 6 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only) Performance 2.2.2d Indicator Score 75

See rationale for PI 2.2.2d: Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species Rationale management strategy

SCS Global Services Report

For the Chinese and Taiwanese fleets we do not, however, consider that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place given the lack of data on these fleets, the potentially lower levels of observer coverage (Table 8), the concerns expressed by the TCC about the level of reporting, the ambiguity of the fin-to-carcass ratio method for monitoring compliance, the subsequent inability of the WCPFC to determine compliance with this measure, and the lack of any clear sanctions for the few reported cases on non-compliance. For these fleets we do not consider the SG 80 requirements to be met. For Taiwan (skipjack and yellowfin) Condition By the second surveillance audit provide evidence that is sufficient to

demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place. Year 1(2019): Observer record provided through SPC to WPSTA with assistance of TFA clearly demonstrates that there is highly unlikely the shark finning is taking place in UoC Chinese Taipei fleets for year 2017. Score 75. Milestones Year 2(2020): Observer record provided through SPC to WPSTA with assistance of TFA clearly demonstrates that there is highly unlikely the shark finning is taking place in UoC Taiwan fleets for year 2018. Score 80

General approach Shark finning (with discarding of the carcass) is not permitted in this UoA, not only under WCPFC CMM 2010-07 but also at national level, where there are in place stricter measures than WCPFC which require that shark fins be landed naturally attached to the carcass, but only at domestic ports (not at land-based transshipment hubs in distant waters). At present, a greater time series of records and associated sanctions where merited, generated under the new DWFA and its port sampling procedures, will help support the five years of existing observer records that have been provided. The main missing element is a sufficient level of certainty in SPC’s observer data records for purse seiners from this flag state. The condition can therefore be addressed by supporting vessels in the Chinese Taipei UoA fleet providing auditable records of shark finning inspection with sufficient coverage, whether from the flag state authority, from coastal states or via the Regional Observer Programme. (Evidence of a decrease in uncertainty associated with observer records and Client action plan sanctions as merited).

Action Plan Year 1 Activities: 1. WPSTA will work with TFA and make request to SPC for the observer records of alleged shark finning for 2017. 2. WPSTA will discuss with TFA concerns over ROPs adequately delivering records to SPC. WPSTA may choose to work directly with SPC to ascertain other causes of uncertainty regarding records of trip coverage at SPC. WPSTA may also choose to work with TFA to demonstrate flag state control/transparency of which observers (and observer programmes) all vessels are carrying. 3. The record of 2017 once available will demonstrate that the shark finning is not taking place on board vessels within the Chinese Taipei UoC in 2017.

SCS Global Services Report

Auditable items: Observer record of shark finning provided by SPC for 2017.

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: 1. WPSTA will continue working with TFA and make request to SPC for the observer records of alleged shark finning for 2018. 2. Seek evidence of deceased uncertainty in observer records documented by SPC. 3. The record of 2018, once available, and in conjunction with the inspection program and associated sanctions as merited, will demonstrate that the shark finning is not taking place on board vessels within the Taiwan UoC. 4. With further evidence record for 2017 and 2018 in addition to records of 2012 to 2015 that had been provided to CAB, it’s demonstrated that the shark finning has been highly unlikely taken place in UoC Chinese Taipei fleets.

Auditable items: Observer record of shark finning provided by SPC for 2018.

Consultation on A letter of support has been provided from the TFA. condition

Table 36. Condition 7 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only) Performance 3.1.1a Indicator Score 75

See rationale for PI 3.1.1a: Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

China has a number of laws and regulations that deal with fisheries management. The overarching law controlling fishing is the Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China (China Fisheries Law) 2000. This provides a range of general provisions including; covering all fishing activity including fishing on the high seas and in other State’s EEZs (joint managed fishery zones defined in the agreement concluded between the People’s Republic of China and the countries concerned) and provides guidance on domestic jurisdictional Rationale arrangements. The law vests all key functions relating to controlling fishing

operations on the high seas and other EEZs with the Fisheries Authority under the State Council. It also contains specific enforcement and prosecution provisions. The law is supplemented by a number of other regulations and policies, including “Provisions for the Administration of Pelagic Fishery” and the “Program of Action on the Conservation of Living Aquatic Resources of China (Promulgated by the State Council in February 2006). These documents provide a range of provisions that constitute an effective national legal system and provide for organised and effective cooperation with other parties. Article 23 of the China Fisheries Law 2000 provides that “Those

SCS Global Services Report

who intend to conduct fishing operation in the waters under the jurisdiction of other states shall be approved by the Fisheries Authority under the State Council and shall comply with relevant treaties and agreements signed or acceded by the People’s Republic of China and laws of states concerned.” Elsewhere reference is made to fulfilling China’s international obligations with the “Program for Action” providing that “.... the relevant obligations set out in international treaties and regulations that the government of China signed or acceded to should be responsibly fulfilled”. These arrangements, together with reducing fishing capacity, science-based fishing limits and broader ecosystem requirements, should deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. There is also evidence that China reliably coordinates with other WCPFC parties to contribute scientific data from their purse seine fisheries for collective use by SPC on behalf of all WCPFC Parties (consistent Level III scores for data provision, Williams, 2015) (GSA 4.3.2.3.). While the team received evidence that prosecutions of Chinese vessels do systematically occur, are publicly available once sanctioned, and are taken seriously, it is not clear that China is meeting all of its cooperative obligations with WCPFC parties by exerting enforcement measures capable of apprehending its own vessels in international waters, or how it uses specific national provisions/in situ monitoring to assure compliant behavior commensurate with the scale of its numerous international vessels fishing in high seas fisheries or fishing in third party EEZs. As such, the SG60 is met but evidence received has yet to fully support a score of SG 80.

For China (skipjack and yellowfin) By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence of an effective national Condition legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where

necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Year 1 (2019) Evidence is available to demonstrate that implementation of the 13th 5-years National Offshore Fisheries Development Plan has started. Evaluation report on potential cause of gaps in compliance with WCPFC CMMs as noted by WCPFC CMR, for the Chinese-flagged high seas purse seine fishery, generated by WPSTA alone or with authorities. Score 75.

Year 2 (2020): China has been implementing the 13th 5-years National Offshore Fisheries Development Plan for a 2nd year. Milestones - WPSTA has lobbied the Bureau of Fisheries to improve root causes and

enforcement outcomes, in problem areas identified in the WCPFC CMR report. evaluation report. Score: 75

Year 3 (2021): Enforcement is improving in accordance with 5-years National Plan. - Evidence shows that numbers of non-compliance status in annual WCPFC CMR decrease. Score 75.

SCS Global Services Report

Year 4 (2022): China can show further decreases in the number of non-compliances in annual WCPFC CMR report, demonstrating an effective national system to deliver effective measures and control over the distant water fishing vessels, consistent with the requirements of PI 3.1.1a, Score 80.

General approach: The concrete issue identified by the CAB is lack of documentation/methods indicating how China intends to undertake its cooperative responsibilities, enforcement and controls on vessels fishing in the WCPFC Convention Area.

In relation to enforcement, control and monitoring, at the national level, the CAP will rely on the implementation of the 13th 5-years National Offshore Fisheries Development Plan (NOFDP), which is just released in December, 2017 after scoring process and provides a comprehensive objective of framework for control and enforcement over distant water fleets. Key points are the following: 1. Enhancement of MCS system: Including determination of authorization and fishing access permission, annual surveillance of vessel licensing permission, VMS (vessel monitoring system), national observer, and standardized logbook. 2. Full participation in 7 major RFMOs. 3. International cooperation for enforcement: MoU with costal states to ensure there is an agreement in place to devolve and share the responsibility to the other party (coastal states) for enforcement. 4. Participation in the Regional Observer Program (fishing and transshipment); either regional or Chinese observers can be used for Client action plan high seas fishing

5. Establishment of a “blacklist” system listing all fishery companies and members of the industry that have been involved in illegal fishing to monitoring and track. (Resolution of identified parties remains TBD). 6. Promote High Seas Boarding and Inspections to combat IUU fishing activities. 7. Priority is being given to distant water fisheries such that there is a mandate for BoF to create a clear framework to prioritize the revision of Fisheries Law of the People’s Republic of China (China Fisheries Law 2000) and further roll out Regulations of Distant Water Fisheries in order to reinforce the management for distant water fisheries and provide legal assurance.

At the regional level, according to the 2016 Final Compliance Monitoring Report (WCPFC13 Summary Report, Attachment U), China will demonstrate quantifiable improvements in compliance with WCPFC CMMs. Subsequent work under the Action Plan will also focus on lobbying the Bureau of Fisheries, as well as the Chinese delegation to WCPFC, to identify root causes of gaps and to close any identified gaps in compliance, and provide evidence of a decrease in numbers of non-compliance statuses in the annual WCPFC CMR report.

Action Plan Year 1

SCS Global Services Report

Activities: 1. WPSTA will familiarize Chinese-flagged members with the objectives and workplan for implementation of the National Plan. WPSTA will align expectations of MSC process with relevant agencies (BoF, COFA). Evidence of implementation will be provided. 2. WPSTA will request meetings with China Overseas Fishery Association (COFA) to understand the most recent Compliance Monitoring Report (CMR) to evaluate gaps in compliance with WCPFC CMMs and possible root causes. 3. WPSTA will circulate the conclusions of this gap analysis, with accompanying documentation, to all members of the UoA with Chinese- flagged vessels, for review.

Auditable Activities: 1. Evidence of meetings with Chinese-flagged members to align expectations of CAP activities and timelines to discuss unclear points if necessary. Summary minutes with action items and risk areas available from meeting for public use. 2. Evidence of meetings with Bureau of Fisheries or China Overseas Fisheries Association(COFA) to align expectations of CAP and discuss unclear points if necessary. Summary minutes with action items and risk areas available from meeting for public use. 3. WPSTA will lobby BoF to: a. undertake an assessment of their own NOFDP to identify key risk areas or initiatives that are challenged due to resources/staffing/other constraints, should these exist (root causes). b. Provide transparent information on the scale of the Chinese distant water purse seine fleet operating in the WCPFC c. Generate resources and methods used to control above fleet 4. Documentation is available on each of the key point bullets from the NOFDP outlined in the General Approach, showing a documented policy or procedure to control the relevant main activities in the NOFDP, forms used to support implementation, and relevant records for each are available. 5. Gaps analysis report for CMR 6. Emails / letters requesting meetings among WPSTA Chinese fleets members.

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: 1. WPSTA will request a meeting with Bureau of Fisheries or COFA to collate docs and evidence for evaluation whether the National Plan has been implemented accordingly from Year 1. WPSTA will request on behalf of SCS 1. policies and procedures, 2. forms and 3. Records, on aspects of the NOFDP that were not implemented (risk areas) in Year 1, identified by either WPSTA or BoF or COFA. WPSTA will request on behalf of SCS records associated with ongoing implementation of policies and procedures that were implemented in Year 1. If no aspects of the NOFDP are implemented, or the NOFDP is implemented only partially, WPSTA will

SCS Global Services Report

continue to lobby CFA or COFA for timely and complete implementation of the National Plan, root causes of deficiencies, if any, and will continue to clarify timelines and consequences with relevant agencies. 2. Based on the analyses in year 1, WPSTA will prepare a letter to lobby and encourage the Bureau of Fisheries to fulfill requirements of compliance in CMR.

Auditable activities: Evidence of meetings with Bureau of Fisheries or China Overseas Fisheries Association to: a. gather evidence of ongoing progress against key activities of NOFDP (both implemented and yet-to-be implemented activities) b. agree verifiable metrics to measure progress against key risk areas c. agree verifiable metrics to measures decline of Chinese fishing vessels being sanctioned for unauthorized activity (e.g. WCPFC CMR or coastal State prosecutions) d. discuss unclear points if necessary e. generate summary minutes from meeting(s) with status of progress implementing NOFPD, risk areas and action items and agreed tracking metrics, available for public use f. letter / email to lobby Bureau of Fisheries

Action Plan Year 3 Activities: Based on the progress assessment, WPSTA will request through COFA’s assistance a meeting with relevant enforcement officials at the Bureau of Fisheries, to continue to put the case for additional enforcement where required to have full control over distant water fishing vessels.

Auditable activities: Evidence of meetings with Bureau of Fisheries or China Overseas Fisheries Association to: a. evaluation of progress against key activities of NOFDP b. evaluation of progress against key risk areas c. evaluation and evidence of monitoring, surveillance and control activities in keeping with metrics for effectiveness decided in Year 2. d. discuss unclear points as needed and align understanding of activities needed to close condition in Year 4. e. generate summary minutes from meeting(s) with status of progress implementing NOFPD, risk areas, possible root causes, action items and agreed tracking metrics, available for public use f. advice and justification on any changes in the key risk areas or NOFDP focus g. Evidence report from CMR or relevant info.

Action Plan Year 4 Activities:

SCS Global Services Report

1. Based on the progress assessment, WPSTA will request through COFA, a meeting with relevant enforcement officials at the Bureau of Fisheries, in order to be able to demonstrate adequate enforcement to have full control over distant water fishing vessels. 2. WPSTA will collate evidence from annual CMR or relevant info to show that numbers of non-compliance status in CMR decreases over successive years.

Auditable items for each Activity: Auditable items for each Activity: Evidence of meetings with Bureau of Fisheries or China Overseas Fisheries Association to: h. evaluation of progress against key activities of NOFDP i. evaluation of progress against key risk areas j. evaluation and evidence of monitoring, surveillance and control activities in keeping with metrics for effectiveness decided in Year 2. k. summary minutes from meeting(s) with status of progress implementing NOFPD, risk areas and action items and agreed tracking metrics, available for public use l. advice and justification on any changes in the key risk areas or NOFDP focus

References: Govt. of China 2017: 13th 5-years National Offshore Fisheries Development Plan.

A letter has been provided from the Bureau of Fisheries, stating that they support work by WPSTA to address the conditions. Prior to the Final Report, an additional letter of support was provided from the Bureau of Fisheries that Consultation on articulates a more specific understanding of the conditions and action plan. condition This revised letter was required to be received prior to certificate issuance, per FCR 7.11.4.

Table 37. Condition 8 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only) Performance 3.1.1a Indicator Score 75

See rationale for PI 3.1.1a: Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

The management of Taiwanese fishing both within its EEZ, on the high seas in the Pacific and in PICT waters is governed by a suite of legislation and Rationale Regulations. The two key Acts in relation to this analysis are; the Fisheries Act

(2016) and the Distant Water Fisheries Act (2016). These Acts, which have been in operation for less than a year, are administered by the Fisheries Agency (Council of Agriculture of the Executive Yuan). The Taiwan Fishery Agency, Council of Agriculture has a Deep Sea Fisheries Division which is responsible for managing all aspects of fishing operations, including issuing

SCS Global Services Report

licenses, monitoring VMS, port inspections, recording data, monitoring quota or harvest limits, placement of observers, transshipment, enforcement (with the Coast Guard), prosecutions etc. The Fisheries Act is the more general of the two Acts and deals predominantly with domestic fisheries management, aquaculture and enforcement. It has a range of provisions including who can be granted a license, build a fishing vessel, work on fishing vessels, receive access rights etc. It also has chapters on recreational fishing, fishery development, conservation and management and penalty provisions. The Distant Water Fisheries (DWF) Act (2016) is specifically tailored to the management and enforcement of Taiwanese vessels fishing on the high seas or in a third country’s EEZ. It has as its general objectives to:  Ensure the conservation of marine fisheries resources;  Strengthen distant water fisheries management;  Curb IUU fishing; and  Improve traceability of catches and fisheries product; so as to promote the sustainable operation of distant water fisheries. Article 5 of the DWF Act requires that the TFA develop arrangements which have regard to the precautionary principle, ecosystem based approach and the use of the best available scientific advice with the aim to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 and specifically requires “Cooperation with other countries and international fisheries organizations” (from pg 473 of FCRv2.0). Furthermore, the TFA has demonstrated in its responsiveness to the EU yellow card that it is open to scrutiny, review and adaptation (GSA 4.3). However, there is also evidence that Taiwan mainly, but not always, coordinates with other WCPFC parties to contribute scientific data from their purse seine fisheries for collective use by SPC on behalf of all WCPFC Parties (e.g. 2016 purse seine data received a tier I score due to absence of operational catch/effort data, Williams 2015) (GSA 4.3.2.3.). Similarly, as part of the EU yellow card process TFA has acknowledged that they haven’t historically been able to design/resources systems to fully control their DWF vessels, and that they have therefore set up a nascent auditing program that will undertake port inspections in major transshipment hubs used by Taiwanese vessels, under the new DWFA. As such, the SG60 is met, but there is not yet evidence that the SG80 is fully met: evidence of national performance at this level should become available as the new DWFA and its measures come into effect. For Taiwan (skipjack and yellowfin) By the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence of an effective national Condition legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where

necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Year 1 (2019): Barriers to the provision of operational level data have been removed. Evidence that the implementation of the NPCI has started. Score: 75

Milestones Year 2 (2020):

Chinese Taipei has been providing operational-level data to WCPFC for 2nd year as set out in CMMs and other formal requirements. Coverage of the operational data is improved. TFA has been implementing the NPCI for a 3rd year.

SCS Global Services Report

Score: 75

Year 3 (2021): Coverage in the operational data has improved and is compliant with WCPFC requirements. Enforcement is improving in accordance with NPCI work plan and timeline. Score: 75

Year 4 (2022): Chinese Taipei can show an effective national system to deliver effective measures and control over the distant water fishing vessels, consistent with the requirements of PI 3.1.1a, SG80. Cooperation with RFMO on scientific contribution by submission of all required fishing operational data is demonstrated. Score: 80

General approach: The concrete issues identified by the CAB are as follows: i) lack of operation catch/effort data; and ii) lack of evidence of flag state enforcement and controls on vessels fishing in the WCPFC Convention Area.

Williams (2017) notes that for the first time in 2017, Taiwan provided some (although not full) operational level catch-effort data to the Commission, on the basis that domestic legal constraints on the provision of these data to third parties have been removed. It is therefore confirmed that Taiwan will supply such data to WCPFC from 2017 onwards.

In relation to enforcement and compliance, the CAP relies on the implementation of the Taiwan National Plan of Control and Inspection (NPCI), which provides a comprehensive framework for control and enforcement for distant water fleets. The plan is provided. Key points are the following: 1. Agreements with various countries as part of a multilateral framework for high seas boarding and inspections (Australia, Cook Client action plan Is, France, Japan, US, NZ) totaling 169 fisheries inspections on

Chinese Taipei vessels conducted by participating countries in the high sea area of WCPFC up to November 2015 and this multilateral framework will continue. 2. Participation in the Regional Observer Program (fishing and transshipment); either regional or Taiwanese observers can be used for high seas fishing 3. Bilateral agreements with Japan (2006), US (2013), PNG (2015), Solomons (2015), Nauru (2016), Tuvalu (2016), RMI (2016) to put in place joint enforcement plans 4. Taiwan also conducts audits of fish traders and trade flows, as another means of detecting IUU fish 5. Annual targets for observer coverage which apply to this fleet as follows: skipjack vessels – 100%; landing inspections – 5%, electronic monitoring – 100%, audits of fish trade – 20% 6. Landings and transshipments in foreign ports can be inspected by Taiwanese as well as coastal state inspectors – this is done based on a risk-assessment approach (see below)

SCS Global Services Report

7. A clear framework is provided for risk assessment to priorities inspections. Higher priority is given to distant water fisheries, as well as fisheries where the stock is overfished, high catch value, management measures such as quotas or closures, lack of other competent authorities (e.g. for high seas), catch sold directly on to international markets and the compliance history of the fleet. On this basis, this fishery comes into risk category 2 (out of 4); category one includes fisheries for bluefin and bigeye tuna as well as sharks.

Action Plan Year 1 Activities: 1. WPSTA will request a meeting with the Fisheries Agency to discuss the provision of operational-level data to WCPFC and the progress made as of the year. 2. WPSTA will familiarize Taiwanese-flagged members with the objectives, workplan and timeframe for implementation of the NPCI. WPSTA will align expectations of MSC process with the TFA. Evidence of implementation will be provided.

Auditable items for each Activity: 1. Evidence of meetings with Chinese Taipei-flagged members to align expectations of CAP activities and timelines to discuss unclear points if necessary. Summary minutes with action items and risk areas available from meeting for public use. 2. Evidence of meetings with TFA to align expectations of the CAP and discuss unclear points if necessary. Summary minutes with action items and risk areas available from meeting for public use. 3. WPSTA will lobby TFA to: a. Undertake an assessment of the NPCI to identify key risk areas or initiatives that are challenged due to resources/staffing/other constraints, should these exist (root causes). b. Provide transparent information on the scale of the distant water purse seine fleet operating in the WCPFC c. Resources and methods used to control above fleet, in particular: i. participation in the Regional Observer Program, including the number of Chinese Taipei observers deployed and an accurate information on the percentage of purse seine trips observed; ii. Monitoring the effectiveness of bilateral enforcement plans, including that they are adequately resourced; iii. The percentage of purse seine vessels inspected in port by Chinese Taipei inspectors, coastal State inspectors 4. Documentation is available on each of the key point bullets from the NPCI outlined in the General Approach, showing a documented policy or procedure to control the relevant main activities in the

SCS Global Services Report

NPCI, forms used to support implementation, and relevant records for each are available.

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: 1. WPSTA will request a meeting with TFA and collate docs and evidence from TFA to evaluate whether the NPCI has been implemented in accordance with NPCI and timeframe agreed from Year 1. WPSTA will request on behalf of SCS 1. policies and procedures, 2. forms and 3. Records, on aspects of the NPCI that were not implemented (risk areas) in Year 1, identified by either WPSTA or the TFA. WPSTA will request on behalf of SCS records associated with ongoing implementation of policies and procedures that were implemented in Year 1. If no aspects of the NPCI are implemented, or the NPCI is implemented only partially, WPSTA will continue to lobby TFA for timely and complete implementation of the NPCI, and continue to identify root causes of deficiencies, if any, and will clarify timelines and consequences with the TFA.

Auditable activities: 1. Evidence of meetings with the TFA to: a. gather evidence of ongoing progress against key activities of NPCI (both implemented and yet-to-be implemented activities) b. agree verifiable metrics to measure progress against key risk areas c. agree verifiable metrics to measures decline of Chinese Taipei flagged fishing vessels being sanctioned for unauthorized activity (e.g. WCPFC CMR and in coastal States) d. discuss unclear points if necessary. e. summary minutes from meeting(s) with status of progress implementing NPCI, risk areas and action items and agreed tracking metrics, available for public use. f. advice and justification on any changes in the key risk areas or NPCI focus

Action Plan Year 3 Activities: 1. WPSTA will collate information to evaluate progress in implementation of the NPCI and in provision of operational-level data. 2. Based on the progress assessment, WPSTA will if necessary request a meeting with relevant enforcement officials at the Fisheries Agency, to continue to put the case for additional enforcement where required to have full control over distant water fishing vessels.

Auditable activities: 1. Evidence of meetings with the TFA to:

SCS Global Services Report

a. evaluation progress against key activities of NPCI b. evaluation of progress against key risk areas c. evaluation and evidence of monitoring, surveillance and control activities in keeping with metrics for effectiveness decided in Year 2. d. Discuss unclear points as needed and align understanding of activities needed to close condition in Year 4. e. summary minutes from meeting(s) with status of progress implementing NPCI, risk areas and action items and agreed tracking metrics, available for public use

Action Plan Year 4 Activities: Based on the progress assessment, WPSTA will request a meeting with relevant enforcement officials at the TFA, in order to be able to demonstrate adequate enforcement arrangements have full control over distant water fishing vessels.

Auditable items for each Activity: 1. Evidence of meetings with the TFA to: a. evaluation progress against key activities of NPCI b. evaluation of progress against key risk areas and root causes c. evaluation and evidence of monitoring, surveillance and control activities in keeping with metrics for effectiveness decided in Year 2. d. discuss unclear points as needed and align understanding of activities needed to close condition in Year 4. e. summary minutes from meeting(s) with status of progress implementing NPCI, risk areas and action items and agreed tracking metrics, available for public use

References: Govt. of Taiwan 201. National Plan of Control and Inspection for the Fisheries of the Republic of China (Taiwan). Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, Executive Yuan. October 2016. Williams P. 2017. Scientific data available to the WCPFC. WCPFC-SC13-2017/ST-WP-01 Consultation on A letter is provided from the Fisheries Agency, stating that they support the condition CAP.

Table 38. Condition 9 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only) Performance 3.1.2b Indicator Score 75 See rationale for PI 3.1.2b: Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

Rationale China and Taiwan

The situation in Taiwan and China is less clear. To meet SG80 requirements there are two key requirements; i) the management system must have processes that “regularly seek and accept relevant information” and ii) the

SCS Global Services Report

“management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained”. This is assessed both for input to regional arrangements and domestic management. While there is evidence that non-formalized but longstanding consultative processes do occur in Taiwan and similar evidence that pre WCPFC meetings occur in China), these processes provide an opportunity for certain stakeholders to be involved. However, it is neither clear nor transparent (sensu GSA 4.4.1), the extent to which these systems regularly seek and accept “relevant information”, where this requirement is considered to apply to both WCPFC decision-making frameworks and domestic policy-making. Evidence that consultation is implemented in Taiwan was received in the form of anonymized participant lists associated with annual stakeholder meetings preceding WCPFC meetings. Information was also provided for China showing the process by which consultation is conducted leading to a country position on changes to management arrangements. However, for both Taiwan and China policies or procedures were not available that define how particular stakeholders are contacted or why by the competent authority, or for what matters or how often (regularity), nor are generalized minutes or transparent records of consulted participants available. It is not clear whether these arrangements are formalized in policy or legislation. It is also unclear if they can be initiated at any time, rather than just in the lead up to the WCPFC annual meeting. Therefore, there is evidence of the management system obtaining local stakeholder input ahead of WCPFC meetings as described above (meeting the SG60). However, it is difficult to understand transparently how and from whom stakeholder input is sought, with what regularity (the requirement for SG80). In terms of the second half of clause in the SG80 criteria- i) information being accepted as well as point ii) the extent to which management decisions demonstrate consideration of the information obtained- the team could not find evidence to support these requirements. The team looked for evidence in official documents to explain stakeholder information that was considered and used or not used in decision-making at either the national level, or why some forms of information versus others may be passed forward by the competent authority at the regional levels, but this was not available. To meet the SG80 there is not necessarily an expectation that sensitive trade-offs made in confidential management discussions would be publicly available, but that general reasoning and evidence of using stakeholder input is apparent. SG60 requirements are met for Taiwan and China, however the higher-level requirements at the SG80 of demonstrating the regularity of stakeholder consultation opportunities and transparency to demonstrate that information is sought, considered, and if relevant is accepted, are not met. For China (skipjack and yellowfin) By the third annual surveillance, provide evidence to demonstrate that clear Condition and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels. Year 1 (2019): Existing consultation structures and procedures are documented Milestones to demonstrate they regularly seek and regularly accept relevant information. Evidence provided will allow the CAB to evaluate of the frequency, means to access, types of mechanisms and procedural clarity of mechanisms for input

SCS Global Services Report

into national and international measures relevant to any pertinent Acts and the vessels in question. Evidence provided will allow the CAB to evaluate how such systems allow systematic refinements to existing management measures and not just input on newly proposed management measures. Score 80 if these are considered sufficient, 75 if not.

Year 2 (2020): If procedures insufficient, a gap analysis have identified key gaps in consultation structures or procedures. Score 75.

Year 3 (2021): Gaps in consultation identified in Year 2 analysis are addressed, either via a change in formal procedures at government level, or via WPSTA members. Score 80.

General approach: The approach to addressing this condition will be firstly to provide documentary evidence as to existing structures for consultation and relevant record that demonstrates the consideration of the information obtained by Authority for both input to national and regional management arrangements. We will then request the CAB to evaluate this evidence at the first surveillance audit. If the CAB concludes that procedures are insufficient, a gap analysis will be conducted and WPSTA will work to put suitable additional procedures in place according to its conclusions.

Action Plan Year 1 Activities: WPSTA members will work with the Bureau of Fisheries and/or China Overseas Fisheries Association to provide evidence that regular consultation occurs across broad stakeholder groups and that relevant information from this consultation is considered and adopted (as necessary) by the management system as changes to domestic arrangements or input to regional management arrangements. The process will be clearly documented e.g. via meeting Client action plan invitations, agendas, summaries and participation lists; memos documenting

phone calls and other remote meetings; copies of emails; meeting minutes for relevant but non-confidential discussion etc. and be able to clearly show both changes in domestic arrangements or input to regional management.

Auditable activities: Evidence of meetings with the Bureau of Fisheries and/or China Overseas Fisheries Association and the key output from these meetings to: a. Clearly document regular consultative arrangements (domestic and regional) and the breadth of stakeholders who participate in these arrangements b. Provide information on the policies or processes being followed by the Bureau of Fisheries to formalize these arrangements c. Summary minutes from these meetings which provide information on key issues discussed and agreed outcomes d. Evidence of how this output (discussions and outcomes) has been considered in refining domestic and regional management arrangements/positions.

SCS Global Services Report

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: If the documented processes provided at the Year 1 Audit are considered by the CAB to be sufficient evidence that SG80 is met, no further activities are required. Otherwise, activities are proposed as follows: 1. WPSTA members will evaluate with the CAB at the Year 1 Audit where the existing consultation process fails to meet the SG80 requirements (e.g. in process, regularity of consultations, range of participants and ability to demonstrate consideration in the management system – domestic and regional) 2. WPSTA will develop a Plan to meet these requirements. This may focus on support of transparency and regularity of the consultation process directly, as well as how output from these processes is inputted/considered in decisions related to domestic and regional management arrangements. 3. WPSTA will start implementation of the Plan.

Auditable activities 1. Year 1 Audit report and assessment of the gaps in existing processes 2. Development of an Action Plan to address deficiencies 3. Meetings with the Bureau of Fisheries and/or China Overseas Fisheries Association to agree on steps to implement necessary changes – including minutes from these meeting and agreed outcomes 4. Evidence of implementation, e.g. meetings, agendas and minutes, evidence of agreed outcomes and arrangements to demonstrate management consideration from consultations etc.

Action Plan Year 3 Activities: 1. Review progress of the Plan according to Year 2 audit report; adjust as required to address remaining gaps. 2. Continue and complete implementation of the Plan.

Auditable items for each activity: 1. Evidence of the implementation of the revised arrangements, including details of the broader and regular consultative arrangements and information on processes to enable an assessment of the output from these arrangements being considered in domestic and regional arrangements. 2. Meeting requests, agendas and minutes, memos, emails etc.

A letter is provided from the Bureau of Fisheries, stating that they support the CAP. Prior to the Final Report, an additional letter of support was provided Consultation on from the Bureau of Fisheries that articulates a more specific understanding of condition the conditions and action plan. This revised letter was required to be received prior to certificate issuance, per FCR 7.11.4.

SCS Global Services Report

Table 39. Condition 10 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only) Performance 3.1.2b Indicator Score 75

See rationale for PI 3.1.2b: Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities

China and Taiwan The situation in Taiwan and China is less clear. To meet SG80 requirements there are two key requirements; i) the management system must have processes that “regularly seek and accept relevant information” and ii) the “management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained”. This is assessed both for input to regional arrangements and domestic management. While there is evidence that non-formalized but longstanding consultative processes do occur in Taiwan and similar evidence that pre WCPFC meetings occur in China), these processes provide an opportunity for certain stakeholders to be involved. However, it is neither clear nor transparent (sensu GSA 4.4.1), the extent to which these systems regularly seek and accept “relevant information”, where this requirement is considered to apply to both WCPFC decision-making frameworks and domestic policy-making. Evidence that consultation is implemented in Taiwan was received in the form of anonymized participant lists associated with annual stakeholder meetings preceding WCPFC meetings. Information was also provided for China showing the process by which consultation is conducted leading to a country position on changes to management arrangements. However, for both Taiwan and Rationale China policies or procedures were not available that define how particular stakeholders are contacted or why by the competent authority, or for what matters or how often (regularity), nor are generalized minutes or transparent records of consulted participants available. It is not clear whether these arrangements are formalized in policy or legislation. It is also unclear if they can be initiated at any time, rather than just in the lead up to the WCPFC annual meeting. Therefore, there is evidence of the management system obtaining local stakeholder input ahead of WCPFC meetings as described above (meeting the SG60). However, it is difficult to understand transparently how and from whom stakeholder input is sought, with what regularity (the requirement for SG80). In terms of the second half of clause in the SG80 criteria- i) information being accepted as well as point ii) the extent to which management decisions demonstrate consideration of the information obtained- the team could not find evidence to support these requirements. The team looked for evidence in official documents to explain stakeholder information that was considered and used or not used in decision-making at either the national level, or why some forms of information versus others may be passed forward by the competent authority at the regional levels, but this was not available. To meet the SG80 there is not necessarily an expectation that sensitive trade-offs made in confidential management discussions would be publicly available, but that general reasoning and evidence of using stakeholder input is apparent. SG60 requirements are met for Taiwan and China, however the higher-level requirements at the SG80 of demonstrating the regularity of stakeholder

SCS Global Services Report

consultation opportunities and transparency to demonstrate that information sought, considered, and if relevant is accepted, are not met. For Taiwan (skipjack and yellowfin) By the second annual surveillance, provide evidence to demonstrate that clear Condition and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels.

Year 1 (2019): Existing consultation structures, procedures and meeting minutes or relevant evidence to demonstrate the obtained information being accepted and considered by Authority are documented. Evidence provided will allow the CAB to evaluate the frequency, means to access, types of mechanisms and procedural clarity of mechanisms for input into national and international measures relevant to any pertinent Acts and the vessels in question. Evidence provided will allow the CAB to evaluate how such systems Milestones allow systematic refinements to existing management measures and not just input on newly proposed management measures. Score 80 if these are considered sufficient, 75 if not.

Year 2 (2020): If relevant evidence in Year 1 insufficient, a gap analysis has identified key gaps by CAB and gaps in consultation identified in Year 2 analysis are addressed. Relevant evidence to demonstrate the obtained information being accepted and considered by Authority. Score 80.

General approach: The approach to addressing this condition will focus on getting publicity of meeting minutes or historical or present cases that provides sufficient information that demonstrates the regularity of meetings and consideration of the information obtained at these meetings by Authority.

Action Plan Year 1 Activities: WPSTA members will work with TFA to provide evidence that regular consultation occurs across board stakeholder groups and that relevant information from this consultation is considered and adopted (as necessary) by Client action plan the management system as changes to domestic arrangement or input to regional management arrangement. The process will be clearly documented e.g. via meeting invitations. e.g. Meeting invitations, agendas, summaries and participation lists; relevant meeting minutes etc, and be able to clearly show both changes in domestic arrangements or input to regional management.

Auditable activities: Evidence of meetings with the TFA and the key output from these meetings to: a. Clearly document regular consultative arrangements (domestic and regional) and the breadth of stakeholders who participate in these arrangements b. Provide information on the policies or processes being followed by the TFA to formalize these arrangements

SCS Global Services Report

c. Summary minutes from these meetings which provide information on key issues discussed and agreed outcomes d. Evidence of how this output (discussions and outcomes) has been considered in refining domestic and regional management arrangements/positions.

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: If the documented processes provided at the Year 1 Audit are considered by the CAB to be sufficient evidence that SG80 is met, no further activities are required. Otherwise, activities are proposed as follows: 1. WPSTA members will evaluate with the CAB at the Year 1 Audit where the existing consultation process fails to meet the SG80 requirements. (e.g. in progress, regularity of consultations, range of participants and ability to demonstrate consideration in the management system – domestic and regional) 2. WPSTA will work with TFA to provide more precise evidence for sufficiency. If the publicity is identified the core and the only issue given that the system is recognized its existence, WPSTA will encourage TFA to make non- confidential info that demonstrates that the obtained in is considered by TFA, accessible.

Auditable activities: 1. Year 1 Audit report and assessment of the gaps in existing processes. 2. Provide information of the changes to policies or processes being followed by the TFA to formalize these arrangements 3. Summary minutes from these meetings which provide information on key issues discussed and agreed outcomes 4. Evidence of how this output (discussions and outcomes) has been considered in refining domestic and regional management arrangements/positions.

Consultation on A letter is provided from the Fisheries Agency, stating that they support the condition CAP.

Table 40. Condition 11 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only) Performance 3.2.2b Indicator Score 75 See rationale for PI 3.2.2b: Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

Taiwanese and Chinese pre meeting arrangements provide processes for Rationale consultation on serious issues prior to important decisions being made at the regional level. These processes relate to developing a national position on proposed CMMs. It is not clear whether these arrangements are formalized in legislation or just an informally established process. It is also unclear if they can be initiated at any time, rather than just in the lead up to the WCPFC annual meeting. Both States meeting delegations provide for participation by a

SCS Global Services Report

range of stakeholders in regional decision making as participants at the WCPFC. Evidence was not received to indicate that it is clear and well documented that responsive (transparent, timely, adaptive) domestic decision making arrangements are in place to respond to serious and other important issues. Decision-making processes at the WCPFC and PNA level respond to serious and other important issues in a timely manner indicating SG 60 and SG 80 are met. At the flag State level the USA arrangements also would meet the SG60 and SG80 levels. Taiwan and China have arrangements that do not appear to be as well developed or responsive (transparent, timely, adaptive) so only SG60 would be met. None of the jurisdictions have decision-making process that respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, so SG100 is not met. For China (skipjack and yellowfin) By the third annual surveillance, provide evidence that decision-making Condition processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

Year 1 (2019): Existing consultation structures and procedures are fully documented and relevant evidence is able to demonstrate there is system in place that responds to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring evaluation and consultation that relates to CMMs as well as national regulations relevant to UoA vessels. If these are considered sufficient to support appropriate decision-making procedures feeding into different management level, score 80; if not score 75. Milestones Year 2 (2020): If procedures insufficient, a gap analysis has identified key gaps in consultation structures or procedures which hinder effective decision- making. Score 80/75.

Year 3 (2021): Gaps in consultation identified in Year 2 analysis are addressed, either via a change in formal procedures at government level, or via WPSTA members. Score 80.

General approach Decision-making in relation to the management of China at domestic level should be demonstrated to be structured and responsive to the serious and important issues. On this basis, the approach taken to address this condition is in addition to the approach to Condition 9 above; i.e. to ensure that consultation processes are in place so that serious and other important issues Client action plan are raised at national level, such that national and international management

decisions can be taken in a transparent, timely and adaptive way as at the relevant management level.

Action Plan Years 1-3 Same as Condition 9 Consultation on A letter is provided from the Bureau of Fisheries, stating that they support the condition CAP. Prior to the Final Report, an additional letter of support was provided

SCS Global Services Report

from the Bureau of Fisheries that articulates a more specific understanding of the conditions and action plan. This revised letter was required to be received prior to certificate issuance, per FCR 7.11.4.

Table 41. Condition 12 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only) Performance 3.2.2b Indicator Score 75

See rationale for PI 3.2.2b: Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

Taiwanese and Chinese pre meeting arrangements provide processes for consultation on serious issues prior to important decisions being made at the regional level. These processes relate to developing a national position on proposed CMMs. It is not clear whether these arrangements are formalized in legislation or just an informally established process. It is also unclear if they can be initiated at any time, rather than just in the lead up to the WCPFC annual meeting. Both States meeting delegations provide for participation by a range of stakeholders in regional decision making as participants at the WCPFC. Evidence was not received to indicate that it is clear and well documented that Rationale responsive (transparent, timely, adaptive) domestic decision making

arrangements are in place to respond to serious and other important issues. Decision-making processes at the WCPFC and PNA level respond to serious and other important issues in a timely manner indicating SG 60 and SG 80 are met. At the flag State level the USA arrangements also would meet the SG60 and SG80 levels. Taiwan and China have arrangements that do not appear to be as well developed or responsive (transparent, timely, adaptive) so only SG60 would be met. None of the jurisdictions have decision-making process that respond to all issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, so SG100 is not met.

For Taiwan (skipjack and yellowfin) By the second annual surveillance, provide evidence that decision-making Condition processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Year 1 (2019): Existing consultation structures and procedures are documented. Meeting minutes and relevant evidence to demonstrate the system in place is responsive to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring evaluation and consultation is available. If these Milestones are considered sufficient to support appropriate decision-making procedures at national level, score 80; if not score 75.

Year 2 (2020): If procedures are considered insufficient, a gap analysis has identified key gaps by CAB and gaps in consultation identified in Year 1 analysis are addressed. Relevant evidence to demonstrate the domestic fishery

SCS Global Services Report

management system of Taiwan is structured to respond to serious and other important issues. Score 80.

General approach Decision-making in relation to the management of Chinese Taipei at domestic level should be demonstrated to be structured and responsive to the serious and important issues. On this basis, the approach taken to address this condition is in addition to the approach to Condition 10 above; i.e. to ensure Client action plan that consultation processes are in place so that serious and other important issues are raised at national level, such that a decision can be taken in a transparent and timely way as at the relevant management level.

Action Plan Years 1-2 Same as Condition 10 Consultation on A letter is provided from the Fisheries Agency, stating that they support the condition CAP.

Table 42. Condition 13 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only) Performance 3.2.3b Indicator Score 75

See rationale for PI 3.2.3b: Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

consistently and if they provide an effective deterrent, although authorities do provide public information on companies and vessel masters who have been sanctioned as a result of illegal activity. One recent report from the Australian Fisheries Management Authority said the Australian Government welcomed the news that Chinese authorities have taken action against the operator of the Chinese fishing vessel Yuan Da 19, one of three vessels found to have misreported its catch as southern bluefin tuna. The report stated Chinese authorities had terminated all of the company’s fishing licenses and banned it from engaging in deep sea fishing activities as well as imposing a USAD $300,000 fine. Based on the information available, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied, SG60 requirements are therefore met. However, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude they are

SCS Global Services Report

consistently applied and provide an effective deterrence, meaning SG80 requirements are not met. For China (skipjack and yellowfin) Condition By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that at the national level, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and though to provide effective dereference. Year 1 (2019): Evidence that can be used to track progress against these metrics are identified by WPSTA/authorities, with associated reasoning for why such metrics will be reliable and transparent. Score: 75

Year 2 (2020): WPSTA receives evidence from Bureau of Fisheries that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem areas, using relevant metrics. Score: 75

Milestones Year 3 (2021): WPSTA continues receiving evidence from Bureau of Fisheries

that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem/risk areas, using relevant metrics. Score: 75

Year 4 (2022): China can show an effective national system of sanctions that can demonstrate that they are consistently applied and though to provide effective deterrence. Score: 80

General approach The Action Plan for Condition 7 considers the legal system to provide necessary cooperation and management outcomes consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2, this includes having an effective enforcement system and appropriate sanctions. The flag State/management agency also needs to be able to demonstrate that these sanctions are consistently applied and provide effective deterrence.

Action Plan Year 1 Activities: BoF/COFA with WPSTA involvement will conduct gaps analysis of the enforcement system and a risk assessment of key fishing operations, including the existence and application of sanctions, for the Chinese-flagged purse seine Client action plan fishery that have been identified by BoF/COFA. Metrics to quantitatively track progress against these risk issues/areas, timely and consistent resolution of sanctions, adequacy of deterrence, are identified.

Auditable activities: 1. Gap analysis report / summary meeting minutes with BoF/COFA 2. Metrics used to track sanction have been identified.

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: WPSTA will request the Bureau of Fisheries to provide evidence of application of sanction that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem/risk areas, using relevant metrics.

Auditable activities:

SCS Global Services Report

Data/evidence provided and metrics used to assess progress.

Action Plan Year 3 Activities: Following year 2, WPSTA will request the Bureau of Fisheries to provide evidence of application of sanction that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem areas, using relevant metrics.

Auditable activities: Data/evidence provided and metrics used to assess progress. Improvements evident based on available documentation.

Action Plan Year 4 : Activities: WPSTA will summarize the evidence of application of sanction between 2017 and 2020 in order to allow the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem/risk areas in metrics.

Auditable activities: Completed Metrics of sanction application from 2017 to 2020. Quantifiable improvement evident. A letter is provided from the Bureau of Fisheries, stating that they support the CAP. Prior to the Final Report, an additional letter of support was provided Consultation on from the Bureau of Fisheries that articulates a more specific understanding of condition the conditions and action plan. This revised letter was required to be received prior to certificate issuance, per FCR 7.11.4.

Table 43. Condition 14(Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only) Performance 3.2.3b Indicator Score 75

Rationale See rationale for PI 3.2.3b: Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement For Taiwan (skipjack and yellowfin) Condition By the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that at the national sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and though to provide effective dereference.

Year 1 (2019): Evidence that can be used to track progress against these metrics are identified by WPSTA/authorities, with associated reasoning for why such metrics will be reliable and transparent. Score: 75 Milestones

Year 2 (2020): WPSTA receives evidence from TFA that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem areas, using relevant metrics. Score: 75

SCS Global Services Report

Year 3 (2021): WPSTA continues receiving evidence from TFA that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem/risk areas, using relevant metrics. Score: 75

Year 4 (2022): Chinese Taipei can show an effective national system of sanctions that can demonstrate that they are consistently applied and though to provide effective deterrence. Score: 80

General approach The Action Plan for Condition 8 (on 3.1.1a) considers the legal system to provide necessary cooperation and management outcomes consistent with MSC principles 1 and 2, this includes having an effective enforcement system and appropriate sanctions. The flag State/management agency needs to be able to demonstrate that these sanctions are consistently applied and provide effective deterrence. The CAB has recognized the sanctions are being applied. However, in the light of the fact that the new Act has operated less than one year since 2017, there is currently limited information available documenting consistent prosecutions and whether these are providing deterrence at sufficiently punitive level. The Action plan here is to generate a greater weight of evidence of consistent prosecutions against measures in the new Act, at levels that are punitive and generate effective deterrence.

Action Plan Year 1 Activities: WPSTA will request TFA to conduct gaps analysis of the enforcement system and a risk assessment of key fishing operations, including the existence and application of sanctions, for the Chinese-Taipei flagged purse seine fishery that have been identified by TFA. Metrics to quantitatively track progress against Client action plan these risk issues/areas, timely and consistent resolution of sanctions, adequacy of deterrence, are identified.

Auditable activities: 1. Gap analysis report / summary meeting minutes with TFA 2. Metrics used to track sanctions have been identified.

Action Plan Year 2 Activities: WPSTA will request TFA to provide evidence of application of sanction that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem/risk areas, using relevant metrics.

Auditable activities: Data/evidence provided and metrics used to assess progress.

Action Plan Year 3 Activities: Following year 2, WPSTA will request the TFA to provide evidence of application of sanction that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem areas, using relevant metrics.

SCS Global Services Report

Auditable activities: Data/evidence provided and metrics used to assess progress. Improvements evident based on available documentation.

Action Plan Year 4 : Activities: WPSTA will summarize the evidence of application of sanction throughout 2017 to 2021 that allows the CAB to evaluate demonstrable improvement in enforcement in problem/risk areas in metrics.

Auditable activities: Completed Metrics of sanction applied between 2017 and 2021. Quantifiable improvement evident. Consultation on A letter is provided from the Fisheries Agency, stating that they support the condition CAP.

SCS Global Services Report

Letters of Support

Letter of Support from the WCPFC

SCS Global Services Report

Letter of Support from the Fisheries Agency of Chinese-Taipei

SCS Global Services Report

Letters of Support from the Bureau of Fisheries of the People’s Republic of China

Letter 1

SCS Global Services Report

Letter 2

SCS Global Services Report

Letter of Support from the National Marine Fisheries Service of the United States

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports

Peer Reviewer 1 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: The different UoAs were evaluated under a single set of Performance The scoring of the SGs is well justified and appropriate Indicator evaluation tables partly references are made to the relevant stock assessment reports because, as the reviewer mentions, and other literature. The assessors also show a good these fleets are all subject to the same understanding of the operation of the fleets, the fisheries and WCPFC management measures, but the relevant CMMs. mainly because the gear used is the same and the areas fished largely I do have a concern related to the scoring of Principle 2, where overlap. These are normally key factors a single set of evaluation tables was used. This was because it that affect the catch of non-target was assumed when scoring Principle 2 that because the species and is the main reason why the components of the UoA are subjhect to the same management species composition of the catch is so measures any differences that exist in the catch composition similar and why one evaluation table was for the Chinese, Taiwanese and the USA fleets (tables 9,10,11) used. are due mainly to the different levels of fishing effort and the low likelihood of many of the taxa being caught leading to The catch composition was evaluated stochastic variation. The Principle 2 scores were therefore across each flag state separately in order assumed to be the same across all UoA and so were provided to categorize species for MSC evaluation in a single set of evaluation tables. (Primary, Secondary, ETP, Main/Minor). As the peer reviewer notes, tables in the While I follow the logic, I have two concerns background present the catch 1. In the US flag catches Principle 1 catches are an order composition for each flag state of magnitude greater than the Chinese and Taiwanese separately. These tables confirm catches, however, catches of devil ray and silky shark material alignment in the outcome of the the same order of magnitude? This suggests that main species classifications for the catches of these species are an order of magnitude purposes of MSC scoring (which is greater in the Taiwanese and Chinese catches. Is the primarily based on catch by weight as a the use of a single evaluation table therefore valid? proportion of the total catch of the given 2. It was assumed that becuase the components ofthe flag state fleet), with slightly difference UoA are subject to the same management measures in minor species. These results are then that the catches of non-target species is similar, presented as largely grouped scores in however, in Principle 3 conditions were raised with Appendix I for scoring, due to this respect to Monitoring, Surveillance and Compliance alignment in main species, with for China and Taiwan. This implies that although CMM differences in scoring due to difference apply to all fleets there are potential problems with in the composition of minor species compliance with them. catches between the nation state fleets, My question is therefore should a seperate set of tables been noted accordingly. used for each Flag state? Within the single rationales, and because P2 was assessed separately for each of the three nation-states, any differences between the nation-based fleets in

SCS Global Services Report

terms of main or minor species were noted, such as for 2.1.2a where the minor primary species do vary. And for 2.3.2b the nation-specific management measures for each ETP species are detailed and evaluated.

The reviewer has noted some differences between the UoAs national fleets in the proportion of the catch that some P2 species represent. Nevertheless, the actual catches of devil rays and silky sharks are very small and represent less than 0.1% of the total catch for each these UoAs. Regardless of discrepancies (which can be explored in any surveillances), the current levels remain within the performance requirements of the standard as scored. .

The proportion of the total catch is important for determining how a species is treated under the MSC FCR but it is the actual catch that is a better measure of impact on the populations and is similarly minor for each UoA.

The catch composition will continue to be monitored at surveillance audits and should significant changes occur the potential impact on rationales and scores would be evaluated.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification:

Conditions 1,2,3 and 4 relate to the development of robust HCRs for both skipjack and yellowfin. While conditions 7,8,9,10,11,12 and 13 relate to the policies required to implement a HCR. Meeting these conditions is essential if the UoA is to comply with the MSC standard.

Even though the conditions only have to be met by the fourth Meeting the proposed Conditions by the annual surveillance, this is ambitious given the amount of work 4th Surveillance audit may well be required to develop HCRs. Especially since this must include ambitious but this is the longest period the development of a dialogue between stakeholders, and the that is available under the MSC system. preparation of appropriate CMMs. This will be particularly

SCS Global Services Report taxing if HCRs have to allocate catch and effort across multiple stocks, fleets and fisheries.

Meeting these conditions within the timeframe given the current lack of a clear link between the scientific advice on stock status and catches and effort will therefore be a challenge. This, however, does not reflect on the appropriateness of the conditions. No response needed. Conditions 5 and 6 relate to showing that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place by the fourth surveillance audit. These relate to Principle 3, where four of the PIs (3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2.2, and 3.2.3) received scores under SG80 for the Chinese and Taiwanese fleets, due to flag state governance concerns regarding effective cooperation, national consultation and decision-making, and evidence of consistent application of sanctions that provide effective deterrence.

Therefore although I believe the conditions are appropriately written, whether they can be met by the 4 surveillance audit, however, depends on the client action plan.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification: Thank you for this feedback. The Conditions 1,2,3 and 4 suggestions for additional avenues for These conditions are is likely to be met without any input effective stakeholder participation by from WPSTA, however, the involvement of stakeholders is key the WPSTA was adopted by the client in in the development of HCRs and it is important that WPSTA is a revised CAP (see Appendix 1.3). actively involved in any stakeholder groups. Particularly as Additional clarifications for consistency identification of management objectives and then agreeing were made to the CAP in regards to the strategies that best meets them are key steps in the conditions 7,8,13, and 14 as well based Management Strategy Evaluation process that will be used to on this feedback. develop the HCRs.

Conditions 7 &8 For China a key audited activity will be evidence showing that the number of non-compliance status in CMR has decreased over successive years, however no quantitative indicator has been promosed as it has been for Chinese Taipei flagged fishing vessels being sanctioned for unauthorized activity (e.g. WCPFC CMR and in coastal States).

Conditions 13 & 14 Clear evidence of a MSC process to detect infringement and sanctions being applied needs to be provided. While a gap analysis of the enforcement system and a risk assessment of

SCS Global Services Report key fishing operations is promised for China, there is no such analysis for Taiwan.

SCS Global Services Report

Performance Indicator Review

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring relevant and/or rationale raised improve to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please information used to score this the fishery’s attach additional pages if necessary. been used to Indicator support performance to

score this the given score? the SG80 level? Note: Justification to support your answers Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) is only required where answers given are (Yes/No) ‘No’. 1.1.1 Yes Yes NA No response required. 1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Neither stock requires rebuilding No response required. 1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 1.2.3 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 1.2.4 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.1.1 Yes Yes NA All responses are based on the single Response provided above. We also note evaluation table used across the UoA. that catch composition and allocations of species to components for each of the three UoAs was ascertained and documented transparently via Tables 9, 10. and 11 2.1.2 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.1.3 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.2.1 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.2.2 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 2.2.3 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.3.1 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.3.2 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.3.3 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.4.1 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.4.2 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.4.3 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.5.1 Yes Yes NA No response required. 2.5.2 Yes Yes NA No response required.

SCS Global Services Report

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA No response required. 3.1.1 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 3.1.2 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 3.1.3 Yes Yes NA No response required. 3.2.1 Yes Yes NA No response required. 3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 3.2.3 Yes Yes Yes No response required. 3.2.4 Yes Yes NA No response required.

SCS Global Services Report

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

The quality of the assessment report was good and made use of the appropriate background material. This was helped by the general quality of the stock assessments performed for skipjack and yellowfin. The major issues, however, are not related to the stock assessment, because scores less than SG80 were related to HCRs for the target species, management strategies for secondary species, and the management system and governance. In the latter case this relates to consultation, roles & responsibilities, decision making processes and compliance & enforcement. These are not minor issues that can be resolve quickly, therefore specifying that conditions have to be met by the fourth surveillance audit is reasonable.

Principle 1

The evaluation of Principle 1 was thorough and fully utilized the material from the stock assessment reports and the reasons for scoring were generally well justified. There were several areas where the actual assessment reports, however, were unclear and needed interpretation against the scoring goalpost. In general I would support the interpretation of the certifiers.

1.1.1: Stock Status, Yellowfin

When evaluating whether the stock is at a level which maintains high productivity the stock assessment did not actually provide 95th%iles as required to evaluate whether the SG100 level is met with a high degree of certainty. I believe the interpretation of the certifiers from the information in the stock assessment report, however, that the SG100 level is not met is correct.

1.2.1: Harvest Strategy

A main issue is whether there is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place throughout the range of the stock? The conclusion of the certifiers is that there is not and is why only the SG60 level was met. I agree with this conclusion.

1.2.2: Harvest Control Rules & Tools

The score depends on the definition of well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs), since there is no formal HCR neither stock meets requirements for SG 80. Whether they meet the requirements for SG60 depends on the definition of “available” which I believe was well argued by the certifiers.

1.2.3: Information/Monitoring

Only the SG60 and SG80 levels are met but not the SG100. This is because the certifiers feel that there were some key gaps in this catch and effort data. This is often a problem in tuna fisheries where fishery independent data are seldom available, however, WCPFC have taken great strides in tackling these data gaps.

1.2.4: Assessment of Stock Status

The quality of the work conducted for the stock assessment is generally impressive, the only failing was the lack of regular peer review of the stock assessments. Given the amount of work required to

SCS Global Services Report conduct integrated assessments for tuna and the limited number of experts available world wide this lack of peer review is due to a lack of resources rather than a lack of will.

The assessment team thanks the peer reviewer for these further comments. No further response is required.

Principle 2

It was assumed when scoring Principle 2 that because the UoA are subject to the same management measures any differences in catch composition for the Chinese, Taiwanese and the USA fleets (tables 9,10,11) that exist are due mainly to the different levels of fishing effort and the low likelihood of many of the taxa being caught leading to stochastic variation. The Principle 2 scores were therefore assumed to be the same across all UoA and so were provided in a single set of evaluation tables. This is a big assumption, and while I follow the logic, why in the US catches where the Principle 1 catches are an order of magnitude greater than the Chinese and Taiwanese catches are catches of devil ray and silky shark the same order of magnitude?

As noted in the summary table above, the different UoAs were evaluated under a single set of Performance Indicator evaluation tables partly because, as the reviewer mentions, these fleets are all subject to the same WCPFC management measures, but mainly because the gear used is the same and the areas fished largely overlap. These are normally key factors that affect the catch of non-target species and is the main reason why the species composition of the catch is so similar and why one evaluation table was used.

The catch composition was evaluated across each flag state separately in order to categorize species for MSC evaluation (Primary, Secondary, ETP, Main/Minor). As the peer reviewer notes, tables in the background present the catch composition for each flag state separately. These tables confirm material alignment in the outcome of the main species classifications for the purposes of MSC scoring (which is primarily based on catch by weight as a proportion of the total catch of the given flag state fleet), with slightly difference in minor species. These results are then presented as largely grouped scores in Appendix I for scoring, due to this alignment in main species, with differences in scoring due to difference in the composition of minor species catches between the nation state fleets, noted accordingly.

Within the single rationales, and because P2 was assessed separately for each of the three nation- states, any differences between the nation-based fleets in terms of main or minor species were noted, such as for 2.1.2a where the minor primary species do vary. And for 2.3.2b the nation-specific management measures for each ETP species are detailed and evaluated.

The catch composition will continue to be monitored at surveillance audits and should significant changes occur the potential impact on rationales and scores would be evaluated.

SCS Global Services Report

The only Scoring Issue where flag state performance is considered to be different between fleets is shark finning and hence conditions are only set for two flag states in respect of shark finning. I believe that this is reasonable

No response required.

Principle 3

The scoring guideposts vary based on the fishery management system and governance being assessed for each flag. Relevant jurisdictions include the WCPFC, PNA, as well as the three licensing flag states of the fleet under assessment (USA, China, and Taiwan), while each flag state comprised two distinct species-based UoAs. This potentially makes deriving the SGs from the SIs very complicated, however, the way the Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 was well explained.

The assessment team thanks the peer reviewer for these further comments. No further response is required.

Conditions 1,2,3 and 4

Condition 1 (Skipjack; all fleets) 1.2.1a, Condition 2 (Skipjack; all fleets) 1.2.2, Condition 3 (Yellowfin; all fleets) 1.2.1a, Condition 4 (Yellowfin; all fleets) 1.2.2

The condition is likely to be met without any input from WPSTA, however, the involvement of stakeholders is key in the development of HCRs and it is important that WPSTA is actively involved in any stakeholder groups. Particularly as identification of management objectives and then agreeing the strategies that best meets them are key steps in the Management Strategy Evaluation process that will be used to develop the HCRs.

Conditions 1 and 3 relate to PI 1.2.1 “Is there a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place”, in particular 1.2.1a “harvest strategy design”; while conditions 2 and 4 relate to PI 1.2.2 “are there well defined and effective HCRs in place”.

The conditions are set so that by the fourth surveillance audit (2022), it must be demonstrated that the harvest strategies for skipjack and yellowfin is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points.

As correctly stated in the CAP “A harvest strategy and control rule for WCPO skipjack and yellowfin is not something that WPSTA members can put in place.” This depends on WCPFC and in WCPFC14- 2017-DP27_rev2 (07 December 2017) it is stated that the goal of the WCPFC is that in 2020 a Harvest Control Rule 9HCR) will be adopted for skipjack and in 2021 a HCR will be adopted for yellowfin, resulting in Harvest Strategies being in place for Skipjack in 2021 and presumably for Yellowfin for in 2022. Therefore under the plans of WCPFC there will be well defined HCRs in place by 2022, even without any input from WPSTA and so the condition will be satisfied.

In 2016 the WCPFC planned to implement a series of regional stakeholder engagement and consultation strategies for Management Strategy Evaluation development, see the Report of the Expert Consultation Workshop on Management Strategy Evaluation (WCPFC-SC12-2016/MI-WP-05).

SCS Global Services Report

This is because communication with and participation of all stakeholders is a critical component of the Management Strategy Evaluation process that will be used to develop the HCRs. Therefore it was planed to hold interactive working groups for development of candidate management strategies since the involvement of stakeholders is key in the development of HCRs. This working group would focus on development of harvest control rule options, implementation measures, performance statistics, etc. and would consider the outputs of the resulting evaluations for subsequent review by the Commission.

See response in summary table above. The client has modified the CAP in response to the suggestion by the peer reviewer.

Conditions 5 & 6

Condition 5 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only),Condition 6 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only), 2.2.2d It is likely that shark finning is not taking place

• For China by the fourth annual surveillance (2022) provide evidence of an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

• For Taiwan by the second surveillance audit (2020) provide evidence that is sufficient to demonstrate that it is highly likely that shark finning is not taking place

A reason for the condition were the low levels of observer coverage for China, it is now promised sufficient observer coverage with training to provide sufficient quality will be provided. While for Taiwan the issue was lack of records from the observer program, WPSTA will work with TFA and SPC to make all the data available, if the TFA can provide a letter of support then the condition will be met.

No response required.

Conditions 7 & 8

Condition 7 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only), Condition 8 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only), 3.1.1a Legal and/or customary framework, Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

• For China (skipjack and yellowfin) by the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence of an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

• For Taiwan (skipjack and yellowfin) by the fourth annual surveillance, provide evidence of an effective national legal system and organised and effective cooperation with other parties, where necessary, to deliver management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

For China a key audited activity will be evidence showing that the number of non-compliance status in CMR has decreased over successive years, however no quantitative indicator has been promosed

SCS Global Services Report as it has been for Chinese Taipei flagged fishing vessels being sanctioned for unauthorized activity (e.g. WCPFC CMR and in coastal States).

See response in summary table above. The client has modified the CAP in response to the suggestion by the peer reviewer.

Conditions 9 & 10

Condition 9 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only), Condition 10 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only), 3.1.2b Consultation, roles and responsibilities, Consultation processes

• For China by the third annual surveillance, provide evidence to demonstrate that clear and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels.

• For Taiwan by the second annual surveillance, provide evidence to demonstrate that clear and transparent processes exist to regularly seek and accept “relevant information” provided via consultative processes and that any such information is considered in management decision making at national and regional levels.

The key here is to provide evidence of the implementation of any revised arrangements and how discussions and outcomes have been considered in refining domestic and regional management arrangements/positions.

No response required.

Conditions 11 & 12

Condition 11 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only), Condition 12 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only), 3.2.2b Decision making processes, Responsiveness of decisionmaking processes

• For China by the third annual surveillance, provide evidence that decision-making processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

• For Taiwan by the second annual surveillance, provide evidence that decision-making processes at the national level respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions.

No response required.

SCS Global Services Report

Conditions 13 & 14

Condition 13 (Yellowfin & Skipjack; China only), Condition 14(Yellowfin & Skipjack; Taiwan only), 3.2.3b Compliance and enforcement, Sanctions

• For China by the fourth surveillance audit provide evidence that at the national level, sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and though to provide effective dereference.

• For Taiwan by the second surveillance audit provide evidence that at the national sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are consistently applied and though to provide effective dereference.

Clear evidence of a MSC process to detect infringement and sanctions being applied needs to be provided. While a gap analysis of the enforcement system and a risk assessment of key fishing operations is promised for China, there is no such analysis for Taiwan.

See response in summary table above. The client has modified the CAP in response to the suggestion by the peer reviewer.

SCS Global Services Report

Peer Reviewer 2 Summary of Peer Reviewer Opinion

Has the assessment team arrived at an CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes presented in the assessment report? Justification: See specific responses for each Performance Indicator. No further Existing sources and literature have been thoroughly detailed response required. in the report. Information collected (including anecdotal information) has been presented in a comprehensive and sound manner and given the correct weigh. The scores awarded by the assessment team were generally appropriated and well justified. Where scores verification and/or justification were advised, score changing won’t affect the overall status outcome for the fishery as a whole, though it would change the number of conditions rose. Therefore, it is considered that the assessment team has arrived at an appropriate conclusion and that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify the certification of the WPSTA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin free school purse seine, based on MSC existing certification conditions for this fishery.

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: Thank you. No further response required. The report lays out clearly the scoring methodology, actual scoring, resulting conditions and recommendations. This allowed for PR to verify the scoring and propose corrections. The CAB has set 14 distinct, measurable, auditable and verifiable conditions for every PI that has achieved a score of less than 80. PR advise for the raising of three new conditions (one for each UoA: USA, China and Taiwan), related to S.I. 3.1.1. b), scoring revision, from SG80 to SG60.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses]

SCS Global Services Report

Justification: No response required.

The client action plan is suitable. However, as with MSC assessments of other RFMO tuna fisheries, the achieving of conditions 1, 2, 3, and 4, are beyond the control of the client. However, proposed milestones in the updated Proposed Revisions to Harvest Strategy Work plan (WCPFC14-2017- DP27_rev2) will hopefully allow for a Harvest Strategy for Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna to be in place in 2021. Nonetheless, this is likely to be a morose process that will probably entail more time than expected. Furthermore the achieving of actions specified in the plan to implement conditions 7, 8, 13 and 14 can’t be directly fulfilled by the client. Client’s participation to this process is limited to lobbying China and China Taipei Governments into the carrying out the required actions.

SCS Global Services Report

Performance Indicator Review

Performance Has all available Does the information Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator relevant and/or rationale condition(s) raised Please support your answers by referring information been used to score this improve the to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. used to score this Indicator support the fishery’s Please attach additional pages if Indicator? given score? performance to the necessary. (Yes/No) (Yes/No) SG80 level? (Yes/No/NA) Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’.

Principle One: Target Species Background

UoA1: Skipjack Tuna

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. 1.1.1 YES YES NA appropriate.

The stock does not require rebuilding, so No Response Required. 1.1.2 NA NA NA it is not necessary to score this PI.

The scoring is well reasoned and Suggested amendments have been appropriate. The corresponding added to the rationale. condition is appropriate for the fishery.

1.2.1 YES YES YES (condition 1) PR would suggest to add to the justification under PI 1.2.1 f) that reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and Observer Programs (100% observer coverage) and that compliance with CMM 2015-01 (and its

SCS Global Services Report

predecessors) it’s verified by Fisheries Observers with any violations (such as illegal discards) being reported to the WCPFC via the Observer authority .

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. appropriate. The corresponding 1.2.2 YES YES YES (condition 2) condition is appropriate for the fishery.

1.2.3 The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. YES YES NA appropriate.

1.2.4 The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. YES YES NA appropriate.

UoA2: Yellowfin Tuna

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. 1.1.1 YES YES NA appropriate.

The stock does not require rebuilding, so No Response Required. 1.1.2 NA NA NA it is not necessary to score this PI.

The scoring is well reasoned and Suggested amendments have been 1.2.1 YES YES YES (condition 3) appropriate. The corresponding added to the rationale. condition is appropriate for the fishery.

SCS Global Services Report

As per skipjack review, PR would suggest to add to the justification under PI 1.2.1 f) that reporting of discards is done via vessel logbooks and Observer Programs (100% observer coverage) and that compliance with CMM 2015-01 (and its predecessors) it’s verified by Fisheries Observers with any violations (such as illegal discards) being reported to the WCPFC via the Observer authority.

The scoring is well reasoned and References have been added. No appropriate. The corresponding further response required. 1.2.2 YES YES YES (condition 4) condition is appropriate for the fishery. (References used for the justification should be included under the PI 1.2.2)

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. 1.2.3 YES YES NA appropriate.

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. 1.2.4 YES YES NA appropriate.

Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

The scoring is well reasoned and References have been added. No further response required. 2.1.1 appropriate. YES YES N/A All UoAs (References used for the justification should be included under the PI 2.1.1)

SCS Global Services Report

2.1.2 The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. All UoAs YES YES N/A appropriate.

2.1.3 The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. All UoAs YES YES N/A appropriate.

The scoring is well reasoned and References have been added. No further response required. 2.2.1 appropriate. YES YES N/A All UoAs (References used for the justification should be included under the PI 2.2.1)

2.2.2

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. UoA China YES YES YES (condition 5) appropriate. The corresponding condition is appropriate for the UoA.

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. UoA Taiwan YES YES YES (condition 6) appropriate. The corresponding condition is appropriate for the UoA.

The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. UoA USA YES YES N/A appropriate.

2.2.3 The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. YES YES N/A All UoAs appropriate.

Thank you. Summary table has been 2.3.1 The scoring is well reasoned and amended to correctly reflect scores YES YES N/A All UoAs appropriate. in the evaluation table which were the same for all UoA.s

SCS Global Services Report

Note that this P.I. is classified under the Scoring table as reaching SG80 for all UoAs, however under sub-chapter 6 - Summary of PI Level Scores different scores are given to UoAs, respectively: SG85 to UoA China and UoA Taiwan and SG80 to UoA USA. If information compiled under “Summary of PI Level Scores” is correct than this should be integrated and justified under the respective Scoring table.

2.3.2 The scoring is well reasoned and No Response Required. YES YES N/A All UoAs appropriate.

The scoring is well reasoned and Thank you. Summary table has been appropriate. amended to reflects scores in the evaluation tables. Note that this P.I. is classified under the Scoring table as reaching SG85 for all UoAs, however under sub-chapter 6 - Summary of PI Level Scores different 2.3.3 YES YES N/A scores are given to UoAs, respectively: All UoAs SG85 to UoA China and UoA Taiwan and SG100 to UoA USA. If information compiled under “Summary of PI Level Scores” is correct than this should be integrated and justified under the respective Scoring table.

SCS Global Services Report

The scoring is well reasoned and Thank you. Summary table has been appropriate. amended to reflect scores in the evaluation tables. Note that this P.I. is classified under the

Scoring tables as reaching SG100 for all (Cross reference added to UoAs, however under sub-chapter 6 - background section where relevant Summary of PI Level Scores, different references are provided). scores are given to UoAs, respectively: 2.4.1 YES YES N/A SG100 to UoA China and UoA Taiwan and All UoAs SG85 to UoA USA. If information compiled under “Summary of PI Level Scores” is correct than this should be integrated and justified under the respective Scoring table. (References used for the justification should be included under the PI 2.4.1)

Taking into account that Purse seine sets Unassociated purse seine sets do do not interact with any seafloor habitat not pose a risk to any habitats but during fishing operations and do not this PI has been evaluated because CB3.15.1 requires that "Teams shall pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm score this PI even if the fishery has to pelagic habitats, no management no impact on this component”. strategy is therefore required. Making The rationale is designed to show 2.4.2 this PI not relevant for the assessment of that set types are appropriately YES NO N/A All UoAs the UoAs. recorded as evidence of the strategy that any change to this Nevertheless if the assessment team situation would be detected. decides to score PI 2.4.2 then Clarification of this has been added justifications SI a), b) and c), should be to the rationale. reformulated to clarify on how guideposts are met.

SCS Global Services Report

Note that this P.I. is classified under the Summary table has been amended Scoring tables as reaching SG100 for all to reflects scores in the evaluation UoAs, however under sub-chapter 6 - tables

Summary of PI Level Scores, different

scores are given to UoAs, respectively: SG100 to UoA China and UoA Taiwan and SG85 to UoA USA. If information compiled under “Summary

of PI Level Scores” is correct than this (A cross reference has been added should be integrated and justified under to the background section on the the respective Scoring table. observer program as main (References used for the justification supporting information relevant to should be included under the PI 2.4.2) this PI).

PR would recommend reformulating The suggested amendments have justifications for SI b) and c) for better been incorporated into revised clarification on how guideposts are met. rationales to clarify how guideposts are met. A proposal is presented below.

b) Information on the spatial extent and on the timing and location of use of the purse-seine fishing gear is collected by 2.4.3 at-sea observers (100% Observer YES YES N/A All UoAs coverage) and by VMS (100% coverage)

and thus there is accurate, near real-time monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Purse seine fishing is not considered capable of affecting the epipelagic habitat and does

not interact with benthic habitat during

SCS Global Services Report

its operation. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are therefore considered as met.

c) Information on the spatial extent and Summary table has been amended on the timing and location of use of the to reflects scores in the evaluation purse-seine fishing gear is collected by tables at-sea observers (100% Observer coverage) and by VMS (100% coverage)

and thus there is accurate, near real-time

monitoring of the spatial extent of interaction, and the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. Furthermore, the physical, chemical and biological properties of the WCPO are regularly monitored, allowing for the

measurement of changes in habitat

distributions over time. SG 60, SG 80 and SG 100 requirements are therefore considered as met. Note that this P.I. is classified under the

Scoring tables as reaching SG100 for all

UoAs, however under sub-chapter 6 - Summary of PI Level Scores, different scores are given to UoAs, respectively: SG100 to UoA China and UoA Taiwan and SG85 to UoA USA. If information compiled under “Summary of PI Level

Scores” is correct than this should be (A cross reference has been added integrated and justified under the to the background section on the respective Scoring table. observer program as main

SCS Global Services Report

(References used for the justification supporting information relevant to should be included under the PI 2.4.3) this PI).

2.5.1 The scoring is well reasoned and No response required. YES YES N/A All UoAs appropriate.

2.5.2 The scoring is well reasoned and No response required. YES YES N/A All UoAs appropriate.

The scoring is well reasoned and appropriate.

Note that this P.I. is classified under the

Scoring tables as reaching SG90 for all Summary table has been amended UoAs, however under sub-chapter 6 - to reflects scores in the evaluation Summary of PI Level Scores, different tables scores are given to UoAs, respectively:

2.5.3 SG90 to UoA China and UoA Taiwan and YES YES N/A All UoAs SG100 to UoA USA.

If information compiled under “Summary of PI Level Scores” is correct than this should be integrated and justified under the respective Scoring table.

(References used for the justification (References have been added as should be included under the PI 2.5.3). well as a cross reference to the relevant background section).

3.1.1 The outlined The author states in the last two The wording of the SG80 requires conditions 7 and 8, paragraphs of its justification for the that the management system “… is YES NO UoA China would partially scoring of PI 3.1.1. b) : considered to be effective in dealing with most issues (our emphasis) UoA Taiwan improve the

SCS Global Services Report

UoA USA fisheries ”This system is transparent in that it and that is appropriate to the performance to the makes sure that all members are fully context of the UoA”.

SG80. These will informed of the issues under No RFMO management system is consideration and are able to participate need to be re- “entirely” transparent and in the written to include in informed discussion prior to a decision context of their operations it would conditions to all being taken”. Yet, he also states that: be unrealistic to expect every three UoA to “Any disputes resolved through the decision to be entirely transparent. provide evidence WCPFC meeting system would still not Indeed, the wording at the SG 100 also does not demand this level of that the necessarily be entirely transparent in the sense that how a resolution is reached transparency, but only that the management mechanism is appropriate to the may not be fully reported (Medley and system context of the fishery and has been incorporates or is Powers 2015).” tested and proven to be effective. subject by law to a I don’t fully agree with the scoring of PI transparent 3.1.1. b), taking into account that the The Reviewer suggests that “… the mechanism for the management system incorporates or is management system incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism resolution of legal subject by law to a mechanism that is that is only transparent to its disputes. only transparent to its members, but not members, but not entirely entirely transparent to the public. transparent to the public”. Therefore, I would advise for PI 3.1.1 b) However, the arrangements within to be scored SG 60 instead of SG 80. the WCPFC provide for broad non- member participation, either as Consequently PI 3.1.1 would be scored part of Members delegations or as SG75 for the UoA USA and SG70 for the entities in their own right and with UoAs of China and Taiwan. So, conditions the exception of certain parts of the for all three UoA will need to be raised to meetings, observers are fully privy improve the fishery performance to the to discussions and decisions. In this SG80 level. regard it is argued that there is transparency for “most issues” and arrangements are appropriate in the context of the UoA. No revisions to the score or rationale have been made.

SCS Global Services Report

YES The scoring is well reasoned and No response required. (condition 9 for appropriate. The conditions are YES YES 3.1.2 UoA China and appropriate for the corresponding UoA. (for all UoA) (for all UoA) condition 10 for UoA Taiwan)

YES YES The scoring is well reasoned and No response required. 3.1.3 N/A (for all UoA) (for all UoA) appropriate.

YES YES The scoring is well reasoned and No response required. 3.2.1 N/A (for all UoA) (for all UoA) appropriate.

The scoring is well reasoned and Additional wording added to YES appropriate. The conditions are address suggested clarification re: (condition 11 for appropriate for the corresponding UoA. PISGs. YES YES 3.2.2 UoA China and Yet the PR would suggest to reformulate (for all UoA) (for all UoA) condition 12 for justification under S.I. 3.2.2 e) to better UoA Taiwan) explain why the S.I. meets SG60 and SG80 but not the SG100.

YES The scoring is well reasoned and No response required. (condition 13 for appropriate. The conditions are YES YES 3.2.3 UoA China and appropriate for the corresponding UoAs. (for all UoA) (for all UoA) condition 14 for UoA Taiwan)

The scoring is well reasoned and No response required. 3.2.4 YES YES N/A appropriate.

SCS Global Services Report

Optional: General Comments on the Peer Review Draft Report (including comments on the adequacy of the background information if necessary) can be added below and on additional pages

Key Issues and solutions for the MSC certification of Industrial Tuna Purse-seine Fisheries MSC Industrial tuna purse-seine fisheries certification key issues lays in the capacity to: 1. correctly assess fishery environmental impact on habitats and associated, dependent and ecologically related species; 2. finding traceability solutions for MSC certified tuna fisheries at sea; 3. finding traceability solutions for MSC certified tuna fisheries into the supply chain; MSC Principle 2: Environmental impact of fishing states that 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. Purse-seine fishing gear does not physically interact with benthic habitat during its operation. Any impacts of the fishery will therefore be confined to direct or indirect effects on the surface waters in which the fishery operates. Environmental impacts of ITPSF include among others, the 1) removal of target species; 2) removal of associated, dependent and ecologically related species (higher level of removal in the presence of floating objects (man-made or not)28; higher level of mortality of ETP species in man-made, non- ecological, FADs; 3) changes to the ecological behaviour of the target and associated, dependent and ecologically related species due to the presence of floating objects. Multiple studies conducted on ITPSF environmental impacts point for a higher ecological impact of fisheries conducted on floating objects (particularly on man-made non-ecological FADs). As a result, ITPSF was classified as being conducted on associated or unassociated tuna schools. However, MSC and RFMOs use different standards to define unassociated tuna schools (different standards being also found among RTFMOs). MSC standards to define unassociated tuna schools consist on a separation based on whether tunas are associated with something (natural or artificial) or not. While some RTFMOs define the separation of associated/unassociated tuna schools based on the type of sizes caught with each type of fishing (ex. IOTC) and others based on a detailed definition of an unassociated school (ex: WCPFC) including a distance limitation29. Herrera M. (2016) demonstrated the inaccuracy of each of these separation methods on a panel presentation at the SeaWeb Seafood Summit30 and the limitations in applying such standards both at sea (using observers) and/or on land via port sampling of the catches. Yet, both scientists, RTFMOs and the MSC recognise that associated tuna schools present similar characteristics in species composition and bycatch. They are “FAD-like”. Data collected during research projects that had per objective to study the behaviour and abundance of species aggregated around man-made drifting FADs, could be used to estimate weighted species diversity indexes that could then be used by the MSC as standards to differentiate associated from unassociated tuna schools. This solution would allow solving the problem of the definition of “unassociated school of tuna” needed to implement properly any MCS approach on purse seine tuna fishery at a global scale. Furthermore, the application/verification of those “bycatch indexes” for each well and each trip of a particular vessel

28 These include : Natural Logs, drifting FADs, anchored FADs, Whale sharks, dead animals, sea mount, other (e.g. a vessel) 29 “any object or group of objects, of any size, that has or has not been deployed, that is living or non-living, including but not limited to buoys, floats, netting, webbing, plastics, bamboo, logs and whale sharks floating on or near the surface of the water that fish may associate with” “…no purse seine vessel shall conduct any part of a set within one nautical mile of a FAD” 30 Herrera M.(2016). MSC-Certification in the context of a tuna fisheries management organization: The case of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission And some views from the tuna industry.

SCS Global Services Report or the totality of the wells for a trip of a particular vessel could be conducted by MSC certified inspectors, via port-sampling and the visioning of electronic observer footage. Such actions would: 1) prevent bycatch rejections by fishing vessels when there’s no Fisheries Observer on board; 2) reduce pressure placed on Observers, by removing from under their responsibility of assessing if the set was conducted or not on an unassociated school of tuna; 3) resolve issues connected to MSC certified tuna fisheries traceability at sea and into the supply chain; 4) allow for the general certification of the industrial tuna purse-seine fishery per area and species taking into account that vessel trip catch would be certified on a case to case basis.

The MSC standard currently doesn’t have any policy-based definition of different set types. We note that in recent weeks the MSC has elected to update their policy to bring in an approach that will require CABs to assess catch composition by trip, that will make set type differentiation within a trip no longer a material consideration to MSC assessments once implemented.

In the meantime, the current system is being phased out and like all other forms of MSC policy that refer to management in a particular context, CABs defer to RFMO definitions in a particular ocean basin. As described in the background of the report and known to the peer reviewer, in the WCPFC, set type is defined for all management purposes in an a priori fashion, and all other aspects of management and information management from observers that bear on upholding CMMs currently also use these definitions.

The WCPFC doesn’t currently have requirements related to post-set verification so this remains a voluntary best practice measure, employed by some, but not all, WCPFC vessels. In fact, the use of post set verification, such as the species index-based definition proposed above, may in fact require a variation to the current MSC requirements, as described in FCRV2.0 7.4.9. The client for this fishery assessment elected not to pursue this variation in order to allow for post-set verification. The Unit is therefore aligned with the definition of a free school set as defined by the competent authority, and as determined operationally within the management system (via observer records). By doing so, the scope of the catch data evaluated (i.e. observer records of sets identified as free school at the time a set was made) is aligned with the requirements used to evaluate the Unit of Assessment and Certification. This meets the MSC scope requirements currently in existence.

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 3 Stakeholder Submissions

Comments Received Prior to the PCDR Stage

PNAO31 NOTE TO RELEVANT CABS ON SCORING OF SI 1.2.1a FOR WCPO SKIPJACK FISHERIES Background Some recent assessments of WCPO skipjack fisheries have concluded that these fisheries do not meet SG80 for SI 1.2.1 a) and have applied, or propose to apply, a related condition.

With some variations, the rationales for this scoring have essentially been similar to that reported in the recent Talley’s assessment as follows: “The basis for this is that participants (in the Hong Kong harmonisation meeting) consider that there is no clear linkage between potential catch and allocated effort, that the processes for determining VDS TAE and PAE are not transparent and that it is unclear how the TAE is determined, based on stock status advice. Overall, it was agreed that for the WCPFC tuna fisheries, including those under the PNA’s VDS, there is insufficient evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives, hence a score of 70 is warranted for PI 1.2.1 and a condition is required.”

WCPFC and PNA Management Actions on WCPO Skipjack The process is:  The Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC), as Scientific services Provider to the WCPFC, provides assessments for major stocks on around a 3 yearly basis  The WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC) reviews the assessments and provides advice to the Commission, including on stock status and management implications, which is typically in the form of recommended adjustments to fishing mortality. For example, the current recommendation on bigeye (based on the 2014 assessment) is for a 36% reduction in fishing mortality from the average levels on 2008–2011. The recommendation for skipjack for some time has been for no increase in fishing mortality  The Commission considers SC advice and adjusts the various conservation measures as it sees appropriate. There is a substantial record of the Commission making adjustments to conservation measures in response to the scientific advice on fishing mortality to achieve management objectives  In the case of skipjack: - the SC advice is considered within the multi-species framework of the tropical tuna conservation and management measure (CMM), currently CMM 2016-01 - the management actions for skipjack are based on zone-based purse seine effort limits, with some exceptions such as New Zealand which applies a TAC domestically32 -

PNAO NOTE TO RELEVANT CABS ON SCORING OF SI 1.2.1a FOR WCPO SKIPJACK FISHERIES

31 Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Office 32 This process is almost exactly parallel to that used to apply measures, based on effort limits, for north Pacific albacore, which was scored for SI 1.2.1 a) at 80 in the Hong Kong harmonisation process

SCS Global Services Report

--Continued-- - there is a substantial record of actions by the WCPFC in the development of these limits, and associated actions by PNA in response to scientific advice on skipjack stock status as set out in the Attachment - the WCPFC purse seine effort limits currently include a limit for PNA EEZs, implemented by the PNA through the PNA Purse Seine Vessel Day Scheme (VDS), to the 2010 level which is taken as 44,033 days as previously notified by SPC using logsheet data. This effectively sets an upper limit for the PNA VDS TAE, and has in fact been used as the basis for the VDS TAE since 2013  PNA review the VDS TAE annually within the limits of their obligations to apply WCPFC measures. The annual review is focused on: a) whether the TAE should be set below the level associated with the WCPFC effort limit for biological or economic reasons. This could for example take into account more recent indicators than provided by the assessment of stock status and information on developments in the fishery, including effort creep b) an adjustment transforming the WCPFC limit in nominal logsheet days to VDS days within which there are vessel size-related adjustments designed to reflect in a broad way, the differences in stock impacts (and catch values) of different vessel classes. This is necessary to ensure that the VDS TAE in length-adjusted vessel days is consistent with the WCPFC PNA EEZ effort limit in nominal logsheet days – this adjustment is minor and has been within 3% so far  the annual review is made by the Parties to the Palau Arrangement in an open session regularly attended by observers, and the PNA working paper for this review and a report of the decision taken by the Parties on the TAE is available on the PNA website  in terms of performance, the management objective for skipjack since 2013 has been to

maintain F at no greater than FMSY as specified in successive tropical tuna CMMs,  as indicated by the 2016 assessment, that objective has been achieved (F/ FMSY = 0.45) (see WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-04)  PNA and the Commission have now adopted an interim TRP for skipjack of 50% of estimated

recent spawning biomass without fishing (see WCPFC CMM 2015-06), nearly double SBMSY  analysis undertaken on alternative candidate TRPs, to inform the adoption of the interim TRP, including analysis of the estimated relative effort levels associated with those candidate TRPs (see WCPFC‐SC10‐2014/MI‐WP‐09 and WCPFC-MOW3-WP/03) provides evidence that the current management actions/effort limits are designed to work towards achieving the management objective – the agreed interim TRP.  As demonstrated in the 2016 stock assessment of skipjack (SA-WP-04, section 10.2) maintenance of effort at recent levels, consistent with the TAE, is projected to maintain the stock around the TRP, providing further evidence that the current management actions/effort limits are working towards achieving the management objective.

PNAO NOTE TO RELEVANT CABS ON SCORING OF SI 1.2.1a FOR WCPO SKIPJACK FISHERIES --Continued--  As seen from Figure 28 of that assessment report, while purse seine catchabilities have increased over time, they have flattened off and in some cases declined in the recent period.

SCS Global Services Report

While partly due to the way in which they are calculated (converging toward the prior mean toward the end of the time series) they have remained stable for some years. Therefore any necessary changes in the TAE will have a direct and proportional impact on catch/stock status as a result in the short term. However, candidate HCRs to meet the condition against 1.2.2 will be evaluated against their robustness to effort creep, given the potential for this to occur within the purse seine fishery.

On this basis, available information: a) indicates a pattern of responses in terms of management actions by the WCPFC and PNA to skipjack stock status b) establishes that there is a process in place, within which the WCPFC responds to advice on skipjack stock status by taking management action – currently largely in the form of effort limits c) clearly links the PNA VDS TAE to skipjack stock status through the WCPFC decision on effort limits as a response to scientific advice on stock status d) indicates that while the skipjack stock status has not yet required reductions in skipjack fishing mortality, the process is in place for the Commission to reduce the effort limits in the tropical tuna measure, if this is required to maintain the stock around the TRP, including taking into account effort creep (increasing catchability), which would reduce the PNA VDS TAE accordingly e) shows that the measures taken by the WCPFC and PNA achieved the previous management

objective of maintaining fishing mortality at no greater than FMSY, and are working towards the current management objective which is the interim TRP

SCS Global Services Report

PNAO33 NOTE TO RELEVANT CABS ON SCORING OF SI 1.2.1a FOR WCPO SKIPJACK FISHERIES --Continued-- Attachment

Stock Status Scientific Committee Advice Harvest Strategy Responses 2005: 2005: SC1 advises that “skipjack is currently 2005: WCPFC adopts CMM 2005-01: Assessment exploited at a modest level relative to its Conservation and Management Measures for estimates biological potential. Furthermore, the Bigeye and Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and F/ FMSY = 0.17, estimates of Fcurrent/FMSY and Bcurrent/BMSY Central Pacific Ocean – aimed at managing SB/SBMSY = 3.72 reveals that overfishing of skipjack is not bigeye and yellowfin, not skipjack, limits purse occurring in the WCPO, nor is the stock in an seine effort to 2004 or average 2001-4 levels overfished state (Figure S8). Recruitment (para 8) with an exemption for domestic vessels variability, influenced by environmental (para 6) and provision for existing access conditions, will continue to be the primary agreement effort levels to be allowed for within influence on stock size and fishery the effort limits (footnote 1) performance.” 2007: VDS comes into force with domestic vessels and USA vessels not subject to limits. (see 2005 VDS text) 2008: SC4 “acknowledged that skipjack catches in WCPFC5 adopts CMM 2008-01: Conservation and Assessment 2007 increased to a historical high of ~1.7 Management Measures for Bigeye and Yellowfin estimates million t. ….. These high recent catches are Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean – F/ FMSY = 0.26, considered to be sustainable unless also aimed at managing bigeye and yellowfin, not SB/SBMSY = 3.82 recruitment falls persistently below the skipjack, maintaining the exemption for domestic long-term average. However, any increases vessels and the provision for existing access in purse-seine catches of skipjack may result agreement effort to be allowed for. 100% in a corresponding increase in fishing observer coverage on purse seine vessels is mortality for bigeye and yellowfin tunas.” introduced. 2010: SC6 advises that “The assessment continues WCPFC7 decides to extend the CMM to replace Assessment to show that the stock is currently only CMM 2008-01 to cover skipjack as well as bigeye estimates moderately exploited and fishing mortality and yellowfin (see Attachment V of the WCPFC7 F/ FMSY = 0.34, levels are sustainable. Catch rate levels are Report) SB/SBMSY = 2.67 likely to decline and catch should decrease as stock levels are fished down to MSY levels. Due to the rapid change of the fishing mortality and biomass indicators relative to MSY in recent years, increases of fishing effort should be monitored.” 2011: SC7 advises that: “The assessment continues  Observer-adjusted catch estimates replace Assessment to show that the stock is currently only logsheet-based catch estimates in the estimates moderately exploited (FCUR/ FMSY = 0.37) and reference case of the assessment F/ FMSY = 0.37, fishing mortality levels are sustainable. …. If  PNA advise the WCPFC that they will apply a SB/SBMSY = 2.94 recent fishing patterns continue, catch rate hard limit to purse seine effort in their EEZs, levels are likely to decline and catch should limiting effort to the 2010 level (see CMM decrease as stock levels are fished down to 2011-01), removing the exemptions for MSY levels. Due to the rapid change of the domestic vessels and USA vessels and a range fishing mortality and biomass indicators of other elements that allowed flexibility in relative to MSY in recent years, increases of the setting and use of PAEs. fishing effort should be monitored. The  2011 on: PNA Members revise the VDS text Commission should consider developing to: limits on fishing for skipjack to limit the a) Remove carryover of unused PAEs (see old34 declines in catch rate associated with para 2.4) further declines in biomass.”

33 Parties to the Nauru Agreement (PNA) Office 34 Refers to 2005 Text

SCS Global Services Report

b) Bring the effort by domestic vessels and USA vessels under a hard TAE (see old Article 3) c) Remove transfers of PAEs between years (see old Article 7) d) Remove provision for temporary increases in PAE (see old para 12.6) (For these changes see 2005 and 2016 VDS texts) 2012: WCPFC10 adopts CMM 2012-01, as a measure for the conservation and management of skipjack as well as bigeye and yellowfin, including binding purse seine effort limits without exemptions for all EEZs, including limiting effort in PNA EEZs to the 2010 level (see paras 12-14 of the CMM), and extends the effort and capacity limits of other commercial fisheries to apply also to skipjack (see para 30). 2014: SC10 advises: “The assessment continues to PNA and Tokelau propose adoption of a skipjack Assessment show that the stock is currently only TRP at WCPFC11, referring to the SC10 advice estimates moderately exploited (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.61) and based on the 2010 assessment (see WCPFC11- F/ FMSY = 0.61, fishing mortality levels are sustainable. 2014-DP12). SB/SBMSY = 1.86 However, the continuing increase in fishing mortality and decline in stock size are recognized. … The spawning biomass is now around the mid-point of the range of candidate TRPs of 40%, 50% and 60% of unfished spawning stock biomass that WCPFC10 has asked SC10 to consider for skipjack tuna. SC10 recommends that the Commission take action to avoid further increases in fishing mortality and to keep the skipjack tuna stock around current levels, with tighter purse-seine control rules and advocates for the adoption of TRPs and harvest control rules. 2015: SC11 maintains the advice from SC10  PNA adopts interim skipjack TRP  WCPFC12 adopts: a) an interim skipjack TRP as proposed at WCPFC11 by PNA based on an updated proposal by PNA and other FFA Members responding to the advice of SC 10 and SC11 (CMM 2015-06) ; and b) a harvest strategy workplan providing in respect of skipjack for recording of management objectives, agreeing on acceptable levels of risk, a monitoring strategy and performance indicators; and developing a HCR using MSE 2016: SC12 advises that “skipjack spawning  WCPFC13: Assessment biomass is now around the adopted TRP and a) accepts a list of performance indicators for estimates SC12 recommends that the Commission take tropical purse seine fisheries for the purpose F/ FMSY = 0.45, action to keep the spawning biomass near of the evaluation of HCRs SB/SBMSY = 2.31 the TRP and also advocates for the adoption b) adopts an approach to accounting for of harvest control rules based on the acceptable levels of risk of breaching the LRP information provided.” for each stock; and c) adopts a revised harvest strategy workplan

SCS Global Services Report

SCS Response:

We have considered this submission from PNA concerning PI 1.2.1 for skipjack. This submission contains an account of the processes followed by WCPFC and PNA in making adjustments to management arrangements for skipjack tuna. This submission has also been considered by other CABs as part of harmonisation discussions on this issue. We, and the other CABs, remain of the view that the deficiencies in the harvest strategy for skipjack tuna identified in the initial assessment still remain, particularly while there is no harvest control rule. Specifically, core concerns in the scoring of skipjack under PI 1.2.1 relative to PNA are:

A) There is a lack of a clear link between the PAE and scientific advice on stock status

B) There is no clear linkage between potential catch and allocated effort

C) It is not possible to transparently understand how the VDS/PAE will deal with effort creep and concomitant increase in Q.

D) Because Principle 1 is evaluated stock-wide, If PNA unilaterally develops their own HCR, it will become necessary for a formal commitment from PNA to reduce effort to compensate for removals by non-PNA fishery participants in the WCPO, if necessary to assure that overall PNA removals remain compliant with any HCR and the overall PNA HS.

SCS Global Services Report

Comments Received during the PCDR Stage

ISSF

SCS Global Services Report

SCS Response to ISSF 1.2.2a The ISSF comment suggests a misunderstanding of MSC requirements and the logic behind the proposed score. There are two potential criteria for determining whether HCRs are available (but not in place) that are described in SA2.5.2. The assessment team has accepted that HCRs are available on the basis that the criteria in SA2.5.2a are met and ISSF agrees that a decline to below BMSY is unlikely. SA2.5.2b is not relevant. Then there are two separate potential criteria for determining whether a CAB should recognize these available HCRs as being ‘expected to reduce the exploitation rate as the point of recruitment impairment is approached’ that are described in SA2.5.3. The assessment has considered that the requirement in SA2.5.3a is not met but that in SA2.5.3b is met. As these are alternative ways to meet the requirement, only one needs to be met to meet SG60 requirements. The ISSF comment lists one of the two criteria from SA2.5.2 and one of the two from SA2.5.3. It acknowledges that this is not the full list but the implication is that the two provided are those relied on in our rationale, which is incorrect. In particular, the inclusion of SA2.5.3a and the discussion of the situation for bigeye tuna implies that the failure to meet this criterion is grounds for failing the UoA. As noted above we agree that SA2.5.3a is not met and have not considered that the situation for bigeye tuna (or any other species managed by WCPFC) is grounds for meeting SA2.5.3 requirements. But the ISSF comment makes no mention of whether they consider that SA2.5.3b is met. SA2.5.3b requires that there be ‘An agreement or framework is in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY’. The rationale states why we consider this to be met but, as ISSF has not challenged this rationale, no further response can be made. 1.2.2b No response needed. 1.2.2c As for 1.2.2a, the ISSF comment suggests a misunderstanding of MSC requirements and the logic behind the proposed score. HCRs for yellowfin have been evaluated as being available but not in place and that SA2.5.3b applies. Therefore, we have evaluated the requirements of SA2.5.5b which pertains to the agreement to put HCRs in place. ISSF comments relate to the evaluation of the effectiveness of HCRs in place for other UoAs (as outlined in SA2.5.5a) but this would only be relevant if SA2.5.3a (HCRs are effectively used in other UoAs) had been the basis passing at SG60. It was not. As the ISSF comments have not challenged the rationale for why we consider SA2.5.3b requirements are met, no further response can be made. We would note, however, that the comment that ‘The trajectory of stock biomass is downwards throughout the time series’ is inaccurate as in the most recent stock assessment the stock trajectory for yellowfin has shown a slight increase in the most recent years. This also refutes the other comment that there is ‘no reason to suppose that the stock trajectory will not continue downwards’. We also note that there is now evidence of more favourable recruitment. Both are positive signs for the stock but we are aware that there is no guarantee that these trends will continue and the state of the stock and the levels of fishing mortality would be subject to ongoing scrutiny at future surveillance audits after any updates to the stock assessment.

SCS Global Services Report

MSC Technical Oversight (with SCS Response in far right column) Page Requirement Grade Oversight Description Pi CAB Comment Reference Version When discussing the observer coverage in We have been precautionary in not just noting section 3.4.1, the team state that reports and accepting that there is a requirement for relating to the observer coverage in the three 100% observer coverage but also looking for UoAs "suggest that the level of observer evidence about the actual level of observer coverage is high, and approaches 100% for coverage being achieved by each of the fleets. the USA purse seine fleet, but they do not Table 8 includes a combination of actual data allow us to determine how close the Chinese received by SPC (the number of trips with and Taiwanese fleets have come to the known observer placements and the number requirement for 100% observer coverage on of observed trips for which data was purse seine fleets fishing between 20N and forwarded to SPC) and an estimate made by 20S." SPC of the actual number of trips made. At face value the discrepance between the two First, if the reports mentioned in the relevant could have been taken to mean that there is a section of 3.4.1 (e.g. WCPFC-TCC11-2015- proportion of trips that were made without FCR-7.10.6.1 56 Major RP02, WCPFC13 -2016-IP10) cannot be used observers but we recognised that there are v2.0 to determine observer coverage between multiple other potential explanations for this 20N and 20S, how can the assessment team apparent shortfall. We made further enquiries be sure that the estimates provided in Table to Peter Williams at SPC about the most likely 8 are accurate? explanations for this gap and have recorded his response in the report that it was "most Second, based off Figure 2 and Figure 3, the likely attributable to transit trips on which no majority of the WCPO yellowfin and skipjack fishing took place but that there may also have catch comes from between 20N and 20S. been some observed fishing trips for which the Therefore, would a lack of understanding into observer data was not forwarded to SPC". We how close observer coverage from 20N to have accepted this expert opinion that the 20S is in relation to 100% for the Chinese and discrepancy most probably reflects a recording Chinese Taipei UoAs, impact the estimates problem rather than a compliance issue. We used for describing the species compositions have added additional text to the report to in Tables 9, 10 and 12? make this conclusion more explicit.

SCS Global Services Report

Given the above, we have no reason to believe that the high proportion of trips for which observer data are available constitute a biased sample of all fishing trips and therefore should have no bearing of the species composition descriptions that are based on those observerd trips. The focus on waters between 20N and 20S is not just a reflection of source of the majority of the catch but also the scope of the observer requirements for purse seine fishing contained within the relevent CMM (footnote 6 on page 53). PI 2.3.2: scoring issue b: Within the rationale, Text about cetaceans had been copied to the the team refer to Chinese domestic laws or rationales for other ETP species. The same FCR-7.10.6.1 regulations relating to cetaceans when 214-215 Minor 2.3.2, logic was relevant but the text has been v2.0 discussing other ETP species. As such it is not amended to refer to the correct ETP species in clear what strategy is applied to the specific each case. ETP species for the Chinese UoA. Additional text has been added to the already PI 2.3.2. scoring issue e: It is unclear whether FCR-7.10.6.1 detailed rationale in support the proposed 219 Major SG100 is met as there is no biennial review of 2.3.2, v2.0 score which is consistent with other alternative measures. assessments. “There are no current plans to use observers There is no requirement to specify who or for MSC eligibility/CoC verification purposes”. which roles are responsible for such actions in But also mention for “FAD-like” catch volume 7.12.1: the requirement specifies only needing was segregated from certified catch, and to determine if the system is "sufficient" which FCR-7.12.1 FAD-free Recognition by a third party to 18,146 Guidance we interpret as theoretically/logically with the v2.0 ensure free school catches of those vessels ability to segregate and with reason to be under FSP are not mixed with FAD sets from operational. The implementation and how it the same fishing trip”. Please describe clearly occurs specifically is checked in a CoC audit by who manage the verification of certified CoC auditors. catch on board?

SCS Global Services Report

There is no requirement in the FCR to specify what occurs in processing facilities via 7.12.1: the requirements apply to traceability before Part 5.3 Record keeping for juvenile bigeye the fish products enter further Chains of tuna separation in the following processing Custody. In this system CoC starts at the point FCR-7.12.1.4 facilities and how this information being 149 Minor that fish is landed on the vessel deck: v2.0 communicated to the UOC to make sure the subsequent systems are covered by CoC certified harvest quantity information is audits, including any risks of mixing in accurate is not mentioned and described. processing facilities. The composition of catch at landing on the vessels is recorded by scientific observers. N/a - As per text on p. 148, Chain of Custody Transshipment - Chain of Custody must begin must begin before any transshipment and thus before any transshipment and thus this risk this risk does not apply to the fishery does not apply to the fishery certificate. certificate. Explained another way, the fishery Although the CoC certificate is there(which certificate ends where CoC begins, at the point don’t include vessel on FCF certificate now), that fish are landed on the deck of the vessel. the report have to describe how the risk of FCR-7.12.1.4 There are no requirements in the FCR or the 148 Minor transshipment have been mitigated, and how v2.0 MSC Full Assessment Reporting template to segregate during transshipment from the stipulating that descriptions in the well to transship, and identification on "Traceability Factor" table are to apply to transship. And also describe the ownership of Chain of Custody certificates that follow from transshipment vessel. If subcontracted the Fishery certificate. Logically, these factors ownership, it also have to describe the would only be noted if they fall within the control for these subcontractors. fishery certificate. The fishery client group FCF require CoC but This statement is inaccurate. Chain of custody on their certificate, the scope do not include audits have not yet been conducted for this the harvest and storage activity for this client in association with this FCF client group FCR-7.12.2 146 Minor fishery. And the FCF CoC certification sites list fishery certificate (FCF have been audited for v2.0 do not list and include the all vessel names. CoC associated with the PNA fishery certificate There are gap between fishing vessel and FCF only), and this informaiton will be verified CoC certificate, the fishing boats listed in when CoC requirements are examined by CoC

SCS Global Services Report

PCDR report Appendix 6 is not included in any auditors and included as relevant, in the CoC CoC certificate so far. report(s). We note that the US portion of the UoA in this In relation to shark finning, the assessment assessment is a specific group of vessels and team outlines the differences in scoring for thus a subset of the UoA under the Tri Marine other Western Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) WCPO MSC certificate; and therefore explicit certified free-school purse seine fisheries in harmonization requirements under P2 do not Table 20. However, it is not clear why the apply. That said, there was new relevant scoring differences exist between the current information taken into account for this assessment and the other fisheries. For assessment that was not known to the example, the UoA with USA flagged vessels in assessment team at the the time of the Tri the current assessment is scored at SG80 for Marine initial full assessment. At the time of shark finning in PI 2.2.2 si (d) but USA flagged the Tri Marine assessment, the assessment 135-136, 205- FCR-PB3.3.3 Major vessels in the Tri Marine assessment are 2.2.2, team was not aware of the detailed public 206 v2.0 scored at SG60 for shark finning in PI 2.1.2 si record of the US Government's follow up of (e). Granted, the Tri Marine assessment was reported infractions by US vessels that is under v1.3 of the MSC Certification described in the current report. This, and the Requirements, but the scoring guideposts are promulgation by NOAA of the 2016 Final Rule unchanged between those scored in Tri on the 2010 Shark Conservation Act that is Marine and the current assessment. Further, cited in this report, gave an extra level of both Tri Marine UoC and the UoAs in the confidence to compliance with WCPFC's shark current assessment appear to operate finning measures and hence a pass at the SG primarily in PNA waters, so the differnce in 80 level was considered to be warranted for outcome is unclear. this fleet. Scores will be updated for Tri Marine at the relevant subequent audit.

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

The surveillance programme is expected to be set at Level 6: Default Surveillance. The timing of the audit is considered TBD at this stage in the assessment process, to be confirmed at the PCR.

Table 44. Surveillance level rationale

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale In accordance with FCRV2.0 7.23.4 and based on the number of conditions and information needed to verify progress. Note, the on-site audit may not 1-4 On-site audit 2 or more auditors necessarily include in person meetings with representatives of all management systems relevant to the UoA.

Table 45. Timing of surveillance audit

Anniversary date Proposed date of Year Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 2019 June 2018 Within six months of To be held in compliance with timing requirements the certificate put forth in FCRV2.0 7.23.6 anniversary date

Table 46. Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 6 On-site surveillance On-site surveillance On-site surveillance e.g. On-site audit audit audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 5 Objections Process

Not Applicable. No objection received.

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 6. Vessel List

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 7: Letter to WCPFC re CMM 2016-01 and Response

Letter to WCPFC from SCS

SCS Global Services Report

Letter to SCS from WCPFC

SCS Global Services Report

Appendix 8: Expedited Audit/Scope Eligibility Re-affirmation

Context

On May 24th 2018, Greenpeace East Asia released the following press release and associated report, documenting issues of forced and slave labor on high seas tuna fisheries35. . The report named Fong Chun Formosa Fishery Inc. (FCF) as a company linked to trading tuna from three main case studies covered by the report. A number of other major tuna trading companies are also documented to have traded from the relevant vessels/situations36.

As the Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) for the Western Pacific Sustainable Tuna Alliance (WPSTA) assessment SCS Global Services had an obligation to assure that as scoped, the Unit of Assessment (UoA) and Unit of Certification (UoC) in question continued to meet the requirements of the Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) standard. The UoC for WPSTA the which includes 27 defined purse seine vessels (See Appendix 6. Vessel List) 37 .At present the MSC standard does not have auditable requirements related social issues, but does acknowledge their importance in seafood supply chains. When V2.0 of the standard came into effect in April of 2015, a new scope eligibility element was introduced, FCR V2.0 7.4.1.4., which reads: 7.4.1.4 The client or client group shall not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years. a. If an entity that belongs to a certified client group is successfully prosecuted for violations of laws on forced labour, such entity shall be considered as having become out of scope and shall be withdrawn from the certificate or client group.

In terms of our auditing obligations as an accredited CAB allowed to issue MSC certificates, the key scope element concerns “the client or client group shall not include an entity […]”. The definition of ‘client group’ is broader than the client only, where the client is the legal entity in contract with SCS – in this case FCF Inc. itself, and the client group includes the entities scoped in the UoC (as defined per the MSCI Vocabulary v1-1): MSC Client: The legal entity applying to the CAB for certification or that holds valid MSC certificate.

MSC Client group: (~Unit of Certification): “Includes fishing operators within a unit of certification or other entities that the client identifies as being covered by and/or able to access the certificate. In cases where the client group does not fully control all fishing activity on a stock, the members should recognise that the achievement of any conditions placed on the fishery may be dependent on

35 https://www.greenpeace.org/international/story/16676/taiwanese-seafood-giant-linked-to-human-rights- violations-greenpeace/ 36 https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2018/06/11/did-greenpeace-give-free-pass-to-thai-union-to-focus- on-taiwans-biggest-fish-fcf/ 37 https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/wpsta-western-and-central-pacific-skipjack-and-yellowfin-free- school-purse-seine/@@assessments

SCS Global Services Report

the actions of other parties, and thus outside their control (though some forms of influence may also be possible).”

Therefore, if there were companies (entities) within the client group which is made up of 23 companies that own the 32 purse seine vessels currently assessed as within the WPSTA Unit of Assessment, that have been associated with any successful forced labor prosecutions within the last two years (even if these are longline vessels which are not part of the UoA), then this would make this entity and its associated vessels/product ineligible to be part of the certificate. Framework for Diagnosis

MSC clause GCR4.3.1 stipulates that “All CABs shall conform to the requirements of ISO 17065”. ISO Guide 17065 (Sept 2012) 7.11 in turn, reads: 7.11 Termination, reduction, suspension or withdrawal of certification 7.11.1 When a nonconformity with certification requirements is substantiated, either as a result of surveillance or otherwise, the certification body shall consider and decide upon the appropriate action.

NOTE Appropriate action can include the following: a) continuation of certification under conditions specified by the certification body (e.g. increased surveillance); b) reduction in the scope of certification to remove nonconforming product variants; c) suspension of the certification pending remedial action by the client; d) withdrawal of the certification.

In this case, we have an accreditation-bound obligation to establish whether the events noted by Greenpeace – one of which includes an event with reasonable potential to bear on scope eligibility requirement FCR V2.0 7.4.1.4 and ongoing investigation as noted by the Taiwanese Fishery Agency (please see below) - necessitates us to “decide upon an appropriate action”.

“Appropriate action” is established by FCR 7.4.1.4a which dictates that “if an entity that belongs to a certified client group is successfully prosecuted for violations of laws on forced labour, such entity shall be considered as having become out of scope and shall be withdrawn from the certificate or client group”. This is in keeping with ISO 17065 7.11.1 2b, “reduction in the scope of certification to remove nonconformity product variants”.

As such, we had an obligation to undertake an Expedited Audit, sensu 7.23.22. where “the CAB shall undertake an “expedited audit”, including as it determines necessary review of documents and an onsite audit if: FCR 7.23.22.1 “The CAB becomes aware of major changes in relation to the circumstances of the fishery, or if significant new information that may cause a major change” 7.23.22.1a further explains that “A ‘major change’ is one that is likely to be material to the certification status. A change in scope, ….etc.”. In this case, there is the potential for a change in scope (sensu ISO 17065, reduction), where we needed to determine specifically whether there was any entity in the Client Group with any connection to the full suite of convictions and ongoing Fu Tzu Chun/Fu Tsz Chiun case and the relevant dates of these matters. Specifically, we are bound only to check whether there have been any prosecutions related to forced labor that have occurred in the last 2 years (between May 25th 2018 and May 25th 2016)

SCS Global Services Report

Results of the Expedited Audit

The following three cases are explained in Greenpeace’s Misery at Sea report found here: http://www.greenpeace.org/eastasia/Global/eastasia/publications/campaigns/Oceans/Misery_at_S ea-Final1.pdf Here we show documentation of the Taiwan Fishery Agency’s position38 on the three cases in question, their relevance to the client group and the conclusions in each case made by SCS as to the compliance of the Unit in terms of scope eligibility (FCR 7.4.1.4.)CASE 1: Giant Ocean Case

TFA Statement/Position38 –

“…The case of Giant Ocean International Fishery Co. Ltd (Pty) is a human trafficking case which took place seven (7) years ago in Cambodia. The Taiwan competent authorities had been requesting the criminal evidence and court decisions of this case from Cambodia through judicial processes at the time, but no such information were received. On the other hand, the FA invited scholars and experts to review accessible information on those nationals suspected to engage in this case and referred the case to district prosecutor’s office. In the year 2016, the prosecutor’s office of the relevant district has closed the case due to the lack of any criminal evidence. As the Giant Ocean case involves criminal charge yet no actual proof of the crime was found after the review of judiciary authority, the FA could not identify the involved personnel as guilty simply based on allegations. It is also important to note that Giant Ocean International Fishery Co. Ltd (Pty) is not on the list of the agencies authorized to employ foreign crew members overseas....”

Relevance to FCF – Direct purchasing/trading linkage. FCF and its subsidiary FCN were purchasing/trading fish from Taiwanese LL vessels (Wei Ching and Shin Lung 216) implicated in the human trafficking ring prior to 2014 and one Taiwanese LL vessel (Wei Ching) following the prosecution.

SCS Compliance conclusion - At present, this purchasing/trading linkage does not trigger any action towards the Client Group given the scope of requirement 7.4.1.4., because it requires that either of the vessels was owned by one or more of the companies below AND that the prosecution occurred within the last 2 years. Note that prosecution(s) now occurred too long ago for any relevant holding companies to be disqualified from the client group, regardless of any relevant forced labor prosecutions associated with holding companies within the UoC, which SCS did not verify.

CASE 2: Fu Tsz Chiun

TFA Statement/Position –

“…The case of fishing vessel Fu Tsz Chiun dates back to August 2014, during which time the FA had imposed penalties on both the captain and boat owner for their failure to report for the sick crew

38 https://www.fa.gov.tw/en/Announcement/content.aspx?id=55&chk=5cbea8fb-fcd7- 4e64-8ccb-adbf482fb874¶m=pn%3D1

SCS Global Services Report

member and take actions to provide necessary medical treatment. In addition to a certain amount of fine, the license of the captain was were suspended for some period, and the qualification of the agent involved was also withdrawn. As for whether the deceased crew member had been suffered from abuse before death, the case is still active and is under investigation of the national judiciary authority…”38

Relevance to FCF – No known purchasing or trading linkage.

SCS Compliance conclusion - The information received by SCS from TFA (below) was consistent with the WCPFC vessel register (https://www.wcpfc.int/node/15355) and indicates that the legal entity associated with (owning) the Fu Tsz Chiun, now renamed the Mann Yih Chyuu 33, is an individual named (First names) Chen Hui Hua (Surname) Hsieh, who is not part of the current Client Group for the FCF UoC. This was further corroborated with information from Trygg-Mat Tracking. See below for the correspondence from TFA (1) and Trygg-Mat Tracking (2).

1) The ownership information was provided to SCS via the competent authority, the Taiwan Fisheries Agency on June 14th 2018, who notified SCS of the following:

On 6/14/18, 4:14 AM, "Hsiang-Yi Yu" <****(anonymized)> wrote:

Dear Sian,

Thank you for the follow up on the two questions about the case of Maan Yih Chyuu No.33 and Fu Tzu Chun, I'm writing this email to provide our response on behalf of our Agency as stated below:

* The vessel Maan Yih Chyuu is registered under, owned and operated by Hsieh, Chen Hui Hua, instead of being owned by any legal entity. This also how the information shows and aligns on WCPFC website https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w cpfc.int%2Fnode%2F15355&data=02%7C01%7Csmorgan%40scsglobalservices.com% 7C263e579b88254fa84ab208d5d1e80610%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed %7C0%7C1%7C636645716907086447&sdata=2mN2M6lMOrLRtUvPPXm%2BX2Y9An 1ae1Ror9UpfUoHaco%3D&reserved=0. So there is no specific company name associated the boat owner, Hsieh, Chen Hui Hua. We herein also confirmed the boat owner, Hsieh, Chen Hui Hua, does not possess any other vessels except for Maan Yih Chyuu No. 33.

* In terms of penalties of this case, a press release by TFA on Dec. 27, 2016 is clearly stated that the owner of Fu Tzu Chun was fined with TWD$ 150,000 by TFA, and the captain's license had been suspended for 5 months due to their failure to report to TFA on crew's illness. As for the case of abuse, it is still under investigation of national judiciary authority. Below link is the full context of the press release by TFA for your reference, it's CN version available only and the penalty is indicated in the second paragraph. https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fa.gov.t w%2Fcht%2FNewsPaper%2Fcontent.aspx%3Fid%3D1389%26chk%3D68179dcf- 512e-4a31-812f- 0b7039df6155%26param%3Dpn%253d1%2526yy%253d2016%2526mm%253d%25 26Keywords%253d%2525e7%2525a6%25258f%2525e8%2525b3%25259c%2525e7 %2525be%2525a4&data=02%7C01%7Csmorgan%40scsglobalservices.com%7C263e5 79b88254fa84ab208d5d1e80610%7C8b90dfd06e4e4cb0b664d30b89f833ed%7C0%7

SCS Global Services Report

C1%7C636645716907096452&sdata=rbl4Wu%2FBuarSk6QF2k4uTKZL7SrjWCW5zyz DGDZGZYA%3D&reserved=0

Hope above information could help, thank you.

Kind regards, Joy

Joy, Hsiangyi Yu（尤香宜） International Fisheries Affairs Section Deep Sea Fisheries Division, Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture TEL: 02-****-**** (anonymized) E-mail: **** (anonymized)

2) SCS also received the following independent information from Trygg-Mat Tracking (https://www.tm-tracking.org/) which is consistent with the above statement by TFA:

…. no particular larger company comes up. It’s worth noting that the address is on Xiaoliuqiu Island, where we know that many of the smaller longliners are owned by individuals who own just a couple of vessels, so it’s definitely plausible that there is no larger company behind this one. The address given looks to be a residential neighbourhood…. Of possible interest is that the former owner *** **** **** was previously at an address on the same street (Zhonghua Road, Liuqiu Township) but this doesn’t necessarily indicate that beneficial ownership hasn’t changed - it’s a small place and a significant proportion of the population are involved in fishing. Also nothing to suggest that the previous owner has ties to a larger company either…”

Note that if the owner of the Fu Tzu Chun had been one of the 23 entities in the Client Group (UoC) this could have triggered a non-compliance to scope requirements under the MSC standard IF any successfully prosecuted forced labor charge had occurred AND had occurred within the last 2 years. This legal entity would then not have to be allowed to remain part of the Client Group.

CASE 3: Tunago No. 61

TFA Statement/Position –

“…The Tunago No. 61 case is a homicide committed on a Vanuatu-flagged fishing vessel (~Sept 2016), while the deceased captain was from China and the crew allegedly committed the crime were from Indonesia respectively. Therefore, Taiwan is not the flag state of the vessel, and neither the victim, nor the perpetrator, is a Taiwan national…”38

Relevance to FCF – No known trading or purchasing linkage. Indirect association via an independently- owned carrier vessel. FCF has traded with two carrier vessels, called the Ho Chun No. 102 and Shin Ho Chun No. 101, which are owned by a Taiwanese company. One of these carriers (Shin Ho Chun No. 102), while Panamanian-flagged, collected a shipment from the Tunago No. 61 on the trip involving the death of the vessel’s captain.

SCS Global Services Report

SCS Compliance conclusion – This linkage could only theoretically trigger 7.4.1.4. if the owner of the vessel were part of the UoC and was successfully prosecuted for a forced labor charge. However, the legal owner of the Tunago No. 61 is Tunago Fishery Co. Ltd, which is not a member of the Client Group for the certificate, according to: https://www.wcpfc.int/node/15645.