Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

MSC SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES CERTIFICATION

Fiji Albacore and Yellowfin Tuna longline

Final Report

December 2017

Client: Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC Group Assessment Conducted by: Jo Akroyd and Kevin McLoughlin On behalf of Acoura

Acoura Version V2.1 04/01/17 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Assessment Data Sheet

CAB details Acoura Address 6 Redheughs Rigg Edinburgh EH12 9DQ Phone/Fax 0131 335 6662 Email [email protected] Contact name(s)

Client details Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC Group Postal Address PO Box 178, Suva, Fiji

Phone +679 7112244/+679 9711939 Email [email protected] Contact name(s) Anare Raiwalui

Assessment Team Team Leader & P3 Jo Akroyd P1/P2 Assessor Kevin McLoughlin

Page 2 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline Contents Assessment Data Sheet ...... 2 1 Executive Summary ...... 8 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers ...... 10 Assessment Team ...... 10 Peer Reviewers ...... 11 RBF Training ...... 11 3 Description of the Fishery ...... 12 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 12 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 12 Final UoC(s) ...... 12 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 13 Fishing vessels ...... 13 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries ...... 15 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries ...... 15 Overview of the fishery ...... 15 Principle One: Target Species Background...... 17 Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) ...... 20 Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) ...... 28 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 40 Primary species ...... 43 Secondary species ...... 45 Endangered Threatened and Protected species ...... 50 Habitats ...... 59 Ecosystem impacts ...... 60 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 63 Jurisdictions in the area of operation ...... 63 Recognised groups with interests in the UoAs...... 64 Consultation processes ...... 69 Decision making processes ...... 69 Objectives for the fishery ...... 71 Fishing Fleet...... 72 Rights of access to the fishery ...... 72 Other overlapping fisheries ...... 73 Management regulations ...... 73 Monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement...... 74 Training ...... 75 Review of the Management plan ...... 75 4 Evaluation Procedure ...... 77

Page 3 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 77 Previous assessments ...... 80 Assessment Methodologies ...... 81 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 81 Site Visits ...... 81 Consultations ...... 82 Evaluation Techniques ...... 83 5 Traceability ...... 86 Eligibility Date ...... 86 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 86 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 88 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 88 6 Evaluation Results ...... 89 Principle Level Scores ...... 89 Summary of PI Level Scores...... 89 Summary of Conditions and Recommendations ...... 90 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 91 References ...... 92 Appendices ...... 101 Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales ...... 101 a. Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale ...... 101 UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) Principle 1 scoring tables...... 101 UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 101 UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 104 UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 105 UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools...... 109 UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 112 UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ...... 115 UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna) Principle 1 scoring tables ...... 118 UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.1.1 – Stock status ...... 118 UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding ...... 120 UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.1 – Harvest strategy ...... 121 UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.2 – Harvest control rules and tools ...... 124 UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.3 – Information and monitoring ...... 127 UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status ...... 130 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome ...... 132 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy ...... 135 Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information ...... 138 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome ...... 140

Page 4 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy ...... 144 Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information ...... 146 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome ...... 148 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.2 – ETP species management strategy ...... 153 Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.3 – ETP species information ...... 157 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome ...... 159 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy ...... 161 Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information ...... 163 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome ...... 165 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy ...... 167 Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.3 – Ecosystem information ...... 169 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework ...... 172 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities ...... 176 Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives ...... 179 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives ...... 181 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes ...... 183 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement ...... 188 Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation 192 Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs ...... 194 Appendix 1.3 Conditions ...... 195 Condition 1 ...... 195 Condition 2 ...... 198 Condition 3 ...... 201 Condition 4 ...... 203 Condition 5 ...... 207 Condition 6 ...... 208 Condition 7 ...... 209 Appendix 1.4 Letter of support from Fiji Ministry of Fisheries ...... 211 Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports...... 212 Peer Review A ...... 212 Peer Review B ...... 221 Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions ...... 230 Appendix 3.1 MSC Technical Oversight ...... 230 Appendix 3.2 Other Stakeholder submissions ...... 236 Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency ...... 238 Appendix 5 Objections Process ...... 239

Page 5 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Glossary

ACAP Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels ALB Albacore tuna CCM WCPFC Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members and Participating Territories are termed CCMs CITES Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora CNM Co-operating Non-Member CoC Chain of Custody CPUE Catch per Unit Effort EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone ERA Ecological Risk Assessment ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected F Fishing mortality FAD Fish Aggregating Device FFA Forum Fisheries Agency FFC Forum Fisheries Committee FMA Fishery Management Area FMSY Fishing mortality at MSY FFIA Fiji Fishing Industry Association FOFA Fiji Offshore Fisheries Association FTBOA Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association GRT Gross Registered Tonnage HCR Harvest Control Rule HMS Highly Migratory Species ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation IUCN International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated LFRR Licensed Fish Receiver Return LRP Limit Reference Point MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance MFCL MULTIFAN-CL Stock Assessment Software MHR Monthly Harvest Return MOW Management Objectives Workshop MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NPOA National Plan of Action NGO Non-Government Organisation PAE Part Allowable Effort PNA Party to the Nauru Agreement PNAO Party to the Nauru Agreement Office PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSA Productivity Sensitivity Analysis QMS Quota Management System RBM Ray’s Bream RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organisations SB Spawning Biomass SBcurrent Average spawning biomass over recent years SBMSY Spawning biomass at MSY SC Science Committee (of the WCPFC) SIDS Small Island Developing States SKJ Skipjack tuna

Page 6 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

SPC Pacific Community (formerly referred to as the Secretariat of the Pacific Community) SPC-OFP SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme SPO South Pacific Ocean SST Sea Surface Temperature STCZ Sub-Tropical Convergence Zone TAC Total Allowable Catch TACC Total Allowable Commercial Catch TCC Technical and Compliance Committee (of the WCPFC) TCLER Tuna Longline Catch Effort Return TMDP Tuna Management and Development Plan TRP Target Reference Point TVM Te Vaka Moana UNCLOS United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Fish Stock Agreement UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification VDS Vessel Day Scheme VME Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem VMS Vessel Monitoring System WCPFC Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPFC-SC WCPFC Scientific Committee WCPO Western Central Pacific Ocean WWF World Wildlife Fund YFT Yellowfin tuna

Page 7 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline 1 Executive Summary i) This report provides details of the MSC assessment process for the Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline fishery for the Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC Group. The assessment process began 3rd February 2017 and was concluded (to be determined at a later date). ii) Longline fishing for albacore tuna in the Fiji EEZ was first certified in 2012 (Akroyd et al. 2012). The client base for this assessment differs to that for the 2012 assessment. In addition, yellowfin tuna is to be assessed as well as albacore tuna and the area of the fishery being assessed is being extended beyond the Fiji EEZ to include high seas pockets bordering the EEZ. iii) A comprehensive programme of stakeholder consultations was carried out as part of this assessment, complemented by a full and thorough review of relevant literature and data sources. iv) A rigorous assessment of the wide-ranging MSC Principles and Criteria was undertaken by the assessment team. A detailed and fully referenced scoring rationale is provided in the assessment tree provided in Appendix 1.1 of this report. v) The Target Eligibility Date for this assessment is 31st January 2018, which is the date the current certificate for Fiji longline albacore, expires.

The assessment team for this fishery assessment comprised of Jo Akroyd who acted as team leader and primary Principle 3 specialist; and Kevin McLoughlin who was primarily responsible for evaluation of Principle 1 and 2.

Client strengths • The improvements that have occurred in management of the fishery since the 2012 assessment. • The commitment of the Fiji Government with additional staff appointed in recent years and high level of observer coverage, and willingness to apply sanctions. • Fiji government has good support from FFA and SPC • All client vessels are Fiji flagged and subject to Fiji legislation including rules and regulations • All client vessels land into one port and there is good landing monitoring in place. • FFIA MSC group is professional and well organised • Fiji’s engagement in MSC Tuna Alignment Group.

Client weaknesses • Progress in meeting the conditions is dependent on progress at WCPFC. • Some of the client vessels fish both within and outside the UoC meaning that excellent traceability and compliance systems need to be followed rigorously.

Determination On completion of the assessment and scoring process, the Acoura Marine assessment team has provisionally recommended that the fishery should be certified. This recommendation is subject to client, peer and stakeholder review.

Rationale No performance indicator (PI) scored <60 and all the Principles have an average weighted score of 80 or above.

Page 8 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Conditions & Recommendations A number of criteria, which contribute to the overall assessment score, scored less than the unconditional pass mark, and therefore trigger a binding condition to be placed on the fishery, which must be addressed in a specified timeframe (within the 5 year lifespan of the certificate). The fishery had four PIs (1.2.1, 1.2.2, 2.2.3 and 3.2.2) score between 60 and 80. In total seven conditions of certification are proposed, all consistent with harmonisation requirements have been set.

Full explanation of these conditions is provided in Appendix 1.3.

A recommendation has been made in relation to the provision of a report analysing observer data.

Page 9 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline 2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers Assessment Team All team members listed below have completed all requisite training and signed all relevant forms for assessment team membership on this fishery.

Assessment team leader: Jo Akroyd Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 3 Jo is a fisheries management and marine ecosystem consultant with extensive international and Pacific experience. She has worked at senior levels in both the public and private sector as a fisheries manager and marine policy expert. Jo was with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in New Zealand for 20 years. Starting as a fisheries scientist, she was promoted to senior chief fisheries scientist, then Fisheries Management Officer, and the Assistant Director, Marine Research. She was awarded a Commemoration Medal in 1990 in recognition of her pioneering work in establishing New Zealand’s fisheries quota management system. Among her current contracted activities, she is involved internationally in fishery certification of offshore, inshore and shellfish fisheries as Fisheries Management Specialist and Lead Assessor for the Acoura conformity assessment body. She has carried out the Marine Stewardship Council’s (MSC) certification assessment for sustainable fisheries. Examples include New Zealand (hoki, southern blue whiting, ling, hake, albacore, skipjack and scallops), Fiji (longline albacore and yellowfin tuna), Japan (pole and line tuna, flatfish, snowcrab, scallops), China (scallops), and Antarctica (Ross Sea tooth fishery).

Expert team member: Kevin McLoughlin Primarily responsible for assessment under Principle 1 & 2

Kevin McLoughlin is a specialist fisheries consultant based in Australia with more than 30 years’ experience across a wide range of international and domestic fisheries science issues, with close links to government policy. He represented the Australian Government on many committees and groups such as fishery assessment groups, providing advice on a diverse range of fisheries and species (including tuna, shark, various finfish, scallop and prawn). Work in assessment groups involved assessment of target species, development of bycatch action plans and ecological risk assessments. Mr McLoughlin was responsible for the production of annual status reports for Australian government-managed fisheries for a number of years. Mr. McLoughlin was Australia’s delegate on scientific issues at the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and was Chair of the IOTC Working Party on Bycatch for several years. Mr McLoughlin was also a delegate at meetings of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna.

Mr McLoughlin has worked predominantly on Principle 1 aspects of MSC assessments but has also undertaken Principle 2 and 3 work, as well as peer review and surveillance audits for several fisheries. Kevin was a team member for the full assessment of the Fiji albacore longline fishery, the New Zealand Albacore Fishery, the Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin Tuna Fishery, Australia’s blue grenadier fishery, as well as the Western Australia Exmouth Gulf and Shark Bay prawn trawl fisheries. He was a peer reviewer for the New Zealand albacore troll fishery and for the North and South Pacific American Albacore Fishing Association fisheries and has undertaken surveillance audits for a number of fisheries. Kevin is currently a member of teams assessing the North-eastern Tropical Pacific Purse Seine Yellowfin and Skipjack Tuna Fishery, and the Parties to the Nauru Agreement Western and Central Pacific Skipjack and Yellowfin unassociated purse seine fishery.

Page 10 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Peer Reviewers Peer Review was conducted through the MSC’s Peer Review College. Two peer reviewers were selected from the following list: • Tristan Southall • Sandra Diamond • Carola Kirchner • Max Stocker • Chris Grieve

A summary of their experience and qualifications and full CVs are available on request by email to the MSC Peer Review College. RBF Training Jo Akroyd and Kevin McLoughlin have been fully trained in the use of the MSC’s Risk Based Framework (RBF).

Page 11 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline 3 Description of the Fishery Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) This assessment considers two distinct Units of Assessment based on target species. For both species UoAs geographical area, gear and management systems are the same. The Units of Assessment are the same as the Units of Certification and there are no other eligible fishers.

Acoura Marine Ltd confirms that the fishery is within scope of the MSC certification sought following the assessment as defined below.

UoA 1

Species: Albacore (Thunnus alalunga) Stock: South Pacific Albacore Geographical area: Fiji EEZ (including territorial and archipelagic waters) and adjoining high seas Harvest method: Surface longline Management System At the national level: Fiji Ministry of Fisheries At the regional level: Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Client Group: Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC Group (34 vessels) Other Eligible Fishers: None

UoA 2

Species: Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) Stock: WCPO Geographical area: Fiji EEZ (including territorial and archipelagic waters) and adjoining high seas Harvest method: Surface longline Management System At the national level: Fiji Ministry of Fisheries At the regional level: Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission Client Group: Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC Group (34 vessels) Other Eligible Fishers: None

There are no other eligible fishers, hence the Units of Assessment are the same as the Units of Certification and are in full conformity with MSC criteria. Final UoC(s) The final Units of Certification for this fishery has not changed throughout the process.

Page 12 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data Table 1. TAC and Catch data

TAC Year 2016 Amount A national TAC of 12,000 mt for Albacore, Bigeye and Yellowfin caught within Fiji fisheries waters. A provisional TAC of 7294 mt of Albacore UoA share of TAC Year 2016 Amount NA UoC share of total TAC Year 2016 Amount NA Total green weight catch Year (second 2015 Amount UoA1 Albacore: 3357.2 mt by UoC most recent) UoA2 Yellowfin: 1369.0 mt Year (most 2016 Amount UoA1 Albacore: 2832.1 mt recent) UoA2 Yellowfin: 1265.6 mt

Fishing vessels A list of vessels in the Fiji Fishing Industry Association (FFIA) MSC Group is given in Table 2 below.

Table 2. Vessels in the Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC Group being assessed

Vessel Owner Reg. No. Call Sign 2016 licence number name Win Full fishing Co. Ltd Win Full 1 000206 3DVU FFW-120 Win Full fishing Co. Ltd Win Full 2 000207 3DVW FFW-108 Ocean Harvest Fiji Ltd Win Star 1 000421 3DXG FFW-112 Ocean Harvest Fiji Ltd Win Star 2 000422 3DXH FFW-114 Wistar Fiji Ltd Win Full 6 000300 3DWO FFW-137 Wistar Fiji Ltd Win Full 102 000876 3DWQ TBA Solander Pacific Limited Solander Kariqa 000428 3DYF FFW-093 Solander Pacific Limited Solander II 000424 3DYJ FFW-143 Solander Pacific Limited Solander III 373770 3DQH FFW-083 Solander Pacific Limited Solander IV 000015 3DVD FFW-119 Solander Pacific Limited Solander V 000117 3DVL FFW-087 Solander Pacific Limited Solander VI 000193 3DVS FFW-088 Solander Pacific Limited Solander IX 000339 3DWW FFW-090 Solander Pacific Limited Solander X 000299 3DWN FFW-091 Solander Pacific Limited Solander X1 000271 3DWK FFW-133 Solander Viti Limited Solander XII 000796 3DSP FFW-094 Solander Viti Limited Solander XIV 000914 3DNA FFW-095 Cleveland Limited Lady Ama 00361 3DN6572 TBA Seaquest Fiji Limited Rabi 1 000020 3DN6264 FFW-073 Seaquest Fiji Limited Sea Jiko 000024 3DVF FFW-062 Seaquest Fiji Limited Sea Malibu 001176 3DOW FFW-071 Seaquest Fiji Limited Sea Beluga 001175 3DOU FFW-072 Seaquest Fiji Limited Seaquence 000831 3DTH FFW-126 Hangton Pacific Co Ltd Hangton 9 000848 3DUW FFW-079 Hangton Pacific Co Ltd Hangton 8 000847 3DUV FFW-078 Hangton Pacific Co Ltd Hangton 7 000846 3DUU FFW-077 Hangton Pacific Co Ltd Hangton 3 000381 3DXU FFW-075 Hangton Pacific Co Ltd Hangton 2 000362 3DXK FFW -134 Sam Weon Fishery Ltd Sam Weon II 000694 3DZN FFW -083

Page 13 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Juls Fiji Limited Yong Xing 1 000391 3DYB FFW-068 Juls Fiji Limited Yong Xing 2 000392 3DYC FFW-069 Juls Fiji Limited Yong Xing 3 000393 3DXZ FFW-070 Arianna Limited Zhong Da 2 000394 3DYA FFW-096 Arianna Limited Zhong Da 3 000544 3DOP FFW-097

Page 14 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries This is not an enhanced fishery

Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries This is not an Introduced Species Based Fishery

Overview of the fishery This assessment covers albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) caught by pelagic longline by the client group within Fiji’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and the three adjoining high seas areas (Figure 1). Fishing for albacore and yellowfin in the Pacific has taken place since the early 1950s. Longline is the dominant fishing method for catching tuna by Fiji licensed vessels. In the early 1990s, when fishing activity was relatively low, albacore accounted for about 50% of the Fijian tuna catch but then increased to around 70% - 80% from 1995 onwards. In recent years, the proportion of albacore catch has decreased (68% in 2011; 54% in 2015; and 50% in 2016). Yellowfin has comprised around 25% of the catch in recent years.

Figure 1. The Fiji EEZ and adjacent High Seas areas (the High Seas areas extend beyond the limits of the map).

Fijian longline vessels freeze the majority of their albacore catch for the loining/canning market. Some vessels land albacore and yellowfin as fresh either in ice or in refrigerated seawater, both for the local and export markets. Fiji exports tuna mainly to Japan, the United States of America and the European Union. Other export markets include Australia, China, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. Yellowfin tuna is exported in fresh and frozen form as headed & gutted and gilled and gutted product. The longline fishery supplies product to the local Pacific Fishing Company cannery (PAFCO). PAFCO receives its raw materials directly from the domestic and foreign vessels unloading at the Levuka port or indirectly

Page 15 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

through freezer containers from the local fishing companies. The raw fish material supplied to PAFCO is exported as canned fish and frozen tuna loins. The canned tuna is mainly sold locally and exported to other island countries in the region. The tuna loins are exported to America for further processing. The remainder of the non-target catch and other non-export grade fish are sold primarily to local supermarkets, restaurants or directly to consumers.

In 2012, the longline fishery for albacore tuna within the Fiji EEZ was certified. This certification was for client vessels operating within the Fiji Tuna Boat Owner’s Association (FTBOA), however, the longline fishery was assessed more broadly and there were other eligible fishers. In December 2014, a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed between FTBOA and the Fiji Offshore Fisheries Association (FOFA) to extend the FTBOA certification to albacore caught by FOFA vessels within the Fiji Exclusive Economic Zone.

Figure 2. Snapshot of Fiji’s national fleet catches for tunas in 2015, with top 3 tuna species, Albacore [green], Bigeye [red] and Yellowfin [yellow]. Much of the catch is caught in Fiji’s EEZ with some taken in other EEZs in high seas waters. Source Fiji 2016.

In 2015, the Fiji national longline vessel fleet comprised a total of 102 vessels, of which nine were chartered foreign-flagged vessels. Fiji has placed a cap on the number of vessels licensed to fish within its EEZ. This cap was 100 vessels in 2002 and has been progressively reduced to 60 in 2016. Another thirty-three vessels were Fiji flagged but fished beyond the EEZ (Fiji 2016).

The client group for this assessment is the Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC Group, comprising 34 vessels (Table 2) fishing within the Fiji EEZ and within adjoining high seas areas. Provisional client total catch for the FFIA client fishery for 2016 is 12,356 t (provided by MFF, March 2017).

In 2015, approximately 55% of the fishing of the national fleet occurred within Fiji’s EEZ, 31% in other EEZs and the remainder in high seas waters. Recent tuna catches and the structure of the Fiji fleet are shown in Table 3 and Table 4.

Page 16 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Table 3. Annual Catch landed for the Fiji national fleet, 2011 – 2016 (Fiji 2017)

Total annual landed catch for Fiji national longline fleet (mt) Species 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* Albacore 7793 7958 6202 6703 7793 7269 Bigeye 681 1019 685 1586 1169 1190 Yellowfin 2248 2081 1328 3594 3609 3928 Tuna like 1422 1388 1293 1702 1986 2140 species Total 12,144 12,446 9508 13,585 14,559 14,527 * 2016 catches are provisional

The longline fishing method involves the setting of a main line from a large reel. As this main line is deployed, baited hooks on branch lines are attached at regular intervals. Also at regular intervals, floats and float lines are attached. These suspend the main line in the water column at a predetermined depth. The deepest hooks of each section between floats are set at around 300-400m to target albacore tuna.

Table 4. Fiji national fleet structure, 2011 – 2016 (Fiji 2017)

Fiji national longline fleet structure 2011-2016 Length 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 (m) <21m 8 11 11 9 10 9 21-30m 42 38 37 48 45 41 >31m 71 64 59 48 47 39 Total 121 113 107 105 102 89

Principle One: Target Species Background The catch of south Pacific albacore in 2015 (68,594 mt) was about 12,000 mt lower than in 2014 and nearly 20,000 mt lower than the record catch in 2010 of 87,292 mt (Figure 3; from Williams and Terawasi 2016). Longline has accounted for more than 90% of the catch in recent years.

Figure 3. South Pacific albacore catch (mt) by gear (green = longline, orange = troll, yellow = driftnet) (Williams and Terawasi 2016)

Page 17 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The longline catch of albacore is distributed over a large area of the south Pacific (Figure 4), but concentrated in the west. The Chinese-Taipei distant-water longline fleet catch is taken in all four regions, while the Pacific Island domestic longline fleet catch is restricted to the latitudes 10°–25°S. Troll catches are distributed in New Zealand's coastal waters, mainly off the South Island, and along the sub-tropical convergence zone. Less than 20% of the overall south Pacific albacore catch is usually taken east of 150°W (Williams and Terawasi 2016).

Figure 4. Distribution of South Pacific albacore tuna catch, 1988–2015. The eight-region spatial stratification used in stock assessment is shown (Williams and Terawasi 2016).

The WCPFC Statistical Area (WCP–CA) yellowfin catch for 2015 (605,963 mt) was the second highest recorded (less than 1,000 mt lower than the record catch of 2008) (Figure 5). The WCP–CA longline catch for 2015 (97,289 mt) was around the average for recent years. Since the late 1990s, the purse-seine catch of yellowfin tuna has accounted for about 3-5 times the longline yellowfin catch (Williams and Terawasi 2016). The great majority of the yellowfin catch is taken in equatorial areas by large purse seine vessels (Figure 6).

Figure 5. WCP-CA yellowfin catch (mt) by gear (Williams and Terawasi 2016)

Page 18 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Figure 6. Distribution of yellowfin tuna catch in the WCP–CA, 1990-2015. The nine-region spatial stratification used in stock assessment is shown (Williams and Terawasi 2016.

Stock assessment process (both P1 species) As science provider to the WCPFC, stock assessments are undertaken by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) of the Pacific Community (SPC). The most recent stock assessment for south Pacific albacore was undertaken in 2015 (Harley et al., 2015) and reviewed by the WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC) in August 2015 (WCPFC-SC, 2015), with the report, including management advice, being agreed by the WCPFC at its annual meeting in December 2015 (WCPFC, 2015). Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna was most recently undertaken in 2014 (Davies et al. 2014). This assessment was reviewed by the SC in August 2014 (WCPFC-SC, 2014a), with the report, including management advice, being agreed by the WCPFC at its annual meeting in December 2014 (WCPFC, 2014).

The procedures for stock assessment and stock assessment methodology are well developed, though important technical changes are made in response to methodological advances, working papers presented, and external reviews (e.g., Ianelli et al, 2012). A Pre- Assessment Workshop is typically held annually at the SPC during the first quarter of the year, with members and cooperating non-members providing data and input. The assessments undertaken by SPC OFP are presented to the WCPFC SC meeting, held annually in August. The SC reviews the assessments and issues an agreed statement on the current status of the stocks, management advice, and implications. The statement is forwarded to the WCPFC annual session for consideration and endorsement of any recommended management actions to be taken. Reports are available on the WCPFC website (http://www.wcpfc.int/meetings/all). SPC, as data provider and manager to the

Page 19 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

WCPFC, maintains a central database for the catch, effort, size frequency, tagging, biological data, observer, sampling and other data from the tuna fisheries. Albacore (Thunnus alalunga)

3.5.1.1 Biology and distribution Albacore tuna belong to the family Scombridae. Separate North and South Pacific albacore stocks are recognized in the Pacific Ocean based on location and seasons of spawning, low longline catch rates in equatorial waters and tag recovery information (Medley et al., 2011). The South Pacific stock considered in this assessment is distributed from the east coast of Australia and archipelagic waters of Papua New Guinea eastward to the coast of South America, and south of the equator to at least 49oS. There is some suggestion of gene flow between the North and South Pacific stocks based on an analysis of genetic population structure, however migration between stocks is not thought significant enough to affect management (Nikolic and Bourjea, 2013). For assessment and management purposes, the north-south boundary between albacore stocks is considered to be the equator, with 140oE taken to be the boundary with the Indian Ocean stock (Akroyd et al., 2012). There is no direct evidence of population structure within the South Pacific Ocean; however; the data are limited. Hoyle et al. (2012) note spatial heterogeneity in some fishery or population characteristics (e.g. most notably growth rates), which suggest that mixing rates across the South Pacific might not be very rapid, irrespective of whether there is effectively a single panmictic spawning population.

Albacore tuna are highly migratory, exploiting widely-spaced feeding and spawning grounds, and stocks are thought to be strongly influenced by large oceanic phenomena such as El Niño (Akroyd et al., 2012). Initial growth is rapid, with albacore reaching 45-50 cm fork length (FL) in their 1st year. The fish begin to mature at ~80cm FL (length at 50% maturity ~85cm; Farley et al., 2013a). Mature albacore spawn in tropical and sub-tropical waters between about 10°S and 25°S during the austral summer. Juveniles recruit to surface fisheries in New Zealand coastal waters and in the vicinity of the sub-tropical convergence zone (STCZ – around 40°S) in the central Pacific at 1 year of age, from where they appear to gradually disperse to the north. Subsequently, there are regular migrations between tropical and subtropical waters. Albacore migrate southwards during early summer and northwards during winter coinciding with the seasonal oscillation of the location of the 23−28°C isotherm of sea surface temperature.

A 2013 analysis found that longevity of albacore is at least 14 years, with significant variation in growth between sexes and across longitudes (Farley et al., 2013a). The study found that growth rates were similar between sexes up until age 4, after which the growth for males was on average greater than that for females, with males reaching an average maximum size more than 8 cm larger than females.

The longest period at liberty for a recaptured tagged albacore in the South Pacific to date is 11 years (Hoyle et al., 2012). The maximum age estimated from readings of 1969 otoliths was 14.3 years (Farley et al., 2013a).

The instantaneous natural mortality rate for South Pacific albacore is believed to be ~0.2-0.5 per year, with significant numbers of fish reaching at least 10 years (Hoyle et al., 2012). No information is available on possible changes in natural mortality with size and for the purposes of the stock assessment, natural mortality is assumed to be constant throughout life (Hoyle et al., 2012).

The longline fishery takes adult albacore in the narrow size range of 90–105cm and the troll fishery takes juvenile fish in the range of 45–80cm. Juvenile albacore also appear in the

Page 20 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

longline catch from time to time (e.g. fish in the range 60–70cm sampled from the longline catch).

Albacore are not a low trophic level (LTL) species.

3.5.1.2 Stock assessment and information The albacore stock assessment is conducted using the well-established MULTIFAN-CL software (see: http://www.multifan-cl.org/). MULTIFAN-CL was developed as an analytical tool for fisheries in which large-scale age sampling of catches is unfeasible or not cost effective, but where length-frequency (size composition) sampling data are available. It provides a statistically based, robust method of length-frequency analysis. The data used in the South Pacific albacore assessment consist of fishery-specific catch, effort and length- frequency data and tag release-recapture data.

Catches are reported to WCPFC by vessel flag states that are responsible for the vessels fishing the stock. Catch and effort data for the stock assessment are compiled according to the defined fisheries. The catch data are thought to be reasonably accurate for the period of the assessment. All catches are expressed in numbers of fish, with the exception of the driftnet fishery, where catches were expressed in weight (metric tonnes). For longline fisheries, effort is expressed in hundreds of hooks, while for troll and driftnet fisheries, the number of vessel days of fishing activity are used.

Catch logsheets are completed by Fiji-licensed vessels and provided to the Fiji Fisheries Department as a condition of fishing licence. Landings data and Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data are also collected from the Fiji fishery. Reconciliation of these data sets (logsheets, landing, and VMS) was maintained at 94% in 2015 (Fiji 2016). A small amount of adjustment is made to account for missing data.

WCPFC members have responsibility to submit a range of data. Scientific data (including catch and effort) is submitted annually and is used in the stock assessment. CCMs are also required to submit Part 1 and Part 2 annual reports.

Part 1 reports are submitted to the WCPFC Scientific Committee (SC) and include information on: (a) fisheries information; (b) background (e.g. historical description of national fisheries) (c) flag state reporting that details the activities of national fleets, listed by gear types, in the Convention Area (including trends related to changes in fishing patterns, fleet operations, target species, and size composition); (d) coastal state reporting of activities by foreign and domestic fleets in waters under national jurisdiction (including trends in each fishery related to changes in fishing patterns, fleet operations, target species, and size composition); (e) the status of tuna fishery data collection systems (including information on log sheet data collection and verification, the observer programme, the port sampling programme, and unloading and transhipment); and (f) research activities focused on both target and non-target species; reporting against the requirements of WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs).

Part 2 reports are submitted to the TCC and require CCMs to report on their implementation of the CMMs, as well as monitoring and inspection activities, surveillance activities, investigations and prosecution activity, and other relevant information. Monitoring and inspection activities includes the vessel monitoring system, transhipments inspections, at- sea inspections, port inspections, observer monitoring, monitoring of trade and domestic distribution of highly migratory fish species, inspections of domestic-only vessels, and high seas boarding and inspection of flag vessels. Part 1 reports are posted on the WCPFC website. Part 2 reports are classified as confidential and only available to other CCMs under Article 24 of the WCPFC Convention.

Page 21 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The 2012 assessment (Hoyle et al., 2012) indicated that fishing mortality (exploitation) rates for adult albacore were moderately low from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s, and showed a large increase since that time for adult fish. Key conclusions, based on the median of the grid of alternative scenarios explored, were that overfishing was not occurring and the stock was not in an overfished state. However, the WCPFC SC noted that depletion levels of the exploitable biomass, estimated to be between 10% and 60%, depending on the component fishery, have increased sharply in recent years. The SC has noted for several years that any increases in catch or effort are likely to lead to declines in catch rates in some regions, especially for longline catches of adult albacore, with associated impacts on vessel profitability.

The median estimate of MSY from the structural sensitivity analysis was 99,085 mt (46,560 – 215,445 mt), comparable to the recent levels of (estimated) catch from the fishery (Hoyle et al., 2012).

An updated South Pacific albacore assessment was undertaken in 2015 and presented at the 2015 SC meeting (Harley et al., 2015). The updated assessment includes much new data and new features reflecting recommendations from previous South Pacific albacore tuna assessments as well as relevant recommendations from the review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment (Davies et al., 2015; Ianelli et al., 2012). The 2015 assessment is supported by the analysis of operational longline data to construct both the CPUE time series regional weights and the analysis of longline size data (Harley et al., 2015).

Changes in the 2015 stock assessment include: improvements to the MULTIFAN-CL modelling framework, a regional disaggregated framework, access to operational data for construction of CPUE indices and regional weights, age-length data to improve growth estimation, and additional tagging data (WCPFC-SC 2015). Further, the regional structure of the model was changed to cover the southern WCPFC convention area and reference points evaluated are for this area. This brings about better alignment with the other WCPFC tuna assessments. The geographic area for 2012 assessment was the Pacific Ocean south of the equator. Natural mortality was set at 0.3 in the reference case for consistency with the value used in the assessments performed in other RFMOs. SC11 selected the reference case model as the base case to represent South Pacific albacore stock status. To characterize uncertainty a total of 18 model grid runs was considered. Model outcomes indicate that fishing mortality has generally been increasing through time.

Reference points Work has been ongoing on target and limit reference points by the WCPFC SC for several years, with limit reference points (LRPs) initially taken as the main priority issue. At its 8th Annual Session, the Commission adopted a hierarchical approach to identifying Limit Reference Points for the target species in the WCPFC (WCPFC-TCC 2014, see: https://www.wcpfc.int/node/19705), as follows:

Level Condition LRPs Level 1 A reliable estimate of steepness is available FMSY and BMSY Level 2 Steepness is not known well, if at all, but the key FX%SPRo and either biological (natural mortality, maturity) and fishery X%SB0 or (selectivity) variables are reasonably well estimated. X%SBcurrent,F=0 Level 3 The key biological and fishery variables are not well X%SB0 or estimated or understood. X%SBcurrent,F=0

South Pacific albacore is considered to be a level 2 species. The 8th WCPFC Scientific Committee meeting (SC8 in 2012) recommended a biomass LRP for South Pacific albacore (as well as yellowfin and bigeye tuna) to be set at 20%SBcurrent,F=0, which was endorsed by

Page 22 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

WCPFC9 in 2012. SBcurrent,F=0 is defined as the ‘estimated average spawning biomass over a recent period in the absence of fishing’. Further discussion related to the definition of a ‘recent period’ took place at SC9. SC9’s recommendation was to use a 10-year time window (subject to review), up to and including the most recent year used in the stock assessment – this recommendation was endorsed by the Commission during WCPFC10. Whilst an albacore LRP has been agreed by the WCPFC, there remained the question of agreeing an acceptable level of risk of breaching the LRP to guide management decisions.

Historically, WCPFC has managed stocks in relation to MSY-related reference points. There is an implicit target reference region to maintain biomass at, or above, that required for MSY. However, current assessment indicates that SBMSY is actually lower than the agreed LRP, eliminating SBMSY as a target (WCPFC-MOW, 2015).

There is further discussion below in “Recent developments” on the acceptable level of risk and the adoption of a target reference point.

3.5.1.3 Stock status As indicated above, outcomes from the 2015 stock assessment are presented over a total of 18 model runs to characterize uncertainty. Across the grid of inputs to the model, Fcurrent/FMSY ranged from 0.13‐0.62, indicating that overfishing is not occurring, but fishing mortality on adults is approaching the assumed level of natural mortality.

The latest (2013) estimates of spawning biomass are above both the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.86 for the base case and range 1.74—7.03 across the grid) and the adopted LRP of 0.2SBF=0 (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.40 for the base case and range 0.30-0.60 across the grid), indicating that the stock is not overfished (Figure 7, Table 5). The ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential for the WCPO for the reference case is shown in Figure 8. The estimated MSY of 76,800 mt is lower than in the 2012 assessment (2012 MSY = 99,085 mt). Aside from general improvements to the stock assessment, this was also influenced by exclusion of catches from outside the southern part of the WCPFC Convention area; and a reduction in the assumed value of natural mortality (WCPFC-SC 2015). An analysis undertaken in 2016 using the 2015 assessment data provides estimates of annual recruitment supporting the stock being above the PRI (Figure 19, Cao 2016).

Table 5. Estimates of management quantities for base case and grid of 18 models (see Table SP-ALB1, WCPFC-SC 2015 for details). For the purpose of the assessment, “current” is the average over the period 2009–2012 and “latest” is 2013 (Table SP ALB2, WCPFC-SC 2015).

Base case 5% Grid Median 95% MSY(mt) 76,800 62,260 84,980 129,814 Clatest/MSY 1.00 0.60 0.91 1.23 Fcurrent/FMSY 0.39 0.13 0.34 0.62 B0 711,400 638,465 806,900 1,024,500 Bcurrent 456,984 365,962 509,653 783,308 SB0 396,500 368,925 438,700 502,275 SBMSY 57,430 35,762 59,180 90,778 SBF=0 408,361 392,358 442,163 486,146 SBlatest 164,451 131,456 190,467 272,696 SBlatest/SBMSY 2.86 1.74 3.20 7.03 SBlatest/SBF=0 0.40 0.30 0.44 0.60

Page 23 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Figure 7. Majuro plot: representing stock status in terms of spawning potential depletion and fishing mortality. The red zone represents spawning potential levels lower than the agreed limit reference point which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than FMSY (FMSY is marked with the black dashed line). The lightly shaded green rectangle covering 0.65 - 0.80SBF=0 is the `space' consistent with the candidate economic-based Target Reference Points provided in Pilling et al. (2015). The pink circle the latest period as defined in Table 5. Source Harley et al., 2015.

Figure 8. Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential, SBlatest/SBF=0, for the reference case. The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line and the red circle represents the level of spawning potential depletion based on the agreed method of calculating SBF=0 over the last ten years of the model (excluding the last year). Source WCPFC-SC 2015.

Page 24 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Although current catches are estimated to be sustainable, in recent years, longline fleets from Pacific Island Countries and Territories (PICTs) targeting albacore have reported difficulties in maintaining profitability and there has been concern over increasing South Pacific albacore catches and the level of effort targeting the species.

SC11 also considered an index of economic conditions in the South Pacific albacore fishery for the first time (Reid and Raubani, 2015). This index, which integrates fish prices, catch rates, and fishing prices, indicates a strong declining trend in economic conditions, reaching an historical low in 2013. While there was a slight recovery in 2014, conditions are still well below the average, primarily due to high fishing costs and continued low catch rates. Many vessels based in Fiji have stopped fishing and are tied up at wharves. There is concern that older age classes of albacore are being depleted because they are taken in large numbers by longliners, with the result that vessels are chasing fewer fish and achieving lower catch rates although the overall population is at sustainable levels.

SC11 indicates that further increases in effort will yield little or no increase in long-term catches and result in further reduced catch rates. Despite the fact that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring, SC11 reiterates the advice of SC10 recommending that longline fishing mortality and longline catch be reduced to avoid further decline in the vulnerable biomass so that economically viable catch rates can be maintained.

Whilst there is currently no agreed biomass-related target reference point for South Pacific albacore, the WCPFC has examined economic-based target reference points for the stock. Based on bio-economic modelling described in Pilling et al. (2015) the range of SBF=0 that would support break-even or 10% profits is 0.65 -0.80 SBF=0. This region has been shaded green on the Majuro plot (Figure 7). As reported above, the latest (2013) spawning biomass is estimated to be 40% of SBF=0 and therefore lower than the potential TRPs (Harley et al., 2015).

3.5.1.4 Harvest strategy and control rules At the level of the South Pacific albacore stock, overall management is the responsibility of WCPFC. Under this regional convention Fiji is responsible for ensuring that the management measures applied within its waters are compatible with those of the Commission. Conservation and management measures set by WCPFC place binding controls on the albacore fishery in Fiji’s waters. As indicated above, WCPFC adopted a LRP for South Pacific albacore (and other key tuna species) in 2012. No formal target reference points have been agreed, although references points in the range 40-60%Bcurrent,F=0 are currently under discussion.

The major management actions currently in place for South Pacific albacore are set out in CMM-2010-05 (now replaced by CMM 2015-02). The key element of CMM-2010-05 is that there should be no increase in the number of fishing vessels actively fishing for South Pacific albacore above either 2000-2004 or 2005 levels. However, the CMM specifically allows Pacific Islands to pursue a responsible level of development of their domestic albacore fisheries over and above these levels. It also requires cooperation on research, as well as annual reporting of catch levels. CMM-2010-05 is set out below: 1. Commission Members, Cooperating Non-Members, and participating Territories (CCMs) shall not increase the number of their fishing vessels actively fishing for South Pacific albacore in the Convention Area south of 20°S above current (2005) levels or recent historical (2000-2004) levels. 2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall not prejudice the legitimate rights and obligations under international law of small island developing State and Territory CCMs in the Convention Area for whom South Pacific albacore is an important component of the

Page 25 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

domestic tuna fishery in waters under their national jurisdiction, and who may wish to pursue a responsible level of development of their fisheries for South Pacific albacore. 3. CCMs that actively fish for South Pacific albacore in the Convention Area south of the equator shall cooperate to ensure the long-term sustainability and economic viability of the fishery for South Pacific albacore, including cooperation and collaboration on research to reduce uncertainty with regard to the status of this stock. 4. CCMs shall report annually to the Commission the catch levels of their fishing vessels that have taken South Pacific Albacore as a bycatch as well as the number and catch levels of vessels actively fishing for South Pacific albacore in the Convention area south of 20°S. Initially this information will be provided for the period 2006-2010 and then updated annually. 5. This measure will be reviewed annually on the basis of advice from the Scientific Committee on South Pacific albacore.

Recent developments In 2010, while noting that catch levels from the South Pacific albacore stock appeared to be sustainable, the WCPFC applied a capacity limit (CMM 2010-05) because of the uncertainty in the assessment and potential economic effects of a declining CPUE. The effectiveness of this CMM in restricting increases in effort has been questioned at subsequent Commission meetings.

At recent Commission meetings, FFA members have sought the adoption of a more comprehensive CMM for South Pacific albacore tuna, to replace CMM 2010-05. FFA have indicated that although CMM 2010-05 is appropriate for achieving one of its purposes – of limiting the number of flag fishing vessels actively fishing for South Pacific albacore in the Convention Area south of 20°S – it does not enable cooperation to “ensure the long-term sustainability and economic viability of the fishery for South Pacific albacore”. In 2014, FFA proposed a revised CMM to cover the entire WCPO range of the stock, promote cooperation with IATTC, and limit catch rather than effort in part of this area (WCPFC-FFA 2014). The proposal defined a total catch limit for the stock, set at the latest assessed MSY level – around 100,000 mt – an interim limit which would be replaced by a target reference level when agreed by WCPFC. No consensus was reached on adoption of this proposal.

This issue was raised again at the 2015 Commission meeting and FFA submitted a proposal to revise CMM 2010-05 seeking improve its effectiveness. The discussions on this led to a relatively minor update to 2010-05 requiring submission of species catch data, by vessel, by year for 2006-2014 and earlier years where possible. This resulted in adoption of CMM 2015-02 (replacing CMM 2010-05).

An important development at WCPFC11 was the adoption of a CMM (CMM 2014-06) to develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for key fisheries and stocks in the WCPO. The CMM identifies the elements that harvest strategies are to contain (including defined operational objectives, target and limit reference points for each stock, acceptable levels of risk of not breaching limit reference points, a monitoring strategy, decision rules that aim to achieve the target reference point and avoid the limit reference point, and management strategy evaluation). CMM 2014-06 included a requirement that the Commission agree on a work plan 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. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a work plan under CMM 2014-06 was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support from the Scientific Service Provider to undertake the activities specified in the agreed work plan.

Progress on aspects of the adopted work plan was discussed at the December 2016 Commission meeting. An important component of the work plan was that the Commission was required to agree a TRP for South Pacific albacore in 2016. FFA presented WCPFC13-

Page 26 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

2016-DP09 recommending the adoption of an interim TRP, based on the discussions at WCPFC12. WCPFC13 could not agree on the adoption of an interim TRP and decided to defer the possible adoption of an interim TRP until December 2017 at the latest.

WCPFC13 was also scheduled to agree a monitoring strategy, including performance indicators, for South Pacific albacore. This item was not discussed at the Commission.

The harvest strategy work plan also requires the Commission to record the management objectives for the skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore tuna. Draft management objectives, developed through several WCPFC Management Objectives Workshops (MOW), and accepted by WCPFC11 were considered at WCPFC13 as a starting point for discussion (WCPFC13 2016). A working group on management objectives at WCPFC13 held discussions on this issue. The Commission accepted the suggested initial list of performance indicators developed by this group for tropical purse seine fisheries for the purpose of the evaluation of harvest control rules (WCPFC 2016a Attachment M).

Another component of the harvest strategy required to be agreed under the CMM 2014-06 work plan is the acceptable level of risk of not breaching the LRP for the four for the four species of tuna covered by the plan. Discussions on this were undertaken at WCPFC13. Two proposals were considered – FFA’s, which used interim risk levels of 5% for skipjack and South Pacific albacore with 10% for yellowfin tuna; and USA’s which used a risk level of 20% for South Pacific albacore. The Commission did not agree to specifying acceptable levels of risk, but made limited progress by agreeing to:

i) consider any risk level greater than 20 percent to be inconsistent with the LRP related principle in UNFSA (as referenced in Article 6 of the Convention) including that the risk of breaching limit reference points be very low; and ii) determine the acceptability of potential HCRs where the estimated risk of breaching the limit reference point is between 0 and 20%.

WCPFC13 adopted an Updated Harvest Strategy Work Plan (WCPFC 2016a Attachment N).

Tokelau Arrangement With support from FFA, several South Pacific nations have been developing an agreement known as the Tokelau Arrangement. The Tokelau Arrangement is the formal expression of an existing cooperative understanding on individual zone limitations on catch of South Pacific albacore tuna developed at meetings of the FFA Sub-committee on South Pacific Tuna and Billfish. The Tokelau Arrangement provides a framework for the development of cooperative zone-based management of South Pacific albacore tuna fisheries. The final text of the Tokelau Arrangement was agreed at the 91st meeting of the Forum Fisheries Committee on 31st October 2014. Signatories include Australia, Cook Islands, Fiji, New Zealand, Niue, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. Fiji’s current agreed limit is 7290 mt. Discussion on the implementation of the limits is ongoing. This move highlights how Pacific nations intend to move forward with or without WCPFC consensus.

MSC alignment group In 2014, a group of stakeholders (catch sector associations and environmental non- governmental organizations) established the Marine Stewardship Council Alignment Group to promote the long-term sustainability of tuna fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The aim of the Group is for all WCPO tuna fisheries to be able to pass an assessment against the MSC fisheries standard, and for fisheries certified against the MSC fisheries standard to meet any conditions of certification. The latest position statement from the Group (13 February 2017; https://sites.google.com/site/seafoodcompaniestunamanagement/home/WCPO_Tuna_Align

Page 27 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

ment_Group) identifies priority actions it suggests that parties to WCPFC should address in 2017. FTBOA and FFIA are signatories to the Group.

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares)

3.5.2.1 Biology and distribution Yellowfin tuna belong to the family Scombridae. Yellowfin are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. They occur approximately within thermal boundaries of 18° to 31°C. The distribution of yellowfin in the Pacific Ocean is nearly continuous. However, the lack of evidence for long-range east-west or north-south migrations of adults suggests that exchange between the yellowfin tuna from the Eastern and the Central Pacific, and between the Western and the Central Pacific, is limited. This suggests the existence of subpopulations.

Tagging data (1989‐2012) indicates extensive latitudinal movements among the equatorial regions but also a level of longitudinal movements to and from the sub‐tropical latitudes (Figure 9). The tagging data suggest that yellowfin can follow the movement of convergence zones and other areas of higher productivity, and respond to events such as the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which change geographical patterns of productivity in the equatorial Pacific (Lehodey and Leroy, 1999). WCPFC yellowfin stock assessments treat the stock within the domain of the model area (essentially the WCPO, west of 150°W – see Figure 24) as a discrete stock, with movement between regions modelled empirically based on analysis of tagging data (Davies et al. 2014).

Figure 9. Long-distance (>1000 nm) displacements of tagged yellowfin in the Pacific Ocean from data available to SPC. (Source: Davies et al. 2014).

The green arrows are data from the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (2008-current). The purple arrows are from earlier SPC tagging in the western Pacific (Regional Tuna Tagging Project, 1989-1992), the IATTC in the eastern Pacific and the University of Hawaii in the North Pacific around Hawaii.

Yellowfin tuna grow rapidly, with juvenile yellowfin first recruiting to commercial fisheries (mainly surface fisheries in Philippines and eastern Indonesia) at a few months of age. They grow quickly to an estimated mean length for the final age‐class of approximately 153 cm,

Page 28 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

with a maximum fork length close to 200 cm (Figure 10). However, growth rates are uncertain and may vary significantly by area in the Western Pacific.

Yellowfin mature at around 2-3 years of age, but when information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction are included, the reproductive output peaks at between 10 and 15 years of age (Figure 11). Spawning occurs throughout the year in the core areas of distribution. Peaks are observed in the northern and southern summer months. Individuals may spawn every few days over the spawning period. Larval distribution in equatorial waters is trans-oceanic the year round, but there are seasonal changes in larval density in subtropical waters.

Small yellowfin tuna are found in surface waters for the most part (often associated with skipjack), but as they grow, they may change their behaviour to live somewhat deeper (although still usually above the thermocline and shallower than albacore in a given area). This change in behaviour may be associated with the development of the gas bladder, which greatly reduces the metabolic costs of swimming starting from ~50cm, but it will depend on, for instance, relative food availability in surface vs. deeper waters (Lehodey & Leroy 1999). Yellowfin tuna feed on other fish, crustaceans and squid.

Figure 10. Yellowfin tuna: estimated growth for the reference case. (Source: Davies et al. 2014). The black line represents the estimated mean length (FL, cm) at age and the grey area represents the estimated distribution of length at age.

Page 29 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

• Figure 11. Yellowfin tuna: Index of spawning potential incorporating information on sex ratios, maturity at age, fecundity, and spawning fraction (Source: Davies et al. 2014).

Natural mortality is considered to be variable by size, declining initially with size, then increasing at the onset of maturity (Davies et al. 2014). The lowest rate is estimated at approximately 0.6-0.8 per year for pre-adult yellowfin of around 50-80cm fork length (Hampton 2000, cited in Davies et al. 2014). Natural mortality is a key uncertainty in the stock assessment, as it is for many stocks.

3.5.2.2 Stock assessment and information Yellowfin tuna stock assessments have been conducted frequently since 1999. An independent review of the 2011 bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al., 2012) made several recommendations for improvement that apply equally to the yellowfin tuna assessment, and these have been incorporated into the current assessment where possible.

The assessment model relies mainly on catch and effort data for the various fleets, size data and tagging data. The most recent stock assessment was conducted in 2014 (Davies et al., 2014) and follows much the same process as described above for albacore, i.e., it is undertaken by SPC’s OFP, uses MULTIFAN-CL, draft results are submitted to the SC for discussion and review, and a final report presented to the WCPFC plenary. A pre- assessment workshop provided overview of the main input data sets and recommendations regarding the range of assessment model options and sensitivities to be included within the stock assessment.

The main conclusions of the 2014 stock assessment were as follows (Davies et al. 2014; WCPFC-SC 2014a):

• The new regional structure appeared to work well for yellowfin, and in combination with other modelling and data improvements, provided a more informative assessment than in the past. • Spatially-aggregated recruitment was estimated to decline in the early part of the assessment, but there was no persistent trend post-1965.

Page 30 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

• There appeared to be confounding between the estimates of regional recruitment distribution and movement such that certain regions have had very low recruitments. While adding complexity to the recruitment process of age 1 fish, this did not add to the uncertainty over the range of runs considered in the assessment.

• Latest catches marginally exceeded the MSY (reference case Clatest/MSY = 1.02). • Recent levels of fishing mortality were most likely below the level that will support the MSY (Fcurrent/FMSY – 0.72). • Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely above (based on 2008-11 average and based on 2012) the level which will support the MSY (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.37, SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.24). • Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely above (based on 2008-11 average and based on 2012) the limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 agreed by WCPFC. • Recent levels of spawning potential were most likely higher (by 1%, based on 2008-11 average) and lower than (by 2% based on 2012) the candidate biomass-related target reference points (TRPs) currently under consideration for skipjack tuna, i.e., 40-60%SBF=0. • Stock status conclusions were most sensitive to alternative assumptions regarding the modelling of tagging data, assumed steepness and natural mortality. However, the main conclusions of the assessment were robust to the range of uncertainty that was explored.

Davies et al. (2014) describes structural assumptions, model parameterization and priors which have been progressively developed over the years. The latest report generally only contains details of changes to these assumptions which may be more fully described in earlier versions. Aside from updating the input data (catch, effort, size frequencies, and standardised CPUE derived from aggregate and operational data), there were five main differences in the input data and structural assumptions of the 2014 assessment compared to the Langley et al. (2011) assessment:

1. Spatial structure was expanded from six to nine regions (see Figure 12); 2. Fishery structure was expanded from 25 to 33 fisheries; and featured the first inclusion of some Japanese and Vietnamese coastal fishery catches necessitating redefining of the WCPO fisheries; 3. Incorporation of CPUE indices derived from either Japanese logsheet data, or all operational data from all fleets (combined flags) available to SPC; 4. A revised protocol for deriving the length and weight size compositions for the principal longline fisheries; 5. The correction of the purse seine length frequency data collected by observers to account for sampling bias and the inclusion of Pago Pago port sampling data, with all data weighted in respect of the set catch weight.

Page 31 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Figure 12. Catch distribution (1990-2010) for yellowfin tuna by 5 degree squares of latitude and longitude and fishing method. (Source: Davies et al. 2014). Fishing methods are longline (green), purse-seine (blue), pole-and-line (red), and other (yellow). Overlaid are the regions for the 2014 assessment.

The impacts of each of these changes was examined in a stepwise development towards a new reference case model. In addition to the reference case a wide range of other model formulations were examined. The key uncertainties were identified and the effect of the uncertainty was explored through a grid of 48 combinations of model runs:

• Tag mixing period (2 different levels); • Steepness (3 levels: 0.8 0,65 and 0.95); • CPUE (2 levels); • Size data weighting (2 levels); and • Natural mortality (2 levels: fixed vs estimated).

In addition, a retrospective analysis was undertaken for the yellowfin tuna assessment, involving re-running the model after consecutively removing successive years of data to estimate model bias. The results of the retrospective analyses were the basis of a modification to the reference case whereby recruitment deviates for the last four periods were not estimated.

As reported in Morison & McLoughlin (2016), two reviews of the previous yellowfin tuna assessment (Haddon 2010 and Maguire 2010) were commissioned by the USA through the Center for Independent Experts (CIE). A response to these reviews was provided by SPC to SC7 (SPC 2011) but there was no reference to the findings of this review or the response in the latest stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014). There is, however, extensive consideration of the results of the review of the bigeye tuna assessment (Ianelli et al. 2012). The SPC

Page 32 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

response also notes that the review was not initiated by SPC or WCPFC and was conducted without the knowledge of SPC or any direct contact with SPC by either CIE or the reviewers.

Catch and effort data The spatial distribution of catches of yellowfin tuna across the WCPO for the period 1990- 2010 is in shown in Figure 12 above. Most of the catch is taken in western equatorial areas, with declines in both purse‐seine and longline catch towards the east. WCPO annual catches by major gear categories are shown in Figure 13. Yellowfin tuna are harvested with a wide variety of gear types, from small‐scale artisanal fisheries in Pacific Island and southeast Asian waters to large, distant‐water longliners and purse seiners that operate widely in equatorial and tropical waters. Catch identified as “other” is dominated by the domestic fisheries of the Philippines and Indonesia, principally catching smaller fish using a variety of small-scale gear types (e.g. pole and line, ringnet, gillnet, handline and seine net) but also including small to medium sized purse seines (Davies et al. 2014). Since the mid- 1980s, annual catches by longline have remained relatively stable, at about 70,000–80,000 mt. This is well below the catch levels in the late 1970s – early 1980s (which peaked at about 110,000 mt). In the assessment, catches by the longline fisheries were expressed in numbers of fish, and catches for all other fisheries expressed in weight. This is consistent with the form in which the catch data are recorded for these fisheries.

Figure 13. Total annual catch (1000s mt) of yellowfin tuna by fishing gear as used in the 2014 stock assessment’s reference case model (Source: Davies et al. 2014).

Tagging data The yellowfin assessment incorporates tagging data, as they are informative about stock size, and exploitation rate. A large amount of tagging data was available for incorporation into the assessment. The data used consisted of the OFP’s Regional Tuna Tagging Project conducted during 1989-1992, the Coral Sea tagging programme (1991-1995), and the Pacific Tuna Tagging Programme (PTTP) data. For incorporation into the MULTIFAN-CL analysis, tag releases were stratified by release region, time period of release (quarter) and the same size classes used to stratify the length frequency data. A total of 82,581 releases were classified into 78 tag release groups. Returns from each size‐class of each tag release group (17,121 tag returns in total) were then classified by recapture fishery and recapture

Page 33 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

time period (quarter). Because tag returns by purse seiners were often not accompanied by information concerning the set type, tag return data were aggregated across set types for the purse-seine fisheries in each region. The population dynamics model was in turn configured to predict equivalent estimated tag recaptures by these grouped fisheries (Davies et al., 2014).

3.5.2.3 Stock status Stock status is presented in the 2014 assessment report (Davies et al. 2014) and the 2014 SC summary report (WCPFC-SC 2014a). Outputs of the 2014 assessment relative to a range of reference points are given in Table 6. Outcomes are summarized in Figure 14 to Figure 19.

Table 6 shows that the latest estimate of spawning biomass (2012) of 899,496 mt is above both the level that will support MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.24 for the base case and ranges from 1.05 to 1.51 across the four models) and also above the newly adopted LRP of 0.2SBF=0 (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.38) for the base case model and ranges from 0.35 to 0.40 (WCPFC 2014a).

Table 6. Estimates of management quantities for selected stock assessment models. (Source: WCPFC-SC 2014a). N.B: For the purpose of this assessment, “current” is the average over the period 2008–2011 and “latest” is 2012.

Parameter Base case h=0.65 h=0.95 Mix_1 MSY 586,400 527,200 642,800 526,400

Clatest/MSY 1.02 1.12 0.93 1.12

Fcurrent/FMSY 0.72 0.87 0.58 0.87

B0 4,319,000 4,475,000 4,221,000 3,862,000

Bcurrent 1,994,655 1,996,179 1,995,224 1,597,536

SB0 2,467,000 2,557,000 2,411,000 2,202,000

SBMSY 728,300 859,600 594,500 648,000

SBF=0 2,368,557 2,556,733 2,255,523 2,206,510

SBcurrent 998,622 999,474 998,914 746,743

SBlatest 899,496 899,362 898,389 770,210

SBcurrent/SBF=0 0.42 0.39 0.44 0.34

SBlatest/SBF=0 0.38 0.35 0.4 0.35

SBcurrent/SBMSY 1.37 1.16 1.68 1.15

SBlatest/SBMSY 1.24 1.05 1.51 1.19

Fishing mortality has generally been increasing through time. For the reference case Fcurrent (2008–2011 average) is estimated to be 0.72 times the fishing mortality that will support MSY. Across the four models (base case and three sensitivity models) Fcurrent/FMSY ranged from 0.58 to 0.90 (WCPFC-SC 2014a).

The SC (WCPFC-SC 2014a) reported equilibrium unfished spawning potential SB0 was estimated at 2,467,000 mt and the spawning potential that would support the MSY was estimated to be 728,300 mt or 30 % of SB0. The total equilibrium unfished biomass B0 was estimated to be 4,319,000 mt (Table 6).

Management advice based on the 2014 assessment is that yellowfin spawning biomass is above the biomass-based LRP (0.2SBF=0) and overall fishing mortality appears to be below FMSY. It is highly likely that the stock is not overfished and overfishing is not occurring. Latest

Page 34 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

catches in the assessment (612,797 mt, 2012) of WCPO yellowfin tuna marginally exceed MSY (586,400 mt).

Estimated MSY has declined substantially since the 1970s. Prior to this time, the WCPO yellowfin fishery was almost exclusively conducted using longlines, with low exploitation rates of small yellowfin. The increased development of fisheries catching younger yellowfin has reduced estimated MSY levels (Davies et al. 2014).

Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) depends on 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, or to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY). If recent (2002–2011) actual recruitments are assumed, spawning biomass will remain relatively constant, and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished or to become subject to overfishing, and it was very unlikely (2%) that the spawning biomass would fall below SBMSY (WCPFC-SC 2014a).

Figure 14. Yellowfin tuna: Temporal trend in annual stock status, relative to SBMSY (x-axis) and FMSY (y-axis) reference points, for the period 1952–2011 from the reference case. (Source: Davies et al. 2014). The colour of the points is graduated from mauve to dark purple through time and the points are labelled at 5-year intervals. The white triangle represents the average for the current period and the pink circle the latest period

Page 35 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Figure 15. Yellowfin tuna: Alternative portrayal of stock status with target and limit reference points. (Source: Davies et al. 2014). The red zone represents spawning potential levels lower than the agreed limit reference point which is marked with the solid black line. The orange region is for fishing mortality greater than FMSY (F=FMSY is marked with the black dashed line). The lightly shaded green rectangle covering 0.4-0.6SBF=0 is the ‘space’ that WCPFC asked for consideration of a TRP for skipjack tuna.

Figure 16. Yellowfin tuna: Plot of SBlatest/SBMSY versus Fcurrent/FMSY for the 48 model runs undertaken for the structural uncertainty analysis. (Source: Davies et al. 2014). The reference case model is denoted by the large white circle.

Page 36 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Figure 17. Yellowfin tuna: Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential, SB/SBF=0, for the WCPO for the reference case. (Source: Davies et al. 2014). The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line and the red circle represents the level of spawning potential depletion based on the agreed method of calculating SBF=0 over the last ten years of the model (excluding the last year).

Figure 18. Yellowfin tuna: History of the annual estimates of MSY (red line) compared with annual catch split into three sectors for the 2014 assessments’ reference case. (Source: Davies et al.2014).

Page 37 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Apart from variability early in the time series, spawning biomass for the WCPO yellowfin was estimated to have declined steadily over the model period (Figure 19). Uncertainty in the biomass estimates is substantially higher earlier in the time series, consistent with uncertainty in recruitment (Davies et al., 2014).

Figure 19. Estimated annual average spawning potential for the WCPO for the reference case. (From Davies et al. 2014). The shaded areas indicate the approximate 95% confidence intervals

3.5.2.4 Harvest strategy and control rules The WCPO yellowfin tuna harvest strategy has several components, with WCPFC, Parties to the Nauru Agreement and national (e.g., Fiji) and archipelagic management actions. The harvest strategy is supported by a state-of-the-art stock assessment (Davies et al., 2014), and extensive monitoring frameworks.

Yellowfin have been subject to the provisions of CMMs since CMM 2005-01 was passed, requiring 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 current harvest strategy relies on annual decision-making processes founded on the core principles of the WCPFC as laid out in its Convention and in a growing body of CMMs (see https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and- management-measures). The most recent measure is CMM 2016-01 (the tropical tuna CMM), which also applies to skipjack and bigeye tuna. Measures in CMM 2016-01 include:

• FAD closures and limits; • purse seine effort limits under the PNA vessel day scheme; • requirements for coastal states to implement effort or catch limits for tropical tunas in their EEZs; • high seas purse seine effort limits for non-small island developing states; • requirement for flag states to work not to increase catch of yellowfin by purse seine or longline; • full retention of skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye by purse seiners; • bigeye catch limits for the longline fishery; • the number of large purse seine vessels and longliners targeting bigeye frozen at current levels, except for SIDS and Indonesia.

CMM 2014-06 describes how the WCPFC views harvest strategies and its plans for implementing them for all tropical tuna stocks, including yellowfin tuna. CMM 2014-06 is consistent with MSC definitions and requirements and outlines an intention to move towards

Page 38 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

a harvest strategy with well-defined harvest control rules (‘decision rules’ in WCPFC terminology). As discussed in the section on albacore, a work plan required under CMM 2014-06 was agreed in 2015 (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y).

Progress on aspects of the adopted work plan was discussed at the December 2016 Commission meeting. The harvest strategy work plan requires the Commission to record the management objectives for the skipjack, yellowfin, bigeye and albacore tuna. Draft management objectives developed through several WCPFC Management Objectives Workshops (MOW) and accepted by WCPFC11 were considered at WCPFC13 as a starting point for discussion (WCPFC 2016a). A working group on management objectives at WCPFC13 held discussions on this issue. The Commission accepted the suggested initial list of performance indicators developed by this group for tropical purse seine fisheries for the purpose of the evaluation of harvest control rules (WCPFC 2016a Attachment M).

Another component of the harvest strategy required to be agreed under the CMM 2014-06 work plan is the acceptable level of risk of not breaching the LRP for the four for the four species of tuna covered by the plan. The Commission did not agree to specifying acceptable levels of risk, but made limited progress by agreeing to:

i) consider any risk level greater than 20 percent to be inconsistent with the LRP related principle in UNFSA (as referenced in Article 6 of the Convention) including that the risk of breaching limit reference points be very low; and ii) determine the acceptability of potential HCRs where the estimated risk of breaching the limit reference point is between 0 and 20%.

At the 9th regular session of the Commission in 2012, WCPFC established a limit reference point for yellowfin tuna (20%SBrecent,F=0, i.e., 20% of the estimated spawning biomass in the absence of fishing averaged over a recent time window). At its 10th regular session, the Commission further agreed that the time window for estimation of the spawning biomass in the absence of fishing should be 10 years, and be based on the years (from the last year used in the assessment to 10 years prior to that). As discussed in the section on albacore tuna, work on determining acceptable levels of risk of not breaching the limit reference point is still in progress.

Under CMM 2016-01, the stated management objective for yellowfin is to maintain F below FMSY; hence FMSY, and by extension BMSY, are implicit target reference points for yellowfin. A formal target reference point is subject to development under the work plan established under CMM 2014-06.

There are no formally agreed decision rules or HCRs yet in place. However, the harvest strategy is based on high quality science and compliance information. The current state of the stock provides evidence of successful management to date.

WCPFC13 adopted an Updated Harvest Strategy Work Plan (WCPFC 2016a Attachment N).

Page 39 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Principle Two: Ecosystem Background This section of the report outlines the fishery’s potential impacts on the wider ecosystem. Five components are considered to cover the range of potential ecosystem elements that may be impacted by the fishery. The first two elements deal with ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species. There are complex rules to deal with these that are detailed in CR v2.0. In summary, ‘Primary’ and ‘Secondary’ species, and the other 3 elements of P2 are:

(i) Primary species — species in the catch that are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA. In addition, primary species are those for which “management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points”.

(ii) Secondary species — secondary species are not covered under P1 because they are not included in the UoA and are not considered ‘primary’ as defined above i.e. they do not have management tools and measures in place; these species are also not classified as ETP species.

For primary and secondary species, a ‘main’ designation is then given where either i) “the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, ii) “the species is classified as ‘less resilient’ and the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, or iii) in cases where a species does not meet the 2% or 5% designated weight thresholds, a species is main if the total catch of the UoA is exceptionally large, such that even small catch proportions of a P2 species significantly impact the affected stocks/populations.

SA 3.1.3.1 (MSC 2014) also requires that yellowfin tuna is considered as a P2 species in scoring UoA 1 (albacore tuna), and that albacore tuna is considered as a P2 species in scoring UoA 2 (yellowfin tuna); in both cases, these were assessed as main primary species.

(iii) Endangered Threatened or Protected (ETP) species — species recognised by national and/or binding international agreements (as defined in CR v2.0).

(iv) Habitats — the habitats within which the fishery operates.

(v) Ecosystem — broader ecosystem elements such as trophic structure and function, community composition, and biodiversity.

There has been a high level of observer coverage of the fishery in recent years (19% in 2015 and 23% in 2016 for the national fleet). Observers are de-briefed at the end of every trip to maintain data reporting quality. In 2016, a total of 153 observed trips were de-briefed. These data are the main source of data used to estimate the primary, secondary and ETP catches. Data for the client fishery were provided to the Assessment Team by the Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests and the Secretariat for the Pacific Community (SPC), as recorded and reported by the fishery independent observers. Data from 2015 and 2016 were examined, based on observations of the FFIA client fishery. Observer coverage of the client fleet in 2016 was 44% of their operations (email Jone Amoe, Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, 2 Oct 2017). In addition to observer coverage there has been a continued roll out of onboard cameras under the GEF/FAO funded Common Oceans ABNJ Tuna Project. Training of Ministry staff in monitoring camera footage was conducted in 2015 and 2016.

As of 3 September 2017 a total of 26 Fiji flagged vessels have been installed with cameras of which 23 are within the FFIA MSC Group.

Page 40 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The observer data show that albacore tuna and yellowfin tuna, as the target species, comprised 47.9% and 31.2% of the catch, respectively, in 2015-2016. As indicated above, these are treated as P2 primary main species. Bigeye tuna made up 7.4% of the catch and is also a main primary species. The next highest catches were for mahi mahi (2.7%) and wahoo (2.1%). No other species made up more than 2.0% overall. A large number of species are recorded in the catch at low levels. Swordfish, blue marlin and short-billed spearfish each comprise 1-2% of the catch in 2015-16 and are scored as minor secondary species. The only other primary species is skipjack tuna (1.5%). Apart from these species, no other secondary species comprised more than 1.0 of the FFIA catch (Table 7). Sharks are considered at Section 3.6.3 on endangered and threatened species.

Table 7. Catch profile for the client fishery, 2015-2016, based on observer reports (source: Fiji Fisheries, SPC).

Species

2015- 2015- 2015 2016 Fish 2016 2016 (t) (t) mean (t) mean %a Albacore tuna Thunnus alalunga 337.9 239.9 288.9 47.85 Yellowfin tuna Thunnus albacares 186.3 190.7 188.5 31.22 Bigeye tuna Thunnus obesus 46.7 43.2 44.9 7.44 Mahi mahi Coryphaena hippurus 20.9 11.5 16.2 2.69 Wahoo Acanthocybium solandri 14.5 11.3 12.9 2.14 Swordfish Xiphias gladius 13.1 8.7 10.9 1.80 Skipjack tuna Katsuwonus pelamis 11.0 7.6 9.3 1.54

Blue marlin Makaira nigricans 11.4 5.5 8.4 1.40 Striped marlin Kajikia audax 6.6 6.6 6.6 1.09 Short-billed spearfish Tetrapturus angustirostris 5.7 6.6 6.2 1.02 Sailfish Istiophorus platypterus 5.0 3.7 4.4 0.72 Great barracuda Sphyraena barracuda 3.9 3.0 3.4 0.57 Black marlin Istiompax indica 2.8 2.8 2.8 0.46 Opah/Moonfish Lampris guttatus 1.8b Lepidocybium Escolar 0.3b flavobrunneum,

1926 1644 1835 Long-snouted lancet fish Alepisaurus ferox (number (number (number discarded) discarded) discarded)

25+ other fish species in negligible quantities, mostly discarded

2015 2016 2015 2016 Sharks and rays no. no. no. no. released released retained retained Blue shark Prionace glauca 836 797 11 2 Silky shark Carcharhinus falciformis 100 110 6 1

Page 41 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus 55 100 22 2 Oceanic white-tip shark C. longimanus 46 46 Longfin mako shark I. paucus 32 45 Bigeye thresher shark Alopias superciliosus 22 20 2 1 Bronze whaler shark C. brachyurus 5 40 4 Pelagic thresher shark A. pelagicus 17 1 Thresher shark (vulpinus) A. vulpinus 4 1 Silvertip shark C. albimarginatus 1 1 Galapagos shark C. galapagensis 1 3 Blacktip shark C. limbatus 1 1 Great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran 1 1 Scalloped hammerhead S. lewini 2 Smooth hammerhead S. zygaena 2 Winghead shark Eusphyra blochii 1 Sandbar shark C. plumbeus 9 Bignose shark C. altimus 1 Bull shark C. leucas 1 Sharks (unidentified) 49 28 1

Giant manta ray Manta birostris 1 3 Mobula rays Mobulidae 8 Pelagic sting ray Pteroplatytrygon violacea 1160 1692 23 13

Sea turtles Olive Ridley turtle Lepidochelys olivacea 1 1 Green turtle Chelonia mydas 1 2 Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea 3 2 Loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta 2 3

Seabirds Black-footed albatross Phoebastria nigripes 1

Cetaceans Globicephala Short-finned pilot whale 1 macrorhynchus

= P1 target species, = P2 primary species, = P2 secondary species, = ETP species (Yellowfin also P2 in UoA 1, Albacore also P2 in UoA 2) a weights are calculated as a percentage of retained catch rather than estimating weights for species for which only numbers caught are available; including weights for non-retained catch would make only a small difference to these percentages. b estimated percentages are derived from data in Fiji (2016). Observer data reports numbers of fish retained for these species (Opah 531 in 2015 and 422 in 2016; Escolar 622 in 2015 and 811 in 2016).

Page 42 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Primary species Yellowfin tuna (Primary species for UoA 1) SA 3.1.3.1 (MSC 2014) requires that yellowfin tuna is considered as a P2 primary species in scoring UoA 1. In the case of the client fishery, yellowfin tuna comprises approximately 48% of the catch and so it is considered to be a main primary species for UoA 1. More details on the status, management and information available for yellowfin tuna are presented in the Principle 1 section of this report.

Albacore tuna (Primary species for UoA 2) SA 3.1.3.1 (MSC 2014) requires that albacore tuna is considered as a P2 primary species in scoring UoA 2. In the case of the client fishery, albacore tuna comprises approximately 31% of the catch and so it is considered to be a main primary species for UoA 2. More details on the status, management and information available for albacore tuna are presented in the Principle 1 section of this report.

Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) Bigeye tuna have a relatively broad distribution in the WCPO, both geographically between 40°N and 40°S, and vertically from the surface to depths of 500 m (occasionally to 1000 m) due to their tolerance of low oxygen levels and low temperatures. In the tropical and subtropical waters of the WCPO, adult bigeye tuna migrate from cooler deeper waters (beneath the thermocline) where they live during the day to shallower warmer waters (above the thermocline) at night. Juvenile bigeye tuna tend to inhabit shallower waters and can form mixed schools with skipjack and yellowfin, resulting in catches by surface fisheries, particularly in association with floating objects.

In the WCPO, smaller bigeye (20 to 75 cm; 3 months to 1.7 years of age) are typically caught on the surface by a range of gears including handline, ringnet and purse seine and are used mainly for canning. The majority of larger/older fish (100 to 180 cm; 2 to 10 years of age) are caught by longline fisheries. Bigeye tuna account for a relatively small proportion of the total tuna catch in the region.

Bigeye tuna growth rates are slower than either yellowfin or skipjack, reaching around 40cm after one year. They also live longer (to at least 12 years) and mature later (around 3-4 years of age). Natural mortality is estimated to be relatively low compared with other tropical tuna species. These biological characteristics indicate lower productivity for bigeye tuna populations than skipjack or yellowfin, and, in combination with their susceptibility to multiple gear types throughout their lifespan, make bigeye tuna less resilient to exploitation. Bigeye tuna biomass is estimated to be significantly smaller than those of skipjack and yellowfin tuna in the WCPO. For management and stock assessment purposes, bigeye tuna are considered to constitute a single stock in the WCPO.

The latest stock assessment for bigeye tuna was undertaken in 2014 (Harley et al. 2014). The main conclusions from the assessment were consistent with the other recent assessments from 2010 and 2011, and indicate that current fishing mortality exceeds FMSY (FCURRENT/FMSY = 1.57), while bigeye tuna spawner biomass (SB) is currently at or very close to the limit reference point of 20% SBF=0 (SBCURRENT (2008-2011) = 20% SBF=0, SBLATEST (2012) = 16% SBF=0). CMM 2015-01 (now updated to CMM 2016-01) states that the fishing mortality rate for bigeye tuna will be reduced to a level no greater than FMSY, to be achieved through a step-by-step approach through 2017. The bigeye tuna assessment is scheduled to be updated in 2017. Pilling et al. (2016a) provided stochastic projections of the WCPO stock and estimated that F2016/FMSY = 1.11 (overfishing), and SB2016/SBF=0 = 0.17 (overfished). These projections do not change the conclusion of the stock assessment that the stock is outside biologically-based limits.

Page 43 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Figure 20. Estimates of reduction in spawning potential due to fishing (fishery impact = 1 - SBt / SBtF=0) for the WCPO attributed to various fishery groups for the reference case. (Source: Harley et al. 2014)

Bigeye tuna are taken in a wide variety of different fisheries (Figure 20; Harley et al. 2014). The majority of bigeye catch is taken by FAD-associated purse seine fishing or longline fishing. The 2015 catch of bigeye tuna in the WCPO statistical area was approximately 134,000 mt, with longline fishing accounting for 63,986 mt (WCPFC-SC 2016b). The reported 2015 Fiji longline catch was 1169 t (Fiji 2017), approximately 1.85% of the longline catch and 0.9% of the total catch of bigeye for the WCPO statistical area. In 2016, the Fiji longline catch of bigeye tuna was 1190 mt. Observer data (Table 7) indicates that approximately 7.4% of the retained catch by FFIA vessels for 2015-16 was bigeye tuna and is assessed as a main primary species. Provisional bigeye catches by the client vessels for 2015 and 2016 are 276.3 mt and 291.3 mt, respectively.

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) Skipjack tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific Oceans. They are the smallest of the major commercial tuna species, generally not exceeding 20 kg. In the Western Pacific, warm, pole ward-flowing currents near northern Japan and southern Australia seasonally extend skipjack tuna distribution to 40°N and 40°S (Rice et al. 2014). Their greatest abundance is seen in equatorial waters, roughly corresponding to a 20°C surface isotherm.

Skipjack in the WCPO are considered to comprise a single 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. Skipjack movement is highly variable (Sibert et al. 1999) but is thought to be influenced by large-scale oceanographic variability (Lehodey et al. 1997). Analyses of the tagging data have, however, indicated that the median lifetime displacement of skipjack ranges from 420 to 470 nautical miles (Sibert & Hampton 2003). The tagging data indicate that the spatial extent of the WCPO stock is believed to approximate the WCPFC-CA (Wild & Hampton 1994).

Skipjack are highly fecund and spawn opportunistically throughout their range and throughout the year when conditions are favourable, with the spawning season becoming shorter with increasing distance from the equator. They reach maturity at about 40 cm fork length (FL) and within their first year. Fecundity increases with size but is highly variable.

Page 44 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Skipjack growth is rapid compared to albacore and yellowfin tuna. In the Pacific, approximate age estimates from counting daily rings on otoliths suggest that growth may vary between areas.

Skipjack tuna stock assessments have been conducted regularly since 2000. Assessments are conducted using the well-established MULTIFAN-CL software. The latest assessment was presented at the 2016 WCPFC-SC (McKechnie et al. 2016). McKechnie et al. (2016) suggests that current catches are lower than, but approaching, estimated MSY. The latest (2015) estimate of spawning biomass is well above both the level that will support MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.56, for the reference case model) and the adopted LRP of 0.2 SBF=0 (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.58, for the reference case model), and SBlatest/SBF=0 was relatively close to the adopted interim target reference point (0.5 SBF=0) for all models explored in the assessment (structural uncertainty grid: median = 0.51, 95% quantiles = 0.39 and 0.67) (WCPFC-SC 2016a). The assessment supports the conclusion that skipjack tuna are not overfished.

Observer data (Table 7) indicates that skipjack tuna comprises approximately 2% of the client vessel catch, a very small proportion of the overall WCPO catch. Skipjack tuna is assessed as a minor primary species.

Secondary species More than 50 secondary species are caught in the fishery, most of them in negligible quantities. In addition to the species discussed below, the fishery relies on the use of bait in its fishing operations. The use of bait is also considered under this component. The selection of bait in this fishery depends on a number of factors including market conditions. At the time of the 2012 assessment of the fishery the dominant bait used was the ‘South American pilchard’ (Sardinops saygax) sourced from South Africa.

Information provided to the assessment team at this assessment indicates that the main species used in 2016 were the Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps) and the Muroaji scad or mackerel (Decapterus spp.), sourced predominantly from China and to a lesser extent, Oman. Estimated 2016 bait usage for FFIA vessels is approximately 700 mt each of Sardinella longiceps and Decapterus spp., each equivalent just over 5% of the client catch (provisional catch of 12,356 mt for 2016). These 2 bait species are assessed as main secondary species.

Bait

Indian oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps) Indian oil sardine is sourced predominantly from China and to a lesser extent from Oman. The Indian oil sardine is a highly migratory small pelagic fish found from the north-west Indian Ocean to south-east India. The species does not occur in Chinese waters; the Indian oil sardine sourced from China is most likely product caught in Indian waters, the location of the biggest fishery for the species (Gascoigne and Sieben, 2017). The species grows rapidly, matures early, and is highly fecund. The Indian oil sardine is one of the most important commercial species in Indian fisheries and is targeted with ring nets, pelagic trawls, gillnets and purse seines with the main commercial concentrations of the species situated off the coast of south-west India and especially Kerala (Gascoigne et al. 2015). Stock structure for this species is uncertain. FAO catch statistics indicate large-scale annual fluctuations in the landings of this species. Recent global landings show no indication of a significant population decline. Catches from 2011 to 2014 exceed 500,000 mt annually (http://www.fao.org/fishery/species/2086/en). There is no recent stock assessment of the species. S. longiceps is listed on the IUCN Red List as being of ‘least concern’ (Munro and

Page 45 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Priede 2010). The use of S. longiceps as bait in the fishery under assessment (< 1000 mt per annum) represents a fraction of global total landings (< 0.2%). Bait usage has been estimated from data provided by the client during the site visit.

Muroaji scad/mackerel (Decapterus spp.) Bait identified on import dockets as Muroaji is likely to comprise various Decapterus species (likely Decapterus macrosoma amongst others), sourced mainly from China. Decapterus species are widespread and relatively common throughout the Indo-Pacific. Generally these species are not vulnerable to fishing due to their fast life history (growth, maturation, reproduction). Decapterus macrosoma is listed on the IUCN Red List as being of ‘least concern’ and states that there have been no indications of population declines as a result of its use as bait (Smith-Vaniz and Williams 2016). The use of Decapterus spp. as bait in the fishery under assessment (< 1000 mt per annum) represents a fraction of global landings. Bait usage has been estimated from data provided by the client during the site visit.

The discussion below provides a brief overview of secondary species comprising more than 1% of the observed 2015-2016 catch by the client fishery. The Fiji longline fishery also takes several shark species. Given changes to Fiji’s endangered species legislation these are dealt with in Section 3.6.3.

Mahi mahi (Coryphaena hippurus) Mahi mahi (also known as dolphinfish/dorado) is a highly migratory species found throughout the world’s tropical and subtropical oceans to depths of ~85 metres. Mahi mahi is a top predator feeding on small fish and cephalopods. The species is fast growing and highly fecund. It is of ‘least concern’ on the IUCN Red List, mainly due to its high growth rates and fecundity and high natural mortality. There is no stock assessment available for mahi mahi in the WCPO and there is no specific WCPFC CMM relating to mahi mahi.

The reported 2015 catch of mahi mahi by Fiji longliners was 305 mt (2.1% of the Fiji longline catch) and the average over 2011-2015 was approximately 256 mt (based on Fiji annual part 1 reports). Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average mahi mahi catch for 2015- 2016 was 2.7% of the client fishery catch, hence is treated as a minor secondary species for this assessment.

Wahoo (Acanthocybium solandri) Wahoo is a fast-growing and early-maturing species. Stock status and fishing mortality rates are poorly known, however, given its growth rates and fecundity the species is not thought to be particularly vulnerable to fishing pressure. Wahoo is a top-level predator feeding on small fish and cephalopods. There is no stock assessment available for wahoo in the WCPO and there is no specific WCPFC CMM relating to wahoo.

The reported 2015 catch of wahoo by Fiji longliners was 237 mt (1.6% of the Fiji longline catch) and the average over 2011-2015 was of approximately 196 mt (based on Fiji annual part 1 reports). Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average wahoo catch for 2015- 2016 was 2.1% of the client fishery catch, hence is treated as a minor secondary species for this assessment.

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Swordfish are widely distributed globally between ~50oN and S – i.e. in all longitudes in the Pacific Ocean. The stock structure is not well known. Swordfish are sexually dimorphic. Gender differences in life-history characteristics (e.g. movement patterns, natural mortality etc.) are not well known, however, females grow larger and faster than males, and may live in different areas. The most recent stock assessment indicates that there remains a large degree of uncertainty about some of the basic biological characteristics of swordfish (Davies et al. 2013). Farley et al. (2016) examine growth and maturity parameters of swordfish for

Page 46 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

consideration in future assessment of the species. The study found that age estimates from fin rays and otoliths sampled from the same fish produce different growth curves for both male and female swordfish in the SW Pacific. A clear discrepancy is evident in age classes >7 years for females and >4 years for males (Farley et al. 2016). The otolith-based growth curves indicate slower growth and a higher maximum age for both males and females, compared to the ray-based growth curves of previous studies of swordfish in the SW Pacific and Hawaiian regions. The maximum estimated age for (female) swordfish was 14 years from rays and 21 years from otoliths (the authors indicate that age estimates from otoliths are likely to be more reliable than for rays, especially in larger/older fish. The study found that the length at 50% maturity for female swordfish in the SW Pacific is 161.5 cm OFL and the age at 50% maturity is approximately 4.4 years (Farley et al. 2016).

No target or limit reference points have been established for swordfish by WCPFC. The 2013 assessment (Davies et al. 2013) estimated stock status in relation to several reference points: SB2007-2010/SBMSY = 2.07 (median of selected grid runs); SB2007-2010/SB0 = 0.47 and Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.74 (WCPFC-SC 2014a), though some model runs indicate overfishing. The management advice for the stock is that, given the uncertainty in the assessment, a precautionary approach should be adopted in considering future management arrangements. The current conservation and management measure for swordfish (CMM 2009-03) is intended to limit fishing effort.

Swordfish have historically been taken predominantly by distant water longline fleets, notably Japanese but also from China, Taiwan and Korea, which took swordfish mainly as a bycatch in the directed tuna fishery. Catches of swordfish in the south Pacific have generally been increased since 2001 and have been around 21,000 mt in recent years. Catches by Pacific Island nations have increased over time. Fiji longline catches have averaged around 140 mt in recent years, less than 1% of the total. Observed catch of the client fishery indicates swordfish catches are 1.8% of the client catch (Table 7). Swordfish are treated as a minor secondary species in this assessment.

Several reference points indicate that the stock is well above biologically-based limits. SB2007-2010/SB0 was 0.47 (median of selected grid runs). An updated assessment is being undertaken in 2017.

Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans) Blue marlin is a cosmopolitan species found primarily in tropical and sub-tropical epipelagic waters of the Pacific, Indian, and Atlantic Oceans. They are taken by a variety of different gear types, including by recreational troll fisheries. Over the period 2012-2015, approximately 80% of WCPO blue marlin catch was taken by longline fisheries, with the rest taken by purse seine and other fleets (SPC 2016).

The most recent stock assessment was undertaken by the Billfish Working Group (BWG) in 2016, and it is currently assumed that blue marlin comprises a single stock within the Pacific Ocean (BWG 2016). No target or limit reference points have been established for the Pacific blue marlin stock under the auspices of the WCPFC. However, the current spawning biomass (average for 2012-2014) was estimated to be 23% above SSBMSY, and the fishing mortality (average for ages 2 and older in 2012-2014) was 14% less than FMSY. This represents a decline in spawning biomass and increase in fishing mortality since the previous assessment undertaken in 2013, however, BWG (2016) concluded that the blue marlin stock in the Pacific Ocean is not being overfished and is not in an overfished state relative to MSY-based reference points. Management advice from the scientific committee is that fishing mortality remains at or below current level (WCPFC-SC 2016a).

Page 47 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The blue marlin catch in the WCPFC-CA is estimated to have exceeded 26,000 mt in 2003, but catches have generally been maintained at around 18,000 – 20,000 mt annually since the early 2000s (SPC 2016). The 2015 catch of 155 mt reported for the Fiji longline fishery represents a very small percentage of this total (SPC 2016). Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average blue marlin catch for 2015-2016 was 1.4% of the total catch, hence blue marlin is treated as a minor secondary species for this assessment.

Striped marlin (Kajikia audax) Striped marlin is a widespread tropical and subtropical, pelagic species which rarely enters coastal waters. Most catches in the pelagic zone have been reported from surface waters (less than 100 m deep). The biology and ecology of striped marlin, including their movement patterns are known. They are thought to spawn in the southwest Pacific between November and December and display very high initial growth rates in their first year (attaining up to 45% of their maximum size in the first year of life.

The last stock assessment for striped marlin in the SWPO was conducted in 2012 (Davies et al. 2012). It was estimated that the spawning biomass was below the level associated with MSY (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.87; range 0.67–1.14). Fishing mortality (2007 to 2010) was below FMSY (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.81; range 0.51–1.21), and catches during this period were close to the estimated MSY (2081 mt; range 1914–2276 mt). Annual catches over the most recent four years since the assessment (2011 to 2014) have averaged 2500 mt, in excess of the estimated MSY. Management advice is that the stock is fully exploited, is not experiencing overfishing, but may be overfished. An average of approximately 38 mt of striped marlin has been reported as caught annually by the Fiji longline fishery for 2012-2015. This represents less than 1% of the Fiji longline catch and a minor percentage of the overall WCPFC catch. Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average striped marlin catch for 2015-2016 was 1.1% of the total catch, hence is treated as a minor secondary species for this assessment.

Short-billed spearfish (Tetrapturus angustirostris) Short-billed spearfish are found the tropical and subtropical areas of the Pacific and Indian Oceans between approximately 35oN and 35oS, preferring oceanic waters. Limited information is available on the stock structure or size of short-billed spearfish stocks in the WCPO and there has been no stock assessment of the species. There are no specific management measures in place for short-billed spearfish.

An average of approximately 35 mt of short-billed spearfish has been reported as caught annually by the Fiji longline fishery for 2012-2015. Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average black marlin catch for 2015-2016, approximately 1% of the catch by the client fishery and is treated as a minor secondary species for this assessment.

Opah/Moonfish (Lampris guttatus) Opah is a large, distinctive pelagic fish found in all major oceans, and is commonly captured in tropical and sub-tropical longline fisheries in the WCPO, on deeper set gear in the equatorial regions and in the sub-tropical albacore fisheries (Langley et al., 2008). The opah was categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007). In the WCPO, opah start being captured by longline gears at a size of approximately 50 cm FL (around one year of age). Opah appear fully recruited to longline gears in the WCPO at approximately 100 cm FL.

There are no details available for the stock assessments for opah from any area and thus the stock status is unknown. Opah has not been considered a species of concern at either national or regional level, hence there are no management measures in place. Akroyd et al. (2012) report that where there doesn’t appear to be concern over the status of this species based on a time-series trends in CPUE and size at capture (Figure 10 of Akroyd et al. 2012)

Page 48 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

based on observer data. Table 7 indicates that opah comprised 1.8% of the client fishery catch in 2015-16.

Other secondary species Apart from the species above, no other secondary species comprised more than 1% of the client catch (Table 7). These species include sailfish (Istiophorus platypterus), great barracuda (Sphyraena barracuda), black marlin (Istiompax indica), escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) and ocean sunfish (Mola mola). Observer data indicated that the most frequently caught discarded species is long-snouted lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) (average of 1835 discarded for 2015-16. Lancetfish were categorized as being at “low” ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007) and have a least concern rating on the IUCN Red List.

Shark finning Through the MSC interpretations log, the MSC has clarified the following:

“If rare and isolated cases of shark finning are encountered in the most recent year (or the recent period considered in scoring the fishery, which should be no less than the last full season of landings), the team should evaluate the nature of such cases to determine whether further cases of shark finning could be happening in the fishery in a systematic way.” Also, “Fisheries should not be perversely penalised, for example, for putting in place very good surveillance and enforcement systems that are proving effective and still detecting and quickly resolving the odd rare case” (http://msc-info.accreditation- services.com/questions/shark-finning/).

In 2010, the WCPFC introduced CMM 2010-07, which specifies that Commission Members (CCMs) take measures necessary to require their fishers to fully utilize any retained catches of sharks, with all parts of the shark excepting head, guts and skins to be retained to the point of first landing or transhipment. CMM 2010-07 specifies data reporting requirements for key shark species and also requires that CCMs take measures to encourage the release of live sharks that are caught incidentally and are not used for food or other purposes in fisheries not directed at sharks. CMM 2011-04 was then adopted and requires that no oceanic whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) are retained in whole or in part, while CMM 2013-08 also requires that silky sharks (Carcharhinus falciformis) are not retained in whole or in part. CMM 2014-05 requires that longline vessels targeting tuna and billfish i) do not use or carry wire trace as branch lines or leaders, or ii) do not use branch lines running directly off the longline floats or drop lines (known as shark lines).

Piovano and Gilman (2016) analysed observer programme data from the Fiji longline fishery for 2011 to 2014 to characterize the shark and ray catch composition taken by the fishery. With a nominal catch rate of 0.610 elasmobranchs per 1000 hooks, a total of 27 species of elasmobranchs were captured.

Concern was raised in the 2012 MSC assessment of the Fiji longline fishery in relation to the effectiveness of management measures in place for sharks. A condition was raised for PI 2.1.1 requiring that effective management be demonstrated. Piovano and Gilman (2016) report that on-board observers recorded the use of ‘shark lines’ in more than half of observed sets in 2011 (59% of sets monitored), while in the next 2 years it dropped to about 1% (0.8% in 2012 and 1.1% in 2013). In 2014 there were no records of shark line use. The 2011 to 2014 observer data also indicated that many sharks taken were finned, but that the level of finning decreased markedly over this period (Piovano and Gilman 2016). For example, 100% of oceanic whitetips were finned in 2011 and 2012, 60% were finned in 2013, but only 3% were finned in 2014. The condition (for PI 2.1.1) was closed at the 3rd surveillance audit (in 2016) due to major changes in the management of sharks by the Fijian

Page 49 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Government following certification. The Fiji Fisheries Department has diligently communicated the requirements of the WCPFC CMMs to the longline sector and shark gear is banned on Fijian domestic vessels as a licence condition. Wire traces are banned resulting in most sharks in biting through the line and escaping before being brought alongside the boat. In addition, the client fleet uses circle hooks that tend to have lower shark catch rates. Fiji has developed a National Plan of Action (NPOA) for Sharks. Although it has not yet been formally ratified its requirements are being implemented and observed. The NPOA Sharks includes policies promoting within industry the release of live sharks unharmed and unaltered while still in the water. A small number of dead sharks are permitted to be retained. These are required to be landed whole. The client also indicated to the assessment team that there is no longer a market for shark fins to be sold and that airlines flying from Fiji will not transport the product. Observer data indicates very low levels of retention of sharks in 2015 and 2016. The assessment team found no evidence that shark finning is occurring. Endangered Threatened and Protected species ETP species are defined by the MSC (MSC 2014) as species that are: 1. Recognised by national ETP legislation, 2. Listed on Appendix I of CITES (unless it can be shown that the particular stock of the CITES listed species impacted by the UoA under assessment is not endangered), 3. Listed in any binding agreements concluded under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), or 4. Classified as ‘out-of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Red List as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE).

The original assessment of the Fiji longline fishery (Akroyd et al. 2012) considered information on cetaceans, sea turtles and seabirds against the ETP criteria. Since the original assessment, a number of shark species have been recognized under Fiji’s ETP legislation.

Fiji’s Endangered Protected Species Act 2002 (EPS Act) regulates the domestic and international trade of endangered species by requiring a permit to be applied for before any endangered species can be traded within Fiji or internationally. The EPS Act is the Fiji legislation that implements CITES requirements. Section 3 of the EPS Act includes all species listed in Appendix I, II or III of CITES. Additional schedules also include local species that are considered to be threatened. On 28 March 2017 the Endangered and Protected Species (Amendment) Act, (No. 10 of 2017) was made to amend the EPS Act (Fiji-ETP 2017). The EPS Amendment Act expanded the list of species covered by the schedules. In particular, 12 species of elasmobranchs were added (Table 7).

Through the MSC Interpretations Log, the MSC has also clarified that national ETP legislation can also mean binding fisheries legislation where the intent is to protect vulnerable species1:

“As ETP species include ‘protected’ species (not just endangered/threatened), there may be instruments other than those created specifically for protection of wildlife/endangered species where this protection is provided. For example EC Regulation 104/2015 setting fishing opportunities for 2015 lists “prohibited species” such as certain sharks, skates and rays (Article 12). The intent of prohibiting these species (or setting a ‘0’ TAC for them as

1 http://msc-info.accreditation-services.com/questions/should-species-that-are-listed-under-the-prohibitions-set- out-in-eu-fisheries-regulations-be-regarded-as-etp-species/

Page 50 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

done prior to 2015) is clarified in the introduction to this document as being particularly because these species have a poor conservation status and that discarding will be beneficial for them due to their high survivability …. This being the case, the MSC recommends that the assessment team consider the listing of species as prohibited in Article 12 of EC Regulation 104/2015 as equivalent to being recognised by national ETP legislation. However, the MSC recognises that not all species that have a 0 TAC set for a given year (e.g. in other instruments) should normally be considered as ETP, unless the intent of doing so is stated in the instrument as being to specifically to protect the species because of its poor conservation status.”

It is noted that CMM 2010-07 does not prohibit the retention, transhipping, storing or landing of sharks, generally, and neither do the Food and Agriculture Organisation International Plan of Action for Conservation and Management of Sharks (FAO 1999) nor the Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks (Lack & Meere 2009). As such, and following the MSC guidance above, it is considered that these documents do not result in a requirement that all shark species be designated as ETP. Nevertheless, due to the low level of sharks retained by the fishery in recent years and the large number of shark species covered under Fiji’s ETP legislation, all sharks and rays are assessed in this section of the report.

Relevant information on the basis for determining that a species is ETP and the current status of each species according to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List are provided in Table 8. None of the stocks of ETP species concerned here are considered to be subject to national or international requirements that have set limits for ETP species. Several shark species taken by the fishery are not ETP species according to the above definitions, but have been covered here rather than as secondary species.

Table 8. Relevant WCPFC, Fiji and international initiatives for considering species to be ETP for the FFIA assessment (not all elasmobranchs listed are ETP according to MSC criteria but have been included here for simplicity).

IUCN Fiji/WCPFC WCPFC Species 1 Relevant CMS/CITES status Red recognition CMMs2 List*

Blue shark ➢✓ 2010-073 NT Silky shark ➢✓ 2013-08 CMS App. II (2014) NT Oceanic whitetip shark ➢✓ 2011-04 CITES App. II Vu Longfin mako shark ➢✓ 2010-07 CMS App. II (2008) Vu Shortfin mako shark ➢✓ 2010-07 CMS App. II (2008) Vu Pelagic thresher ✓ 2010-07 CMS App. II (2014) Vu Bigeye thresher ✓ 2010-07 CMS App. II (2014) Vu Common thresher ✓ 2010-07 CMS App. II (2014) Vu Great hammerhead ✓ 2010-07 CMS App. II (2015) CITES App. II En Smooth hammerhead ✓ 2010-07 CITES App. II Vu Scalloped hammerhead ✓ 2010-07 CMS App. II (2014) CITES App. II En Winghead ✓ 2010-07 En Bronze whaler shark 2010-07 NT Silvertip shark ➢ 2010-07 Vu Galapagos shark 2010-07 NT

Page 51 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Sandbar shark ➢ 2010-07 Vu Bignose shark 2010-07 DD Bull shark ➢ 2010-07 NT Blacktip shark 2010-07 NT

Giant manta ✓ 2010-07 CMS App. I (2011) CITES App. II Vu Mobula rays ✓ 2010-07 CMS App. I (2014) DD Pelagic stingray 2010-07 LC

Pilot whale ➢ 2011-03 CMS MOU DD

Black-footed albatross 2015-03 ACAP Annex I NT

Olive Ridley turtle ➢ 2008-03 CMS App. I (1985) / CITES App. I Vu Green turtle ➢ 2008-03 CMS App. I (1979) / CITES App. I En Leatherback turtle ➢ 2008-03 CMS App. I (1979) / CITES App. I Vu Loggerhead turtle ➢ 2008-03 CMS App. I (1985) / CITES App. I Vu

1. ➢ indicates Fiji endangered species listed ✓ indicates WCPFC key shark species 2. CMM 2014-05 relating to the use of wire traces etc. applies to all sharks 3. CMM 2010-07 applies to all sharks but has specific data requirements for WCPFC “key” species * IUCN status provided for information only. IUCN codes: DD = data deficient; LC = least concern; NT = near threatened; Vu = vulnerable; En = endangered; CR = critically endangered.

Elasmobranchs As indicated above, all shark species taken by the client fishery are discussed in this section due to the number of species covered by Fiji’s endangered species legislation. The discussion below focuses on the shark species taken in highest numbers by the fishery which are nominated in Fiji’s legislation. Several other shark species not fitting MSC’s definition of ETP but which are taken in small numbers are discussed briefly.

As discussed above, major improvements have been made in the management of shark catches in the Fijian longline fishery since the 2012 MSC assessment of the fishery. Shark gear is banned on Fijian domestic vessels as a licence condition. The requirement to use monofilament rather than wire traces results in most sharks escaping before being brought alongside the boat. In addition, the client fleet uses circle hooks that tend to have lower shark catch rates. Retained dead sharks are required to be landed whole.

WCPFC CMM-2010-07 requires CCMs to advise the Commission on annual catch and fishing effort statistics by gear type, including available historical data for key shark species as identified by the Scientific Committee. Table 9 provides Fiji’s submission in its 2016 Part 1 annual report (Fiji 2016). As discussed in the shark finning section, above, additional CMMs have been introduced in relation to shark: CMM 2011-04 for Oceanic Whitetip Sharks, CMM on the protection of whale sharks from purse seine operations, CMM 2013-08 for silky sharks, and CMM 2014-05 preventing the use of wire traces and the use of shark lines on vessels targeting tuna and billfish.

Page 52 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

In 2010, WCPFC commenced a shark research plan (SRP) (WCPFC, 2010) that is led by the SPC and intended to provide assessment, research of key coordination and fishery statistics improvements for “key” shark species. Initially the list of key species included blue shark, oceanic whitetip shark, mako sharks and thresher sharks. The overall aim of the plan was to evaluate the status of key shark species in the WCPO and to establish better datasets to support future assessments. Silky, Porbeagle (south of 30oS), hammerhead sharks (Winghead, scalloped, great, and smooth) and whale sharks were added later. WCPFC13 also added Manta and Mobula rays, with the first steps to be a review of data requirements and development of safe release guides for these species. The first SRP covered the period 2010-2014 and included the following achievements (Brouwer and Harley, 2015): • Two indicator analyses (2011 and 2015) for all key sharks that integrated catch rate, size, sex, maturity, distribution and species composition; • Three accepted age-structured stock assessments for key sharks including oceanic whitetip and silky sharks, and blue sharks in the North Pacific; • Estimated catch histories for key sharks; • Development of CPUE and catch estimates towards the sixth planned stock assessment, for blue shark in the south Pacific; • Demonstration that the greatest longline impact on silky and oceanic whitetips is direct targeting using shark lines and not unintended bycatch; • Two analyses of available observer data for key sharks to examine the potential for mitigation measures to reduce catch rates and increase release survival; • Inclusion of sharks within the Bycatch Mitigation Information System (BMIS); • Development of a Shark Tagging Information System (STAGIS), a repository for information on tagging of sharks; and • The WCPFC convened a Pacific shark life history expert panel workshop in April 2015.

The initial SRP had a goal of seven shark stock assessments which was not achieved, largely due to funding constraints. Brouwer and Harley (2015) provide a revised plan for research for 2016-2020 including the 2016 assessment of blue shark discussed below.

No reference points have yet been adopted for shark species taken in the WCPO. Clarke and Hoyle (2014) discuss the development of potential reference points for elasmobranchs.

Table 9. Fiji national tuna longline fleet. Shark species and their fate based on 19% observer coverage in 2015 (Fiji 2016).

Species Discarded Retained Blue shark 1254 15 Silky shark 368 9 Shortfin mako shark 95 25 Longfin mako shark 92 0 Oceanic white-tip shark 82 0 Bigeye thresher shark 45 2 Pelagic thresher shark 23 0 Thresher shark (vulpinas) 22 0 Bronze whaler shark 9 4 Great hammerhead shark 3 1 Scalloped hammerhead shark 1 0 Smooth hammerhead shark 1 0 Sharks (unidentified) 54 1 Total 2049 57

Observer data for 2015 and 2016 from the client fishery on shark catches is provided in Table 7.

Blue shark (Prionace glauca)

Page 53 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Blue sharks are a large, highly migratory, pelagic shark species found throughout the world’s oceans in all tropical and temperate waters from about 50o N to 50° S and are known as one of the most prolific shark species. They have a slender body shape and rarely exceed 3 m in total length and 200 kg in weight. Blue shark are a major bycatch of longline fisheries and are also taken by sport fishermen in some regions.

In the southern hemisphere, catch rate trends for blue shark declined until 2003 and then increased to mid-1990s levels. Catch estimates in number based on observer data indicate removals have dropped by at least 50% in the past decade (Clarke, 2011). Rice and Harley (2013a) undertook analyses of observer, operational logsheet and aggregate catch and effort data for the period 1990-2011 to come up with potential catch time series and abundance indices for use in future stock assessments. The analysis focused on estimated CPUE and catch from longline fisheries; not including catches in purse seine fisheries as these are considered to be very low compared to longline catches (Rice and Harley, 2013a). An assessment of blue shark in WCPO southern hemisphere waters was undertaken in 2016 (Takeuchi et al. 2016). The authors indicate that while the stock of blue shark within the southern WCPFC-CA may be considered ‘data rich’ for a shark species, it is considered data poor in comparison to assessments performed for tuna and most billfish (Takeuchi et al. 2016). The assessment is considered a work-in-progress and its stock status estimates not suitable as the basis for management advice at this time. The blue shark was categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007). The species is classified by the IUCN Red List as “Near Threatened” (IUCN 2017).

Observer data for the national fleet for 2015 (Table 9) indicates 1269 blue sharks were caught of which 1254 were released. Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 847 blue shark caught (836 released) in 2015 and 799 caught (797 released) in 2016. Lawson (2011) provides estimates of the number caught of several key shark species in the WCPFC statistical area. Over the last 5 years of the estimates provided (2005-2009), blue shark longline catches averaged 586,000 sharks.

Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis) Information provided here on silky shark is adapted from Rice and Harley (2013b). Silky shark is a circumtropical species. Silky shark inhabiting the coastal and oceanic waters of the WCPO are considered a single stock for stock assessment purposes. The species is one of the most commonly caught sharks in the tropical tuna fisheries, but there is only limited understanding of silky shark biology, ecology and movement patterns, information on the movements, migration and distribution of silky sharks in the Pacific can be inferred from previous, globally distributed studies.

Silky sharks show a preference for warmer tropical waters above 23˚C. It has been suggested that for the first few years of life silky sharks in the Pacific Ocean lead demersal/semi-pelagic lifestyles associated with reefs and deeper parts of the continental and insular shelves, but then move to more offshore and pelagic environments as sub- adults. At some stage, probably when around 130 cm in total length, silky sharks switch to a more oceanic habitat where they often join schools of large pelagic fish (such as tuna) and may disperse seasonally from the equator to higher latitudes. Estimated sizes at 50% maturity for silky sharks in the western Pacific are 212.5 cm total length for males and 210- 220 cm total length for females. Average litter size has been estimated at 6 pups, with a 9- 12-month gestation period.

There are no formal reference points established for silky shark. Rice & Harley (2013b) estimated that fishing mortality now exceeds FMSY (FCURRENT/FMSY = 4.48), while spawning biomass has declined to levels below SBMSY (SBCURRENT/SBMSY = 0.70). It was therefore considered that overfishing is occurring, and that the silky shark stock is in an overfished state (Rice & Harley 2013b). The greatest impact on the silky shark stock is attributed to

Page 54 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

bycatch from the tuna longline fishery, but there are also significant impacts from a targeted longline fishery, and from the FAD-associated purse seine fishery which catches predominantly juvenile individuals (Figure 21, Rice & Harley 2013b). A review of SRP activities indicates that “….the greatest longline impact on silky and oceanic whitetips is direct targeting using shark lines and not unintended bycatch” (WCPFC-SC 2014b).

Figure 21. Annual estimated silky shark catch (in weight) in the WCPO by fleet, 1994-2009 (source: Rice & Harley 2013b).

CMM 2013-08 seeks to improve the collection of data on silky shark and requires that silky sharks are not retained in whole or in part in the WCPFC-CA.

Observer data for the Fiji national fleet for 2015 (Table 9) indicates 377 silky sharks were caught of which 368 were released (163 alive, 186 dead, 19 unknown condition). Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 106 silky shark caught (100 released) in 2015 and 111 caught (110 released) in 2016 (Fiji 2016). MFF indicated that the small number of silky shark retained (in contravention of CMM 2013-08) were the subject of investigation. Lawson (2011) provides estimates of the number caught of several key shark species in the WCPFC statistical area. Rice (2012) updated these estimates for silky shark and oceanic whitetip. Over the last 5 years of the estimates provided (2005-2009), silky shark longline and purse seine catches averaged 371,300 sharks (Rice, 2012).

Oceanic white-tip shark Oceanic whitetip sharks were found to interact with fisheries between 30° N and S latitude with larger individuals, near or at the length at maturity, taken by the longline fishery and mainly juveniles captured by purse seine gear (Akroyd et al., 2012). CMM 2011-04 requires that no oceanic whitetip sharks are retained in whole or in part. The oceanic whitetip shark was categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for both deep and shallow longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007). All standardized catch rate trends from longline and purse seine fisheries were clear, steep and downward (Clarke 2011). A review of SRP activities

Page 55 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

indicates that “….the greatest longline impact on silky and oceanic whitetips is direct targeting using shark lines and not unintended bycatch” (WCPFC-SC 2014b).

Rice and Harley (2012) undertook a stock assessment for the species assuming a single WCPO-wide stock for assessment purposes. The assessment used a Stock Synthesis model and was based on predominantly observer-based catch, effort and length‐frequency data. The authors acknowledged uncertainty in the assessment due to the limited CPUE data, reported landings, total mortality and minimal information on the life history and biology. The stock status was reported in relation to MSY-based reference points: estimated fishing mortality was found to have increased to levels far in excess of FMSY (FCURRENT/ FMSY = 6.5) while estimated spawning biomass declined to levels far below SBMSY (SBCURRENT / SBMSY = 0.153). It was concluded that overfishing is occurring and that the stock is overfished.

Observer data for the Fiji national fleet for 2015 (Table 9) indicates 82 oceanic whitetip sharks were caught and released released (25 alive, 57 dead) (Fiji 2016). Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 46 oceanic whitetip sharks were released in each of 2015 and 2016 (Table 7). Rice (2012) provides estimates of oceanic whitetip catches. Over the last 5 years of the estimates provided (2005-2009), oceanic white tip longline and purse seine catches averaged approximately 100,000 sharks (Rice, 2012).

Mako sharks Two species of mako sharks are caught; shortfin and longfin mako. The two species are not well identified in historical catch data and information on them is often combined. Mako sharks are commonly captured shark species in the longline fisheries of the WCPO and have been encountered in longline sets in all regions that observers have sampled (Rice et al. 2015). There are no stock assessments of mako sharks. Rice et al. (2015) found that mako sharks in the South Pacific appear to be in decline, though the last years’ data points are based on relatively few data. Both species were categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby and Hobday 2007) and both are listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.

Observer data for the Fiji national fleet for 2015 (Table 9) indicates 92 longfin makos caught (all released); 120 shortfin makos were reported, with 95 released. Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 32 longfin makos shark caught (all released) in 2015 and 45 caught (all released) in 2016. For shortfin makos 77 were reported as caught in 2015 (55 released) and 102 in 2016 (100 released). Lawson (2011) provides estimates of the number caught of several key shark species in the WCPFC statistical area. Over the last 5 years of the estimates provided (2005-2009), mako shark longline catches averaged 49,200 sharks.

Thresher sharks Pelagic thresher, bigeye thresher and common thresher sharks are taken on longline. The three species are not well identified in historical catch data and information on them is often combined. Pelagic threshers are the fastest growing of the three members of the Alopiidae family, however they still have a low annual rate of population increase (2-4%), which renders them at risk from depletion in fisheries (Reardon et al., 2009). The bigeye thresher shark has the lowest intrinsic rebound potential and least resistance to fisheries of the genus (Amorium et al., 2009). Rice et al. (2015) examines CPUE information for WCPFC key shark species. Standardised CPUE the thresher shark complex for 2003-2011 decreases slightly but shows a steep decline from 2012-2014. There is no assessment of stock status for the 3 species. All three species are listed as ‘Vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List. All three threshers were categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for both deep and shallow longline sets (Kirby and Hobday 2007).

Page 56 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Catch estimates indicate removals have been stable in the past decade (Lawson 2011) with median estimates for 2006 ranging from ~65,000 to 750,000 individuals (Lawson 2011; Clarke 2009). Observer data for the Fiji national fleet for 2015 (Table 9) indicates 92 thresher sharks caught (with 2 bigeye threshers retained. Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 22 bigeye threshers caught (20 released) in 2015 and 21 caught (20 released) in 2016. For pelagic threshers, 18 were reported as caught in 2015 (17 released), and for common threshers there were 5 caught in 2015 (4 released).

Hammerhead sharks Four species of hammerhead sharks are caught, the great hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, smooth hammerhead and the Winghead shark. The separate species are not well identified in historical catch data. No stock assessments are available for the hammerhead species.

Great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, and Winghead sharks are all listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List; smooth hammerhead is vulnerable. Great hammerhead and smooth hammerhead are categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby and Hobday 2007); scalloped hammerhead are “high” risk.

Observer data for the Fiji national fleet for 2015 (Table 9) indicates that few hammerhead sharks are taken by the fishery (great hammerhead – 4 caught with 1 retained; scalloped hammerhead – only 1 caught and released; smooth hammerhead – also 1 caught and released). Observer coverage of the client fishery also indicates low levels of interaction with hammerhead sharks (great hammerhead – 2 caught in 2015 with 1 retained; scalloped hammerhead – 2 caught and released in 2016; smooth hammerhead – also 2 caught and released in 2016; Winghead shark – 1 caught and released in 2015) (Table 7).

Other elasmobranchs Several other non-key shark species were recorded in low numbers in the 2015 and 2016 observer coverage of the FFIA vessels (Table 7). These include the sandbar, silvertip, Galapagos, bronze whaler, blacktip, Bignose and bull sharks. Manta rays and mobulid rays have also been added to the WCPFC key species list. Observer data for the client fishery also indicates a single giant manta ray caught and released in 2015, and 8 mobulid rays caught and released.

The highest numbers of discarded elasmobranchs are for the pelagic stingray (Pteroplatytrygon violacea). Observer data from the client fishery (Table 7) indicates 1160 discarded in 2015 and 1692 in 2016. Limited assessments of pelagic stingrays have been undertaken. Molony (2008) indicates that a majority of hooks for deep-set longline fisheries are set beyond the preferred depth of pelagic stingrays (less than 100 m). Moloney (2008) also indicates that from 2000 to 2007 available size data show a stable median size of approximately 50 cm disc width (above the size of first recruitment), suggesting that the impacts of industrialised tuna fisheries on this species in the WCPO are potentially sustainable. Tremblay-Boyer and Brouwer (2016) examine available historic data for non-key shark species, including observer data from 1994 to 2015. Pelagic stingray are widely distributed and show some areas of high density such as northeast of Hawaii. Few temporal trends are apparent (Tremblay-Boyer and Brouwer, 2016). Kirby and Hobday (2007) assessed pelagic stingray as having a medium risk, largely due to their medium vulnerability to most fishing gear used in the WCPFC as well as their medium productivity. The species is listed as of least concern’ on the IUCN Red List.

Cetaceans Apart from predation of toothed whales upon fish caught on the longline, there are very few reports of interactions with whales or cetaceans this fishery. As reported in Akroyd et al. (2012), Amoe (2011) reported only three interactions in the domestic longline observer

Page 57 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

programme over 2008 - 2009, in which case all three animals were released alive. Observer coverage has increased in recent years. Fiji (2014) reports 18 interactions with whales and dolphins in 2012 (with 1 whale dead), and 202 interactions in 2012. This high level of interaction results from reported of sightings by the observers, whereby the cetaceans were either swimming in the vicinity of the vessels and at times, during the hauling process, swimming in nearby schools or taking bait fish that is thrown back into the sea. Observer coverage of the FFIA vessels in 2015 and 2016 (Table 7) reports only 1 cetacean interaction (pilot whale) which was hooked and released alive with a condition code of alive and healthy on release.

Interactions with cetaceans are generally caused by depredation and observer data supports the conclusion that these interactions are not a significant source of mortality. Cetaceans are not specifically addressed in any CMMs for WCPO longline fisheries. Several whale species are protected by Fiji’s endangered species legislation, including whales that are known to predate tuna such as false killer whales Pseudorca crassidens, short-finned pilot whales Globicephala macrorhynchus and killer whales Orcinus orca. Toothed whale depredation on hooked tuna is a significant problem, but as all forms of fire arms and explosive devices are banned on Fijian vessels, no proactive measures are currently undertaken. FTBOA has voluntarily supported research on whale depredation by supporting the investigation of the effectiveness of prototype physical depredation mitigation devices for mitigating depredation by and by-catch of toothed whales in South Pacific pelagic longline fisheries (Akroyd and McLoughlin, 2014). This research complements a larger project managed by the Australian Mammal Centre focused on non-lethal options for mitigating catch depredation by and by- catch of toothed whales on pelagic longlines. (Hamer and Childerhouse, 2013) reports on progress with this research.

Seabirds As reported in the 2012 MSC assessment of longlining in Fiji, there are very low levels of interaction between the fishery and seabirds (Akroyd et al. 2012). Filippi et al. (2010) consider the main Fijian species to be at risk are the Fijian petrel Pseudobulweria macgillivrayi (mainly due to its extremely low population) and the Tahiti petrel P. rostrate, both listed under Fiji’s EPS Act (2002). Observer data (for 2015 and 2016) provided to the assessment team indicates that in 2015 there was a single interaction by the client fishery with a seabird, a black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), which was released (Table 7). For the national fleet, Fiji reported several seabird interactions over the period 2011-2015.

Observed seabird interactions 2011-2015 (Fiji 2016) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 No. Dead No. Dead No. Dead No. Dead No. Dead 0 0 0 0 8 5 2 2 0 0

All Fiji vessels fishing south of 30°S comply with the provisions of CMM 2015-03 adopted to mitigate impacts on seabirds. Given the high level of observer coverage of the client fishery and the low level of observed interaction, the impact of the fishery is highly likely to be within limits of national and international requirements for protection of seabird species.

Sea turtles Sea turtles are protected in Fijian waters where five species are present (hawksbill turtle, green turtle, loggerhead turtle, leatherback turtle and olive ridley turtle). Fiji has implemented the Fiji Sea Turtle Recovery Plan which engages local communities in sea turtle recovery and includes a component to assess and mitigate bycatch; a moratorium has been imposed on harvesting turtles from 2009 to 2018.

Page 58 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

CMM 2008-03 for the conservation and management of turtles is aimed primarily at shallowset longlines, rather than deep-set albacore fisheries such as the client fishery. In accordance with 2008-03, Fiji longliners use circle hooks. At an industry level there have been regular efforts to mitigate sea turtle mortality by ensuring that de-hooking and other tools are both available on vessels and that crew are aware of their importance and trained in their use. NOAA Hawaii and WWF Fiji have worked with the industry on sea turtle mitigation initiatives.

Fiji (2016) reports on observed gear interactions with turtles whilst placed on fishing trips from 2011 to 2015 are shown in Table 10.

Table 10. Observed turtle interactions (Fiji 2016)

Observed turtle interactions 2011-2015 (Fiji 2016) 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Species No. Dead No. Dead No. Dead No. Dead No. Dead Green turtle 1 1 1 0 18 4 20 7 4 3 Loggerhead turtle 7 4 2 1 4 3 14 6 6 2 Hawksbill turtle 1 1 0 0 3 0 12 6 2 0 Leatherback turtle 2 0 2 1 7 1 8 2 5 1 Olive Ridley turtle 1 1 1 1 8 6 14 6 23 21 Flatback turtle 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 Total 12 7 6 3 41 15 73 30 40 27

All observers in the Fiji Observer program are certified and trained in the mitigation/handling/releasing of sea turtles under the SPC/FFA Pacific Island Regional Fisheries Observer Standards (http://www.spc.int/OceanFish/en/certification-and-training- standards).

Observer data (for 2015 and 2016) provided to the assessment team indicates the following turtle interactions by the client fishery (Table 11).

Table 11. Observer data 2015 and 2016

Turtle Species 2015 2016 Alive Dead Alive Dead Olive Ridley turtle 0 1 0 1 Green turtle 0 1 2 2 Leatherback turtle 3 0 2 0 Loggerhead turtle 2 0 1 3

Habitats Fiji longline 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. The fishery operates in deep oceanic waters (at depths of over 1500 m). Longline fishing gear is highly unlikely to interact with benthic features at those depths, hence the fishery is not expected to directly impact benthic habitats.

Discarded or lost fishing gear has the potential to impact upon habitat and result in unobserved mortality due to ghost fishing. Currently, information on the proportion of hooks that are lost at sea (via bite-offs of terminal tackle or loss of complete branchlines) is not collected on logbook or observer forms. There is some gear loss, mainly in the form of lines broken off by large predators (e.g. sharks and pelagic sting rays) as well as gear failure e.g. swivel snaps or lines breaking. The initial MSC assessment of the Fiji fishery reported that one fishing company estimated that 1.8% of hooks were lost per trip (Akroyd et al., 2012).

Page 59 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Ghost fishing is unlikely because the bait will be lost or deteriorate quickly and lost hooks will accumulate in the deep oceanic benthos and degrade in time. Any major gear losses will be managed through gear recovery efforts. Buoys are well marked and can be tracked though GPS recordings; recovery rates are high. Ecosystem impacts The marine environment in the Western Pacific is strongly influenced by the major equatorial current systems, particularly the westward-flowing South Equatorial Current and the eastward-flowing equatorial undercurrent. The equatorial upwelling, a result of the interaction of the equatorial current and easterly trade winds, brings to the surface nutrient- rich water, which provides suitable conditions for high primary and secondary production. These conditions are thought to provide the forage base for the large stocks of tuna that occur throughout the western tropical Pacific.

The westward flowing northern branch of the SEC (the SECN) is the strongest current in the south Pacific, and mainly affects the fishing zones north of 7°S from January to June. The westward flowing southern branch of the South Equatorial Current (SECS) is evident to the north of 20°S in each month and appears strongest from May to October. The SECC shares a northern boundary with the SECN and a southern boundary with the SECS. The SECC is evident to the south of 10°S during November to April (Figure 22).

Figure 22. The main oceanographic features of the Pacific Ocean (Source: SPC, 2005).

Key: SEC: South Equatorial Current; NEC: North Equatorial Current; SECC: South Equatorial Counter-Current; NECC: North Equatorial Counter-Current; KUR: Kuroshio Current; EAC: East- Australian Current; HBT: Humboldt Current.

Studies have examined the potential impact of climate change on tuna populations in the Pacific Ocean. Projected changes in the marine environment in the region over the coming

Page 60 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

decades include increases in sea surface temperature, sea level rise, ocean acidification, increases in precipitation and more frequent and more intense storms. Increases in the intensity of the Subtropical Gyre are expected to lead to reductions in nutrient supply as downwelling conditions intensify (Bells et al., 2011 cited in Gascoigne et al., 2015). The availability of the nutrients underpins the food web for tuna, together with suitable water temperatures and dissolved oxygen levels. These factors determine the distribution and abundance of tuna and other large oceanic fish across the WCPO.

The effects of fishing pressure for tuna and tuna-like species on a pelagic marine ecosystem will occur from the removal of such predators from the food-chain. Albacore and yellowfin tuna, targeted in the Fiji longline fishery, are high trophic-level species and are considered apex predators. This ecosystem role is 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.

The Pacific Ocean tuna fisheries have removed at least 50 million tons of tuna and other top-level predators from pelagic ecosystem since 1950, leading to concerns about a catastrophic reduction in population biomass and the collapse of oceanic food chains. Sibert et al. (2006) analysed available data from Pacific tuna fisheries for 1950–2004 to provide comprehensive estimates of fishery impacts on population biomass and size structure. Exploited western Pacific yellowfin and bigeye have declined steadily to levels near the equilibrium biomass that would produce the MSY in the fishery. Skipjack tuna and blue shark appear to have increased slightly, whereas albacore have fluctuated in both directions.

Source: Sibert et al. (2006)

Figure 23. Trends in total biomass for eight stocks of large predators in the Pacific Ocean.

Page 61 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Blue lines indicate the biomass estimated from the observed fishing history (the exploited population), and red lines indicate the biomass estimated in the absence of all fishing (the unexploited population). The single black dash indicates the equilibrium biomass corresponding to MSY conditions, assuming current levels of recruitment and distribution of fishing mortality among fisheries. WCPO, western central Pacific Ocean; EPO, eastern Pacific Ocean.

The trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but the authors concluded that there was no detectable decrease in the trophic level of the population. These results indicated substantial, though not irreversible, impacts of fisheries on these top-level predators and minor impacts on the ecosystem in the Pacific Ocean.

Allain (2010) studied the upper part of the trophic structure of four distinct regions of WCPO. In the South Pacific Subtropical Gyre (SPSG), where Fiji belongs, epipelagic prey species are relatively less important and the bathypelagic highly migrant prey are predominant. The vertical structure SPSG is different compared to the other regions, having a very deep thermocline and a low thermal gradient. These conditions allow an easier access to the deep prey including molluscs. The results of these studies may indicate a potentially more extensive rather than intensive impact when removing top predators from SPSG system, involving a higher diversity of prey species and deeper oceanic layers. In consequence, the fishery is less likely to create a trophic cascade (as defined in FCR v2.0 GSA3.16.2), with significant increase in abundance of one or few species and decreased diversity.

Page 62 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Principle Three: Management System Background Jurisdictions in the area of operation The fisheries under consideration are yellowfin and albacore tuna caught by longline on Fijian flagged vessels operating in Fiji’s EEZ (this includes archipelagic waters) and the three adjacent high seas pockets (Figure 1).

Yellowfin and albacore tuna are considered as highly migratory species. As such the key components of the governance and fisheries management for these species are the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and the Fiji Government. Both are consistent with the United Nations Convention for the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) and United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA).

All vessels in this assessment are Fiji flagged and as such are subject to all Fiji’s laws and fishery requirements.

The UoA for each of albacore and yellowfin is the same as the UoC and there are no other eligible fishers. The UoA/UoC includes 34 vessels members of the client group; the Fiji Fishing Industry Association MSC group.

For the purpose of this section, the key components of the governance and fishery management framework are: i) The Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). The WCPFC is the tuna RFMO for the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC sets conservation and management measures and policies for the WCPFC Convention area (Figure 24), and ii) The Fiji national government, which is responsible for ensuring the management measures applied within Fiji waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC and fishing by Fiji flagged vessels both within and beyond the Fiji EEZ is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by WCPFC.

Page 63 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Figure 24. The Pacific Ocean, showing the boundaries of the WCPFC convention area (red) and the EEZs of Pacific Ocean countries (blue)

Regional organizations, Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) and the Pacific Community (SPC), also play significant roles in the management framework for the fisheries under assessment, because of the support and services they provide to both Fiji and the WCPFC.

Fiji exercises Flag State responsibility as required under international law and consistent with its domestic policies and legislations. Fiji has implemented effective means to monitor its flagged fishing vessels authorized to fish on the high seas and vessels licensed to fish in other EEZs.

The use and operation of the FFA vessel monitoring system (VMS) to monitor all Fiji flagged vessels operating inside and outside Fiji’s EEZ is already in place and a full-time staff dedicated to VMS reporting, data analysis and addressing possible `alerts’. Small Fiji- flagged vessels that only fish in Fiji’s archipelagic waters and territorial seas are required to have their own VMS. It is mandatory for the Director Fisheries to have access to the data from these vessels through the company password thus allowing monitoring of all flagged vessels to minimize the risk of IUU fishing. Recognised groups with interests in the UoAs.

3.7.2.1 The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission 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 western central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). The WCPFC is the overarching regional management framework relevant to this assessment.

The Convention provides a framework for the participation of fishing entities in the Commission, which legally binds fishing entities to the provisions of the Convention, participation by territories and possessions in the work of the Commission.

The WCPFC Secretariat is based in Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, and includes a Scientific Committee (SC) and a Technical and Compliance Committee (TCC). In addition to 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.

The Commission has 27 Members, of which most are small island developing states (SIDSs). All major coastal and fishing states in the WCPO are Members, except for Vietnam, which has co-operating non-member (CNM) status. 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.

Several other states are granted Cooperating Non-Member (CNM) status on an annual basis, agreeing to comply with WCPFC measures, participating as observers, and entitled to authorize their vessels to fish in the WCPO within set limits. At WCPFC6, the CNM status of Belize, El Salvador, Mexico and Senegal was renewed, and CNM status was extended to Ecuador and Vietnam (WCPFC6, 2010, paragraphs 22-49). There are also participating territories in the WCPFC, including American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern

Page 64 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Mariana Islands, French Polynesia, Guam, New Caledonia, Tokelau, and Wallis and Fortuna.

The WCPFC Convention (WCPFC, 2000) incorporates provisions of the UNFSA (United Nations fish stocks agreement), including in particular:

 The objective of ensuring, the long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks (Article 2);

 The general principles in Article 5 of the 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 roles and responsibilities of WCPFC members are clearly described in the Convention, especially Articles 23 and 24, the Commission Rules of Procedure, Conservation and Management measures, and other Commission rules and decisions, including the Rules for Scientific Data to be Provided to the Commission, and the Rules and Procedures for Access to and Dissemination of Data Compiled by the Commission.

3.7.2.2 The Fiji Government The management of Fiji’s offshore fishery resources is underpinned by the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012 (OFMD; Fiji 2012), the Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations 2014, and the Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan 2014-2018 (MFF 2014).

National Plans of Action (NPOAs) have been developed and implemented for Sharks and IUU Fishing (2009). While the NPOA Sharks is observed and monitored, it has yet to be ratified by government.

The Offshore Fisheries Division (OFD) of the newly formed Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for the implementation of the offshore fisheries conservation and management legislation (i.e. licensing, monitoring, enforcement & investigation). The OFD comprises six sub-sections: Control/Compliance; Enforcement/Surveillance; Investigation; Data Management; Monitoring & Industry Enhancement. The establishment of a separate, standalone Ministry for Fisheries will greatly enhance management procedures of the Fiji fleet.

As a member of the WCPFC Fiji is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Fiji’s EEZ waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC, and fishing by Fiji flagged

Page 65 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

vessels both within and beyond the Fiji EEZ is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by WCPFC.

The Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for the formulation and implementation of policies that promote best practice (equating conservation and utilization), that will ensure a prosperous and enhanced Fisheries sector. The Ministry achieves this through coordination, consultation and in partnership with resource owners, communities, private sector, government agencies, Non-Governmental Organisations, Regional and International Agencies.

Major Functions of the Ministry include: • Formulation of fisheries policies and strategies • Coordination and facilitation of the implementation of Fisheries strategies and policies • Provision and administration of the regulatory function under the Ministry’s legislation • Monitoring and evaluation of current strategies, policies and deliverables – information analysis and reporting for the fisheries sector • Developing and promoting effective training, communication and awareness and extension services in the Fisheries sector • Developing and maintaining institutional community and industry development support networks and infrastructure • Undertaking applied and scientific research for sustainable fisheries management • Providing overall leadership and management.

The Annual Business Plan for the Ministry of Fisheries describes the Ministry’s outputs, strategies, action required, key performance indicators, timelines budgets and responsibilities.

3.7.2.3 Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) 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.

The FFA Secretariat focuses its work on:

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

Within the overall FFA programme, the fisheries management programme is designed to assist FFA Members, to refine and maintain effective policy and legal frameworks for the sustainable management of the shared tuna fisheries resources of the region. This programme provides advice on:

• Appropriate legal frameworks for national tuna management, including members’ obligations under various treaties and arrangements;

Page 66 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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

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

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

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

3.7.2.5 The Fiji Fishing Industry Fiji has three commercial tuna fisheries organisations: 1. Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association (FTBOA). FTBOA obtained MSC certification for longline albacore caught in Fiji’s EEZ in 2012. 2. Fiji Offshore Fisheries Association (FOFA). A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was agreed between FTBOA and FOFA vessel owners in 2015 to include some members in the FTBOA MSC certificate. 3. Fiji Fishing Industry Association (FFIA), the new association with members from the above two organisations. During 2016, FTBOA and FOFA jointly formed the Fiji Fishing Industry Association (FFIA). The Association’s objectives include:

• To represent the interest of the members to the Fiji Government; • To work with Fiji government agencies in the promotion, development, and management of Fiji’s offshore fisheries. • To represent of interests of Fiji offshore fishing companies on Fiji delegations to regional and international negotiations dealing with offshore fishery resources.

Page 67 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

• To nominate the industry representatives to the Offshore Fisheries Advisory Council, in accordance with the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012. • To do all such things as are incidental or conducive to the attainment of the above objectives

These associations play central roles in the implementation of the TMD Plan including ensuring full compliance with management limits, measures and reporting requirements. The Ministry maintains regular dialogue, seeking inputs and contributions from the associations and ensures representation in all fisheries committees including decision-making processes over fisheries matters in the country.

3.7.2.6 The Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA) The Pacific Islands Tuna Industry Association (PITIA) is effectively an association of associations with the membership consisting of the Cook Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu. With its membership covering 14 Pacific Island countries and several national industry associations, PITIA provides information and services to its members to encourage information and engagement of industry in key policy decisions affecting their businesses.

Specific objectives of PITIA, as laid out in the Founding Agreement of 2004, include: • providing a united voice for the Forum Island Countries’ domestic tuna fishing and associated industries; • facilitating and encouraging the promotion of the economically and biologically sustainable use of tuna and tuna-related resources by Forum Island Countries’ domestic tuna fishing and associated industries in the region: and • undertaking, coordinating and promoting liaison and negotiations with national, regional and international bodies and other entities having an interest in or an effect on the fishing or associated industries of the Forum Island Countries.

PITIA is very active in the regional yellowfin and albacore fisheries and attends regional meetings (FFC, WCPFC and TVM etc.) to represent the interests of its members. PITIA and its members have been very critical of the expansion of effort in the albacore fishery and the impact of subsidised fleets on catch rates and the economics of the locally based longline fleet region-wide, and especially in Fiji, providing comment through the Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association.

3.7.2.7 Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) WWF (South Pacific) have been actively engaged and supportive of the MSC process since the original MSC assessment for the Fiji longline albacore fishery and have continued their engagement for the current assessment.

3.7.2.8 The International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF) ISSF has as its goal the long term and sustainable use of global tuna fisheries. Its area of focus is tuna conservation, bycatch, illegal fishing, elimination and capacity management. ISSF have acted in a constructive way to engage in all MSC tuna assessments.

Page 68 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Consultation processes

3.7.3.1 WCPFC The WCPF Convention describes the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states and the committees established by the Commission related to consultative processes. The Rules of Procedure in the Convention have clearly defined the roles and responsibilities of members and non-members.

Stakeholders including Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) and other interested parties meaningfully engage with WCPFC activities through attendance as observers at Commission and related meetings including Scientific Committee (SC) and Technical Compliance Committee (TCC).

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

Additional opportunities for consultation with other SIDS having South Pacific Albacore and yellowfin fisheries are provided through the FFA/FFC and associated committees. The Commission actively assists and facilitates the regular and timely provision of fisheries information on its website in advance of and following meetings and workshops.

The management system provides for ongoing consultations with all interested parties.

3.7.3.2 Fiji The Ministry of Fisheries provides a range of opportunities for affected parties to have input into the management system, including through public notices in the press and consultation with stakeholders.

The management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information. Examples include the development of the TMD Plan, the Offshore Fisheries Management decree (OFMD), National Fisheries Policy, Marine Protection Areas, NPOA sharks and many others. Stakeholders spoken to, and the client group considered that their input into the consultation processes run by the Ministry had been listened to and further explanations provided as to why information was used or not used.

The Ministry’s consultative process actively encourages all stakeholders to sustainably manage Fiji’s offshore fisheries. It also takes into account artisanal, subsistence fishes and local communities. Stakeholders are considered essential to improve broad consultations with respect to development changes in Fiji’s longline fishery. The aim to increase stakeholder consultation was highlighted in the TMD Plan as a means of achieving a holistic approach in the setting and implementation of policies and changes, and of ensuring stakeholders are well informed of decisions taken and sub regional and regional level. Stakeholders have the opportunity and are encouraged to participate and the Ministry facilitates this.

The management system provides for ongoing consultations with all interested parties. Decision making processes

3.7.4.1 WCPFC 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. In addition, there are provisions for a decision

Page 69 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

to be reviewed by a review panel at the request of a Member (WCPFC, 2000 Article 20, paras 6- 9). The subsidiary bodies of the Commission provide extensive, detailed reports to the Commission (see for example WCPFC-SC (2015), including advice and recommendations.

Decision-making is open, with the process, outcomes and basis for decisions recorded in detail in records of Commission sessions and publicly available papers. In the context of regional fisheries management, the WCPFC decision-making framework has resulted in an extensive set of Conservation Management Measures (CMMs) and strategies to respond to sustainability issues.

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. The WPPFC, SC and TCC papers and reports on the web provide a high level of public access and transparency, showing how scientific information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission.

The WCPFC dispute mechanism is set out in Article 31 of the Convention.

Serious issues in the fishery are generally identified by SPC stock assessment and other reports at the regional level, and addressed through decisions taken under national fisheries legislation. Commission decision-making processes are based heavily on Scientific Committee reports on the status of target and non-target species and respond to serious issues, such as the overfishing, and suspected overfished, status of bigeye.

WCPFC decision-making processes are open, seek to apply the precautionary approach and best available information and are well documented.

However, although overall the decision-making is adequate for most of the stocks being considered and serious issues have been responded to, some important issues have not. The declining SP albacore catch rates comes under 'other important issues' (not yet 'serious' because the stock is above MSY reference points). A presentation by SPC at the Thirteenth Session of WCPFC in December 2016 concerning the status of the tuna stocks stated that the southern albacore stocks were not overfished but that due to the declining CPUE there were concerns over economic viability. WCPFC has not addressed this important issue.

3.7.4.2 Fiji Decision-making processes at the national level are well established and result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives for the fishery.

The OFMD utilizes science -based data provided by WCPF to assist in its managing Fiji’s fisheries resources in accordance with its responsibilities as defined under the OFMD and regulations.

Information obtained from monitoring and enforcement activities by the Ministry that have an impact on fishery decisions made, including TACs, actual catches categorized under certain species, catches of non-targeted species and the TMD Plan.

Page 70 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Fishery decisions made pertain to • setting TAC for the tuna fishery • increasing/decreasing licences to harvest tuna • designating areas for fishing/ no fishing- identifying methods of harvesting tuna • increasing fees • utilizing observer data to best estimate non target species.

Information is used by the Ministry to compile their annual report for management information purposes as well as reporting requirements for WCPFC and FFA.

Objectives for the fishery Two sets of overarching objectives apply to the governance of the fisheries: Regional objectives through WCPFC, and national objectives for Fiji.

3.7.5.1 WCPFC 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.

3.7.5.2 Fiji At the national level the principal objective of the OFMD 2012 is to “conserve manage and develop Fiji fisheries to ensure long term sustainable use for the people of Fiji.” The key long-term objectives for the fishery are explicitly described in the OFMD and in the Tuna Management and Development Plan. These objectives include:

• promotion of rights based fisheries management • limited entry controlling effort • implementation of best fisheries management practices and tools • measures to prevent overfishing and over capacity • maintenance of stock sustainability and optimum utilization • development and investment opportunities • promotion and maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity • minimization and mitigation of trans boundary bycatch and discards • governance and institutional strengthening • information management • development of MCS strategic actions.

The TMD Plan also provides well-defined and measurable short-term indicators against which to measure achievement of short- and long-term objectives. They include: caps on effort (60 vessels with 12 able to fish in archipelagic waters), a national TAC of 12,000 mt

Page 71 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

across all target tuna species, and a provisional SP albacore quota of 7294 mt. These objectives are explicit and are considered to be clearly defined and measurable. Fishing Fleet

3.7.6.1 FFIA The fishing fleet in the UoAs is 34 Fiji-flagged longline vessels that are members of the FFIA MSC group. All vessels are greater than 15m length and must have a fishing permit with prescribed conditions applied by the Fijian government. If vessels fish in the high seas they must be authorised to do so and extra conditions apply. They are more heavily monitored to ensure compliance to national and international laws. Six of the longline vessels are licensed to fish in Fiji’s 12-mile territorial seas and archipelagic waters. They have special licence conditions including: • The vessel is to be a Fiji longline vessel Fijian owned and controlled; • The fish hold capacity is to be less than 40 cubic metres; • The vessel must be targeting tuna and tuna like species; and • Uses less than 2,500 hooks per set.

3.7.6.2 Non MSC According to the OFMD, a Fiji fishing vessel or fishing vessel used for sport or recreational fishing shall not be used in the internal waters, archipelagic waters, territorial sea or exclusive economic zone of Fiji for: a. fishing; b. related activities; or c. any other activity.

unless under the authority of a valid licence, authorisation or fishing right as may be required under the OFMD, a Fisheries Management Plan or any access agreement or fisheries management agreement entered into pursuant to the OFMD. Rights of access to the fishery

3.7.7.1 WCPFC Legal rights of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood are protected through national interests of Parties to the Convention. The Convention deals with the rights of a State’s access to resources and, explicitly protects access for subsistence and traditional resource use. 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.

Stated objectives and management measures are consistent with Principle 1. WCPFC also has demonstrable objectives consistent with MSC Principle 2 under its principles for conservation and management (Article 5). This includes consideration of the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on species belonging to the same ecosystem as the target stocks, protection of biodiversity, and measures to minimize waste, effects of lost fishing gear, pollution, and by-catch.

WCPFC has an intention and a management system that observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Page 72 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

3.7.7.2 Fiji At the national level, a guiding principle in the Tuna Management and Development Plan (TMD Plan) is to encourage participation of all stakeholders and adoption of cooperative management to sustainably manage develop and conserve Fiji offshore fisheries. It also takes into account the interests of artisanal, subsistence fishers and local communities including their participation in management of fisheries. Another guiding principle is to encourage employment for Fiji citizens and investment opportunities that promote fair distribution of wealth in the fishing sector,

Objectives of the TMD Plan promote rights based fisheries management – this includes maintaining traditional forms of sustainable fisheries management. The Plan recognizes the importance of small scale and artisanal fishing that fish for tunas within internal and archipelagic waters. The limiting of commercial tuna fishing in archipelagic and territorial waters is to protect local fishermen in coastal fishing communities. Other overlapping fisheries This fishery overlaps with a number of other South Pacific albacore and WCPO yellowfin fisheries in the MSC programme: ● AAFA and WFOA South Pacific albacore tuna (certified); ● New Zealand albacore tuna troll (recertified) ● PNA Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna (in re-assessment); ● Walker Seafood Australia albacore, yellowfin tuna and swordfish (certified); ● Solomon Islands skipjack and yellowfin tuna purse seine and pole & line (certified); ● Tri Marine Western and Central Pacific skipjack and yellowfin tuna (certified); ● Cook Islands albacore longline (certified); ● Cook Islands yellowfin longline (certified); ● French Polynesia albacore and yellowfin longline (in assessment). ● American Samoa albacore and yellowfin tuna longline (in assessment). ● PT Citraraja Ampat, Sorong pole and line skipjack and yellowfin tuna (in assessment);

Management regulations Management of yellowfin and albacore throughout the WCPO is the responsibility of the WCPFC. A list of CMMs relevant to the albacore and yellowfin tuna fisheries can be sourced on the WCPFC website (www.wcpfc.int/conservation-and-management-measures).

As a member, Fiji is responsible for ensuring management measures applied within Fiji fisheries waters are compatible with those of the WCPFC, and fishing by Fiji flagged vessels both within and beyond the Fiji EEZ is carried out in accordance with any measures put in place by WCPFC. The Fiji OFMD provides the legislative framework for fisheries management, within Fiji fisheries waters and for Fiji flagged vessels and nationals on the high seas.

Legislation and regulations to conserve manage and develop the yellowfin and albacore fisheries is set out in the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012 and the Offshore Fisheries Regulations 2014.

Page 73 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The TMD Plan 2015 sets the policy framework for managing Fiji’s offshore fishery.

Measures and regulations include management limits e.g. licence caps, setting and allocation of national fisheries limits, prohibited fishing methods, conditions on licences closed areas, bycatch management, IUU.

Fiji vessels authorised to fish in the high seas are heavily monitored to ensure compliance to national and international laws.

Monitoring, control, surveillance and enforcement.

3.7.10.1 WCPFC Fisheries monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) consists of three distinct, integrated activities, defined by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) as follows:

• monitoring - the continuous requirement for the measurement of fishing effort characteristics and resource yields (and catches); • control - the regulatory conditions under which the exploitation of the resource may be conducted; and • surveillance - the degree and types of observations required to maintain compliance with the regulatory controls imposed on fishing activities.

Several elements of the Commission’s MCS Scheme (regulatory framework) were elaborated during the Preparatory Conference process from 2001 to 2004 and became operational on adoption during the Commission’s Inaugural Session in December 2004. These included the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels and Authorizations to Fish on the High Seas in the Convention Area (CMM 2013-10, which replaced CMM 2004-01 and CMM 2009-01), Procedures for Cooperating Non-members (CMM 2009-11, which replaced 2004- 02) and Specifications for the Marking and Identification of Fishing Vessels (CMM 2004-03).

The Commission has since adopted:

• High Seas Boarding and Inspection Procedures consistent with Articles 21 and 22 of the United National Fish Stocks Agreement (CMM 2006-08); • Regional Observer Programme (ROP), which pursuant to CMM 2007-01 (Annex C) the ROP became operational on 31 December 2008; • Centralised Vessel Monitoring System (Commission VMS) activated on 1 April 2009 (CMM 2011-02, which replaced CMM 2007-02); • WCPFC IUU List (CMM 2010-06, which replaced CMM 2007-03); • Prohibition on use of large-scale driftnets (CMM 2008-04); • Regulation on Transhipment (CMM 2009-06); • Rules for FAD and purse seine catch retention in high seas (CMM 2009-02); • Charter Notification Scheme (CMM 2012-05); • Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2013-02, which replaced CMM 2010-03, CMM 2011-06 and CMM 2012-02); • Standards, Specifications and Procedures for the Record of Fishing Vessels (CMM 2013-03); and • Conservation and Management Measure for WCPFC Implementation of a Unique Vessel Identifier (UVI) (CMM 2013-04).

The Compliance Monitoring Scheme (the CMS Scheme) was established by CMM 2010-03 Conservation and Management Measure for Compliance Monitoring Scheme and was implemented in 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 as an initial trial. A further revised

Page 74 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Conservation and Management Measure for Compliance Monitoring Scheme will be implemented in 2016 and 2017.

3.7.10.2 Fiji MCS in Fiji involves • Data base management. There are two data bases; the Tuna fisheries database management system (TUFMAN) and the TUFMAN MCS. All vessel owners and companies must provide information on catch, landings, trip reports, logbooks etc. • A national observer programme. For the fisheries under assessment there is currently a 44% coverage • Port sampling. This allows documentation and verification of all catches landed in Fiji • Vessel Monitoring System. Fiji monitors its fishing vessels using the FFA regional VMS and WCPFC VMS • Dockside boarding and inspection – this is regularly carried out in accordance with Fijis laws and policies • Flag state responsibility. Fiji exercises this as required under international law and consistent with domestic law and policies • Investigations and case handling. All cases relating to violations of the OFMD are investigated • Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecution handles these. The penalties are set out in the OFMD. • Port Monitoring. At the port where these fisheries are landed,100% of landings are monitored from the point of landing until export.

Training The TMD Plan identifies key challenges including up-skilling and training. for people in the fishing industry There is also a shortage of sufficient qualified and skilled officers and crews on Fiji fishing vessels, and Fiji has no dedicated fishing school. Government will work with the industry in a hope to address the need for trained fishermen working on commercial tuna vessels including running courses as appropriate.

Fiji’s national observer program is expected to be fully operational by the end of the Plan Period (2018). Fiji has undertaken national observer training for their observers who are now competent to undertake the responsibilities and roles at the regional and national level Refresher courses and training is conducted regularly and recruitment of new observers undertaken in order to maintain sufficient number of observers.

The observers are trained and upskilled each year to meet requirements of the both the FFA & WCPFC Regional Observer Programs (ROP).

Review of the Management plan The Director of Fisheries, through the Offshore Fisheries Division (OFD) is responsible for reviewing the Tuna Management and Development Plan (TMDP) 2015, annually. The review process measures the success and achievements of projects and tasks, and investigates whether or not targets and milestones have been reached through its monitoring mechanism. The review also provides for monitoring and evaluating compliance against the management limits and other measures in the plan.

Page 75 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The outcomes of the annual reviews inform re-assessment of the high priority issues to be addressed and if the strategic interventions are still appropriate. Low, medium and emerging priority issues are also considered and evaluated during the reviews.

The progress of implementation of the Plan is reported in the Ministry’s Annual Report and is subject to audit by the Auditor General’s office.

WCPFC has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system as demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. Additionally, there was a review of the performance of the WCPFC in 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.

Page 76 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline 4 Evaluation Procedure Harmonised Fishery Assessment

Fishery Certification Requirements (FCR) version 2.0, section 7.4.16 states: if the assessment is based on overlapping fisheries, the CAB shall follow Annex PB. In addition, the definition of an overlapping fishery for the MSC is: two or more fisheries which require assessment of some, or all, of the same aspects of MSC Principles 1, 2 and/or 3 within their respective units of certification.

This fishery overlaps with several other South Pacific albacore and WCPO yellowfin fisheries in the MSC programme (see section 3.7.8). The Fiji albacore longline fishery was part of a pilot harmonisation initiative coordinated by MSC (https://improvements.msc.org/database/hms-harmonisation). The MSC harmonization meeting, held from 21st-22nd April 2016 in Hong Kong, was aimed at bringing together all of the assessors and stakeholders so that the scores for the performance indicators (PIs) within Principle 1 could be discussed and harmonised, including proposals for scoring or changes in scoring, and creating or updating the status of conditions (including closing conditions or setting new ones, bearing in mind that fisheries may be on different timescales).

While the Hong Kong meeting successfully dealt with harmonisation and aided Conformity Assessment Body and team discussions, the meeting did not result in definitive justification text for the range of scoring issues due to time constraints. The outcome of the workshop was a working document to inform and guide CAB teams as they assess tuna fisheries in the WCPFC area.

The findings of the workshop are an important consideration for the two UoAs being assessed. It was agreed at the meeting that condition milestones and client action plans for PIs 1.1.2, 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 should be aligned to match the timetable set out by WCPFC in the workplan for CMM 2014-06 (development of a harvest strategy for the key stocks). P1 scores for the fisheries considered at the Hong Kong meeting are detailed in Table 12 and Table 13. Discussions on harmonisation for other fisheries currently in assessment have been undertaken in the course of this reassessment (Table 14).

Principle 1 Principle 1 has been harmonised with the fisheries as shown in Table 12 (albacore) and Table 13 (yellowfin) below.

Table 12. Albacore P1 scores for fisheries discussed at MSC harmonisation meeting (note that there are some differences in the wording of PIs between CRv1.3 and CRv2.0)

Fishery Date CR Overall 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 name certified version Principle 1 NZ troll PCR Jun FAM v2 100 75 80 60 80 85 81.9 albacore 2011 Revised PCR Feb CR v2.0 100 na1 70 60 80 95 84.2 NZ troll 2017 albacore AAFA & CR v1.3 WFOA PCR Dec (PI1.2.2 100 70 80 60 90 85 81.9 albacore - 2012 use v2) south

Page 77 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Fiji CR v1.3 PCR Nov longline (PI1.2.2 100 75 70 60 80 85 80.6 2012 albacore use v2) SLCZ, HNSFC & CFA Cook CR v1.3 Is PCR Jun (PI1.2.2 100 75 70 60 80 85 80.6 albacore 2015 use v2) and yellowfin longline Walker Seafood albacore, CR v1.3 PCR Aug yellowfin (PI1.2.2 100 75 70 60 80 95 81.9 2015 and use v2) swordfish longline 1 Under CRv1.3 PI 1.1.2 requires that “Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock”. Under CRv2.0 this PI does not exist and the availability of reference points is considered under other PIs. PI 1.1.2 under CRv2.0 relates to the need for stock rebuilding, covered by PI 1.1.3 under CRv1.3.

Table 13. Yellowfin P1 scores for fisheries discussed at MSC harmonisation meeting (note that there are some differences in the wording of PIs between CRv1.3 and CRv2.0)

Fishery Date CR Overall 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 name certified version Principle 1 PNA purse CR v1.3 seine PCR Feb (PI1.2.2 90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4 skipjack 2016 use v2) and yellowfin TriMarine purse CR v1.3 seine PCR Jun (PI1.2.2 90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4 skipjack 2016 use v2) and yellowfin Solomon Islands CR v1.3 PCR Jul skipjack (PI1.2.2 90 90 70 60 90 95 84.4 2016 and use v2) yellowfin SLCZ, HNSFC & CFA Cook Expedited CR v1.3 Is PCR Mar (PI1.2.2 90 90 70 60 80 95 83.1 albacore 2017 use v2) and yellowfin Walker Seafood albacore, CR v1.3 PCR Aug yellowfin (PI1.2.2 90 90 70 65 80 100 85.0 2015 and use v2) swordfish longline

Page 78 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

1 Under CRv1.3 PI 1.1.2 requires that “Limit and target reference points are appropriate for the stock”. Under CRv2.0 this PI does not exist and the availability of reference points is considered under other PIs. PI 1.1.2 under CRv2.0 relates to the need for stock rebuilding, covered by PI 1.1.3 under CRv1.3.

Table 14. Fisheries in assessment

Overall Fishery Date CR 1.1.1 1.1.2 1.2.1 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.4 Principle name certified version 1 American Samoa albacore and tba CR v2.0 tba yellowfin longline French Polynesia albacore and tba CR v2.0 - tba yellowfin longline Fiji longline albacore tba CR v2.0 100 - 70 60 80 85 84.2 reassessment Fiji longline yellowfin tba CR v2.0 90 - 70 60 90 95 82.5 reassessment

Principle 2. Under version 2.0 there is the requirement to consider cumulative impacts of all version 2.0. MSC fisheries, under PIs 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.4.2. This has been discussed in relation to bigeye tuna, a main primary species in this fishery – see rationale for 2.1.1 for details.

Principle 3. In scoring this fishery, concerns were raised under PI 3.2.2 (decision-making processes) about WCPFC’s responsiveness to declining albacore CPUEs, considered an ‘important’ issue. The issue was discussed with all CABs involved in WCPFC MSC fisheries, and it was agreed that a condition was appropriate. All other MSC fisheries for albacore and/or yellowfin fisheries in the WCPO are either assessed against versions 1.2, version 1.3 or in assessment using version 2.0, the fisheries are listed in Table 14 below. Table 15. MSC albacore and yellowfin fisheries in the region and their assessment methodologies.

Fishery Version and MSC status of fishery Fiji v2.0 This fishery Version 2.0 -

AAFA and WFOA Version 2.0 – fourth surveillance and reassessment in progress New Zealand Version 2.0 – recently recertified PNA Version 2.0 – in reassessment Walker Version 1.3 – year 1 surveillance completed Solomon Islands Version 1.3 – certified 2016

Page 79 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Tri Marine Version 1.3 – certified Cook Islands Version 1.3 - year 1 surveillance completed French Polynesia Version 2.0 – initial assessment PT Citraraja Ampat, Version 2.0 – initial assessment American Samoa Version 2.0 – initial assessment

Previous assessments The Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association (FTBOA) obtained MSC certification for longline albacore caught in Fiji’s EEZ in 2012. A Memorandum of Understanding was agreed between FTBOA and Fiji Offshore Fisheries Association (FOFA) vessel owners in 2015 to include some members in the FTBOA MSC certificate.

As a result of the December 2012 assessment, the assessment team raised eight conditions of certification. During the third annual surveillance in May 2016, Conditions 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 were closed.

Conditions 1 (PI 1.1.2), 2 (PI 1.2.1) and 3 (PI 1.2.2) were re-scored on the basis of the April 2016 harmonisation workshop, however, their scores were unchanged and they remained open.

Condition 1 no longer applies under CR v2.0 requirements. The CABs, through the harmonisation pilot, scored PIs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 for all WCPFC skipjack stocks using the ‘available’ language in v2.0. Following information provided by the MSC in a November 2014 CAB notification, and through the interpretation log, these condition can be carried over into reassessment as the reassessment is being done against v2.0 fully (as per the Nov 2014 notification) and the ‘available’ criteria for PI 1.2.2 remain (B>BMSY).

Condition 4 PI 2.1.1 was closed. Major changes in the management of sharks since the certification of the fishery, providing evidence that the fishery does not hinder recovery and rebuilding of overfished shark stocks.

Condition 5 PI 2.1.2 was closed. The management changes in relation to sharks constitute a partial strategy that is expected to ensure the fishery does not hinder their recovery and rebuilding of overfished shark species. Information from the fishery supports the conclusion that the partial strategy will work and that it is being implemented successfully. SG80 requirements are met.

Condition 6 PI 2.1.3 was closed. Information is available from the fishery that is sufficient to estimate outcome status of retained species with respect to biologically based limits and to support a partial strategy to manage them. Improved data collection had now been undertaken for recent years. Indications are that data will continue to be collected in sufficient detail to detect any increase in risk level to retained species. SG80 requirements are met.

Condition 7 PI 2.3.3 was closed. With improved fishery monitoring and a high level of observer coverage, information is sufficient to determine whether the fishery may be a threat to protection and recovery of the ETP species, and if so, to measure trends and support a full strategy to manage impacts. SG80 requirements are met. Sufficient data are available to allow fishery related mortality and the impact of fishing to be quantitatively estimated for ETP species.

Page 80 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Condition 8 PI 3.2.3 was closed. The information presented at the third annual surveillance confirms that sanctions to deal with noncompliance exist, are consistently applied and thought to provide effective deterrence. There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. PI 3.2.3 therefore now meets all SIs at the SG 80 level of performance. PI 3.2.3 was rescored from 70 to 80 at the SC80 level and the condition was closed

No recommendations were made during the original assessment of the fishery. However, following re-scoring a recommendation was made at the 3rd surveillance audit for Condition 7 in relation to the analysis of observer data and for Condition 8 in relation to monitoring of MSC landings. Assessment Methodologies This assessment has used the methodology found in MSC Fisheries Certification requirements v 2.0 October 2014 and the Default Assessment tree it contains. The risk- based framework (RBF) was not used in the assessment.

The MSC Full Assessment Reporting template v2.0 December 2015 was used. No written stakeholder submissions were received. However a technical oversight from MSC was received and issues raised were addressed Evaluation Processes and Techniques

Site Visits

Notifications of the key steps in the assessment process were provided to the MSC, uploaded by the MSC to their website, and advertised through the MSC’s bi-weekly ‘Fisheries Update’.

The site visit was conducted in Suva, Fiji, with the team being available for meetings with stakeholders from the 6th March to the 9th March, 2017. Notification of the site visit was made through the MSC’s Fisheries Update and uploaded to the MSC’s website on the 3rd February 2017: (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/fiji-albacore-tuna-longline/@@view).

A brief description of the meetings held with stakeholders during the site visit is provided in Table 16, below. The attendees are listed, together with the topics covered during the discussions.

Table 16. Itinerary for site visits. All meetings took place in Suva, Fiji Islands.

Date Meeting Attendees Purpose 6th March 2017 Opening meeting FFIA members Confirmation of with client group. scope Description of the MSC process including stakeholder involvement. Process to be followed. Use of information Timelines for

Page 81 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

various reports 7th March 2017 Meetings with Ministry of Information Ministry of Fisheries staff, gathering for P1, Fisheries policy, science, P2 and P3. management, data collection, compliance 8th March 2017 Meetings with WWF WWF to inform the NGOs team of any concerns and provide information 8th March 2017 Meetings with FFIA vessel Information Skippers skippers gathering on operation of vessels, transfer of information from shore to ship e.g. new regs, record keeping and traceability matters. 9th March 2017 Open and closing FFIA members Summary of the meeting Ministry of site visit findings. Fisheries Concerns raised WWF How information (NB invitations will be used. were also sent to Timeline of where South Pacific to from here University staff and students)

Consultations In addition to people interviewed during the site visit, a total of 11 stakeholder individuals and organisations having relevant interest in the assessment were identified and consulted via email, during this assessment.

Two stakeholder notifications were initially posted on the MSC website - Fishery Enters Full Assessment and - Participation in pilot harmonisation process

The processes used on the MSC website for tracking and announcing the various stages of the assessment as it progresses - from Full Announcement through to Certification - form an ideal tool through which to channel stakeholder interest and keep them abreast of the important stages of the assessment as a whole.

All people contacted were provided an opportunity to be involved in the process and be interviewed. Below is a table and details of people interviewed.

Table 17. Interviewees

Name Organisation Position Anare Raiwalui FFIA Executive Officer Charles Hufflett Solander Director

Page 82 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Radhika Kumar Solander General Manager Francis Chung Solander Director Brett Haywood SeaQuest Managing Director Sanjini Kumari SeaQuest Manager Ana Delailomaloma Golden Ocean Marketing Manager XJ Du Golden Ocean Managing Director Jin Kyung Oh Samneon General Manager

Ma Jingkui Golden Ocean Fleet Manager - Golden Ocean Liang Qi Yuan Golden Ocean Skipper on Win Full 168 Isikeli Tavo Solander Skipper Ilaitia Meleki Solander Shore Captain

Netani Tavaga Ministry Fisheries A/PFO Offshore Fisheries Division Shalvin Chand Ministry Fisheries Fisheries Officer - Data Management Unaisi Rabici Ministry Fisheries A/FO Industry and Trade Josaia Maiwai Ministry Fisheries FTO Enforcement Rupeni Dranivesi Ministry Fisheries Fisheries Officer - Licensing and Permitting

Sally Bailey WWF Conservation Director Duncan Williams(via skype) WWF Fiji Programme Manager Ian Campbell WWF Shark Programme Mgr.

Evaluation Techniques In addition to information provided by the client and information gained during the site visit, the assessment team gathered information using a range of methods. The website of the WCPFC (www.wcpfc.int) was a key source of documentation about the target species, other retained species, CMMs and other management arrangements. The initial assessment report for albacore was used as background. Individuals contacted during the site visit are listed above in Table 17. Stakeholders were informed primarily via announcements posted on the MSC website, and via direct email outreach. Enquiries were also made during the site visit as to the existence of any local stakeholder groups that should be approached and made aware of the assessment. None were identified.

The MSC Principles and Criteria set out the requirements for sustainable fishing. These Principles and Criteria have subsequently been used to develop a standardized, default assessment tree (within the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements v.2.0, MSC 2014), including Performance Indicators (PIs) and Scoring Issues (SIs), by the MSC and its advisory boards, which have been used in the assessment of this fishery.

Each SI may be scored at up to three scoring guideposts (SGs), which define the level of performance that is required to achieve 100, 80 (the passing score), and 60 scores; 100 represents a theoretically ideal level of performance and 60 a measurable shortfall (requiring a Condition of Certification to be set).

There are two, coupled, scoring requirements that constitute the MSC’s minimum threshold for a sustainable fishery:

Page 83 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

1. The fishery must obtain a score of 80 or more for each of the MSC’s three Principles, based on the weighted average score for all Performance Indicators (PIs) under each Principle. 2. The fishery must obtain a score of 60 or more for each Scoring Issue (SI) within each PI.

A score less than 60 for any individual SI, or less than 80 for any Principle would represent a level of performance that causes the fishery to automatically fail the assessment; a score of 80 or above for all three Principles is needed for the fishery to be certified.

Scoring was completed by consensus through team meetings, skype calls and exchanging rationales by email and draft score and report sharing. Justification of the scoring is provided in the scoring tables presented in Appendix 1. Individual team members were responsible for drafting the different sections, but the scoring was agreed by all team members.

Scoring for the two UoAs of the FFIA client fishery – 1) albacore tuna, and 2) yellowfin tuna – was divided by UoA for Principle 1, but scoring for both UoAs was combined for Principles 2 and 3. The overall score for each PI for each species was therefore calculated on the basis of the SI scores (following the rationale of Table 4, MSC 2014). Where necessary, scoring for Principle 2 was undertaken on the basis of different primary, secondary and ETP species comprising individual elements, with scores again calculated following the FCR 7.10.7 protocol (MSC 2014). An example of the P2 scoring calculation is provided below:

UoAs Element Main/minor SIa SIb Element PI score (60, 80, 100) (80, 100 only) score A Main 80 - 80 B Minor - default 80 80 1 & 2 85 C Minor - default 80 80 D Minor - 100 100

Scoring for Principle 3 was undertaken on the basis of both UoAs being scored the same and with no elements scored independently.

Table 18. Scoring elements.

Page 84 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA Component Scoring elements Main/ Data- minor deficient? 1 P1 – target Albacore tuna n/a No 1 P2 – primary Yellowfin tuna (SA 3.1.3.1, MSC 2014) Main No 2 P1 – target Yellowfin tuna n/a No 2 P2 – primary Albacore tuna (SA 3.1.3.1, MSC 2014) Main No P2 – primary Bigeye tuna Main No P2 – primary Skipjack tuna Minor No P2 – secondary Bait – Indian oil sardine Main No P2 – secondary Bait – Muroaji scad/mackerel Main No P2 – secondary Mahi mahi Minor No P2 – secondary Wahoo Minor No P2 – secondary Swordfish Minor No P2 – secondary Blue marlin Minor No P2 – secondary Striped marlin Minor No P2 – secondary Short-billed spearfish Minor No P2 – secondary Opah Minor No P2 – ETP Cetacean - short-finned pilot whale n/a No P2 – ETP Seabird – black-footed albatross n/a No P2 – ETP Olive Ridley turtle n/a No P2 – ETP Green turtle n/a No P2 – ETP Leatherback turtle n/a No P2 – ETP Loggerhead turtle n/a No P2 – ETP Blue shark n/a No P2 – ETP Silky shark n/a No P2 – ETP Mako sharks n/a No P2 – ETP Thresher sharks n/a No P2 – ETP Hammerhead sharks n/a No P2 – ETP Other sharks n/a No P2 – ETP Manta and Mobulid rays n/a No P2 – habitats None n/a n/a P2 – ecosystem Target tunas as key predators and prey n/a No species within the foodweb RBF was not used for this assessment

Page 85 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline 5 Traceability Eligibility Date The target eligibility date is the date the current certificate for Fiji longline albacore expires on 31st January 2017. The target eligibility date for yellowfin and albacore tuna caught by longline in Fiji’s EEZ and adjacent high seas will be the date of recertification. The traceability and segregation systems in the fishery will be fully implemented by this date. Traceability within the Fishery Appropriate and foolproof systems of tracking and tracing are essential to ensure all fish and fish products sold as MSC certified can be traced back to the UoC.

In Fiji records demonstrating traceability back to the UoC are maintained for five years. This is a legislative requirement by the Ministry of Fisheries.

The Ministry of Fisheries also hold records for all vessels as to what area they are fishing in, at all times. All vessels are tracked using VMS.

The Ministry has a monitoring recording system in place. All companies, as well as providing the Ministry with catch, effort and location information must also provide a completed monitoring form each month with states the amount of fish sold as MSC product. The Ministry verifies this with export documents.

All companies involved in this assessment have a system on board for when the fish are caught. The fish are colour coded i.e. there is a taffeta tag attached to each fish. Each vessel has its own specific colour and tags also relate to the trip number and date of catch. There is documentation including the vessel name, date, species, quantity and location including line setting details etc. - all traceable back to the source. All fish are landed into Suva.

The UoC is the same as the UoA. There are no ‘other’ eligible fishers. The point of intended change of ownership is the point of sale. The certification is to the point of landing in Suva. For the product to retain its MSC label the owner of the fish has to have a Chain of Custody (CoC). The respective CoCs held by the companies are listed in the PDR.The change of ownership may vary - it will depend on the terms of sale e.g. FOB (Free on Board) or CIF (cost, insurance and freight). Until the fish is sold it is held under the catcher's CoC. This could be at point of landing. This would be shipped in a container for export and sold FOB. However, the point from which subsequent CoC begins is the point of landing. All FFIA companies have current CoCs from point of landing.

Despite systems being in place there are risks, the greatest being the possibility of some of vessels from the UoC fishing outside the UoC or in different geographical areas (on the same or in different trips). The risk factors are identified in the table below along with how these are managed and mitigated

Table 19. 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)

Page 86 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Potential for non-certified gear/s to be This is not applicable as all the vessels fishing for used within the fishery yellowfin and albacore are longliners. Potential for vessels from the UoC to Some UoC vessels may fish both within and beyond fish outside the UoC or in different the UoC area during the same fishing trip. Although geographical areas (on the same trips traceability protocols aboard fishing vessels can be or different trips) implemented to ensure separation of UoC from non- UoC-caught fish it has been agreed that this may not mitigate the risk. Consequently all UoC vessels have agreed to the following “to restrict fishing activities of certified fishing vessels ONLY within the certified areas - Fiji fisheries waters and the three (3) adjacent high seas. Any fishing activity during a fishing trip outside the certified areas, disqualifies all catches for MSC.” FFIA and the Ministry of fisheries via a Memorandum of Understanding will endorse this. . All Fiji-flagged vessels have to comply with MoF requirements in respect of gear whether inside or outside the UoC. The gear is inspected at the time of departure and on return. The only gear used by the fleet is longlines.

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC Any vessels fishing outside the UoC have to have a or client group fishing the same stock special high seas permit. If any of these vessels come into a Fiji port they are required to give the Ministry of Fisheries 24 hours’ notice. A Ministry of Fisheries officer meets all vessels fishing into the port of Suva. All documentation is checked thoroughly. Any fish from these vessels would NOT be MSC certified Risks of mixing between certified and Any risk of mixing certified and non-certified catch non-certified catch during storage, during storage, transport handling etc. is covered by transport, or handling activities the company’s CoC. All FFIA members have current (including transport at sea and on land, CoCs points of landing, and sales at auction)

Risks of mixing between certified and No processing at sea. All fish is landed whole. non-certified catch during processing activities (at-sea and/or before subsequent Chain of Custody)

• Risks of mixing between certified No transhipment. and non-certified catch during transhipment

• Any other risks of substitution No. Vessels only land one at a time, all fish is tagged between fish from the UoC with vessel number date etc. and accompanied by (certified catch) and fish from documents. The fish enter CoC from landing point. outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

Page 87 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody The yellowfin and albacore caught by FFIA (MSC group) vessels will be eligible to enter the individual members CoC and sold as MSC certified providing it was caught on a trip which only involved fishing in the UoC are and no other area. The fisheries certificate will be eligible for members of the FFIA (MSC group), which includes 34 vessels. The fish covered under this assessment is to the point of landing. From here the subsequent CoC begins.

The only eligible point of landing is Suva.

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

There are no IPI stocks

Page 88 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline 6 Evaluation Results Principle Level Scores Table 20. Final Principle Scores Final Principle Scores Principle UoA 1 albacore tuna UoA 2 yellowfin tuna Principle 1 – Target Species 84.2 82.5 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 87.3 87.3 Principle 3 – Management System 86.7 86.7

Summary of PI Level Scores

Page 89 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Summary of Conditions and Recommendations Table 21. Summary of Conditions Related to Condition previous UoA PI and SI Condition number condition? (Y/N/NA) 1 1.2.1 SIa Y SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for albacore tuna is responsive to the state 1 of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Y SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs for albacore are in place 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. 1.2.2 SIa, SIb SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide 2 1 and SIc evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs. N SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state 3 2 1.2.1 SIa of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. N SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs for yellowfin are in place 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. 1.2.2 SIa, SIb SI b) By the fourth surveillance audit, provide 4 2 and SIc evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Page 90 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Related to Condition previous UoA PI and SI Condition number condition? (Y/N/NA) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate N that information for baitfish used in the fishery 5 1 & 2 2.2.3 SIc is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species requirements. By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate N that information for baitfish used in the fishery 6 2 2.2.3 SIc is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species requirements. By the fourth surveillance audit WCPFC N decision-making processes have responded to 7 1 3.2.2 SIb the albacore catch rate issue by putting in place a harvest strategy or some other suitable means.

Recommendation (see PI 2.1.3): That a report be prepared analysing available observer data by the 1st surveillance audit following re-certification of the fishery. This report should detail the level of observer coverage for the client fishery and the national fleet in terms of the number of trips undertaken in total, the number of trips monitored, the number of shots deployed in total and the number of shots observed. The report should provide a breakdown of the species composition of the observed catches. In addition, where life status is available for released species there should be a summary of this information. This report should focus on the most recent two complete years of available data. Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement Following this assessment team’s work, and review by stakeholders and peer-reviewers, the determination will be presented to Acoura’s decision making entity that this fishery has passed its assessment and should be certified.

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

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

Page 91 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline References

Akroyd, J., Huntington, T. and McLoughlin, K. (2012). MSC Assessment Report for Fiji Albacore Tuna Longline Fishery - Public Certification Report. Intertek Moody Marine. 348 pp. Available online at: http://www.msc.org/track-a-fishery/fisheries-in-the-program/in- assessment/pacific/fiji_albacore_tuna_longline/assessment-downloads- 1/20121212_PCR_TUN288.pdf

Akroyd, J. and McLoughlin, K. (2014). Surveillance Report Fiji Albacore Tuna Longline Fishery, Certificate No.: MML-F-138, Intertek Fisheries Certification Ltd, March 2014.

Akroyd, J. and McLoughlin, K. (2017). 4th Surveillance Audit - Fiji Albacore Tuna Longline Fishery, Certificate Code: F-ACO-0030, Acoura Marine, April 2017.

Allain V., 2010, Trophic structure of the pelagic ecosystems of the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB-IP-10.

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.

Amoe, J. 2007. Annual report - Part 1, Information on fisheries, research and statistics: Fiji. 3rd Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission WCPFC–SC3, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 13–24 August 2007. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Pohnpei, FSM. 8 p.

Amoe, J. (2011). Annual Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics 2010. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7- 2011/AR-CCM-07.

Amorim, A., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Clò, S., Clarke, S.C., Fergusson, I., Gonzalez, M., Macias, D., Mancini, P., Mancusi, C., Myers, R., Reardon, M., Trejo, T., Vacchi, M. & Valenti, S.V. 2009. Alopias superciliosus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T161696A5482468. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009-2.RLTS.T161696A5482468.en.

Brouwer S. and Harley S. 2015. Draft Shark Research Plan: 2016–2020. Working Paper EB-WP-01 (rev 1), Eleventh Meeting of the Scientific Committee, WCPFC, 5–13 August 2015, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. Accessed online at https://www.wcpfc.int/node/21717.

BWG (2016). Stock assessment update for Blue Marlin (Makaira nigricans) in the Pacific Ocean through 2014. ISC Billfish Working Group, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee Twelfth Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, Pohnpei, 3-11 August 2016.

Cao J., Chen, Y., Dai, X. and Zhu, J. (2016). Stock Assessment for south Pacific albacore tuna using stock synthesis. WCPFC-SC12-2016-SA-IP-18.

Clarke, S. 2009. An alternative estimate of catches of five species of sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean based on shark fin trade data. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee Paper SC5/EB-WP-02.

Clarke, S. 2011. A Status Snapshot of Key Shark Species in the Western and Central Pacific and Potential Management Options. Scientific Committee, 7th session. 9-17 August 2011. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-04. 37pp.

Clarke, S. and Hoyle, S. (2014). Development of Limit Reference Points for Elasmobranchs. WCPFC Scientific Committee 10th Regular Session, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/ MI-WP-07.

Page 92 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Davies, N., Harley, S., Hampton, J. and McKechnie, S. 2014. Stock Assessment of Yellowfin Tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee. 10th Regular Session. Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands. 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10- 2014/SA- WP-04. Available online at: http://www.spc.int/Oceanfish/en/ofpsection/sam/sam/216-yellowfin- assessmentresults#2014.

Davies, N., Hoyle, S & Hampton, J 2012, ‘Stock assessment of striped marlin (Kajikia audax) in the southwest Pacific Ocean’, working paper WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-05, WCPFC Scientific Committee eighth regular session, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7–15 August 2012.

Davies, N., Pilling, G, Harley, S & Hampton, J 2013, ‘Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the southwest Pacific Ocean’, unpublished report to the WCPFC Scientific Committee, WCPFC- SC9-2013/SA-WP-05.

Davies, N., Fournier, D. A., Hampton, J., and Bouye, F. (2015). Recent developments and future plans for MULTIFAN-CL. WCPFC-SC11-2015/SA-IP-01, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5– 13 August 2015.

FAO (1999). International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks. FAO, Rome, Italy.

Farley, J. H., Williams, A. J., Clear, N. P., Davies, C. R., and Nicol, S. J. (2013a). Age estimation and validation for South Pacific albacore Thunnus alalunga. Journal of Fish Biology, 82(5):1523-1544.

Farley, J. H., Williams, A. J., Hoyle, S. D., Davies, C. R., and Nicol, S. J. (2013b). Reproductive dynamics and potential annual fecundity of South Pacific albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga). PLoS ONE, 8(4): e60577. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0060577.

Farley J., Clear, N., Kolody, D., Krusic-Golub, K., Eveson, P. and Young, J. Determination of swordfish growth and maturity relevant to the southwest Pacific stock. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee Twelfth Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, Pohnpei, 3-11 August 2016. WCPFC-SC12-2016/ SA WP-11.

Fiji (2012). Government of Fiji, Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012 (Decree No. 78 of 2012).

Fiji (2013). Annual Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics 2012. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August. 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC9-AR/CCM-07 Rev 1.

Fiji (2014). Annual Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics 2013. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Tenth Regular Session, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-AR/CCM-07.

Fiji (2015). Annual Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics. WCPFC Scientific Committee, Eleventh Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5-13 August 2015. WCPFC-SC11-AR/CCM-07, Rev 1 (11 September 2015).

Fiji (2016). Annual Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics. WCPFC Scientific Committee, 12th Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, 3-11 August 2016. WCPFC-SC12-AR/CCM-07.

Fiji (2017). Annual Report to the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Part 1: Information on Fisheries, Research and Statistics. WCPFC Scientific Committee, 13th Regular Session, Cook Islands, 9-17 August 2017. WCPFC-SC13-AR/CCM-07.

Fiji-ETP (2002). Fiji Islands Endangered and Protected Species Act 2002.

Page 93 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Fiji-ETP (2017). An Act to Amend the Endangered and Protected Species Act 2002. ACT NO. 10 OF 2017, 28 March 2017.

Filippi, D., Waugh, S. and Nicol, S. 2010. Revised spatial risk indicators for seabird interactions with longline fisheries in the western and central Pacific. Scientific Committee. Sixth Regular Session. Nukualofa, Tonga. WCPFC-SC6-2010/EB- IP 01.

FTBOA. (2014). Notes on documentation supplied for the first audit of the FTBOA MSC certification. Report prepared on behalf of the Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association.

FTBOA. (2015). Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association (FTBOA) Client Action Report to the 2nd year surveillance on MSC certification of Southern Albacore (longline caught) within the Fiji EEZ. Report prepared on behalf of the Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association.

FTBOA. (2016). Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association (FTBOA) Client Action Report to the 3nd year surveillance on MSC certification of Southern Albacore (longline caught) within the Fiji EEZ. Report prepared on behalf of the Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association.

FTBOA. (2017). Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association (FTBOA) and Fiji Offshore Fisheries Association (FOFA) Client Situation Report to the 4th MSC surveillance Audit of Southern Albacore (longline caught) within the Fiji EEZ. Report prepared on behalf of FTBOA and FOFA.

Gascoigne, J., Kolody, D., Sieben, C. and Cartwright, I. (2015). MSC Public Certification Report: SZLC, CSFC & CFA Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. June 2015.

Gascoigne, J. and Sieben, C. (2017). Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Certification Report. Expedited assessment of yellowfin tuna and new client groups. The SZLC, CSFC & FZLC Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. On behalf of Luen Thai Fishing Venture. Prepared by ME Certification Ltd. March 2017.

Haddon, M. (2010). Review stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. CIE Review. Available at http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/do/peer_reviews/wcpo_yellowfin_tuna_stock_assessment_201 0_08.php.

Hamer, D. and Childerhouse, S.J. (2013). Physical and psychological deterrence strategies to mitigate odontocete by-catch and depredation in pelagic longline fisheries: progress report. Scientific Committee 9th Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.

Harley, S., Davies, N., Hampton, J. & McKechnie, S. (2014). Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific. Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Programme. WCPFC‐ SC10‐ 2014/SA‐ WP‐ 01 Rev1 25 July.

Harley, S., Davies, N., Tremblay-Boyer, L., Hampton, J. & McKechnie, S. (2015). Stock assessment for South Pacific albacore tuna. WCPFC-SC11-2015/SA-WP-06, Rev 1 (4 August 2015).

Harley S.J., Rice, J. and Williams P.G. 2013. A progress report on the shark research plan. [Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia]: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 9th Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 25 p. Hoyle, S., Hampton, J. and Davies, N. (2012). Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the South Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-04-Rev1.

Ianelli, J., Maunder, M. & A.E. Punt (2012). Independent review of the 2011 WCPO bigeye tuna assessment. WCPFC SC8-SA-WP-01, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7-15 August 2012. IUCN (International Union for the Conservation of Nature). 2017. The IUCN Red List of Threatened species. Accessed online at http://www.iucnredlist.org/

Kirby, D.S. and Hobday, A. 2007. Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean: Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis. Third Scientific Committee

Page 94 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Meeting of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Honolulu, USA, 13-24 August 2007. WCPFC-SC3-2007/EB-WP-01.

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.

Lack, M. and Meere, F. (2009). Pacific Islands Regional Plan of Action for Sharks: Guidance for Pacific Island Countries and Territories on the Conservation and Management of Sharks. Accessed online at http://www.ffa.int/sharks on 03 Aug 2010.

Langley, A., Hoyle, S., Hampton, J., 2011. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC SC5 SA WP‐3, Port Vila, Vanuatu, 10-21 August 2009.

Lawson, T. (2011). Estimation of catch rates and catches of key shark species in tuna fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean using observer data. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-IP-02, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 9–17 August 2011.

Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A. & J. Picaut (1997). El Niño Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature, V. 389, pp. 715-718.

Lehodey, P. and B. Leroy (1999) Age and growth of yellow fin tuna (Thunnus albacares) from the western and central Pacific Ocean as indicated by daily growth increments and tagging data. In “Report of the Twelfth Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish”, Oceanic Fisheries Programme, Secretariat of the Pacific Community, Noumea, New Caledonia, Working paper YFT-2, 1-21.

McKechnie S, Hampton J, Pilling GM and Davies N. 2016. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-04.

Maguire, J.-J. (2010). Report on yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. CIE Review. Available at http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/do/peer_reviews/wcpo_yellowfin_tuna_stock_assessment_201 0_08.php.

Medley, P., Tingley, G., Akroyd, J., Hough, A. and Davies, S. (2011). MSC Public Certification Report for the New Zealand albacore troll fishery. Moody Marine Ltd Report. Ref: 82074. Available at: http://www.msc.org.

MFF (2012). Fiji offshore Management Decree.

MFF (2014). Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan (2014-2018).

MFF (2014a). Fiji Offshore Management regulations.

MFF (2015a). Submission to Annual Audit for Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association longline fishery by Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, Offshore Fisheries Division, 2015.

MFF (2015b). Additional submission to Annual Audit for Fiji Tuna Boat Owners Association longline fishery by Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, Offshore Fisheries Division, 2015 (initially submitted 4 March 2015 and amended 19 March 2015).

MFF, 2016a. Data supplied by Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, Offshore Fisheries Division, 2015 (submitted 6 June 2015).

MFF, 2016b. Data supplied by Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, Offshore Fisheries Division, 2015 (submitted 26 May 2015).

Molony, B. (2008). Fisheries Biology and Ecology of Highly Migratory Species that Commonly Interact with Industrialised Longline and Purse-seine Fisheries in the WCPO. 4th Session Regular Scientific Committee. 11-22 August 2008, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. WCPFC-SC4-2008/EB-IP-6.

Page 95 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Morison, A.M. and McLoughlin, K. (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. (Available at www.msc.org).

Mooney-Seus, M. L. Rosenberg, A. A. 2007. Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs): Progress in Adopting Precautionary Approach and Ecosystem-Based Management. Prepared by Fort Hill Associates LLC for HTSPE, February 10, 2007.

MSC (2014). MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance, v.2.0, 1st October 2014. Marine Stewardship Council, London, 528 pp.

Munroe, T.A. & Priede, I.G. (2010). Sardinella longiceps. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2010: e.T154989A4684198. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2010-4.RLTS.T154989A4684198.en.

Nikolic N. and Bourjea J. (2013). Differentiation of albacore stock: review by oceanic regions . ICCAT Recueil de Documents Scientifiques , 70(3), 1340-1354 . Open Access version : http://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00149/25990/.

NOAA. 2017. Fish Watch: U.S. Seafood Facts. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. Available at: http://www.fishwatch.gov/ (Accessed: June 2017).

Pilling G., Harley S., Davies N., Rice J. and Hampton J. 2014. Status quo stochastic projections for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tunas. WCPFC Scientific Committee 10, Majuro, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC-SC10-2014/SA-WP-06.

Pilling, G., Reid, C., Harley, S. J., and Hampton, J. (2015). Compatibility and consequences of alternative potential Target Reference Points for the south Pacic albacore stock. WCPFC-SC11- 2015/MI-IP-07, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5-13 August 2015.

Pilling G., Scott, R., Williams, P. and Hampton, J. (2016a). A compendium of fisheries indicators for tuna stocks not assessed in 2016 (bigeye and yellowfin tuna). WCPFC-SC12-2016-SA-WP-03.

Pilling G., Berger, A., Reid, C., Harley, S. and Hampton, J. (2016b). Candidate biological and economic target reference points for the south Pacific albacore longline fishery. Fisheries Research Volume 174, February 2016, Pages 167-178.

Pilling G., Scott, R. and Williams, P. (2016c). Recent trends in the South Pacific albacore fishery. WCPFC-SC12-2016-SA-WP-05.

Pilling, G., R. Scott, P. Williams and J. Hampton 2016d. Biologically reasonable rebuilding timeframes for bigeye tuna Scientific Committee Twelfth Regular Session Bali, Indonesia 3-11 August 2016, WCPFC-SC12-2016/MI-WP-02. Available at: https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC12-MI-WP-02 Bigeye biological rebuilding timeframes.pdf.

Piovano, S. and Gilman, E. (2016). Elasmobranch captures in the Fijian pelagic longline fishery. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst. (2016).

Powers, J.E. and Medley, P.A.H. 2016. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council criteria. (Version 4). ISSF Technical Report 2016-19. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA

Reardon, M., Márquez, F., Trejo, T. & Clarke, S.C. 2009. Alopias pelagicus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2009: e.T161597A5460720. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2009- 2.RLTS.T161597A5460720.en.

Reid, C. and Raubani, J. (2015). Trends in Economic Conditions in the Southern Longline Fishery. Scientific Committee Eleventh Regular Session, Majuro, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5- 13 August 2015. WCPFC-SC11-2015/MI WP-03-Rev 1.

Page 96 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Rice, J. (2012). Alternative catch time series for oceanic whitetip and silky sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC8-SA-IP-12.

Rice, J. and Harley, S. J. (2012). Stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06, Busan, Republic of Korea, 7–15 August 2012.

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013a. Potential catch and CPUE series to support a stock assessment of blue shark in the South Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 9th. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-04. 24 p.

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013b. Updated stock assessment of silky sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013, 9th. WCPFC-SC9-2013/ SA-WP-03.

Rice, J., Harley, S., Davies, N. & J. Hampton (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.

Rice J., Tremblay-Boyer L., Scott R., Hare S., Tidd A. (2015). Analysis of stock status and related indicators for key shark species of the Western Central Pacific Fisheries Commission [EB-WP-04]. [Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia]: Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). Scientific Committee Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5-13 August 2015, 11th. 146 p.

Sibert, J.R., Hampton, J., Fournier, D.A. & P.J. Bills (1999). An advection-diffusion-reaction model for the estimation of fish movement parameters from tagging data, with application to skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science, V. 56, pp. 925-938.

Sibert, J. & J. Hampton (2003). Mobility of tropical tunas and the implications for fisheries management. Marine Policy, V. 27, pp. 87-95.

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.WCPFC (2013). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Tenth Regular Session, Cairns, Australia, 2-6 December 2013.

Smith-Vaniz, W.F. & Williams, I. 2016. Decapterus macrosoma. (errata version published in 2017) The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2016: e.T20431518A115379160. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2016-3.RLTS.T20431518A65927864.en. SPC (2011). SPC-OFP response to the CIE review of the 2009 yellowfin tuna assessment. WCPFC- SC7-2011/IP-05.

SPC (2011). SPC-OFP response to the CIE review of the 2009 yellowfin tuna assessment WCPFC- SC7-2011/IP-05.

SPC (2016). Tuna fishery yearbook 2015, version 1.0, 9th December 2016. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Pohnpei, 149 pp.

Takeuchi, Y., Tremblay-Boyer, L., Pilling, G.M. and Hampton, J. (2016). Assessment of blue shark in the southwestern Pacific. WCPFC, Bali, Indonesia. WCPFC-SC12-2016/SA-WP-08 Rev1. Tremblay-Boyer, L. and Brouwer, S. (2016). Review of available information on non-key shark species including mobulids and fisheries interactions. WCPFC, Bali, Indonesia. WCPFC-SC12-2016/ EB-WP-08.

UNCLOS (1999). Signatory to the migratory stocks agreement – 1999

WCPFC (2000). Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC, September 2000, 27 pp.

Page 97 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

WCPFC (2004). Convention on the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. 19 June 2004.

WCPFC (2006) . Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) Rules of Procedure. As adopted at the Inaugural Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 9-10 December 2004

WCPFC (2010). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 6-10 December 2010.

WCPFC (2014). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Eleventh Regular Session, Apia, Samoa, 1-5 December 2014.

WCPFC (2015). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Twelfth Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia, 3-8 December 2015.

WCPFC (2016a). Summary Report. Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Thirteenth Regular Session, Denarau Island, Fiji 5-9 December 2016.

WCPFC (2016b). Information paper: Data summaries in support of discussions on the CMMs on tropical tunas (CMM 2013-01, CMM 2014-01 and CMM 2015-01. WCPFC Thirteenth Regular Session, Denarau Island, Fiji 5-9 December 2016. WCPFC13-2016-IP04.

WCPFC (2017) ; Conservation and Management Measures and Resolutions for the WCPFC https://www.wcpfc.int/conservation-andmanagement- measures

WCPFC-FFA (2014). FFA Member’s Proposed Replacement for the Conservation and Management Measure for South Pacific Albacore. Eleventh Regular Session, Apia, Samoa, 1-5 December 2014.WCPFC11-2014-DP05.

WCPFC-FFA (2015). FFA proposal for SP-Albacore TRP. WCPFC 12th Regular Session, Bali, Indonesia 3-8 December 2015. WCPFC12-2015-DP03_rev2.

WCPFC-MOW (2013). Second Management Objectives Workshop, Report of the expert working group. Management objectives, performance indicators and reference points. WCPFC10 2013-15b.

WCPFC-MOW (2014). WCPFC Report on the Third Management Objectives Workshop (MOW3), Faleata Sports Complex, Apia, Samoa 28th November 2014. Report on the Third Management Objectives Workshop, 3 December 2014.

WCPFC-MOW3 (2014). Compatibility and consequences of alternative potential Target Reference Points for the South Pacific albacore stock. Working paper for Third Management Objectives Workshop. MOW3-WP/06 14, Nov 2014.

WCPFC-MOW (2015). WCPFC Report on the Harvest Strategy Workshop (MOW4), Bali, Indonesia 3-8 December 2015.

WCPFC-SC (2014a). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014.

WCPFC-SC (2014b). A report on the activities completed for Shark Research Plan by the SPC‐ OFP. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014. WCPFC‐ SC10‐ 2014/EB‐ WP‐ 04.

Page 98 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

WCPFC-SC (2015). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Eleventh Regular Session, Majuro, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 5-13 August 2015.

WCPFC-SC (2016a). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Twelfth Regular Session of the Scientific Committee, Bali, Indonesia, 3-11 August 2016.

WCPFC-SC (2016b). Estimates of annual catches in the WCPFC statistical area. Scientific Committee Committee Twelfth Regular Session of the Scientific Committee, Bali, Indonesia, 3-11 August 2016. WCPFC-SC11-2016/ST IP-01.

WCPFC-SC (2017). Summary Report. The Commission for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Thirteenth Regular Session of the Scientific Committee, Rarotonga, Cook Islands, 9-17 August 201.

WCPFC-TCC (2014). PNA’S Draft Conservation and Management Measure on a target reference point for skipjack tuna. TECHNICAL AND COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE Tenth Regular Session 25-30 September 2014, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-TCC10-2014-DP06.

Wild, A. & J. Hampton (1994). A review of the biology and fisheries for skipjack tuna, Katsuwonus pelamis, in the Pacific Ocean. p. 1-51. In R.S. Shomura, J. Majkowski and S. Langi (eds.), Interactions of Pacific tuna fisheries. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper 336(2):439 p. Williams, P (2014). Scientific data available to the Western and central Pacific Fisheries Commission. TECHNICAL AND COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE, Tenth Regular Session, WCPFC-TCC10-2014-IP- 04.

Williams, P. & P. Terawasi (2016). Overview of tuna fisheries in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including economic conditions–2015. WCPFC-SC12-2016/GN-WP-01, rev. 2.

WWF (2014). WWF Position on the FTBOA 1st Surveillance Audit Progress Assessment. Submitted to Audit team by WWF South Pacific, Suva, 11 February 2014.

WWF (2015). Ecological sustainability evaluation of seafood: Guidelines for Wild Catch Fisheries, Version 2.0.

WCPFC Conservation and Management Measures referred to in report.

CMM-2005-02 [South Pacific Albacore] (replaced by CMM-2010-05) CMM-2006-05 [Sharks in the WCPO] (replaced by CMM-2008-06) CMM-2006-08 [Boarding and Inspection Procedures] CMM-2007-01 [Regional Observer Programme] CMM-2007-04 [Mitigate the impact of fishing for highly migratory fish stocks on seabirds] CMM-2008-01 [Bigeye and Yellowfin tuna in the WCPO] (replaced by later CMMs) CMM-2008-03 [Sea turtles] CMM-2008-04 [Prohibit The Use Of Large Scale Driftnets On The High Seas] CMM-2008-06 [Sharks] (replaced by CMM-2009-04) CMM-2009-02 [High seas FAD closures] CMM-2009-03 [Swordfish] CMM-2009-04 [Sharks] (replaced by CMM-2010-07) CMM-2009-05 [Prohibiting fishing on data buoys] CMM-2009-06 [Regulation of Transshipment] CMM-2009-11 [Cooperating Non-Members] CMM-2010-05 [South Pacific albacore] CMM-2010-06 [List of Vessels Presumed to have carried out IUU fishing activities in the WCPO] CMM-2010-07 [Sharks] CMM-2011-03 impact of purse seine on cetaceans] CMM 2011-04 [Sharks – oceanic whitetip shark] CMM-2013-04 [Implementation of a Unique Vessel Identifier]

Page 99 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

CMM 2013-08 [Sharks – silky shark] CMM-2013-10 [Record of Fishing Vessels] CMM-2014-02 [VMS] replacing CMM 2011-02 CMM-2014-03 [Standards, specifications and procedures for the WCPFC Record of Fishing Vessels] replacing CMM 2013-03 CMM 2014-05 [Sharks – measures for longline vessels] CMM 2014-06 [Establishing a Harvest Strategy for Key Fisheries and Stocks in the WCPO] CMM-2014-07 [Compliance Monitoring Scheme] CMM-2015-02 [South Pacific albacore] replacing CMM-2010-05 CMM-2015-07 [Compliance Monitoring Scheme] CMM 2016-01 [Bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the WCPO] replacing CMM-2015-01 and its predecessors CMM 2016-02 [Eastern High Seas Pocket Special Management Area] replacing CMM-2013-02 CMM 2016-05 [Charter Notification Scheme] replacing CMM-2012-05 and CMM-2015-05

Page 100 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline Appendices Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales a. Performance Indicator Scores and Rationale

UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) Principle 1 scoring tables

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

Met? Y Y Y Justifi The most recent assessment (Harley et al., 2015) indicates that overfishing is not cation occurring and the stock is not in an overfished state. The latest estimates of spawning biomass (2013) are above both the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.86 for the base case and range 1.74–7.03 across the grid of model runs used in the assessment) and the adopted LRP of 0.2SBF=0 (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.40 for the base case and range 0.30–0.60 across the grid) (see figure below from Harley et al., 2015).

Ratio of exploited to unexploited spawning potential, SBlatest/SBF=0, for the reference case (Harley et al., 2015). The current WCPFC limit reference point of 20%SBF=0 is provided for reference as the grey dashed line and the red circle represents the level of spawning potential depletion based on the agreed method of calculating SBF=0 over the last ten years of the model (excluding the last year). An analysis undertaken in 2016 using the 2015 assessment data provides estimates of annual recruitment supporting the stock being above the PRI (Figure 19, Cao 2016).

Page 101 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 Overall, the assessment indicates there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired. The SG100 requirement is met.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guide The stock is at or There is a high degree of post fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y Y Justifi The assessment (using MULTIFAN-CL) provides probabilistic estimates of cation parameters of interest, and uncertainty has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests (Harley et al., 2015). The latest estimates of spawning biomass (2013) are above the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.86 for the base case; 95% C.I. 1.74–7.03 across the grid of model runs used in the assessment). Fishing mortality has generally been increasing through time, with Fcurrent (2009-12 average) estimated to be 0.39 times the fishing mortality that will support the MSY for the reference case. This indicates that a 2.5 times increase in fishing mortality is necessary to produce the MSY; this increase in effort would increase equilibrium catch by 20%, but likely reduce catch rates by almost 65% (Harley et al., 2015). There is currently no agreed target reference point, but the WCPFC has examined economic-based target reference points for the South Pacificc albacore tuna stock. Based on bio-economic modelling described in Pilling et al. (2015) the range of SBF=0 that would support break-even or 10% profit is 0.65–0.80SBF=0. This region has been shaded green on the Majuro plot (Figure 7). As reported above, the latest (2013) spawning biomass is estimated to be 40% of SBF=0 and therefore are lower than these potential TRPs.

(N.B. SBMSY is lower than the limit reference point (0.14 SBF=0) due to the combination of the selectivity of the fisheries and maturity of the species.) The latest assessment indicates that the SG100 requirement is met. Harley et al. (2015); Pilling et al. (2015); WCPFC-SC (2015) References

Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Value of reference Current stock status relative point point to reference point

Reference SBF=0 0.2SBF=0 SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.40 for the point used in reference case (95% C.I. 0.30– scoring stock 0.60 across the grid) relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference SBMSY SBlatest/SBMSY SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.86 for the point used in base case (95% C.I. 1.74–7.03 scoring stock across the grid) relative to MSY (SIb) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

Page 102 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low PI 1.1.1 probability of recruitment overfishing Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 103 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.1.2 – Stock rebuilding Where the stock is reduced, there is evidence of stock rebuilding within a PI 1.1.2 specified timeframe Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Rebuilding timeframes Guide A rebuilding timeframe is The shortest practicable post specified for the stock that rebuilding timeframe is is the shorter of 20 specified which does not years or 2 times its exceed one generation generation time. For time for the stock. cases where 2 generations is less than 5 years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years.

Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi Not scored because the stock is not reduced. cation b Rebuilding evaluation Guide Monitoring is in place to There is evidence that the There is strong evidence post 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 stocks, or it is highly stock within the specified simulation modelling, likely based on timeframe. exploitation rates or simulation modelling, previous performance that exploitation rates or they will be able to rebuild previous performance that the stock within the they will be able to rebuild specified timeframe. the stock within the specified timeframe. Met? (Y/N) (Y/N) (Y/N) Justifi Not scored because the stock is not reduced. cation [List any references here] References

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

Page 104 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.1 – 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 Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy is post expected to achieve responsive to the state of responsive to the state of stock management the stock and the the stock and is designed objectives reflected in PI elements of the harvest to achieve stock 1.1.1 SG80. strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y N Not scored Justifi MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock cation assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE’ (MSC CR v2.0). The current harvest strategy is not formalised but consists of the elements considered at PIs 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4. This PI is intended to consider how they work together to achieve objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1. Regional management of the albacore stock throughout the South Pacific is the responsibility of the WCPFC. Under this regional convention, Fiji is responsible for ensuring that the management measures applied within its waters are compatible with those of the Commission. Fiji outlines its national approaches through the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree, Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations and the Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan. The harvest strategy for WCPO albacore has several components, with WCPFC, national and archipelagic management actions, supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. The elements of the WCPFC harvest strategy are as follows: • data collection on the stock and fishery (considered at PI 1.2.3 below); • stock assessment process (considered at PI 1.2.4 below); • limit reference point (explicit) and target reference point (implicit) (considered variously at PIs 1.1.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.4); • harvest control rules (considered at PI 1.2.2 below); • monitoring of implementation of CMM-2015-02 (replacing CMM 2010-05) via data gathering and reports to the Commission. This management strategy is reviewed annually during the Commission meeting. The management advice produced from recent assessments continues to be that the South pacific albacore stock is not overfished and overfishing is not taking place. Countries undertake to control catches mainly through effort limits and limits on capacity (i.e. number of vessels targeting albacore). Fishing effort on albacore has increased considerably since CMM 2010-05 was implemented, particularly above 20oS, where CMM 2010-05 does not apply (CMM 2010-05 has now been replaced by CMM 2015-02). Even with the current stock status well above likely target levels, there are already concerns about declining catch rates and the economic viability of some albacore fisheries. Members of FFA have made attempts to strengthen CMM 2010-05 at recent WCPFC Commission meetings, however the adoption of CMM 2015-02 did not change the key components of CMM 2010-05. Catches of South Pacific albacore do, however, appear to have stabilised since 2010, albeit at a relatively high level compared to historic catches (Figure 3). A number of South Pacific nations, including Fiji, have been developing an agreement (the Tokelau Arrangement) to implement individual nation zone

Page 105 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place limitations on catch of South Pacific albacore tuna developed at meetings of the FFA Sub-committee on South Pacific Tuna and Billfish. WCPFC have made progress in the development of its harvest strategy with the adoption of CMM 2014-06 to develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for key fisheries and stocks in the WCPO. The CMM identifies the elements that harvest strategies are to contain (including defined operational objectives, target and limit reference points for each stock, acceptable levels of risk of not breaching limit reference points, a monitoring strategy, decision rules that aim to achieve the target reference point and avoid the limit reference point, and management strategy evaluation). CMM 2014-06 included a requirement that the Commission agree a work plan 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. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a work plan under CMM 2014-06 was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support from the Scientific Service Provider to undertake the activities specified in the agreed work plan. Progress on aspects of the adopted work plan was discussed at the December 2016 Commission meeting. Under the work plan a target reference point was anticipated to be adopted at that meeting. Agreement on the adoption of a target reference point was not reached at the Commission meeting. An updated work plan was agreed (WCPFC 2016, Attachment N). The current state of the stock and developments in improving the harvest strategy indicate that the strategy is expected to achieve PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives, meeting SG60 requirements. Whilst progress has been made in developing a harvest strategy, concerns over the effectiveness of current measures in restricting effort and lack of progress on some aspects of the harvest strategy led the team to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that the elements of the harvest strategy are working together towards achieving stock management objectives. SG80 is not met. Note: this score is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). b Harvest strategy evaluation Guide The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the post likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y Not scored Justifi The stock assessment provides an independent assessment of the effectiveness of cation management. Fishing mortality rate remains well below FMSY and the stock is well above the LRP of 0.2SBF=0. The SG80 requirements are met. The harvest strategy is not fully evaluated, hence SG100 is not met.

c Harvest strategy monitoring Guide Monitoring is in place that post is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y

Page 106 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Justifi Systems are in place for recording catch and effort for all fishing entities fishing on cation South Pacific albacore. WCPFC Members are required to annually report information about their fishery (WCPFC Part 1 reports) and compliance requirements (WCPFC Part 2 reports). Monitoring is in place that is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. SG60 requirements are met.

d Harvest strategy review Guide The harvest strategy is post periodically reviewed and improved as necessary. Met? Not scored Justifi Not scored because SG80 not met for 1.2.1a. cation Current arrangements would not meet SG100: No harvest strategy for South Pacific albacore has been formalized and there is no formal review process. However, the harvest strategy is reviewed through WCPFC processes, including consideration of advice from annual meetings of the SC and consideration of management resolutions during annual Commission meetings. WCPFC CMM 2014-06 incorporates measures to progress development of the harvest strategy including adoption of reference points and harvest control rules. Whilst WCPFC processes provide a level of annual review, CMM 2014-06 itself does not include a requirement for periodical review.

e Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Sharks are not a target species. cation f Review of alternative measures Guide There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial post of the potential of the potential review of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi South Pacific albacore are targeted by the Fiji longline fishery and there are no cation requirements such as minimum or maximum landing sizes or quotas which could lead to any of this catch being unwanted. Observer data indicates a low level of discarding of albacore by WCPO longliners. Discarding which does take place is largely due to shark damage or whale depredation (0.7% for albacore in 2015; WCPFC-SC 2016b). There is a market for damaged fish to be sold locally at supermarkets and restaurants in Fiji (Amoe, 2007), thus there is no ‘unwanted catch’ of albacore in the fishery.

Page 107 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place WCPFC (2015); WCPFC CMM 2010-05; WCPFC CMM 2014-06; WCPFC CMM References 2015-02, WCPFC-SC 2016b, Amoe (2007).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER: SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for albacore tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest 1 strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Page 108 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.2 – 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 Guide Generally understood Well defined HCRs are The HCRs are expected post HCRs are in place or in place that ensure that to keep the stock available that are the exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above a expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a taking into account the approached. target level consistent ecological role of the with (or above) MSY, or stock, most of the time. for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N Justifi WCPFC CMM 2014-06 established a process for the adoption of harvest control cation rules, however, well-defined harvest control rules are not currently in place and SG80 is not met. Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” of 24th November 2014, PI 1.2.2 SI(a) has been scored using CR v2.0 provisions for SG60 (as above) scoring for a number of fisheries, including several tuna fisheries. MSC have also provided further comment on HCRs with their notice of 16 December, 2015 “Interpretation on Harvest Control Rules (HCR)”. MSC CR v2.0 lays out two conditions for acceptance of HCR being available sufficient to justify scoring at the SG60 level. First, CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a provides for HCR being recognised as available, “…if stock biomass has not previously been reduced below BMSY or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time”. The MULTIFAN-CL software used for South Pacific albacore assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and uncertainty has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests. Previous albacore assessment indicates that SB has not been reduced below SBMSY (Hoyle et al. 2012). The latest estimates of spawning biomass (2013) are also above the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.86 for the base case; 95% C.I. 1.74– 7.03 across the grid of model runs used in the assessment) (Harley et al., 2015). Note that SBMSY is lower than the limit reference point (0.14 SBF=0) due to the combination of the selectivity of the fisheries and maturity of the species. Stock projections (to 2030) have also been undertaken in an examination of candidate biological and economic target reference points (Pilling et al., 2016b). This work examines the consequences of a target reference point of MSY, which would require a substantial increase in effort over current levels and lead to lower catch rates and a stock size too close to the LRP given the level of uncertainty. However, continued fishing at recent levels is predicted to imply no biological risk to the stock (median SB2030/SBMSY = 2.51 under status quo conditions) (Pilling et al., 2016b). The CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met. Second, CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b provides for HCR being recognised as available if, “…there is an agreement or framework in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY”. WCPFC CMM 2014-06 sets out the principles and elements for harvest strategies to be developed and implemented, including requirements for 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 CMM also included a requirement to adopt a

Page 109 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place work plan with an indicative timeframe no later than 2015 Commission meeting, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific Bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a work plan was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support from the Scientific Service Provider to undertake the activities specified in the agreed work plan. Progress on aspects of the adopted work plan was discussed at the December 2016 Commission meeting. An important component of the work plan was that the Commission was required to agree a TRP for South Pacific albacore in 2016. FFA presented WCPFC13-2016-DP09 recommending the adoption of an interim TRP, based on the discussions at WCPFC12. WCPFC13 could not agree on the adoption of an interim TRP and decided to defer the possible adoption of an interim TRP until December 2017 at the latest. An updated work plan was agreed (WCPFC 2016, Attachment N). As indicated above, the current stock assessment and projections of future stock size indicate that the stock will remain above SSBMSY over the period agreed in the CMM 2014-06 work plan. The CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b requirement is therefore met. In summary, as conditions at both CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a and CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b are met, a score of SG60 is awarded. Note: this score is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guide The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account post robust to the main of a 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 Justifi The ‘available’ HCRs described at SIa do not allow an evaluation robustness to cation uncertainties. The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met. Note: this score is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). c HCRs evaluation Guide There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows post that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y N Not scored Justifi The rationale for this SI needs to address two MSC CR v2.0 requirements. cation First, CR v2.0 SA2.5.6 requires that as part of the evaluation of the effectiveness of HCRs, “…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”. MSC CR v2.0 SA2.5.6 guidance (GSA2.5.2-7) states that “Evidence that current F is equal to or less than FMSY should usually be taken as evidence that the HCR is effective”.

Page 110 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Evidence to support this is provided by the 2015 assessment which states that fishing mortality has generally been increasing through time, with Fcurrent (2009-12 average) estimated to be 0.39 times the fishing mortality that will support MSY. Across the grid of model runs Fcurrent/FMSY ranged from 0.13‐0.62, indicating that overfishing is not occurring (WCPFC-SC 2015). Second, in relation to SIa, above, MSC CR v2.0 SA2.5.5b, requires that where HCRs are recognised as ‘available “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” shall be provided. As noted at SIa, CMM 2014-06 sets out elements of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The WCPFC agreed to adopt a work plan at the 2015 Commission meeting, with potential revision in 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific Bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. Work to establish reference points and harvest control rules has been in progress over recent years through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a work plan was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). No additional trigger is required for the development of HCRs is required. The requirements detailed above are met and a score of 60 is awarded. SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery. Given SIa finds HCRs are ‘available’, the tools are not considered to be in use and SG80 is not met. Note: this score is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). References Hoyle et al. (2012); Harley et al. (2015); WCPFC CMM 2014-06; Pilling et al. (2016b); WCPFC (2015) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER: SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place 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 HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Page 111 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.3 – 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 Guide Some relevant Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range post information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. information such as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest strategy, is available. Met? Y Y N Justifi Extensive data collection supports the harvest strategy and inform the stock cation assessment. Data used in the assessment consist of fishery-specific catch, effort and length-frequency data, tag release-recapture data, and conditional age-length observations. Available data suggest distinct North and South Pacific Ocean albacore tuna stocks, separated by the Equator. The distinction is supported by a range of fishery, tagging, genetic, and ecological data (Medley et al., 2011). Life-history parameters for South Pacific albacore are based on analyses of biological samples, collected over time from research and observer programmes. There has been considerable recent work on age and growth (Farley et al., 2013a, 2013b), which demonstrated that females most likely grow slower than males after the age of maturity, rather than having higher natural mortality as previously supposed. This has informed the recent stock assessments. All CCMs are required to provide catch and effort data to WCPFC, either in the form of logsheet data (from most coastal states) or aggregated by month/5o squares (from most distant water fishing states). Logsheet data is raised to best estimates of total catch by SPC Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP) to account for missing data. Data go back to 1960, although as expected, historical data are sparser and generally less reliable than more recent data. Abundance indices are primarily obtained from catch and effort data, particularly from the many longline fleets operating across the region, giving relatively long time series of information. An updated analysis of CPUE data was undertaken for the 2015 stock assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2015). The dataset used was a considerable improvement over those previously available e.g., the number of sets is about twice what was available for previous standardizations of CPUE for this species. However, there were still important components missing which may have hindered the estimation of robust indices of abundance (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2015). Most notably, a lack of access to non-SPC-held Japanese operational data, which make up most of the effort in many of the stock assessments regions early in the time-series. Length-frequency data comes from various port sampling programmes (including Fiji’s) and some observer reports, and goes back to 1962. These data are weighted in the stock assessment according to spatial representation, to account for differences in length-frequency by geographic region.

Page 112 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Each CCM provides information to WCPFC annually on their active fleet, in their Part 1 annual reports. CMM 2015-02 includes a requirement for CCMs to inform the Commission annually of the number of vessels actively targeting albacore. WCPFC has a range of vessel monitoring systems in place (e.g., CMM 2014-02 (vessel monitoring), CMM 2014-03 (record of vessels), CMM 2015-07 (compliance and monitoring). Limited tagging data are available for incorporation into the assessment. Data consists of tag releases and returns from a South Pacific Albacore Research Group tagging programme in the mid-1980s and SPC albacore tagging programmes conducted during the austral summers of 1990-1992 and 2009-2010 (Harley et al., 2015). The SPC OFP has undertaken environmental research as part of their ecosystem monitoring programme, focusing particularly on potential environmental drivers of tuna population dynamics. Overall observer coverage of fishing for albacore tuna (providing external verification of logbook data and information about discards) is low. There has been a substantial increase in observer coverage of the Fiji longline fishery since its MSC certification in 2012, from 3% in 2011 to 19% in 2015 (Fiji 2016). Observer coverage of the Fiji longline fleet in 2016 was 23% (Fiji 2017), with 44% coverage of MSC-certified client vessels (email Jone Amoe, Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, 2 Oct 2017). This observer coverage involved 47 observers deployed aboard a total of 125 fishing trips. Overall, given the size and complexity of the fishery, there is an extensive range of data to support the harvest strategy, sufficient to meet SG80. However, these data are not comprehensive. Also, the assessment identifies some conflict between some of the data sources available for this assessment including conflicts between the length-frequency data and the CPUE series and between the troll length frequency samples and the age-length data (Harley et al. 2015); SG100 is not met.

b Monitoring Guide Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required post UoA removals are UoA removals are by the harvest control rule monitored and at least regularly monitored at a is monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to with the harvest control there is a good support the harvest rule, and one or more understanding of inherent control rule. indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest and management to this control rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justifi The ‘available’ harvest control rule requires estimates of fishing mortality and cation biomass in relation to reference points. Available information allows the stock assessment to provide this, along with confidence interval estimates and sensitivity to various parameter values and assumptions (Harley et al., 2015). The existing management regulation (CMM 2015-02) requires estimates of vessels activity targeting albacore south of 20oS, which is provided by all CCMs in their annual Part 1 and Part 2 reports. This scoring issue relates to fishery removals specifically by those vessels covered under the UoA (Fiji’s longline fleet has caught approximately 10% of the overall removals over the last 5 years). The harvest control PI, above, achieved an overall score of 60. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to assess the available information at this scoring issue to support the current harvest strategy and available tools.

Page 113 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy Catch, fishing effort, fishing operation data, and vessel information are collected on logsheets provided by each licence holder to the Fijian Ministry. Catch returns are completed for each longline set. The level of port inspection of tuna landings in Fiji is an important element of effective compliance. Fiji report that in 2015 the reconciliation of data sets (logsheets, landings and VMS) was maintained at 94% (Fiji 2016). Overall information available is summarized at SIa. Fiji provides high quality data through its annual Part 1 submissions as well as submission of catch, effort, landings, length frequency, length-weight and other data required to support the stock assessment. These data for the UoA are regularly monitored at a level consistent with existing tools. SG80 requirements are met.

c Comprehensiveness of information Guide There is good information post on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justifi The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in this scoring issue relates to vessels cation outside or not covered by the unit of assessment. These other removals comprise the majority of the catch of South Pacific albacore. The data described at SIa adequately describes the information relevant to this scoring issue. Catches are reported at an appropriate level of accuracy for the stock assessment. Data have been identified as missing, but these are generally related to operational data (fishing gear, target species and fishing activity) rather than catch. SG80 is met.

Harley et al. (2015); Tremblay-Boyer et al. (2015); Medley et al. (2011); Farley et al. References (2013a); Farley et al. (2013b)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 114 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 1 (South Pacific albacore) PI 1.2.4 – 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 Guide The assessment is The assessment takes post appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justifi The model used for the assessment is based on the MULTIFAN-CL (MFCL) cation software. Parameters of the model are estimated by maximizing an objective function consisting of likelihood (data) and “prior” information. MFCL was specifically developed to take advantage of the tuna fishery data available from the region. It is a complex and sophisticated model, and takes into account the biology of the species (e.g. by incorporating the results of research into age and growth by sex and region, maturity and fecundity at size and age etc.). The model is able to estimate a variety of reference points which are or might be used as limit and target reference points for management. The model is reviewed and revised regularly. Substantial changes were made in the 2015 assessment including: improvements to the MULTIFAN-CL modelling framework, a regionally disaggregated framework, access to operational data for construction of CPUE indices and regional weights, age-length data to improve growth estimation, and additional tagging data (WCPFC-SC 2015). Further, the regional structure of the model was changed to cover the southern WCPFC convention area and reference points evaluated are for this area. This brings about better alignment with the other WCPFC tuna assessments. CPUE data is an important component of the assessment. An updated analysis of CPUE data was undertaken for the 2015 stock assessment (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2015). The dataset used is seen to be a considerable improvement over those previously available. Overall, the assessment takes into account the major features relevant to the biology of the species. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

b Assessment approach Guide The assessment The assessment post estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justifi A limit reference point has been adopted and target reference points are under cation development. The assessment model produced estimates for a range of existing and potential reference points for the stock. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.

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

Page 115 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Met? Y Y Y Justifi Substantial work is undertaken to address uncertainties in input data for the cation assessment. There is an ongoing process through the SPC OFP to address gaps in catch and effort data. As indicated above, the CPUE data was improved and re- analysed in 2015 (Tremblay-Boyer et al., 2015). There has been considerable recent work on age and growth (Farley et al., 2013a, 2013b). The assessment includes a detailed exploration of uncertainties in the model assumptions, via sensitivity analyses for various different model options (growth curves, natural mortality, steepness, effort creep and different treatment of the CPUE data set). The modelling approach enables evaluation of current and future stock status relative to uncertainties in a probabilistic way. The requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels of this scoring issue are met.

d Evaluation of assessment Guide The assessment has post been tested and shown to be robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored. Met? Y Justifi SPC-OFP provides ongoing review of assessment assumptions and approaches for cation key tuna species including South Pacific albacore. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required. As described at SIa, the 2015 assessment has been updated to reflect the availability of new data and new interpretations of existing data; and presents sensitivity analyses exploring the impact of options such as changing assumptions for fixed parameters or different treatments of the data. The three most significant changes were: (1) the use of a spatially explicit model covering the southern region of the WCPFC Convention area; (2) the inclusion of direct age-length observations and tagging data from the 2009-10 releases; and (3) changing natural mortality from 0.4 to 0.3 per annum for consistency with albacore stock assessments conducted elsewhere (Harley et al., 2015). While the assessment will continue to be developed and improved, the exploration of alternative hypotheses and assumptions has been rigorous. SG100 is met.

e Peer review of assessment Guide The assessment of stock The assessment has post status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justifi The stock assessment is internally peer reviewed within the WCPFC system (by the cation Scientific Committee). A process of formal external peer review has been started and applied to some WCPFC stock assessments (e.g. bigeye, Ianelli et al., 2012) but not to albacore to date. However, recommendations from the bigeye external review have been followed and incorporated into the 2015 albacore assessment (Harley et al., 2015). SG80 requirements are met but SG100 is not fully met.

References Harley et al. (2015); Tremblay-Boyer (2015); Farley et al. (2013a); Farley et al. (2013b); Ianelli et al. (2012); WCPFC-SC (2015)

Page 116 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status

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

Page 117 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna) Principle 1 scoring tables UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.1.1 – 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 latest stock assessment was undertaken in 2014 (Davies et al. 2014). This ation assessment estimated that the “current” spawning biomass (average over the period 2008-2011) was 42% of the unfished level (SBcurrent/SBF=0 = 0.42) and the “latest” (2012) spawning biomass was 38% of the unfished level (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.38). These estimates indicate the spawning biomass is well above the WCPFC LRP (20%SBF=0). Pilling et al. (2014) provides 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. Dependent upon the future recruitment assumption, the projections indicate it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%; long-term recruitment deviate assumption) or very unlikely (<10%; recent recruitment assumption) to fall below BMSY. Overall, there is a high degree of certainty that the stock is above the point where recruitment would be impaired, which meets the requirements of this scoring issue at the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels. b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY Guidep The stock is at or There is a high degree of ost fluctuating around a level certainty that the stock consistent with MSY. has been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years. Met? Y N Justific No explicit target reference point has been adopted for yellowfin tuna. There is an ation implicit target of BMSY (supported by CMM 2014-01) and target reference levels under consideration by the WCPFC are in the range of 40-60%SBF=0. The 2014 stock assessment estimated that “recent levels of spawning potential are most likely above (based on 2008‐11 average and based on 2012) the level which will support the MSY”. Thus the best estimate is that the stock is above its (default) target reference point which meets the requirements of SI b at the SG 80 level. The uncertainty analysis presented in Davies et al. (2014, Table 7) addresses the question as to whether SG 100 is met. The grid medians and 95% confidence intervals for SBcurrent/SBMSY and SBlatest/SBMSY were estimated at 1.37 (0.97-1.82) and 1.29 (1.0-1.69) respectively, showing a slightly greater than 5% chance of the yellowfin stock being below SBMSY over the period 2008-2011. This information is close to meeting the SG100 requirement, however, given declining trends the assessment team concluded that SG100 is not met. This result is harmonized with other fisheries targeting this stock and could be re-considered in light of an updated stock assessment if the fishery is certified. References Davies et al. 2014, WCPFC 2014a, WCPFC 2016b.

Page 118 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 Stock Status relative to Reference Points Type of reference Current stock status relative to Value of reference point point reference point

Reference 20%SBF=0 0.2xSBF=0 = 473,711 mt SBlatest = 899,496 mt point used in or 1.90 x LRP scoring stock relative to PRI (SIa)

Reference BMSY SBMSY = 728,300 mt Reference case:

point used in SBlatest = 899,496 mt scoring stock or 1.24 SBMSY relative to MSY (SIb)

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

Page 119 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.1.2 – 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 ost specified for the stock that The shortest practicable is the shorter of 20 years rebuilding timeframe is or 2 times its generation specified which does not

time. For cases where 2 exceed one generation generations is less than 5 time for the stock. years, the rebuilding timeframe is up to 5 years. Met? Not scored Not scored Justific The yellowfin tuna stock is not reduced, and so this PI is not scored. ation b Rebuilding evaluation Guidep There is strong evidence There is evidence that the ost that the rebuilding rebuilding strategies are Monitoring is in place to strategies are rebuilding rebuilding stocks, or it is determine whether the stocks, or it is highly likely likely based on simulation rebuilding strategies are based on simulation modelling, exploitation effective in rebuilding the modelling, exploitation rates or previous stock within the specified rates or previous performance that they will timeframe. performance that they will be able to rebuild the be able to rebuild the stock within the specified stock within the specified timeframe. timeframe. Met? Not scored Not scored Not scored Justific The yellowfin tuna stock is not reduced, and so this PI is not scored. ation

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

Page 120 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.1 – 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 the stock and is designed reflected in PI 1.1.1 elements of the harvest to achieve stock SG80. strategy work together management objectives towards achieving stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives SG80. reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Met? Y N Not scored Justific MSC guidance defines a harvest strategy as the combination of monitoring, stock ation assessment, harvest control rules and management actions. It is intended that these elements work together towards achieving management objectives. The current harvest strategy is not formalised but consists of the elements considered at PIs 1.2.2, 1.2.3, and 1.2.4. The operational harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin has several contributing components, with WCPFC, national and archipelagic waters management actions being supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. There has been a development of WCPFC management measures (for skipjack, yellowfin and bigeye tuna) over time from CMM 2005-01 to 2016-01.

An explicit LRP for yellowfin tuna has been adopted for biomass (20%SBF=0). A formal target reference point is under discussion by WCPFC and subject to development under the workplan established under CMM 2014-06. In the absence of a formal target reference point, the default WCPFC target of BMSY applies to yellowfin tuna. At this point, harvest control rules have not been adopted. There is an extensive information base from a wide range of biological studies and from a diverse range of fisheries. The information is sufficient to support a state-of-the-art stock assessment that provides probabilistic estimates of key parameters and their relationship to reference points. Advice from the stock assessment is provided by the SC and additional work is carried out by the scientific provider, SPC, to the Commission. Annual decision-making is articulated through CMMs and is supported by good scientific decision-support systems. CMM 2014-06 spells out the future direction for strengthening the harvest strategy, including the development of harvest control rules, and a work plan has been agreed to implement this. As indicated above, there are measures in place that are intended to control fishing mortality for purse seine fishing, including effort and capacity limits. The UoA harvest strategy rates well against many of the requirements for a harvest strategy as defined by MSC (e.g. limit reference point, monitoring and stock assessment). The status of yellowfin continues to be assessed as not overfished and not subject to overfishing. Latest catches in the 2014 assessment (612,797 mt, 2012) of WCPO yellowfin tuna marginally exceed MSY (586,400 mt). Whereas the majority of the skipjack catch in the WCPO is taken by purse seine, annual catches of yellowfin tuna by methods other than purse seine have been approximately 40-50% of the total since 2010. CMM 2013-01, CMM 2014-01, CMM 2015-01 and CMM 2016-01 have, in addition to the measures for the purse seine component of the fishery, incorporated requirements that other commercial fisheries for bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna and skipjack tuna take necessary measures such that fishing effort and capacity shall not exceed the average level for the period 2001-2004 or 2004. For longline fisheries, these CMMs require that “CCMs agree to take measures not to increase catches by their longline vessels of yellowfin tuna.” These three CMMs each state

Page 121 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place that at the following regular Commission meeting “…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.” These limits have not yet been agreed. To date, the measures in place have achieved stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 and assessment projections indicate they will continue to do so, meeting SG60 requirements. However, there has been a lack of progress in the development of management measures for some components of the overall fishery for yellowfin. The elements of the harvest strategy are not considered to be working together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, hence SG80 requirements for this scoring issue are not met.

b Harvest strategy evaluation Guidep The harvest strategy is The harvest strategy may The performance of the ost likely to work based on not have been fully tested harvest strategy has been prior experience or but evidence exists that it fully evaluated and plausible argument. is achieving its objectives. evidence exists to show that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels. Met? Y Y N Justific The yellowfin tuna assessment (Davies et al. 2014) indicates the stock is in more ation depleted than skipjack tuna, but it is still assessed as being close to the implicit target. Status quo stock projections undertaken indicate that “it was exceptionally unlikely (<1%) that the yellowfin stock would fall below the limit reference point level or that fishing mortality would increase above the FMSY level by 2032” (Pilling et al. 2014). Furthermore, the current stock assessment indicates that fishing mortality for yellowfin tuna has always been below the FMSY level and that the stock has not declined below the default target of BMSY. This constitutes good evidence that the harvest strategy is meeting its objectives. Therefore, yellowfin tuna is considered to meet both the SG 60 and SG 80 levels of this scoring issue. The harvest strategy performance has not been fully evaluated – SG100 is not met. c Harvest strategy monitoring Guidep Monitoring is in place that ost is expected to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. Met? Y Justific Monitoring of the fishery for stock assessment purposes is considered at PI 1.2.3. ation CCMs provide information relevant to the implementation of the harvest strategy in their annual Part 1 and Part 2 submitted to WCPFC. The monitoring systems support a sophisticated stock assessment process that provides robust estimates of stock status that are sufficient to determine whether the harvest strategy is working. This SG 60 requirement is met. d Harvest strategy review Guidep The harvest strategy is ost periodically reviewed and improved as necessary.

Page 122 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.1 There is a robust and precautionary harvest strategy in place Met? Not scored Justific The harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna has not been formalised and is not subject to ation a formal review process. SG100 is potentially not met on this basis. However, there is ongoing review of the elements of the harvest strategy and revisions are made as evidenced by the adoption of updated CMMs. e Shark finning Guidep It is likely that shark It is highly likely that shark There is a high degree of ost finning 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 ation Sharks are not a target species in the fishery. f Review of alternative measures Guidep There has been a review There is a regular review There is a biennial review ost of the potential of the potential of the potential effectiveness and effectiveness and effectiveness and practicality of alternative practicality of alternative practicality of alternative measures to minimise measures to minimise measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the unwanted catch of the target stock. target stock and they are target stock, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justific South Pacific albacore and yellowfin tuna are targeted by the Fiji longline fishery ation and there are no requirements such as minimum or maximum landing sizes or quotas which could lead to any of this catch being unwanted. Observer data indicates a low level of discarding of yellowfin by WCPO longliners. Discarding which does take place is largely due to shark damage or whale depredation (1.1% for yellowfin in 2015; WCPFC-SC 2016b). There is a market for damaged fish to be sold locally at supermarkets and restaurants (Amoe, 2007), thus there is no ‘unwanted catch’ of target species in the fishery.

References Davies et al. 2014; Pilling et al. 2014; WCPFC-SC 2016b; Amoe (2007). OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3

Page 123 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.2 – 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 Well defined HCRs are in The HCRs are expected ost HCRs are in place or place that ensure that the to keep the stock available that are exploitation rate is fluctuating at or above a expected to reduce the reduced as the PRI is target level consistent exploitation rate as the approached, are expected with MSY, or another point of recruitment to keep the stock more appropriate level impairment (PRI) is fluctuating around a target taking into account the approached. level consistent with (or ecological role of the above) MSY, or for key stock, most of the time. LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs. Met? Y N Not scored Justific CMM 2014-06 established a process for the adoption of harvest control rules, ation however, well-defined harvest control rules are not currently in place and SG80 is not met. Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” of 24th November 2014, PI 1.2.2 SI(a) has been scored using CRv2.0 (MSC 2014) provisions for SG60 (as above) scoring for a number of fisheries, including several tuna fisheries. MSC have also provided further comment on HCRs with their notice of 16 December, 2015 “Interpretation on Harvest Control Rules (HCR)”. CRv2.0 (MSC 2014) lays out two conditions for acceptance of HCR being available sufficient to justify scoring at the SG60 level. First, CRv2.0 SA2.5.2a provides for HCR being recognised as available, “…if stock biomass has not previously been reduced below BMSY or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time”. The MULTIFAN-CL software used for yellowfin tuna stock assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and uncertainty has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests. Previous yellowfin tuna assessments indicate that SB has not been reduced below SBMSY. The 2014 assessment estimates of spawning biomass (2011) are also above the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.24 for the base case and from 1.05 to 1.51 across key models of the grid used in the assessment) (WCPFC 2014a). WCPFC (2014a) also indicated that “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) depends on 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, or to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY). If recent (2002–2011) actual recruitments are assumed, spawning biomass will remain relatively constant, and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished or to become subject to overfishing, and it was very unlikely (2%) that the spawning biomass would fall below SBMSY)” (WCPFC 2014a). The CRv2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are considered to be ‘available’. Second, CRv2.0 SA2.5.3b provides for HCR being recognised as available if, “…there is an agreement or framework in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY”. CMM 2014-06 sets out the principles and elements for harvest strategies to be developed and implemented, including requirements for 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

Page 124 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place implemented harvest strategies. The CMM also included a requirement to adopt a work plan with an indicative timeframe no later than 2015 Commission meeting, with application to skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, Pacific bluefin tuna, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules was initiated through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process (a LRP has been adopted for yellowfin tuna and candidate TRPs are under consideration). Following discussions at WCPFC 12 a work plan was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support from the SPC to undertake the activities specified in the agreed workplan. Progress on aspects of the adopted work plan was discussed at the December 2016 Commission meeting. As indicated at PI 1.2.2a for albacore, there has been limited progress on several aspects of the work plan. WCPFC13 adopted an Updated Harvest Strategy Work Plan (WCPFC 2016 Attachment N). As indicated above, the current stock assessment and projections of future stock size indicate that the stock will remain above SSBMSY over the period agreed in the CMM 2014-06 workplan. The CRv2.0 SA2.5.3b requirement is therefore met. In summary, as conditions at both CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a and CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b are met, a score of SG60 is awarded. The SG80 level is not met. b HCRs robustness to uncertainty Guidep The HCRs are likely to be The HCRs take account ost robust to the main of a 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 ation evaluation of the extent to which they take uncertainties into account. When well- defined HCRs are developed they can be evaluated as to whether the main uncertainties have been taken into account. The SG80 requirements are not considered to be met, and the Condition of Certification (#4) that was set for SIa applies to this SI, also. c HCRs evaluation Guidep There is some evidence Available evidence Evidence clearly shows ost that tools used or indicates that the tools in that the tools in use are available to implement use are appropriate and effective in achieving the HCRs are appropriate effective in achieving the exploitation levels and effective in controlling exploitation levels required under the HCRs. exploitation. required under the HCRs. Met? Y N Not scored Justific The rationale for this SI needs to address two CRv2.0 (MSC 2014) requirements. ation First, CRv2.0 SA2.5.6 requires that as part of the evaluation of the effectiveness of HCRs, “…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”. CRv2.0 SA2.5.6 guidance (GSA2.5.2-7) states that “Evidence that current F is equal to or less than FMSY should usually be taken as evidence that the HCR is effective”.

Page 125 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.2 There are well defined and effective harvest control rules (HCRs) in place Evidence to support this is provided by the 2014 assessment indicating that overfishing is not occurring (Fcurrent /FMSY < 1 across the grid of model runs) (WCPFC 2014a). Second, in relation to SIa, above, CRv2.0 SA2.5.5b, requires that where HCRs are recognised as ‘available “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” shall be provided. As noted at SIa, CMM 2014-06 sets out elements of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The WCPFC agreed to adopt a work plan at the 2015 Commission meeting, with potential revision in 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. Work to establish reference points and harvest control rules has been in progress over recent years through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. WCPFC has adopted an explicit LRP for yellowfin and candidate TRPs are being considered. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a workplan was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). No additional trigger is required for the development of HCRs is required. The requirements detailed above are met and a score of 60 is awarded. SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery. Given SIa finds HCRs are ‘available’, the tools are not considered to be in use and SG80 is not met. The Condition of Certification (#4) that was set for SIa applies to this SI, also. Davies et al. 2014; Pilling et al. 2014; WCPFC 2014a; WCPFC 2016b; CMM 2014- References 06. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 60 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

Page 126 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.3 – 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 Sufficient relevant A comprehensive range ost information related to information related to of information (on stock stock structure, stock stock structure, stock structure, stock productivity and fleet productivity, fleet productivity, fleet composition is available composition and other composition, stock to support the harvest data is available to abundance, UoA strategy. support the harvest removals and other strategy. 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 Monitoring of the WCPO yellowfin stock has been undertaken through the ation assessment work of the WCPFC Scientific Committee with the research being undertaken by the SPC-OFP since the WCPFC entered into force in 2004. Prior to 2004, WCPO yellowfin was monitored by the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish. Monitoring of the stock consists of collecting data on fishery removals, effort, size composition as well as from observer and tagging programmes. Additionally, the Scientific Committee coordinates biological research needs and disseminates research results and statistics to cooperating scientists and the management bodies. Information available to inform the stock assessment and support the harvest strategy includes: Fishery-dependent information Catch, effort and catch per unit of effort (CPUE). All CCM fisheries are required to provide catch and effort data to WCPFC/SPC. The logsheet data are raised to best estimates of total catch by SPC-OFP, to account for missing data. CPUE data are standardised as described in Davies et al., 2014. Length-frequency data: Length-frequency data is collected through various port sampling programmes and some observer reports. These data are weighted in the stock assessment according to spatial representation, to account for differences in length-frequency by geographic region. Fleet composition: Each CCM provides information to WCPFC annually on their active fleet, in their Part 1 reports. Detailed fleet information is maintained domestically by the Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests. Fishery-independent information Stock structure: Knowledge of the spatial distribution and seasonal migration for the WCPO yellowfin is fairly well understood. Yellowfin in the western Pacific are believed to comprise a single stock for management purposes, based on the extensive available tagging data, with the spatial extent of that stock approximating the WCPFC Convention Area. Stock productivity: Overall, there is adequate knowledge of the life-history parameters for WCPO yellowfin to conduct robust assessments and develop appropriate LRPs and TRPs. Biological samples are routinely collected on an annual basis from both domestic and international yellowfin fisheries. Reliable data are available to estimate growth rates, maturity and fecundity. Length-weight relationships are established by the OFP to convert population numbers to

Page 127 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy biomass. In the 2014 stock assessment, natural mortality has been estimated and assumed to be age-specific, but invariant over time and region. Environmental data: SPC-OFP has undertaken environmental research as part of their ecosystem monitoring programme, focusing particularly on potential environmental drivers of tuna population dynamics. Information inferred from the stock assessment Estimates of stock abundance are obtained through the MULTIFAN-CL stock assessment. Also, abundance indices analysed included CPUE for purse seine and longline fisheries. Effort data units for purse seine fisheries are defined as days fishing/or searching, and are allocated to set type (associated or unassociated) in logbook data. There is a comprehensive range of information collected related to the fishery including the elements required to meet the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels.

b Monitoring Guidep Stock abundance and Stock abundance and All information required by ost UoA removals are UoA removals are the harvest control rule is monitored and at least regularly monitored at a monitored with high one indicator is available level of accuracy and frequency and a high and monitored with coverage consistent with degree of certainty, and sufficient frequency to the harvest control rule, there is a good support the harvest and one or more understanding of inherent control rule. indicators are available uncertainties in the and monitored with information [data] and the sufficient frequency to robustness of assessment support the harvest and management to this control rule. uncertainty. Met? Y Y N Justific Individual CCMs monitor fishery removals via logsheets and port sampling, and ation data are required to be submitted to the Commission annually, in the form of estimates of total catch plus catch and effort data broken down by gear, either in an aggregated form or (preferably) at the operational level (individual logsheets). Despite some gaps in this data set coverage is considered to be good overall. This catch, effort and CPUE data set is the major input for stock assessment. Other key fisheries data which support management are length-frequency data (collected via port sampling and observer programmes) and tag returns. Port sampling covering is high. Observer coverage is high for the purse seine fleet but low for most longline fisheries (the Fiji longline fishery is an exception with coverage close to 20% in recent years). Biological data is also collected via research programmes. Stock assessments are undertaken regularly though not annually (2011, 2014 being the most recent assessments). In between formal stock assessments, SPC provide information on trends in fishery indicators (total catch, nominal CPUE, catch at length and at weight) to guide management (Harley and Williams 2013). The available monitoring information meets SG60 and SG80 requirements. SG100 is not considered to be met, for the following reasons: • tuna longline CPUE is often poorly understood and it is unclear how successful most effort standardization analyses are or how to properly represent the uncertainties • purse seine catch and length-frequency data can be biased by grab-sampling techniques used to estimate species composition • some key fleets provide only aggregated data (several longline fisheries, in particular) • the requirement to ‘raise’ logsheet data by estimates of total catch (to account for missing logsheets) results in some loss of precision

Page 128 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.3 Relevant information is collected to support the harvest strategy • historical data is often lacking in precision. Although the frequency of stock assessments is reasonable, they are not carried out with ‘high frequency’ (i.e. not always updated annually); it is not completely clear how robust the management is to uncertainty – the management system is still a work in progress.

c Comprehensiveness of information Guidep There is good information ost on all other fishery removals from the stock. Met? Y Justific All fishery removals from the stock are considered in the stock assessment. Despite ation some data gaps (notably Vietnam, also Philippines, Indonesia and some smaller coastal fleets), the data coverage overall is quite comprehensive. Where data gaps exist, the WCPFC Secretariat and SPC are working to support and develop data collection systems (see Williams, 2014). References Banks et al. 2011; Davies et al. 2014; WCPFC 2014c; Williams 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 129 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

UoA 2 (Yellowfin tuna): PI 1.2.4 – 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 ost appropriate for the stock into account the major and for the harvest control features relevant to the rule. biology of the species and the nature of the UoA. Met? Y Y Justific The MULTIFAN-CL stock assessment software is a robust and internationally ation recognized stock assessment package with efficient function minimization, implemented in AD Model Builder. The 2014 assessment model is an age and spatially structured model, utilizing biological information, catch, effort, size composition, CPUE and tagging data and fits the data of 33 fisheries to nine regions in quarterly time steps from 1952-2012 (Davies et al., 2014). The assessment is undertaken by an experienced and internationally recognised stock assessment programme at the SPC, the WCPFC science provider. The SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. b Assessment approach Guidep The assessment The assessment ost estimates stock status estimates stock status relative to generic relative to reference reference points points that are appropriate to the species appropriate to the stock category. and can be estimated. Met? Y Y Justific As described in the introductory sections of this document (Section 0) and in the ation scoring text for PI 1.1.1, the stock assessment reports provide a wide range of estimates of stock status relative to indicators of interest to management, including agreed/potential reference levels. The SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. c Uncertainty in the assessment Guidep The assessment identifies The assessment takes The assessment takes ost major sources of uncertainty into account. into account uncertainty uncertainty. and is evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way. Met? Y Y Y Justific As for albacore tuna, the assessment of yellowfin tuna has provided explicit ation commentary on the major sources of uncertainty, has assessed the sensitivity of the assessment to these uncertainties, and has evaluated current and future stock status relative to these in a probabilistic way. Key uncertainties identified and explored in the 2014 assessment were the assumed level of steepness of the stock-recruitment relationship, natural mortality, CPUE, the weighting of the length samples, and the tag mixing period. Two approaches were used to describe the uncertainty in key model outputs; the first estimates the statistical variation within a given assessment run, while the second focused on the structural uncertainty in the assessment by considering the variation among model runs. This meets the requirements of the SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels of this SI. Evaluation of assessment

Page 130 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status d Guidep The assessment has ost been 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 ation approaches by the staff in the SPC’s Oceanic Fisheries Programme. Alternative hypotheses are continually being explored (within funding and time constraints) and assessments are updated and modified as required. Recommendations for further work to improve the assessment can be seen in Davies et al. (2014). The structure of the assessment has been regularly 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, meeting the requirements of this scoring issue. e Peer review of assessment Guidep The assessment of stock The assessment has ost status is subject to peer been internally and review. externally peer reviewed. Met? Y N Justific Internal reviews of stock assessments are undertaken by SPC. There has been an ation external review of the assessment of bigeye tuna (Ianelli et al. 2012) which provided recommendations that were also applicable to other similar assessments such as for yellowfin tuna. Many of those recommendations have been addressed with the current yellowfin assessment. There have also been external reviews commissioned of different aspects of the data analyses that feed into the assessments, e.g. external review of the purse seine fishery species and size composition estimation has been conducted by Cordue (2013). A level of internal review is also provided by submission to meetings of the WCPFC SC, attended by experienced scientific staff from several countries attend. As discussed in the background information, 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 2011) but there was no reference to the findings of this review or the response in the latest stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014). Given that these reviews were not commissioned by the WCPFC or SPC and the lack of a clear response in the subsequent assessment we conclude that the requirements for external review are not fully met. This scoring issue is met at the SG80 level but not the SG100 level. References Davies et al. 2014; Cordue 2013; Ianelli et al. 2012; Haddon 2010; Maguire 2010. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 131 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main primary species stock status Guide Main primary species are Main primary species are There is a high degree of post likely to be above the PRI highly likely to be above certainty that main the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are OR fluctuating around a level OR consistent with MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the measures in place that PRI, there is either are expected to ensure evidence of recovery or that the UoA does not a demonstrably effective hinder recovery and strategy in place between rebuilding. all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in UoA 1) UoA 1) UoA 1) Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in UoA 2) UoA 2) UoA 2) Y – Bigeye tuna Y – Bigeye tuna N – Bigeye tuna

Justifi MSC defines ‘primary species’ as those species that are in scope but not target cation (P1) species “where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit or target reference points” (MSC 2014). The ‘main’ designation is given where either i) “the catch of a species by the UoA comprises 5% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA”, or ii) “The species is classified as ‘Less resilient’ and the catch of the species by the UoA comprises 2% or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoA.” (MSC 2014). SA 3.1.3.1 (MSC 2014) also requires that yellowfin tuna is considered as a P2 species in scoring UoA 1 (albacore tuna), and that albacore tuna is considered as a P2 species in scoring UoA 2 (yellowfin tuna); in both cases, these were assessed as main primary species. For yellowfin tuna as a main primary species in UoA 1, the 2014 stock assessment (Davies et al. 2014) estimated that the “latest” spawning biomass (2012) was well above the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.24 for the base case) and well above the adopted LRP of 0.2SBF=0 (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.38 for the base case). Further information is presented at the P1 assessment of the species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met. For albacore tuna as a main primary species in UoA 2, the 2015 assessment estimated that the “latest” spawning biomass (2013) was well above the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 2.86 for the base case and well above the adopted LRP of 0.2SBF=0 (SBlatest/SBF=0 = 0.40 for the base case) (Harley et al., 2015; WCPFC 2016b). Further information is presented at the P1 assessment of the species. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

Page 132 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder PI 2.1.1 recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Bigeye tuna is the only other main primary species caught, comprising 7.4% of the total catch (Table 7). The latest stock assessment for bigeye tuna was undertaken in 2014 (Harley et al. 2014). The main conclusions from the assessment indicate that current fishing mortality exceeds FMSY (FCURRENT/FMSY = 1.57), while bigeye tuna spawner biomass (SB) is currently at or very close to the limit reference point of 0.2SBF=0 (SBCURRENT (2008-2011) = 0.2SBF=0, SBLATEST (2012) = 0.16SBF=0). CMM 2016-01 states that the fishing mortality rate for bigeye tuna will be reduced to a level no greater than FMSY, to be achieved through a step-by-step approach through 2017. The bigeye tuna assessment is scheduled to be updated in 2017. Pilling et al. (2016a) provided stochastic projections of the WCPO stock and estimated that F2016/FMSY = 1.11 (overfishing), and SB2016/SBF=0 = 0.17 (overfished). These projections do not change the conclusion of the stock assessment that the stock is outside biologically-based limits. Bigeye tuna are taken in a wide variety of different fisheries (Figure 20; Harley et al. 2014). The majority of bigeye catch is taken by FAD-associated purse seine fishing or longline fishing. The 2015 catch of bigeye tuna in the WCPO statistical area was approximately 134,000 mt, with longline fishing accounting for 63,986 mt (WCPFC13 2016b). The reported 2015 Fiji longline catch was 1184 mt (Fiji 2016), approximately 1.85% of the longline catch and 0.9% of the total catch of bigeye for the WCPO statistical area. The majority of this Fiji bigeye catch is taken by the client vessels. WCPFC has adopted measures to rebuild the bigeye stock (CMM 2016-01, CMM 2015-01 and predecessors). The level of bigeye catch by the client fishery is not expected to hinder the recovery and rebuilding of bigeye tuna. SG60 is met. The progress of measures to rebuild bigeye tuna under CMM 2015-01 was reviewed at WCPFC13 (WCPFC 2016a). The evaluation indicated that “purse-seine FAD set numbers and longline bigeye catch levels in 2014 were respectively ‘on track’ and ‘provisionally on track’, with the levels of effort and bigeye catch anticipated to arise under the CMM specifications for that year”. The review included an examination of whether full implementation of the CMM, under the conditions specified for 2017 would ultimately remove overfishing of bigeye tuna. Three scenarios were examined: ‘pessimistic’; ‘2016 choices’; and ‘optimistic’. Only under the ‘optimistic’ scenario were CMM objectives achieved by 2032, with F less than FMSY and no risk of the spawning biomass being below the LRP. Examining the trajectory of F/FMSY assuming the optimistic scenario conditions remained in place after 2017, CMM 2015-01 objectives would be achieved on average 7 years after the end of the measure, i.e. in 2024. As such, there is not yet evidence of recovery. However, the catches by MSC UoAs totaled approximately 5960 mt in 2015 (Fiji ~280 mt; American Samoa ~ 80 mt, French Polynesia ~ 800 mt, Cook Is ~ 800 mt, Walker Seafood ~ 1000 mt and TriMarine ~ 3000 mt) are approximately 3-4% of the WCPO bigeye catch. On this basis, the team concluded that these MSC UoAs will not hinder recovery and rebuilding. CMM 2015-01 (now replaced by 2016-01) sets longline catch limits (not limiting for this fishery) as well as limits on the use of FADs for the purse seine fishery. SG80 is met. Note: subsequent to the initial drafting of this report an updated bigeye tuna assessment was presented at the 2017 WCPFC SC but is yet to be considered by the Commission. The management advice from the draft SC report is that the assessment indicates positive changes for bigeye stock status such that spawning biomass is likely above the biomass LRP and recent F is likely below FMSY (WCPFC-SC 2017). b Minor primary species stock status Guide Minor primary species are post highly likely to be above the PRI

Page 133 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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

If below the PRI, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of minor primary species Met? Y Justifi Observer data indicates that skipjack tuna is a minor primary species, comprising cation approximately 2% of the client catch and representing the only minor primary species for both UoAs. This catch represents a very low percentage of the overall WCPO skipjack catch. The reference case model of the 2016 stock assessment estimated the 2015 level of spawning potential to be at approximately 58% of the unfished level for the reference case model, well above the LRP of 20%SBF=0 agreed by WCPFC (WCPFC 2016b). SG100 is met.

MSC 2014; Davies et al. 2014; Pilling et al. 2016a; WCPFC 2016a; WCPFC 2016b; References Fiji 2016; WCPFC-SC 2017.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoAs 1 & 2 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): UoAs 1 & 2

PI 2.1.1 Scoring calculation Main / SIa SIb Element PI UoAs Species minor (60, 80, 100) (100 only) Score Score Yellowfin tuna Main 100 - 100 1 Bigeye tuna Main 80 - 80 90 Skipjack tuna Minor - 100 100 Albacore tuna Main 100 - 100 2 Bigeye tuna Main 80 - 80 90 Skipjack tuna Minor - 100 100

Page 134 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place for the UoA, if strategy in place for the place for the UoA for necessary, that are UoA, if necessary, that is managing main and minor expected to maintain or to expected to maintain or to primary species. not hinder rebuilding of not hinder rebuilding of the main primary species the main primary species at/to levels which are at/to levels which are likely to above the point highly likely to be above where recruitment would the point where be impaired. recruitment would be impaired. Met? Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in UoA 1) UoA 1) UoA 1) Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in y – Albacore tuna (P2 in UoA 2) UoA 2) UoA 2) Y – Bigeye tuna Y – Bigeye tuna Y – Bigeye tuna Y – Skipjack tuna Justifi SA 3.1.3.1 (MSC 2014) requires that yellowfin tuna is considered as a P2 species in cation scoring UoA 1 (albacore tuna), and that albacore tuna is considered as a P2 species in scoring UoA 2 (yellowfin tuna); in both cases, these were assessed as main primary species. Bigeye tuna is a main primary species and skipjack tuna is a minor primary species. Noting the MSC definitions of measures/strategies (Table SA8, MSC 2014), there is a strategy in place for albacore tuna, yellowfin tuna and bigeye tuna as main primary species. The approach includes that both species are subject to WCPFC, Fiji national and archipelagic waters management actions, supported by a robust stock assessment and extensive monitoring frameworks. The major management measures adopted by WCPFC are CMM 2015-02 for albacore tuna and CMM 2016-01 and its predecessors for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack stocks. CMM 2015- 02 aims to limit fishing activity for south Pacific albacore south of 20oS. CMM 2016- 01 includes effort limits in major purse seine fisheries, FAD closures, high seas closures, and a discard ban in purse seine fisheries. CMM 2016-01 also includes bigeye catch limits for the longline fishery and a requirement not to increase catches of yellowfin tuna by longline vessels. Explicit limit reference points have been adopted for albacore, yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack tuna. Stock status information for albacore, yellowfin and skipjack tuna indicates that the partial strategy is effective in maintaining the stocks above the level where recruitment would be impaired. The bigeye tuna stock is currently overfished and overfishing is occurring, however, the bigeye catch of the UoAs is less than 1% of WCPO bigeye catch and is not expected to hinder rebuilding. As discussed at P1, WCPFC has adopted CMM 2014-06 to develop the harvest strategies for the 4 major tuna species and has adopted a work program to achieve the necessary outcomes. Fiji details its strategy through its Tuna Management and Development Plan 2014- 2018 (MFF 2014), the implementation of which is reviewed annually. Fiji has been an effective contributor in implementing WCPFC requirements. Over the period of the initial MSC certification of Fiji longlining, Fiji has undertaken steps to meet conditions on the fishery and has strengthened data collection through improving its port monitoring program and increasing levels of observer coverage. In terms of both UoAs, the strategy in place meets SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements for

Page 135 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. the three main primary species (albacore, yellowfin and bigeye tuna) and meets SG100 requirements for the minor primary species (skipjack). b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species fisheries/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi For all primary species, yellowfin tuna (P2 in UoA 1) and albacore tuna (P2 in UoA cation 2), bigeye tuna and skipjack tuna there is substantial information from the fishery and WCPFC processes of data collection and stock assessment which provide an objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will work. For bigeye tuna, although longlining overall is a significant component of the fishing mortality, the UoA catch is less than 1% of the overall bigeye catch. There is some objective basis for confidence that the strategy will work. SG60 and SG80 are met for the primary species. There is not testing which provides high confidence, hence SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its overall objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi The development of management measures at the regional level provide evidence cation that the strategy is being implemented successfully for the 4 primary species. Given the status of the bigeye stock, there is not clear evidence that the strategy is achieving overall sustainability objectives at the regional level. However, at the national level the strategy is supported by Fiji’s TMDP (MFF 2014). The TMDP sets out the objectives of the strategy and commitment to implementing WCPFC CMMs. The TMDP incorporates limits on the number of licences and requirements for inspection, monitoring and control of fishing activities. There is an Implementation Plan for the TMDP which details actions required to ensure that TMDP objectives are achieved. There is an annual review process to measure the success and achievements of projects and tasks The management arrangements in place and monitoring of the fishery provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi No shark species is a primary species, and so this SI is not scored. cation

Page 136 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder PI 2.1.2 rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. e Review of alternative measures Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main primary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. primary species and they primary species, and they are implemented as are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The primary species are all retained tuna species. There are no requirements such cation as minimum or maximum landing sizes or quotas which could lead to any of this catch being unwanted. Observer data indicates discarding of tuna by WCPO longliners of 1-2%. There is a market for damaged fish to be sold locally at supermarkets and restaurants (Amoe, 2007). Only a minor amount of catch which is too damaged for sale is discarded, hence there is no ‘unwanted catch’ of target species in the fishery.

MSC 2014; MFF 2014; Amoe 2007 References

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

PI 2.1.2 Scoring calculation Main / SIa SIb SIc SId SIe PI UoAs Species minor (60, 80, 100) (60, 80, 100) (80,100 only) (60, 80, 100) (60, 80, 100) Score Yellowfin Not Not Main 100 80 100 95 tuna relevant relevant Bigeye Not Not 1 Main 100 80 100 95 tuna relevant relevant Skipjack Not Not Minor 100 80 100 95 tuna relevant relevant Albacore Not Not Main 100 80 100 95 tuna relevant relevant Bigeye Not Not 2 Main 100 80 100 95 tuna relevant relevant Skipjack Not Not Minor 100 80 100 95 tuna relevant relevant

Page 137 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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

OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is If RBF is used to score PI adequate to estimate 2.1.1 for the UoA: productivity and Some quantitative susceptibility attributes for information is adequate to main primary species. assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species. Met? Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in Y – Yellowfin tuna (P2 in UoA 1) UoA 1) UoA 1) Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in Y – Albacore tuna (P2 in UoA 2) UoA 2) UoA 2) Y – Bigeye tuna Y – Bigeye tuna Y – Bigeye tuna Justifi SA 3.1.3.1 (MSC 2014) requires that yellowfin tuna is considered as a P2 species in cation scoring UoA 1 (albacore tuna), and that albacore tuna is considered as a P2 species in scoring UoA 2 (yellowfin tuna); in both cases, these were assessed as main primary species. Bigeye tuna is a main species for both UoAs. Catch data and effort data are provided at a high level of detail and accuracy by Fiji and other CCMs, and assessments of stock status are produced regularly by SPC as the science provider for WCPFC. (e.g., yellowfin tuna – Davies et al. 2014, and albacore tuna – Harley et al. 2015). SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met for the main primary species.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor primary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status. Met? Y Justifi Skipjack tuna is the only minor primary species. As for the main primary species, cation catch data supplied by Fiji and other CCMs are collected routinely and are comprehensive. The most recent skipjack tuna stock assessment was undertaken by McKechnie et al. 2016. The FFIA client fishery clearly meets the SG100 level of performance for this scoring issue.

Information adequacy for management strategy

Page 138 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to PI 2.1.3 determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage primary species c Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main primary to 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 N Justifi Information is available from the high level of observer coverage on the FFIA cation vessels (44% coverage in 2016), and comprehensive catch data from logbooks and landings records for all primary species. These data are adequate to support the strategy to manage the primary species evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. The FFIA client fishery meets the SG100 level of performance. It should be noted, however, that although there is adequate information to meet SG100, there has been an ongoing issue in the assessment and surveillance of the fishery in obtaining this information in a timely manner for consideration by the assessors. A recommendation was made at the 3rd surveillance audit for the previous assessment of the fishery that a report be prepared analyzing available observer data from the fishery. This recommendation has not yet been adequately addressed, hence a similar recommendation is made here.

References MSC 2014; Davies et al. 2014; Harley et al. 2015; McKechnie et al. 2016 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 RECOMMENDATION: That a report be prepared analyzing available observer data by the 1st surveillance audit following re-certification of the fishery. This report should detail the level of observer coverage for the client fishery and the national fleet in terms of the number of trips undertaken in total, the number of trips monitored, the number of shots deployed in total and the number of shots observed. The report should provide a breakdown of the species composition of the observed catches. In addition, where life status is available for released species there should be a summary of this information. This report should focus on the most recent two complete years of available data. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.1.3 Scoring calculation Main / SIa SIb SIc Element PI UoA Species minor (60, 80, 100) (100 only) (60, 80,100) Score Score Yellowfin tuna Main 100 80 90 1 Bigeye tuna Main 100 80 90 Skipjack tuna Minor 100 80 90 90 Albacore tuna Main 100 80 90 2 Bigeye tuna Main 100 80 90 Skipjack tuna Minor 100 80 90

Page 139 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Main secondary species stock status Guide Main Secondary species Main secondary species There is a high degree of post are likely to be within are highly likely to be certainty that main biologically based limits. above biologically based secondary species are limits within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there are measures If below biologically based in place expected to limits, there is either ensure that the UoA does evidence of recovery or not hinder recovery and a demonstrably rebuilding. effective partial strategy in place such that the UoA does not hinder recovery and rebuilding. AND Where catches of a main secondary species outside of biological limits are considerable, there is either evidence of recovery or a, demonstrably effective strategy in place between those MSC UoAs that also have considerable catches of the species, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding. Met? Y Y N Justifi The only main secondary species for the client fishery are the bait species, Indian cation oil sardine (Sardinella longiceps) and Muroaji scad (Decapterus spp.). Information on the status of these species is limited. However, they are highly productive species and rated as ‘least concern; on the IUCN red list. Approximately 700 mt each of Sardinella longiceps and Decapterus spp. was used by the client fishery in 2016. This is a minor percentage of overall catch of these species (see Section 3.6.2 on bait). It is highly likely that the UoAs do not impact upon the overall sustainability of these species. This level of catch and its likely negligible impact on the sustainability of these species constitutes a ‘partial strategy’ which ensures that this fishery is not having an impact on the stocks. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. There is insufficient information to conclude that there is a high degree of certainty that the species are within biologically based limits. SG100 is not met. b Minor secondary species stock status Guide Minor secondary species post are highly likely to be above biologically based limits.

Page 140 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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

If below biologically based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species Met? See below Justifi Minor secondary species representing more than 1% of the client catch are cation swordfish, blue marlin, striped marlin, short-billed spearfish, mahi mahi, wahoo and opah. Other secondary species taken in low numbers (<1%) include sailfish, great barracuda, black marlin, escolar and ocean sunfish (these species comprise a minor percentage of overall WCPO catches and are not dealt with further). The majority of sharks taken by the fishery are discussed at PI 2.3.1 on ETPs. There are also minor catches of ‘other’ shark species (including bronze whaler, silver tip, Galapagos and sandbar sharks). As indicated in Table 7, the catch levels of these sharks are very low and not considered further here.

Swordfish No target or limit reference points have been established for swordfish by WCPFC. The 2013 assessment (Davies et al. 2013) estimated stock status in relation to several reference points, indicating that the stock is well above biologically-based limits. SB2007-2010/SB0 was 0.47 (median of selected grid runs). An updated assessment is being undertaken in 2017. SG100 met.

Blue marlin The most recent stock assessment was undertaken by the Billfish Working Group in 2016 (BWG 2016). No target or limit reference points have been established for the Pacific blue marlin stock. The spawning biomass (avg. 2012-2014) was estimated to be 23% above SSBMSY and the fishing mortality (average for ages 2 and older across 2012-2014) was 14% less than FMSY. BWG (2016) concluded that the blue marlin stock in the Pacific Ocean is not being overfished and is not in an overfished state. Blue marlin is highly likely to be above biologically based limits. SG100 met.

Striped marlin The last stock assessment for striped marlin in the SWPO was conducted in 2012 (Davies et al. 2012). It was estimated that the spawning biomass was below the level associated with MSY (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.87; range 0.67–1.14). Fishing mortality (2007 to 2010) was below FMSY (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.81; range 0.51–1.21), and catches during this period were close to the estimated MSY (2081 mt; range 1914– 2276 mt). Management advice is that the stock is fully exploited, is not experiencing overfishing, but may be overfished. An average of approximately 38 mt of striped marlin has been reported as caught annually by the Fiji longline fishery for 2012- 2015. This represents less than 1% of the Fiji longline catch and a very minor percentage of the overall WCPFC catch. Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average striped marlin catch for 2015-2016 was 1.1% of the total catch. The assessment suggests that although the stock may be overfished, it is not below biologically-based limits. In addition, the level of catch by the client fishery is unlikely to hinder rebuilding of the stock. SG100 met. Short-billed spearfish Limited information is available on the stock structure or size of short-billed spearfish stocks in the WCPO and there has been no stock assessment of the

Page 141 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. species. There are no specific management measures in place for short-billed spearfish. The IUCN Red List rates short-billed spearfish as data deficient. A 2007 productivity-susceptibility analysis indicates a medium risk for the effects of fishing in the WCPO (Kirby and Hobday, 2007).

An average of approximately 35 mt of short-billed spearfish has been reported as caught annually by the Fiji longline fishery for 2012-2015. Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average catch for 2015-2016, approximately 1% of the catch by the client fishery. Stock status is not evaluated in relation to biological reference points. SG100 is not met. Mahi mahi Mahi mahi is a highly migratory species found throughout the world’s tropical and subtropical oceans to depths of ~85 metres. The species is fast-growing and highly fecund. It is of ‘least concern’ on the IUCN Red List, mainly due to its high growth rates and fecundity and high natural mortality. A 2007 productivity-susceptibility analysis indicates a medium risk for the effects of fishing in the WCPO (Kirby and Hobday, 2007). There is no stock assessment available for mahi mahi in the WCPO and there is no specific WCPFC CMM relating to mahi mahi. The reported 2015 catch of mahi mahi by Fiji longliners was 305 mt (2.1% of the Fiji longline catch) and the average over 2011-2015 was approximately 256 mt (based on Fiji annual part 1 reports). Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average Mahi mahi catch for 2015-2016 was 2.7% of the client fishery catch. Stock status is not evaluated in relation to biological reference points. SG100 is not met.

Wahoo Wahoo is a fast-growing and early-maturing species. Stock status and fishing mortality rates are poorly known, however, given its growth rates and fecundity the species is not thought to be particularly vulnerable to fishing pressure. The IUCN Red List rates wahoo as least concern. A 2007 productivity-susceptibility analysis indicates a medium risk for the effects of fishing in the WCPO (Kirby and Hobday, 2007). There is no stock assessment available for wahoo in the WCPO and there is no specific WCPFC CMM relating to wahoo. However, the productivity of wahoo suggests the species can withstand relatively high levels of fishing pressure (NOAA 2017). The reported 2015 catch of wahoo by Fiji longliners was 237 mt (1.6% of the Fiji longline catch) and the average over 2011-2015 was of approximately 196 mt (based on Fiji annual part 1 reports). Observer data (Table 7) indicates that the average wahoo catch for 2015-2016 was 2.1% of the client fishery catch. Stock status is not evaluated in relation to biological reference points. SG100 is not met.

Opah Opah is a large, distinctive pelagic fish found in all major oceans, and is commonly captured in tropical and sub-tropical longline fisheries in the WCPO, on deeper set gear in the equatorial regions and in the sub-tropical albacore fisheries (Langley et al., 2008). The opah was categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby & Hobday, 2007). Opah is of ‘least concern’ on the IUCN Red List which reports that the occurrence of the species in fisheries does not represent a major threat to its global population (Smith-Vaniz and Williams 2016). In the WCPO, opah start being captured by longline gears at a size of approximately 50 cm FL (around one year of age). Opah appear fully recruited to longline gears in the WCPO at approximately 100 cm FL.

Page 142 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biologically based limit PI 2.2.1 and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are below a biological based limit. There are no details available for the stock assessments for opah from any area and thus the stock status is unknown. Opah has not been considered a species of concern at either national or regional level, hence there are no management measures in place. Akroyd et al. (2012) report that where there doesn’t appear to be concern over the status of this species based on a time-series trends in CPUE and size at capture (Figure 10 of Akroyd et al. 2012) based on observer data. The reported 2015 catch of opah by Fiji longliners was 269 mt (1.8% of the Fiji longline catch) and the average over 2011-2015 was of approximately 138 mt (based on Fiji annual part 1 reports). Table 7 indicates that opah comprised approximately 1.8% of the observed client catch in 2015. Stock status is not evaluated in relation to biological reference points. SG100 is not met.

Davies et al. 2012; Davies et al. 2013; Kirby and Hobday 2007; Smith-Vaniz and References Williams 2016; Akroyd et al. 2012; WCPFC CMMs; Observer data per Fiji Fisheries and SPC OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.2.1 Scoring calculation Main / SIa SIb Element PI UoAs Species minor (60, 80, 100) (100 only) Score Score Bait – S. longiceps Main 80 80 Bait – Decapterus spp. Main 80 80 Swordfish Minor 100 100 Blue marlin Minor 100 100 1 & 2 Striped marlin Minor 100 100 85 Short-billed spearfish Minor - - Mahi mahi Minor - - Wahoo Minor - - Opah Minor - -

Page 143 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, which strategy in place, if place for the UoA for are expected to maintain necessary, for the UoA managing main and minor or not hinder rebuilding of that is expected to secondary species. main secondary species maintain or not hinder at/to levels which are rebuilding of main highly likely to be within secondary species at/to biologically based limits or levels which are highly to ensure that the UoA likely to be within does not hinder their biologically based limits or recovery. to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. Met? Y Y N Justifi Bait species are the only main secondary species for the client fishery. There are cation no explicit measures in place for these species. As indicated above, the usage of these base species is not likely to be a hindrance to the sustainability of their stocks. The management measures adopted by WCPFC and Fiji’s management plan and measures to limit the number of vessels fishing in Fiji’s waters represent a partial strategy limiting increases in the use of bait. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. There are few specific management measures relating to other secondary species taken by the fishery. SG80 requirements are met for these species by default. The general resolution on non-target fish species therefore applies (Resolution 2005-03) which states that: 1. CCMs shall encourage their vessels operating in fisheries managed under the WCPFC Convention to avoid to the extent practicable, the capture of all non-target fish species that are not to be retained; 2. Any such non-target fish species that are not to be retained, shall, to the extent practicable, be promptly released to the water unharmed. There are WCPFC CMMs relevant to swordfish and striped marlin; however, these do not constitute a strategy. Overall, SG100 is not met for main and minor secondary species.

b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or species UoAs/species). and/or species involved. involved. Met? Y Y N Justifi SG60 and SG80 are met by default for minor secondary species. The management cation measures via WCPFC and the Fiji Government provide some objective basis for confidence that the partial strategy will limit increases in the need for bait fish use.

Page 144 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species and the UoA PI 2.2.2 regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. SG60 and SG80 are met for bait species. There is not testing that supports high confidence that the partial strategy will work. SG100 is not met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi SG60 and SG80 are met by default for minor secondary species. Fiji has been cation compliant in its implementation of WCPFC requirements. Fiji’s adoption and implementation of its Tuna Management Development Plan provides evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successful. SG80 requirements are met.

d Shark finning Guide It is likely that shark It is highly likely that There is a high degree of post finning is not taking place. shark finning is not taking certainty that shark place. finning is not taking place. Met? Y Y N Justifi Shark species are predominantly assessed as ETPs. Observer data indicates very cation low levels of retention of sharks in 2015 and 2016. The assessment team found no evidence that shark finning is occurring. Given the high level of monitoring of the fishery, including a relatively high observer coverage, it is highly likely that shark finning is not occurring. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch Justifi There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial cation potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of unwanted UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality of catch of main secondary unwanted catch of main unwanted catch of all species. secondary species and secondary species, and they are implemented as they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y N Guide There are no unwanted catches of main secondary species, SG60 and SG80 are post met. There is no review mechanism in place to meet SG100 requirements. References MFF 2014; WCPFC CMMs OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 145 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on main secondary species Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is available available and adequate impact of the UoA on the and adequate to assess to assess with a high main secondary species the impact of the UoA on degree of certainty the with respect to status. main secondary species impact of the UoA on with respect to status. main secondary species OR with respect to status. OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is 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 N Justifi The only main secondary species in the client fishery are bait fish. Sufficient cation information from the importation of bait species was provided to the assessment team to assess the level of use of these species and conclude that this is negligible in relation to overall population size. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met but there is not a high degree of certainty of the impact with respect to the status of the bait species. b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species Guide Some quantitative post information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? N Justifi Information is available on catch of minor species but for most stock status is not cation known. SG100 not met. c Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to support a partial strategy support a strategy to manage main secondary to manage main manage all secondary species. secondary species. species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective. Met? Y N N Justifi The only main secondary species in the client fishery are bait fish. Bait usage has cation been estimated from data provided by the client during the site visit. These data are a subset of the total usage. Information gathered by the client fishery from the importation of bait fish species is adequate to support measures required by SG60.

Page 146 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is PI 2.2.3 adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage secondary species. However, this information is not currently collated in a way which allows consideration of its adequacy to support a partial strategy. There is a need to collate more detailed information on the bait species used and their origin. SG80 is not met. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: UoAs 1 & 2 70 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): UoAs 1 & 2 5 & 6

Page 147 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable Guide Where national and/or Where national and/or Where national and/or post international requirements international requirements international requirements set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, set limits for ETP species, the effects of the UoA on the combined effects of there is a high degree of the population/stock are the MSC UoAs on the certainty that the known and likely to be population/stock are combined effects of the within these limits. known and highly likely MSC UoAs are within to be within these limits. these limits. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi The list of species with which there are interactions is presented in Table 8. Whilst cation the client fishery interacts with several ETP species, none of these are subject to national or international limits. This scoring issue is therefore not relevant. b Direct effects Guide Known direct effects of Known direct effects of There is a high degree of post the UoA are likely to not the UoA are highly likely confidence that there are hinder recovery of ETP to not hinder recovery of no significant detrimental species. ETP species. direct effects of the UoA on ETP species. Met? Y Y Y – cetaceans, seabirds N – turtles, elasmobranchs Justifi Discussion of the impacts on ETP species is largely based on observer data. There cation have been good levels of observer coverage of the fishery in recent years. Coverage of the national fleet in 2015 and 2016 was 19% and 23%, respectively (FTBOA 2017). This observer coverage involved 47 observers deployed aboard a total of 125 fishing trips. Observer coverage of the client fleet in 2016 was 44%. (email Jone Amoe, Fiji Ministry of Fisheries and Forests, 2 Oct 2017). Cetaceans: There are a number of whale species protected by CITES in Fiji’s waters. Observer data for the client fishery indicates a single interaction with a cetacean in 2015 and 2016 (short-finned pilot whale, Globicephala macrorhynchus) which was hooked and released alive with a condition code of alive and healthy on release. Toothed whale depredation on hooked tuna is a significant problem, but as all forms of fire arms and explosive devices are banned on Fijian vessels, no proactive measures are currently undertaken. Various devices to reduce post- hooking depredation (e.g. monofilament mesh, chains and steel rings deployed in response to a tuna being hooked) have been under investigation. SG100 is met for cetaceans. Sea birds: Fiji’s Endangered and Protected Species Act 2002 protects a number of seabirds. This does not include the black-footed albatross, of which a single specimen was the only reported seabird interaction for the client fishery in 2015 and 2016. All Fiji vessels are required to comply with the provisions of CMM2015-03 when fishing south of 30°S. Given the high level of observer coverage of the client fishery and the low level of observed interaction, there is a high degree of certainty that there are no significant detrimental direct effects on seabirds. SG100 is met. Sea Turtles: Sea turtles are protected in Fijian waters where five species are present (hawksbill turtle, green turtle, loggerhead turtle, leatherback turtle and olive ridley turtle). Fiji has implemented the Fiji Sea Turtle Recovery Plan which engages local communities in sea turtle recovery and includes a component to assess and

Page 148 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species mitigate bycatch. All observers in the Fiji Observer program are certified and trained in the mitigation/handling/releasing of sea turtles under the SPC/FFA Pacific Island Regional Fisheries Observer Standards. Vessels are equipped with de-hooking tools / line cutters to release any hooked turtles. Observer data (for 2015 and 2016) provided to the assessment team indicates a low level of turtles interactions by the client fishery (see Table 11). SG80 is met but there is not a high degree of confidence that there are no significant detrimental direct effects. Elasmobranchs: Typical of tuna longline fisheries, the Fijian longline fishery has a high level of interaction with shark species. There have been major changes in the management of sharks in the Fijian longline fishery since the initial MSC assessment of the fishery in 2012. At the time of the 2012 assessment there was evidence of a high level of shark retention and finning had been occurring. Measures now in place (by WCPFC and Fiji) have led to very low levels of shark retention and the potential for survival of released sharks. There is a high level of observer coverage of the client fishery to support conclusions on the level of interaction. WCPFC has developed a research plan with a focus on several key shark species. Fiji has added a number of shark species to its endangered species list (Table 8). Discussion of the catch levels of these species and available information on their status is given in Section 3.6.3. The highest levels of interaction are with blue sharks, silky sharks, mako sharks and oceanic whitetip sharks. A brief discussion for each of the WCPFC key species for which the observer data indicates and interaction is given below. Blue shark The highest level of interaction is with blue shark. Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 847 blue shark caught (836 released) in 2015 and 799 caught (797 released) in 2016. Lawson (2011) indicates WCPFC statistical area annual numbers of blue shark caught in excess of 580,000. An assessment of blue shark in WCPO southern hemisphere waters was undertaken in 2016 (Takeuchi et al. 2016), however the assessment is considered a work-in-progress and its stock status estimates not suitable as the basis for management advice at this time. Nevertheless, the relatively low level of interaction indicates that it is highly likely that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the client fishery on blue shark and the UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance for this species. Silky shark The 2nd highest level of interaction is with silky shark. Rice & Harley (2013b) indicates that overfishing is occurring, and that the silky shark stock is in an overfished state. Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 106 silky shark caught (100 released) in 2015 and 111 caught (110 released) in 2016. Rice (2012) provides estimates of silky shark and oceanic whitetip catches in the WCPFC statistical area. Over the last 5 years of the estimates provided (2005-2009), silky shark longline and purse seine catches averaged 371,300 sharks. The relatively low level of interaction indicates that it is highly likely that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the client fishery on silky shark and the UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance. Oceanic whitetip shark Rice and Harley (2012) undertook a stock assessment for the species assuming a single WCPO-wide stock for assessment purposes. The authors acknowledged uncertainty in the assessment due to the limited CPUE data, reported landings, total mortality and minimal information on the life history and biology. The stock status was reported in relation to MSY-based reference points and indicated that overfishing is occurring and that the stock is overfished. Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 46 oceanic whitetip sharks were released in each of 2015 and 2016 (Table 7). Rice (2012) provides estimates of WCPFC statistical area

Page 149 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species oceanic whitetip catches. Over the last 5 years of the estimates provided (2005- 2009), oceanic white tip longline and purse seine catches averaged approximately 100,000 sharks (Rice, 2012). The low level of interaction indicates that it is highly likely that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the client fishery on silky shark and the UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance. Mako sharks Two species of mako sharks are caught, the shortfin mako and the longfin mako. The two species are not well identified in historical catch data and information on them is often combined. .There are no stock assessments of mako sharks. Rice et al. (2015) found that mako sharks in the south Pacific, appear to be in decline, though the last years’ data points are based on relatively few data. Both species were categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby and Hobday 2007) and both are listed as vulnerable on the IUCN Red List.

Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 32 longfin makos shark caught (all released) in 2015 and 45 caught (all released) in 2016. For shortfin makos 77 were reported as caught in 2015 (55 released) and 102 in 2016 (100 released). Lawson (2011) provides estimates of the number caught of several key shark species in the WCPFC statistical area. Over the last 5 years of the estimates provided (2005- 2009), mako shark longline catches averaged 49,200 sharks. The low level of interaction indicates that it is highly likely that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the client fishery on mako shark and the UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance for the two species of mako sharks. Thresher sharks Pelagic thresher, bigeye thresher and common thresher sharks are taken on longline. The three species are not well identified in historical catch data and information on them is often combined. Pelagic threshers are the fastest growing of the three members of the Alopiidae family, however they still have a low annual rate of population increase (2-4%), which renders them at risk from depletion in fisheries (Reardon et al., 2009). The bigeye thresher shark has the lowest intrinsic rebound potential and least resistance to fisheries of the genus (Amorium et al., 2009). Rice et al. (2015) examines CPUE information for WCPFC key shark species. Standardised CPUE the thresher shark complex for 2003-2011 decreases slightly but shows a steep decline from 2012-2014. There is no assessment of stock status for the 3 species. All three species are listed as ‘Vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List. All three threshers were categorized as being at “medium” ecological risk for both deep and shallow longline sets (Kirby and Hobday 2007). Catch estimates indicate removals have been stable in the past decade (Lawson 2011) with median estimates for 2006 ranging from ~65,000 to 750,000 individuals (Lawson 2011; Clarke 2009). Observer coverage of the client fishery indicates 22 bigeye threshers caught (20 released) in 2015 and 21 caught (20 released) in 2016. For pelagic threshers, 18 were reported as caught in 2015 (17 released), and for common threshers there were 5 caught in 2015 (4 released). The low level of interaction indicates that it is highly likely that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the client fishery on thresher sharks and the UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance for the three thresher shark species. Hammerhead sharks Four species of hammerhead sharks are caught, the great hammerhead, scalloped hammerhead, smooth hammerhead and the Winghead shark. The separate species are not well identified in historical catch data. No stock assessments are available for the hammerhead species. Great hammerhead, smooth hammerhead, and Winghead sharks are all listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List; smooth hammerhead is vulnerable. Great hammerhead and smooth hammerhead are categorized as being at “medium”

Page 150 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of PI 2.3.1 ETP species The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species ecological risk for deep longline sets (Kirby and Hobday 2007); scalloped hammerhead are “high” risk. Observer coverage of the client fishery also indicates low levels of interaction with hammerhead sharks (great hammerhead – 2 caught in 2015 with 1 retained; scalloped hammerhead – 2 caught and released in 2016; smooth hammerhead – also 2 caught and released in 2016; Winghead shark – 1 caught and released in 2015) (Table 7). The low level of interaction indicates that it is highly likely that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the client fishery on hammerhead sharks and the UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance for the four hammerhead shark species. Manta and Mobulid rays Manta rays and mobulid rays have also been added to the WCPFC key species list. Observer data for the client fishery also indicates a single giant manta ray caught and released in 2015, and 8 mobulid rays caught and released. This very low level of interaction indicates it is highly likely that there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the client fishery on silky shark and the UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance. Other elasmobranchs: Table 7 indicates a low level of interactions with several other sharks species with highly likely negligible impacts on stock status.

c Indirect effects Guide Indirect effects have been There is a high degree of post considered and are confidence that there are thought to be highly no significant detrimental likely to not create indirect effects of the unacceptable impacts. fishery on ETP species. Met? Y N Justifi Indirect trophic effects of fishing for tuna on sharks and rays, cetaceans and turtles, cation and other components of the ecosystem have been considered through a variety of modelling approaches (Kitchell et al. 1999, Sibert et al. 2006, Allain et al. 2007) and, although the impacts are not negligible, no particular impacts on ETP species have been identified. The scale of the client fishery is a small component of the combined fisheries for tuna across the WCPO. Observer data indicate that on most occasions ETP species are released alive, albeit with uncertainty in the probability of post-release survival. Survival rates of sharks in particular are difficult to estimate, however it is highly unlikely that this fishery creates unacceptable impacts on the species concerned. SG80 is therefore met. Because the effects of fishery are not accurately quantified, there is not the high degree of confidence required for SG100 to be met.

FTBOA 2017; Fiji-ETP 2002; Fiji-ETP 2017; Takeuchi et al. 2016; Rice & Harley 2012; Rice & Harley 2013b; Rice 2012; Kirby and Hobday 2007; Rice et al. 2015; References Amorium et al., 2009; Lawson 2011; Clarke 2009; Kitchell et al. 1999; Sibert et al. 2006; Allain et al. 2007; WCPFC CMMs; IUCN Red List; Observer data per Fiji Fisheries and SPC OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.3.1 Scoring calculation SIa SIb SIc Element PI UoAs Species (60, 80, 100) (80, 100) (80, 100) Score Score only)

Page 151 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Cetaceans Not relevant 100 80 90 Seabirds Not relevant 100 80 90 1 & 2 85 Turtles Not relevant 80 80 80 Elasmobranchs Not relevant 80 80 80

Page 152 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that minimise the place for managing the comprehensive strategy UoA-related mortality of UoA’s impact on ETP in place for managing the ETP species, and are species, including UoA’s impact on ETP expected to be highly measures to minimise species, including likely to achieve national mortality, which is measures to minimise and international designed to be highly mortality, which is requirements for the likely to achieve national designed to achieve protection of ETP and international above national and species. requirements for the international requirements protection of ETP for the protection of ETP species. species. Met? Y Y N Justifi There are a number of specific management actions taken by the CCMs to protect cation iconic and vulnerable species and WCPFC has introduced several CMMs in relation to ETPs. Mechanisms to reduce interactions with non-target species, including ETPs, includes the preparation of risk assessments at regional level (e.g. Kirby, 2006; Kirby and Hobday, 2007) as well as consideration of relevant issue by the Ecosystems and Bycatch Specialist Working Group (EB SWG).

Cetaceans: interactions are generally caused by depredation and observer data supports the conclusion that these interactions are not a significant source of mortality. Cetaceans are not specifically addressed in any CMMs for WCPO longline fisheries. Several whale species are protected by Fiji’s endangered species legislation, including whales that are known to predate tuna such as false killer whales Pseudorca crassidens, short-finned pilot whales Globicephala macrorhynchus and killer whales Orcinus orca. Toothed whale depredation on hooked tuna is a significant problem, but as all forms of fire arms and explosive devices are banned on Fijian vessels, no proactive measures are currently undertaken, although various devices to reduce post-hooking depredation have been trialed (Akroyd and McLoughlin, 2014). Given that negative interactions with whales are limited to their very rare entanglement, no specific conservation strategy (beyond the nature of the fishing operation which minimizes cetacean bycatch) is required. The operational methodology of the deep-set long line fishing method appears appropriate to minimize impacts. The team considered this requirement to constitute a partial strategy and sufficient for SG80 to be met but not SG100.

Sea birds: CMM-2015-03 requires the use of seabird mitigation measures for vessels fishing north of 23oN and south of 30oS, but also encourage CCMs with longline vessels fishing in areas north of 30oS to employ one or more of a number of listed seabird mitigation measures. All Fiji vessels fishing south of 30°S are required to comply with the provisions of CMM2015-03. Based on this information, the assessment team concluded that CMM and Fiji’s requirements for the fishery constitute a strategy which is designed to be highly likely to achieve international requirements for the protection of bird species. SG80 is therefore met for seabirds. The measures, however, are not designed to achieve above international requirements. As such, SG100 is not met.

Page 153 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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.

Sea turtles: CMM-2008-03 is applied to turtles but is aimed primarily at shallow-set longlines, rather than deep-set albacore fisheries like the one under assessment. At a national level, the ‘Fiji Sea Turtle Recovery Plan’ provides a prioritised action plan for addressing sea turtle conservation, including a specific sub-component for ‘assessing and mitigating bycatch’. At an industry level there have been regular efforts to mitigate sea turtle mortality by ensuring that de-hooking and other tools are both available on vessels and that crew are sensitised and trained in their use. The measures in place constitutes a strategy which is highly likely to achieve international requirements for the protection of sea turtles. SG80 is therefore met. However, there is not a comprehensive strategy which satisfies SG100 requirements.

Elasmobranchs: for the fishery under assessment, there are several management approaches for sharks. At WCPFC level: CMM-2014-05 (on the prohibition of wire traces and/or shark lines), CMM-2010-07 (on inter alia the implementation of the IPOA Sharks, reporting requirements, shark finning; shark retention on board); CMM-2011-04 on oceanic white-tips; and CMM-2013-08 on silky sharks. At the national level, there is endangered species legislation and a fishery management plan prohibiting the use of shark gear. Fiji has also developed its NPOA-sharks which, although not officially ratified, is being implemented. There is a high level of observer coverage and port monitoring as part of the strategy. The team considers this to be a strategy which is highly likely to achieve international requirements for the protection of sharks. SG80 requirements are met.

b Management strategy in place (alternative) Guide There are measures in There is a strategy in There is a post place that are expected to place that is expected to comprehensive strategy ensure the UoA does not ensure the UoA does not in place for managing hinder the recovery of hinder the recovery of ETP species, to ensure ETP species. ETP species. the UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi Only scored where there are no requirements for protection and rebuilding provided cation through national ETP legislation or international agreements.

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

Page 154 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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. Justifi As described above, there are strategies in place for all ETP species, including cation sharks. Observer coverage is strong and there is a high level of port monitoring and compliance and enforcement effort. The improvement in the management of sharks is evident since the 2012 MSC assessment of the fishery. The levels of catch of ETP species in the client fishery, together with evidence that some animals do survive post-release, provide an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. The UoAs meet the SG80 level of performance for all ETP interactions. There has not been a quantitative analysis of the impacts on ETP species to satisfy SG100 requirements.

d Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the that the measures/strategy is strategy/comprehensive being implemented strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b). Met? Y N Justifi As described at 2.3.2a, there are measures in place at the national and regional cation levels which are considered to constitute a strategy to manage the fishery’s impact on ETP species. Data collection from the fishery include requirements for reporting ETP interactions, as well as approximately 20% observer coverage for the national fleet and higher for the client fleet in recent years. Information collected is reported widely in national reports and in reporting to the Commission. These reports and observer data and compliance information supplied to the assessment team provide some evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 is met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species Guide There is a review of the There is a regular review There is a biennial post potential effectiveness of the potential review of the potential and practicality of effectiveness and effectiveness and alternative measures to practicality of alternative practicality of alternative minimise UoA-related measures to minimise measures to minimise mortality of ETP species. UoA-related mortality of UoA-related mortality ETP ETP species and they are species, and they are implemented as implemented, as appropriate. appropriate. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is an ongoing research programme to improve understanding of the cation interactions and implications of the different WCPO fisheries on non-target species, and ecosystem and bycatch mitigation is a standing item on the SC agenda. Measures are implemented as appropriate. The UoAs meet the SG100 level of performance.

WCPFC CMMs; Kirby 2006; Kirby and Hobday 2007; Akroyd et al. 2012, Akroyd References and McLoughlin 2014

Page 155 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

PI 2.3.2 Scoring calculation SIa SIb SIc SId Element PI UoAs Species (60, 80, (60, 80, (80, 100) (60, 80, 100) score Score Cetaceans 100)80 100- ) 80 100 85 Seabirds 80 - 80 100 85 1 & 2 85 Turtles 80 - 80 100 85 Elasmobranchs 80 - 80 100 85

Page 156 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 Guide Qualitative information is Some quantitative Quantitative information is post adequate to estimate the information is adequate available to assess with a UoA related mortality on to assess the UoA high degree of certainty ETP species. related mortality and the magnitude of UoA- impact and to determine related impacts, whether the UoA may be mortalities and injuries OR a threat to protection and and the consequences recovery of the ETP for the status of ETP If RBF is used to score PI species. species. 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to estimate If RBF is used to score PI productivity and 2.3.1 for the UoA: susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Met? Y Y N Justifi There is a relatively high level of observer coverage (> 20% for the national fleet cation and higher for the client fishery), supported by a high level of port monitoring of the fishery. There are a number of reporting requirements embedded in CMMs or other WCPFC decisions, which oblige CCMs to submit information or data to the Secretariat. For example, some of the provisions specify that CCMs are to provide this information in Part 1 or Part 2 Annual Reports or by specific dates. For all identified ETP species, there is some quantitative information allowing for an assessment of mortality. For sharks, there is a high level of interaction and release of live sharks. Although the survival rates of these released sharks is not well known, the observer data indicates that catches from the UoAs is low relative to overall WCPO catches. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. The information is not sufficient to assess impacts with a high level of certainty.

b Information adequacy for management strategy Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post support measures to measure trends and support a manage the impacts on support a strategy to comprehensive strategy ETP species. manage impacts on ETP to manage impacts, species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives. Met? Y Y N

Page 157 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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. Justifi Similar to SIa, the observer coverage, other data collection, compliance and cation enforcement provide data which is adequate to measure trends and support a strategy to manage impacts on ETP species. For sharks, data collected are being used to support the WCPFC shark research plan. SG60 and SG80 are met. The information does not support a comprehensive strategy.

References Fiji 2016; Fiji 2017 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A Note: the recommendation at PI 2.1.3 is also relevant here.

PI 2.3.3 Scoring calculation SIa SIb Element score PI UoAs Species (60, 80, 100) (60, 80, 100) Score Cetaceans 80 80 80 Seabirds 80 80 80 1 & 2 80 Turtles 80 80 80 Elasmobranchs 80 80 80

Page 158 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.1 – Habitats outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Commonly encountered habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the commonly structure and function of to reduce structure and encountered habitats to a the commonly function of the commonly point where there would encountered habitats to a encountered habitats to a be serious or irreversible point where there would point where there would harm. be serious or irreversible be serious or irreversible harm. harm. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The fishery operates entirely at the surface in deep, oceanic water and the longline cation gear does not contact the seabed. Any pelagic habitat impacts will be imperceptible and highly transient. This would be supported by the observer coverage. Lost gear may consist of monofilament and/or hooks and is only likely to continue to fish as long as bait remains on the hooks. Bait is stripped relatively quickly off the hooks and lost hooks will accumulate in the deep oceanic benthos and degrade in time. The fishery has no impact on habitats that would reduce habitat structure and function to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. SG60, SG80 and SG100 levels of performance are met. b VME habitat status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post reduce structure and unlikely to reduce the UoA is highly unlikely function of the VME structure and function of to reduce structure and habitats to a point where the VME habitats to a function of the VME there would be serious or point where there would habitats to a point where irreversible harm. be serious or irreversible there would be serious or harm. irreversible harm. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are no VMEs impacted by the fishery. cation c Minor habitat status Guide There is evidence that post the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce structure and function of the minor habitats to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Justifi As per SIa. WWF describe non-demersal longline gear as minimally damaging cation fishing gear with no or negligible interaction with the seafloor (WWF 2015).

References WWF 2015 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

Page 159 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to habitat structure and function, considered on the basis of the area covered by the governance PI 2.4.1 body(s) responsible for fisheries management in the area(s) where the UoA operates. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 160 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy in post place, if necessary, that strategy in place, if place for managing the are expected to achieve necessary, that is impact of all MSC the Habitat Outcome 80 expected to achieve the UoAs/non-MSC fisheries level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level on habitats. of performance or above. Met? Y Y Y Justifi There is an operational strategy in place for managing impacts on habitat – the cation fishery operates entirely at the surface in deep, oceanic water. The fishery does not contact the seabed and any pelagic habitat impacts will be imperceptible and highly transient. This would be supported by the observer coverage. SG60 and SG80 levels of performance are met. Also, the features of surface longline fishing constitute an operational strategy for managing the impact of all MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries on habitats, meeting SG100.

b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to basis for confidence confidence that the work, based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g. general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on information directly information directly comparison with similar about the UoA and/or about the UoA and/or UoAs/habitats). habitats involved. habitats involved. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The UoA fishery operates entirely at the surface in open ocean waters and the gear cation does not contact the seabed nor impact on any pelagic habitat. This provides a plausible argument and an objective basis for confidence that the de facto strategy will work to achieve the outcome SG60 and SG80 levels. No specific testing of the strategy has been undertaken, but the nature of the fishery and the environments in which it operates makes such testing unnecessary. SG100 is met. c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some There is clear post quantitative evidence quantitative evidence that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a). Met? Y Y Justifi The UoA fishery operates entirely at the surface in open ocean waters. The nature cation of the gear, the habits of the target species and the areas in which the fishery operates provide clear evidence that the strategy is being implemented successfully. Habitat impacts from the UoA are not monitored because there are no expected impacts. Observer coverage of purse seine vessels and VMS data can confirm the location of fishing activities, demonstrating the lack of habitat contact, and therefore adverse impact; this constitutes evidence to support a conclusion that

Page 161 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose PI 2.4.2 a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. the strategy is being implemented successfully. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs Guide There is qualitative There is some There is clear post evidence that the UoA quantitative evidence quantitative evidence complies with its that the UoA complies that the UoA complies management with both its management with both its management requirements to protect requirements and with requirements and with VMEs. protection measures protection measures afforded to VMEs by other afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non-MSC MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries, where relevant. fisheries, where relevant. Met? Not relevant Not relevant Not relevant Justifi There are no VMEs impacted by the fishery. cation References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 162 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Information quality Guide The types and distribution The nature, distribution The distribution of all post of the main habitats are and vulnerability of the habitats is known over broadly understood. main habitats in the UoA their range, with particular area are known at a level attention to the of detail relevant to the occurrence of vulnerable OR scale and intensity of the habitats. UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR

Qualitative information is If CSA is used to score PI adequate to estimate the 2.4.1 for the UoA: 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 Justifi Interaction by the fishery is with the epipelagic zone where any impacts would be cation transient and negligible. The focus of habitat studies in Fijian waters has been on inshore areas. Vulnerable marine habitats have not been identified in the region of the fishery. The nature of the fishery and the environments in which it operates indicates that the distribution of pelagic and benthic habitats is sufficiently well known over the range of the fishery. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to The physical impacts of post broadly understand the allow for identification of the gear on all habitats nature of the main the main impacts of the have been quantified fully. impacts of gear use on UoA on the main habitats, the main habitats, and there is reliable including spatial overlap information on the spatial of habitat with fishing extent of interaction and gear. on the timing and location of use of the fishing gear. OR OR If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate the Some quantitative consequence and spatial information is available attributes of the main and is adequate to habitats. estimate the consequence and spatial

Page 163 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA PI 2.4.3 and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts on the habitat. attributes of the main habitats. Met? Y Y Y Justifi The habitat under consideration is the pelagic water column. No interaction with cation hard substrate involved as the fishery takes place on the surface in deep waters. Observer and VMS data are available to delineate the spatial extent of the fishery, however, there has been no need to compare fishing locations to the pelagic habitat. This meets the SG60, SG80, and SG100 levels. c Monitoring Guide Adequate information Changes in habitat post continues to be collected distributions over time are to detect any increase in measured. risk to the main habitats. Met? Y Y Justifi The pelagic habitat is unaffected by surface longline fishing. Sufficient data are cation collected through locations of fishing operations to determine possible encroachment into shallow areas that could result in damage to benthic habitats. This meets the SG80 and SG100 levels. References OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 164 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Ecosystem status Guide The UoA is unlikely to The UoA is highly There is evidence that post disrupt the key elements unlikely to disrupt the key the UoA is highly unlikely underlying ecosystem elements underlying to disrupt the key structure and function to a ecosystem structure and elements underlying point where there would function to a point where ecosystem structure and be a serious or there would be a serious function to a point where irreversible harm. or irreversible harm. there would be a serious or irreversible harm. Met? Y Y N Justifi Albacore and yellowfin tuna are ‘apex’ predators. Their diet is well understood cation across their life history stages, while their predators when in their juvenile stages are also reasonably well known (Allain 2010). Apex predators play a crucial role in maintaining the health of an ecosystem, exerting substantial control over the population sizes of many species at lower levels of the food web. Consequently, they may contribute to the stability of marine ecosystems, and maintain biodiversity. At the regional scale, the latest stock assessments for albacore and yellowfin tuna indicate the stocks are being maintained above BMSY. At these levels, there would be a sizeable proportion of biomass remaining in the ecosystem, and removals at this level are unlikely to lead to serious harm. Primary and secondary species taken by the fishery are predominantly within biologically-based limits. Strategies are in place to reduce impacts on overfished species (e.g. bigeye tuna) and a strategy is in place to reduce impacts on the most commonly caught ETP species (sharks). At the scale of the UoA, it is highly unlikely that the fishery under assessment would lead to irreversible ecosystem impacts.

Sibert et al (2006) analysed available data from Pacific tuna fisheries for 1950– 2004 to provide comprehensive estimates of fishery impacts on population biomass and size structure. Exploited western Pacific yellowfin and bigeye have declined steadily to levels near the equilibrium biomass that would produce the maximum sustainable yield in the fishery. Skipjack tuna and blue shark appear to have increased slightly, whereas albacore have fluctuated in both directions. At that point, current biomass ranges among species from 36 to 91% of the biomass predicted in the absence of fishing, a level consistent with or higher than standard fisheries management targets. Fish larger than 175 cm FL had decreased from 5% to approximately 1% of the total population. The trophic level of the catch had decreased slightly, but the authors concluded that there was no detectable decrease in the trophic level of the population. These results indicated substantial, though not irreversible, impacts of fisheries on these top-level predators and minor impacts on the ecosystem in the Pacific Ocean. There is some evidence in the form of results from ecosystem models and because there has been no major change in trophic structure that the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. There is, however, limited evidence supporting this conclusion, in terms of direct information about the ecosystem and the impact of albacore and yellowfin longlining upon it. SG100 is thus not met. References Sibert et al. 2006; Allain 2010 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

Page 165 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of PI 2.5.1 ecosystem structure and function. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 166 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Management strategy in place Guide There are measures in There is a partial There is a strategy that post place, if necessary which strategy in place, if consists of a plan, in take into account the necessary, which takes place which contains potential impacts of the into account available measures to address all fishery on key elements of information and is main impacts of the the ecosystem. expected to restrain UoA on the ecosystem, impacts of the UoA on and at least some of the ecosystem so as to these measures are in achieve the Ecosystem place. Outcome 80 level of performance. Met? Y Y N Justifi The objective of the WCPFC is to: “…to ensure, through effective management, the cation long-term conservation and sustainable use of highly migratory fish stocks in the western and central Pacific Ocean…”. The WCPFC’s management mandate relates to highly migratory fish species and extends to the management of non-target species taken in fisheries for target stocks, in particular through the WCPFC Resolution on Non-Target Fish Species (2005-03). The ecosystem role of albacore and yellowfin tuna as apex predators is not explicitly considered within management. Mechanisms to reduce interactions with both target and non-target species includes the preparation of Ecological Risk Assessments at regional level (e.g. Kirby, 2006; Kirby & Hobday, 2007). Ecosystem considerations are examined at annual Scientific Committee meetings (Ecosystems and Bycatch Mitigation Theme). Major potential impacts are associated with the reducing the removal of target and retained species and the stock assessment and scientific advice performed under the auspices of the Commission leads to conservation and management measures where appropriate. There are also specific Articles in the WCPFC Convention text that make provisions for an ecosystem based approach to fisheries. There is a partial strategy in place based on effort controls (both at regional level and more particularly at national level through license limits) that takes into account available information (e.g. stock assessments, catch and landing records, VMS) and is expected to restrain impacts of the fishery. The partial strategy is represented by the WCPFC regional management of this species that has maintained populations above BMSY. Fiji implements management requirements through the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree, Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations and the Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan (MFF 2014). National Plans of Action (NPOAs) have been developed and implemented for Sharks and IUU Fishing (2009). While the NPOA Sharks is observed and monitored, it has yet to be ratified by government. The measures in place contribute to a partial strategy for ecosystem maintenance, and evidence is available directly from the fishery through the fisheries management and monitoring process. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. A higher score is achievable given an improved strategy, including, for example, by defining and monitoring key ecosystem health indicator species and defining possible approaches to address potential concerns about ecosystem impacts.

b Management strategy evaluation Guide The measures are There is some objective Testing supports high post considered likely to work, basis for confidence confidence that the

Page 167 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of PI 2.5.2 serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. based on plausible that the measures/partial partial strategy/strategy argument (e.g., general strategy will work, based will work, based on experience, theory or on some information information directly about comparison with similar directly about the UoA the UoA and/or fisheries/ ecosystems). and/or the ecosystem ecosystem involved involved Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC and national measures which form the partial strategy take into account cation available information with the expectation that impacts on the ecosystem are restrained (see discussion on CMMs, Fiji’s tuna management and development plans, and the Shark NPOA). Available information from stock assessment and ecosystem modelling provides some objective basis that the partial strategy will work. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. However there has not been testing to support SG100 requirements.

c Management strategy implementation Guide There is some evidence There is clear evidence post that the measures/partial that the partial strategy is being strategy/strategy is being implemented implemented successfully successfully. and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a). Met? Y N Justifi At the regional level, the partial strategy has succeeded in maintaining target cation species above BMSY level, considered here as the main trigger point beyond which ecosystem structure and functioning may be affected. This provides some evidence that the partial strategy is being implemented successfully. However, there is a lack of evidence on key ecosystem indicators to conclude that there are measures to address all main impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. SG80 is met but not SG100. References Kirby 2006; Kirby & Hobday 2007; MFF 2014 OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 168 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 Guide Information is adequate to Information is adequate to post identify the key elements broadly understand the of the ecosystem. key elements of the ecosystem. Met? Y Y Justifi The key issue for understanding elements of the pelagic ecosystem is predator- cation prey relationships and trophic dynamics. A range of organizations have collected detailed data on the structure of the Pacific Ocean pelagic ecosystem. 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). Ecosystem models (Sibert et al. 2006, Allain 2010) demonstrate the relative stability of the pelagic ecosystem in the face of removals of top predators in the WCPO. The available information is thought to be adequate to broadly understand the key elements of the ecosystem. SG60 and SG80 are met.

b Investigation of UoA impacts Guide Main impacts of the UoA Main impacts of the UoA Main interactions between post on these key ecosystem on these key ecosystem the UoA and these elements can be inferred elements can be inferred ecosystem elements can from existing information, from existing information, be inferred from existing but have not been and some have been information, and have investigated in detail. investigated in detail. been investigated in detail. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Ecosystem models (Sibert et al. 2006, Allain 2010) of the pelagic ecosystem use cation available information to evaluate main interactions. This investigation especially considers trophic structure, and demonstrates the relative stability of the pelagic ecosystem in spite of removals of top predators by the fishery. 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., 2013). The continued development and application of the SEAPODYM model to the work of the WCPFC Scientific Committee, including its application to tuna fisheries in the South Pacific, is facilitated through Project 62 which affiliates the independently funded work on SEAPODYM into the SC’s work programme (Lehodey et al., 2013). Main interactions between the fishery and the ecosystem have been and are being investigated. SG60, SG80 and SG100 are met.

c Understanding of component functions Guide The main functions of the The impacts of the UoA post components (i.e., P1 on P1 target species, target species, primary, primary, secondary and secondary and ETP ETP species and Habitats species and Habitats) in are identified and the the ecosystem are main functions of these known. components in the ecosystem are understood.

Page 169 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Met? Y N Justifi Information on target and non-target species (bycatch and ETP species) is cation gathered through logbook data and observer programmes. The available information is managed by the Bycatch Mitigation Information System (BMIS) which is a central repository of information on the mitigation and management of bycatch in the WCPO. This acts as a reference and educational tool that supports the WCPFC’s responsibilities with regard to the sustainable management of non-target species in WCPO fisheries targeting highly migratory species. In addition, the Kobe By-catch Technical Working Group (KBTWG) was established in 2009 with the aim of supporting, streamlining, and seeking to harmonize the by-catch related activities of Ecosystems/Bycatch working groups across RFMOs and feeding its findings through to those RFMOs. Sufficient information is being gathered to understand the main functions of the ecosystem components. SG80 is therefore met. However, there remains uncertainty as to the fishery’s impacts on some components due to issues with reporting of catches for target and non-target species, as well as relatively low regional observer coverage for most tuna longline fisheries (noting that coverage of the Fiji longline fleet has been approximately 20% in recent years). SG100 is not met.

d Information relevance

Guide Adequate information is Adequate information is post available on the impacts available on the impacts of the UoA on these of the UoA on the components to allow components and some of the main elements to allow the consequences for the main consequences for ecosystem to be inferred. the ecosystem to be inferred. Met? Y Y Justifi SPC gathers Information on target and non-target species (retained, bycatch and cation ETP species) through logbooks and the regional observer programme. Fiji also has a high level of monitoring of the Fiji longline fleet and has had observer coverage of approximately 20% in recent years and a higher level of coverage for the client fleet. This information is sufficient to enable stock assessment of the target species and allow the main components on other components of the ecosystem to be inferred. SG80 and SG100 are met.

e Monitoring Guide Adequate data continue Information is adequate to post to be collected to detect support the development any increase in risk level. of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts. Met? Y N Justifi Data is collected on the key target and non-target tuna and billfish species through cation logbook and landings data. Observer programmes provide information on other species including ETPs. These data and the development of ecosystem models are considered sufficient to detect any increase in risk level. SG80 is met. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy for ecosystem management in the region, SG100 is not met.

Sibert et al. 2006; Allain 2010; Lehodey et al. 2013 References

Page 170 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI 2.5.3 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 171 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 Guide There is an effective There is an effective There is an effective post national legal system and national legal system and national legal system and a framework for organized and effective binding procedures cooperation with other cooperation with other governing cooperation parties, where necessary, parties, where necessary, with other parties which to deliver management to deliver management delivers management outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2 MSC Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y Y Justifi Fishing for tuna, both on the high seas and in zones of national jurisdiction, is cation governed by the Convention for the Conservation and Management of Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPF Convention). The Commission was established under the Convention and is tasked to co-ordinate scientific research and to make recommendations designed to maintain populations of tuna and species sharing the same ecosystem at levels that will prevent recruitment failure and permit maximum sustainable yield. The WCPF Convention is consistent with the provisions of the UN Fish Stocks Agreement. The WCPF Convention seeks to address problems in the management of high seas fisheries resulting from unregulated fishing, over-capitalization, excessive fleet capacity, vessel re-flagging to escape controls, insufficiently selective gear, unreliable databases and insufficient multilateral cooperation in respect to conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks. 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, recognition of special requirements of developing States, and cooperation with other Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMO) whose respective areas of competence overlap with the WCPFC reflect the unique geo-political environment in which the Commission operates. The WCPFC provides a system for effective co-operation among the parties and procedures can apply binding measures, so co-operation among parties to be enforced with a majority. Fiji has a well-developed national legal system. The management of Fiji’s offshore fishery resources is underpinned by the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree (2012), the Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014) and the Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan (2014-2018). National Plans of Action (NPOAs) have been developed and implemented for Sharks and IUU Fishing (2009). While the NPOA Sharks is observed and monitored, it has yet to be ratified by government. Binding legislation relating to comprehensive international cooperation for the management of the albacore and yellowfin stocks exists through the WCPF Convention and the associated CMMs developed by the Commission. Fiji has committed to, and has in place, an effective process to give national effect to CMMs developed at the Commission. Through cooperation, a range of Commission committees and processes have been formed to deliver the outcomes under Article 10 of UNSFA and the Convention, including CMMs. Allocation of TACs and TAEs as envisaged under Article 10.3 of the Convention has been partially achieved. The same framework provides mechanisms for cooperation for Principle 2 species (e.g.

Page 172 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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. CMMS for other tuna species, sharks, turtles etc.), as well as for research for issues such as ecosystems (via SPC and the Scientific Committee of WCPFC). SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met. b Resolution of disputes Guide The management system The management system The management system post incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject incorporates or is subject by law to a mechanism by law to a transparent by law to a transparent for the resolution of legal mechanism for the mechanism for the disputes arising within the resolution of legal resolution of legal system. disputes which is disputes that is considered to be appropriate to the context effective in dealing with of the fishery and has most issues and that is been tested and proven appropriate to the context to be effective. of the UoA. Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC has a dispute resolution procedure within its convention (Annex I and II). cation While encouraging resolution of disputes among its members, it provides for an appropriate review panel to be convened should it be necessary. In addition, the Convention also allows for disputes between fishing entities to be submitted to final and binding arbitration through a Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague) at the request of either party. The Convention proscribes peaceful settlement of all disputes (Article 31). It is possible for international disputes to be resolved through the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or through the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) if they cannot be resolved in more efficient ways. This has been used by WCPFC (ITLOS Cases Nos 3 & 4 between New Zealand, Australia and Japan), but only for southern Bluefin, which is not covered by this assessment. The national management system incorporates a mechanism for the resolution of legal disputes that is considered to be effective in dealing with most issues. There have been several successful court cases. No evidence can be found of avoidance of legal responsibilities, or of any failure to comply with binding judicial decisions. Processes are in place to allow such challenges to take place, but the system has a record of acting appropriately to avoid legal disputes. National disputes relating to the fishery can be dealt with through the provisions of the Offshore Fisheries Management Decree. The Ministry’s consultation process is an attempt to avoid unresolved disputes by ensuring all interested parties have an opportunity to participate and have an input into decisions. While the mechanisms for dispute resolution at national and regional level are considered to be sufficiently transparent and effective for SG80 to be met, the mechanisms, including reviews of Commission decisions, under Articles 20, 31 and Annex II of the WCPF Convention have yet to be tested and proven effective, hence SG100 is not met. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are not met. c Respect for rights Guide The management system The management system The management system post has a mechanism to has a mechanism to has a mechanism to generally respect the observe the legal rights formally commit to the legal rights created created explicitly or legal rights created explicitly or established by established by custom of explicitly or established by

Page 173 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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. custom of people people dependent on custom of people dependent on fishing for fishing for food or dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a livelihood in a manner food and livelihood in a manner consistent with consistent with the manner consistent with the objectives of MSC objectives of MSC the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2. Met? Y Y N Justifi Legal rights of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood are protected cation through national interests of Parties to the Convention. The Convention deals with the rights of a State’s access to resources and, explicitly protects access for subsistence and traditional resource use. 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.

Stated objectives and management measures are consistent with Principle 1. WCPFC also has demonstrable objectives consistent with MSC Principle 2 under its principles for conservation and management (Article 5). This includes consideration of the impacts of fishing, other human activities and environmental factors on species belonging to the same ecosystem as the target stocks, protection of biodiversity, and measures to minimize waste, effects of lost fishing gear, pollution, and by-catch. WCPFC has an intention and has a management system that observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. At national level, a guiding principle in the Tuna Management and Development Plan (TMD Plan) is to encourage participation of all stakeholders and adoption of cooperative management to sustainably manage develop and conserve Fiji offshore fisheries. It also takes into account the interests of artisanal, subsistence fishers and local communities including their participation in management of fisheries. Another guiding principle is to encourage employment for Fiji citizens and investment opportunities that promote fair distribution of wealth in the fishing sector, Objectives of the TMD Plan promote rights based fisheries management – this includes maintaining traditional forms of sustainable fisheries management. The Plan recognizes the importance of small scale and artisanal fishing that fish for tunas within internal and archipelagic waters. The limiting of commercial tuna fishing in archipelagic and territorial waters is to protect local fisherman in coastal fishing communities. At both regional and national level it is considered that there is a respect for rights and they are observed but a formal commitment to these rights is not fully in place e.g. these rights are not yet formally part of any allocation process. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are not met. Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan 2015 National Plans of Action Sharks (2012) National Plans of Action IU Fishing (2009). References Offshore Fisheries Management Decree (2012; 2014) Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014) Powers JE and Medley (2016)

Page 174 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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. WCPFC (2004) CCMHMS WCPFC (2006) Rules of Procedures WCPFC (2017) CMM and Resolutions https://www.wcpfc.int OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 175 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.2 – Consultation, roles and responsibilities The management system has effective consultation processes that are open to interested and affected parties. PI 3.1.2 The roles and responsibilities of organisations and individuals who are involved in the management process are clear and understood by all relevant parties Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Roles and responsibilities Guide Organisations and Organisations and Organisations and post individuals involved in the individuals involved in the individuals involved in the management process management process management process have been identified. have been identified. have been identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are responsibilities are responsibilities are generally understood. explicitly defined and explicitly defined and well understood for key well understood for all areas of responsibility areas of responsibility and interaction. and interaction. Met? Y Y N Justifi Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined at the international level. cation The WCPF Convention provides information on the functions, roles and responsibilities of member states (in particular, Articles 23 and 24) and the committees formed under Commission control (Scientific Committee and Technical and Compliance Committee). Key areas include providing catch and monitoring data to the Secretariat, taking part in various meetings sharing information and making decisions, meeting the requirements for conservation and other recommendations for WCPFC and applying appropriate levels of control and surveillance. There are extensive, regular formal and informal consultation processes at the WCPFC, 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. There is a Memorandum of Understanding, which clearly lays out the type and level of co-operation between these organizations. There are, in particular, shared responsibilities between RFMOs, mainly WCPFC, IOTC, IATTC and CCSBT, which are addressed. With respect to implementing management controls, providing monitoring data and scientific research, tasks are allocated, coordinated and monitored through WCPFC and its annual meetings. This system broadly works. Organizations and individuals involved in the management process in those cases limited to Contracting Parties will be well-defined for key areas. Roles and responsibilities are not necessarily well understood in all areas, however. WCPFC has had a number of problems with flag states that have not applied appropriate controls to all their vessels, and it appears that not all vessels understand their responsibilities and in some cases there appear to be conflicts between requirements for confidentiality and the responsibilities to provide information necessary for management, which need to be resolved. While these problems are not in key areas in the sense that they do not prevent WCPFC completing its primary tasks, they nevertheless undermine its overall effectiveness and increase risks to sustainability. However the assessors found no evidence that these comments apply to the client fishery. SG80 is met. At national level 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, and national levels, as well as support organisations FFA and SPC.

Page 176 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 Offshore Fisheries Division (OFD) of the newly formed Ministry of Fisheries is responsible for the implementation of the offshore fisheries conservation and management legislation (i.e. licensing, monitoring, enforcement & investigation). The OFD comprises six sub-sections: Control/Compliance; Enforcement/Surveillance; Investigation; Data Management; Monitoring & Industry Enhancement. There are job descriptions for all staff that explicitly define roles and responsibilities. It was clear in discussions with staff that they clearly understood their obligation. The client group have an FFIA constitution that clearly sets out the role of the organization and roles and responsibilities of its members. At national and international levels the functions, roles and responsibilities of organizations involved in the management processes are explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

b Consultation processes Guide The management system The management system The management system post includes consultation includes consultation includes consultation processes that obtain processes that regularly processes that regularly relevant information seek and accept relevant seek and accept relevant from the main affected information, including information, including parties, including local local knowledge. The local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system management system management system. demonstrates demonstrates consideration of the consideration of the information obtained. information and explains how it is used or not used. Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC holds a meeting every year, after the annual meetings of the Scientific cation Committee, Technical and Compliance Committee, and the Northern Committee. Decision-makers use information derived from the members and the inputs from the specialist working groups and such consideration forms the basis for the decisions of the WCPFC. “Local knowledge” at the international level is assumed to refer to national information and experience. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The scientific reports state what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information which is rejected. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. Although much of this information can be inferred from various sources, it is not necessarily clear how different sources of information are weighted. This includes information on compliance, economics and social issues.

At the national level there was clear evidence that the management system includes consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information. Examples include the development of the TMD Plan, the OFMD, National Fisheries Policy, Marine Protection Areas, National NPOA sharks and many others. Stakeholders spoken to (WWF) and the client group considered that their input into the consultation processes run by the Ministry had been listened to and further explanations were given as to why information was used or not used. Written evidence was provided.

Page 177 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

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 At national level SG100 is met. However at the regional level SG100 is not met Fisheries do not meet SG100 because the management system cannot demonstrate in all cases consideration of all the information or explain how it uses such information in decisions. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are not met.

c Participation Guide The consultation process The consultation process post provides opportunity for provides opportunity all interested and affected and encouragement for parties to be involved. all interested and affected parties to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement. Met? Y Y Justifi The WCPFC has a comprehensive governance structure that in addition to member cation participation, allows participation by non-members and territories, with particular opportunities for Cooperating non-members, and allows observers to participate in meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies, including the SC, the TCC and the Finance and Administration Committee. All relevant Small Island Developing States are members through the participation of the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency or cooperating non-members. Attendance at Commission and related meetings are comprehensive, and logistic and financial support is provided to ensure attendance, meaningful involvement and interaction in the cooperative management. Consultation at the international level is formalised, and there are well-developed mechanisms for the seeking and using appropriate information. At national level the Ministry’s consultative process actively encourages all stakeholders to sustainably manage Fijis offshore fisheries. It also takes into account artisanal, subsistence fishes and local communities. Stakeholders are considered essential to improve broad consultations with respect to development changes in Fiji’s longline fishery. The aim to increase stakeholder consultation was highlighted in the TFMD plan as a means of achieving a holistic approach in the setting and implementation of policies and changes, and of ensuring stakeholders are well informed of decisions taken and sub regional and regional level. Stakeholders have the opportunity and are encouraged to participate and the Ministry facilitates this. SG80 and SG100 requirements are met.

Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan (2015) Offshore Fisheries Management Decree (2012; 2014) Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014) References Powers JE and Medley (2016) WCPFC (2004) CCMHMS WCPFC (2017) CMM and Resolutions https://www.wcpfc.int OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 178 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Long-term objectives to Clear long-term objectives Clear long-term objectives post guide decision-making, that guide decision- that guide decision- consistent with the MSC making, consistent with making, consistent with fisheries standard and the MSC fisheries standard MSC fisheries standard precautionary approach, and the precautionary and the precautionary are implicit within approach are explicit approach, are explicit management policy. within management within and required by policy. management policy. Met? Y Y P Justifi Long-term objectives for the Commission are found in the WCPF Convention text. cation 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- t e r m objective of ‘maintaining or restoring populations.. ‘ 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, decision-making is provided in various reports of the Commission. Commission reports indicate that explicit action is being undertaken to develop and implement management arrangements to support achievement of objectives. While long term objectives have yet to be explicitly defined in terms of target reference points, the Commission Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process is working on this issue, as is the FFA Southern Committee and Te Vaka Moana group. The team considered that SG100 was only partially met. At the national level clear long term objectives that guide decision making are set out in the OFMD. The requirement to have a precautionary approach is explicit in the management policy (OFMD). SG 60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are partially met.

Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan (2015). Mooney-Seus, M. L. Rosenberg, A. A. (2007). Offshore Fisheries Management Decree (2012) Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014) References Powers JE and Medley (2016) WCPFC (2004). CCMHMS WCPFC (2017). CMM and Resolutions https://www.wcpfc.int OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

Page 179 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision- PI 3.1.3 making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates the precautionary approach. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 180 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Objectives Guide Objectives, which are Short and long-term Well defined and post broadly consistent with objectives, which are measurable short and achieving the outcomes consistent with achieving long-term objectives, expressed by MSC’s the outcomes expressed which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are by MSC’s Principles 1 consistent with achieving implicit within the fishery- and 2, are explicit within the outcomes expressed specific management the fishery-specific by MSC’s Principles 1 system. management system. and 2, are explicit within the fishery-specific management system. Met? Y Y P Justifi There are clear objectives to guide decision-making, consistent with MSC Principles cation and Criteria and the precautionary approach in the WCPF Convention. Fishery- specific objectives relating to P1 and P2 outcomes are set out in various WCPFC CMMs. P1, related to target fish stocks e.g. CMM 2015-01- “yellowfin fishing mortality rate is not greater than FMSY, i.e. F/FMSY ≤ 1; albacore is to maintain the albacore fleet at most recent historical levels (2002-5)” . Examples for P2 related to bycatch turtles (CMM 2008-03), seabirds (CMM2012-07), sharks (CMM 2014-05; CMM 2013-08; CMM 2011-4; CMM 2010-07), whale sharks (CMM 2012-04), cetaceans (CMM 2011-03) where the objective is to minimize bycatch in the relevant fisheries and return live bycatch if possible. WCPFC members also report against a number of indicators as part of their obligations through Part 2 Annual Reporting. These include short and long term conceptual and operational objectives. Some objectives (particularly in some earlier CMMs) are not well defined enough to be operational or measurable. To date, the WCPFC has not yet formally adopted precautionary and ecosystem-based target reference points for all major tuna and billfish species. At the national level, the principle objective of the OFMD 2012 is to “conserve manage and develop Fiji fisheries to ensure long term sustainable use for the people of Fiji.” The key long term objectives for the fishery are explicitly described in the OFMD and in Tuna Management and Development Plan. These objectives and strategies include • promotion of rights based fisheries management • limited entry- controlling effort • implementation of best fisheries management practices and tools • measures to prevent overfishing and over capacity • maintenance of stock sustainability and optimum utilization • development and investment opportunities • promotion and maintenance of ecosystem biodiversity • minimization and mitigation of trans boundary, bycatch and discards • governance and institutional strengthening • information management • development of MCS strategic actions

The TMD Plan also provides well-defined and measurable short-term indicators against which to measure achievement of short and long term objectives. They include: caps on effort (60 vessels with 12 able to fish in archipelagic waters), a national TAC of 12,000 mt across all target tuna, a provisional SP albacore quota of

Page 181 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives PI 3.2.1 designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2. 7294 mt. These objectives are explicit and are considered to be clearly defined and measurable. Because the conservation measures contain reasonably explicit and specific intentions and objectives, and also allow for evaluation of the performance against these objectives, the fisheries meet SG80. However, although broadly measurable, they are not necessarily well-defined particularly in relation to achieving MSC Principles and criteria for P2. SG 100 is only partially met. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are partially met. Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan (2015) Offshore Fisheries Management Decree (2012) Powers JE and Medley PAH (2016) References WCPFC (2004) CCMHMS WCPFC (2017) CMM and Resolutions https://www.wcpfc.int OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 182 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Decision-making processes Guide There are some decision- There are established post making processes in decision-making place that result in processes that result in measures and strategies measures and strategies to achieve the fishery- to achieve the fishery- specific objectives. specific objectives. Met? Y Y N Justifi Decision-making processes are in place, which are established, responsive and cation largely transparent. These are very clearly defined in the Convention (Article 20) and Rules of Procedure. Information used for decision-making is published. Decisions are made by consensus and if necessary by voting (75% majority) and such decisions are binding on members. Members may require an independent review of a decision to ensure it is consistent with the Convention and management objectives. Some decisions, such as the allocation of fishing rights, must be carried out using consensus. Conservation and Management Measures are binding, but resolutions are non-binding. All management measures apply equally inside EEZ and on high seas. Flag states enforce management measures on their own vessels and coastal states within their own EEZ. Decision making processes at the national level are well established and result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives for the fishery. At the national level the OFMD utilizes science-based data provided by WCPF to assist in its managing Fijis fisheries resources in accordance with its responsibilities as defined under the OFMD and regulations. Information obtained from monitoring and enforcement activities by the Department that have an impact on fishery decisions made include TACs, actual catches categorized under certain species, catches of non-targeted species and the TMD Plan. Fishery decisions made pertain to - setting TAC for the tuna fishery - increasing/decreasing licences to harvest tuna - designating areas for fishing/ no fishing- identifying methods of harvesting tuna - increasing fees - utilizing observer data to best estimate non target species

Information is used by the Offshore Department to compile their annual report for management information purposes as well as reporting requirements for WCPFC and FFA. Decision-making processes are in place, and they result in measures and strategies to achieve objectives, which meet SG80. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met.

b Responsiveness of decision-making processes Guide Decision-making Decision-making Decision-making post processes respond to processes respond to processes respond to all serious issues identified serious and other issues identified in in relevant research, important issues relevant research, monitoring, evaluation identified in relevant monitoring, evaluation

Page 183 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. and consultation, in a research, monitoring, and consultation, in a transparent, timely and evaluation and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take consultation, in a adaptive manner and take some account of the transparent, timely and account of the wider wider implications of adaptive manner and take implications of decisions. decisions. account of the wider implications of decisions. Met? Y N N Justifi At the regional level the decision-making is transparent and transparency is a cation requirement of the Convention (Article 21). Decisions are transparent and published as a resolution from the annual meetings, and initial positions and the information used for the basis of the decision is available (as technical reports provided to the meeting or as proposals for resolutions from some Parties), The decision-making is adaptive in that the various specialist meetings evaluate decisions and feedback is provided to the Commission. The Commission can be shown to react appropriately. WCPFC decision-making processes allow consideration of serious and important issues through its committees (SC and TCC) and at the Commission itself. Stock assessments and studies presented at the SC (predominantly by SPC) identify serious issues, such as overfishing (e.g. Bigeye tuna) at the regional level. These issues are addressed through regionally agreed CMMs. A series of measures to control catch and effort within the WCPF Convention area were taken in 2013. However, although overall the decision-making is adequate for most of the stocks being considered and serious issues have been responded to, some important issues have not. The declining SP albacore catch rates comes under 'other important issues' (not yet 'serious' because the stock is above MSY reference points). At a presentation by SPC at the Thirteenth Session of WCPFC in December 2016 concerning the status of the tuna stocks it was stated that the southern albacore stocks were not overfished but that due to the declining CPUE there were concerns over economic viability. WCPFC has not addressed this important issue. It can be shown that regional decision making processes deal with serious issues identified, in a transparent timely and adaptive manner but not some of the important issues. In particular one of the target species for this assessment, albacore, has shown a steady decline in economic viability over recent years, and WCPFC have not responded in a timely responsive way to halt this decline. SG60 requirements are met. SG80 requirements are not met and a Condition is raised. c Use of precautionary approach Guide Decision-making post processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information. Met? Y Justifi The WCPFC Convention requires that the members of the Commission, directly cation and through the Commission, apply the precautionary approach, as described in Article 6 and Annex II. Specifically, 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.

Page 184 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. At national level there is a requirement that decision making processes use the precautionary approach and are based on best available information (OFMD and TMD Plan). SG80 requirements are met. d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process Guide Some information on the Information on the Formal reporting to all post fishery’s performance and fishery’s performance interested stakeholders management action is and management action provides generally available on is available on request, comprehensive request to stakeholders. and explanations are information on the provided for any actions fishery’s performance or lack of action and management associated with findings actions and describes and relevant how the management recommendations system responded to emerging from research, findings and relevant monitoring, evaluation recommendations and review activity. emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity. Met? Y Y N Justifi At the regional level information and recommendations from research, monitoring, cation evaluation and performance review are published formally. Reports of WCPFC plenary sessions are published formally and are publicly available. Annual (Part 1) reports are submitted by members providing detailed reporting on catch, fleet size and other issues relating to the fishery. The WPPFC SC and TCC papers and reports on the web provide a high level of public access and transparency, showing how scientific information is used to inform management actions, which are then monitored for effectiveness and discussed at the Commission. This reporting represents good practice. However, while reports are available, it is not clear that they represent all information that is used in decision making. There is no formal, detailed explanation linking the information provided to the decision that results. In an international context, it is recognized that it is very difficult to give full explanations for all decisions, since this might undermine co‐ operation. Decisions are often negotiated outcomes with the trade-offs not always apparent. Decision-making processes at the national level are well established and result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives for the fishery. The Offshore Fisheries Department utilizes science- based data provided by WCPF to assist in its managing Fijis fisheries resources in accordance with its responsibilities as defined under the OFMD and regulations. Information obtained from monitoring and enforcement activities by the Department that have an impact on fishery decisions made include TACs, actual catches categorized under certain species, catches of non-target species, increasing/decreasing licences to harvest tuna, designating areas for fishing/ no fishing, and utilizing observer data to best estimate non target species. All this information is made available to stakeholders. The Ministry have a record of providing explanations as to why or why not management actions have been taken. The industry and stakeholders are satisfied that they are informed. Much of the Information is used by the Offshore Dept. to compile their annual report for management information purposes as well as reporting requirements for WCPFC and FFA. Overall, SG60 and SG80 requirements are met at WCPFC and national levels.

Page 185 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. However, information is not comprehensive for all elements of the management system at the regional level and SG100 is not met.

e Approach to disputes Guide Although the The management system The management system post management authority or or fishery is attempting to or fishery acts proactively fishery may be subject to comply in a timely fashion to avoid legal disputes or continuing court with judicial decisions rapidly implements challenges, it is not arising from any legal judicial decisions arising indicating a disrespect or challenges. from legal challenges. defiance of the law by repeatedly violating the same law or regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery. Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC is not subject to any court challenges as of 2016, there are no current cation outstanding judicial disputes and there are no outstanding international disputes. It does not indicate any disrespect or defiance of the law through repeated violations. By resolving disputes through WCPFC meetings the members have avoided legal disputes. The management system acts proactively to avoid legal disputes at the regional level by the prompt incorporation of CMMs into national legislation and the implementation of measures to support such legislation. However there is increasing potential for legal challenges (e.g. in relation to resource allocation) but no evidence as yet of proactive actions. At the national level there is no evidence available to suggest that the OFD is disrespectful to, or defiant of Fiji’s law, or indeed, legally binding agreements reached at the Commission as they apply to the UoC. To the contrary, Fiji has shown considerable responsibility in upholding laws and regulations in respect of ensuring the sustainability of the fishery, including enacting agreements reached at the Commission into national legislation. While there have been no judicial decisions arising from legal challenges associated with the fishery, the management system in Fiji has the legal and other frameworks that would enable the Ministry to comply with any such decisions in a timely fashion. There have been several successful court cases. No evidence can be found of avoidance of legal responsibilities, or of any failure to comply with binding judicial decisions. Processes are in place to allow such challenges to take place, but the system has a record of acting appropriately to avoid legal disputes. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are not met.

Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan (2015). Mooney-Seus, M. L. Rosenberg, A. A. (2007). Offshore Fisheries Management Decree (2012; 2014) Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014) References Powers JE and Medley (2016) WCPFC (2004). CCMHMS WCPFC (2006) Rules and Procedures WCPFC (2015) Summary Meeting WCPFC ( 2016) TCC report

Page 186 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making PI 3.2.2 processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery. WCPFC (2017). CMM and Resolutions https://www.wcpfc.int OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 7

Page 187 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a MCS implementation Guide Monitoring, control and A monitoring, control and A comprehensive post surveillance mechanisms surveillance system has monitoring, control and exist, and are been implemented in the surveillance system has implemented in the fishery and has been implemented in the fishery and there is a demonstrated an ability to fishery and has reasonable expectation enforce relevant demonstrated a that they are effective. management measures, consistent ability to strategies and/or rules. enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules. Met? Y Y Y Justifi At the regional level, WCPFC aims to ensure compliance through VMS, IUU vessel cation listing, port state controls, observers, logbooks and transhipment monitoring. Enforcement of these measures falls to the member States. Addressing IUU fishing over the whole area of the WCPO is a major challenge. With most of the fishing taking place in national waters, the broad strategy of the WCPFC compliance program 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. Compliance failures by vessels are addressed by the application of the WCPFC IUU listing procedure. Compliance failures by CCMs, rather than vessels, are currently addressed through Commission processes of monitoring, reporting and accountability (i.e. Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2014-07). At the national level the Offshore Department is responsible for fish monitoring, control and surveillance, the Naval division is responsible for the surveillance of Fijis waters to ensure compliance with the OFMD either through sea patrol or aerial patrol. The Police Dept is responsible for facilitating Court action where there has been non-compliance. MCS in Fiji involves • Data base management. There are two data bases; t Tuna fisheries database management system (TUFMAN) and the TUFMAN MCS. All vessel owners and companies must provide information on catch, landings, trip reports, logbooks etc. • A national observer programme. For the fishery under assessment there is currently > 40% coverage • Port sampling. This allows documentation and verification of all catches landed in Fiji • Vessel Monitoring System. Fiji monitors its fishing vessels using the FFA regional VMS and WCPFC VMS • Dockside boarding and inspection – this is regularly carried out in accordance with Fiji’s laws and policies • Flag state responsibility. Fiji exercises this as required under international law and consistent with domestic law and policies • Investigations and case handling. All cases relating to violations of the OFMD are investigated • Prosecutions. The Director of Public Prosecution handles these. The penalties are set out in the OFMD.

Page 188 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. • Port Monitoring. The port where these fisheries are landed, landings are monitored from the point of landing until export. Fiji has shown that it has a comprehensive MCS system and consistently enforces management measures. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are met

b Sanctions Guide Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with Sanctions to deal with post non-compliance exist and non-compliance exist, are non-compliance exist, are there is some evidence consistently applied and consistently applied and that they are applied. thought to provide demonstrably provide effective deterrence. effective deterrence. Met? Y Y N Justifi At regional level, although conservation measures are set by WCPFC, enforcement cation falls to member States. Compliance failures by vessels are addressed by the application of the WCPFC IUU listing procedure. Compliance failures by member States, rather than vessels, are currently addressed through Commission processes of monitoring, reporting and accountability under the Compliance Monitoring Scheme (CMM 2014- 07). To date, no trade sanctions have been applied against non-compliant member States. Sanctions are applied only to fishing entities, such IUU vessels and vessels that are detected as being non-compliant with resolutions. WCPFC notifies Flag States of non-compliant vessels, which the Flag States should order to withdraw from Commission Area. These sanctions appear to be applied consistently. At the national level sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and are clearly spelt out in the OFMD (Part 6 Monitoring, compliance, surveillance and enforcement). There is evidence of sanctions being applied especially with the Offshore Fisheries fixed penalty notice. These notices can be issued by the Ministry, for less serious offences. The offender has the opportunity of pay the fine within 21days or else it will go to court. Although a number of these have been issued (including to client vessels) the Ministry has said there has been a marked decline in the notices issued in the last year, suggesting they are acting as an effective deterrent. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are not met.

c Compliance Guide Fishers are generally Some evidence exists to There is a high degree of post thought to comply with demonstrate fishers confidence that fishers the management system comply with the comply with the for the fishery under management system management system assessment, including, under assessment, under assessment, when required, providing including, when required, including, providing information of importance providing information of information of importance to the effective importance to the to the effective management of the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery. fishery. Met? Y Y N Justifi The WCPFC has a permanent working group on compliance that reviews and cation monitors compliance with WCPFC management measures. The working group also recommends measures to promote compatibility among the national fisheries management measures, addressing matters related to compliance with fisheries management measures, analyse information on compliance and report

Page 189 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. the findings to the WCPFC, which will in turn inform the members and non- members. An annual report is produced as part of the compliance review, which reports observed infringements.

Compliance of fishers appears adequate. However, there are sufficient gaps in information to prevent there being high degree of confidence that fishers in most fisheries comply. At national level, Logbook data has been supplied according to license requirements and the Fiji fleet has a good track record of compliance with no serious breaches of regulations reported in recent times. VMS and observer reports add additional confirmation of general compliance with the management system. Cooperation in the collection of fisheries data and analysis on catch, discard and other information important to the effective management of the resources and the fishery is undertaken through membership of SPC. Fiji has a good logbook and VMS data, observer reports, port inspection reports and other information, that enables high-quality stock assessments to be undertaken by SPC to support the effective management. The current level of observer coverage and at sea/port inspections, and the lack of any significant breaches of regulation provides a reasonable level of confidence that operators are complying with the management system. Observer coverage is well above the regional benchmark The level of port inspections in Fiji, where the majority of albacore from the fishery are landed, is an important element of effective compliance. SG 60 requirements are met SG 80 requirements are/ are not met SG 100 requirements are not met

d Systematic non-compliance Guide There is no evidence of post systematic non- compliance. Met? Y Justifi There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. Non-compliance with cation conservation measures appears mostly opportunistic or possibly down to ignorance of the resolutions and/or the lack of sanctions. Non-compliance is not systematic and does not threaten the sustainability of the fishery as there has been a significant reduction in non- compliance over the last decade. The Ministry indicated that in their reviews of observer reports, logbook data, landings data and VMS tracks, they did not find any evidence that led to a suspicion of systematic non-compliance. SG80 requirements are met.

Fiji Tuna Management and Development Plan 2015 Offshore Fisheries Management Decree (2012; 2014) Offshore Fisheries Management Regulations (2014) Powers JE and Medley (2016) References WCPFC (2004) CCMHMS WCPFC (2006) Rules of Procedures WCPFC (2015) summary Report WCPFC (2017) CMM and Resolutions

Page 190 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management PI 3.2.3 measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with. https://www.wcpfc.int OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 191 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.4 – Monitoring and management performance evaluation There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100 a Evaluation coverage Guide There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in There are mechanisms in post place to evaluate some place to evaluate key place to evaluate all parts parts of the fishery- parts of the fishery- of the fishery-specific specific management specific management management system. system. system Met? Y Y Y Justifi WCPFC has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system cation as demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. Additionally, there was a review of the performance of the WCPFC in 2012. At national level there are mechanisms in place to evaluate key parts of the management system. In 2012 the Auditor General produced a performance audit report, which covered the management of fisheries in Fiji. The Packard Group produced a report on trends in marine resources and fisheries management. SG60, SG80 and SG100 requirements are met

b Internal and/or external review Guide The fishery-specific The fishery-specific The fishery-specific post management system is management system is management system is subject to occasional subject to regular subject to regular internal review. internal and occasional internal and external external review. review. Met? Y Y N Justifi WCPFC is subject to regular internal review as demonstrated by the various cation committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. Additionally, there was a review of the performance of the WCPFC in 2012. However there is no process in place as yet to ensure that there will be a regular external review. At the national level there are regular internal reviews as required by Fiji’s legislative system. There have been several external reviews but again there is no process in place to ensure that these will be carried out on any regular basis. SG60 and SG80 requirements are met. SG100 requirements are not met.

Anonymous (2012.) Review of the Performance of the WCPFC Auditor General report (2012) Lodge, M.W., Anderson, D., Løbach, T., Munro, G., Sainsbury, K., Willock, A. (2010) References Packard Foundation (2015). Fisheries management in Fiji WCPFC (2014) https://www.wcpfc.int

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

Page 192 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

There is a system of monitoring and evaluating the performance of the fishery-specific management system against its objectives. PI 3.2.4 There is effective and timely review of the fishery-specific management system. CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): N/A

Page 193 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Appendix 1.2 Risk Based Framework (RBF) Outputs

RBF was not used in this assessment.

Page 194 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Appendix 1.3 Conditions

Condition 1

UoA 1:

Target Species Albacore tuna Performance PI 1.2.1 Indicator (a) The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements Scoring Issue of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management (SG80) objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Score 70

See UoA 1 evaluation table for PI 1.2.1. Rationale This condition has been carried over from the previous assessment of the Fiji longline fishery. As detailed in the 4th surveillance audit of the fishery, MSC provides guidance on the exceptional circumstances which allow conditions to be carried over into reassessment (Akroyd and McLoughlin, 2017). Within RFMO managed fisheries, ‘exceptional circumstances’ can apply in specific cases where ongoing research projects are required to finalise management objectives related to Principle 1. Note: the score for this PI is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). The elements of the WCPFC harvest strategy are as follows: • data collection on the stock and fishery (considered at PI 1.2.3); • stock assessment process (considered at PI 1.2.4); • limit reference point (explicit) and target reference point (implicit) (considered variously at PIs 1.1.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.4);harvest control rules (considered at PI 1.2.2); • monitoring of implementation of CMM-2015-02 (replacing CMM 2010- 05) via data gathering and reports to the Commission. The management advice produced from recent assessments continues to be that the South Pacific albacore stock is not overfished and overfishing is not taking place. Countries undertake to control catches mainly through effort limits and limits on capacity (i.e. number of vessels targeting albacore). It should be noted, however, that biomass is below the bio-economic reference point put forward by the FFA and the Tokelau Arrangement countries (WCPFC 2016). WCPFC have made progress in the development of its harvest strategy with the adoption of CMM 2014-06 to develop and implement a harvest strategy approach for key fisheries and stocks in the WCPO. The CMM identifies the elements that harvest strategies are to contain (including defined operational objectives, target and limit reference points for each stock, acceptable levels of risk of not breaching limit reference points, a monitoring strategy, decision rules that aim to achieve the target reference point and avoid the limit reference point, and management strategy evaluation). CMM 2014-06 included a requirement that the Commission agree a work plan 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. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a work plan under CMM 2014-06 was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support

Page 195 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

from the Scientific Service Provider to undertake the activities specified in the agreed work plan. Progress on aspects of the adopted work plan was discussed at the December 2016 Commission meeting. Under the work plan a target reference point was anticipated to be adopted at that meeting. Agreement on the adoption of a target reference point was not reached at the Commission meeting. An updated work plan was agreed (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N). The current state of the stock and developments in improving the harvest strategy indicate that the strategy is expected to achieve PI 1.1.1 stock management objectives, meeting SG60 requirements. Whilst progress has been made in developing a harvest strategy, concerns over the effectiveness of current measures in restricting effort and lack of progress on some aspects of the harvest strategy led the team to conclude that there is insufficient evidence that the elements of the harvest strategy are working together towards achieving stock management objectives. SG80 is not met.

SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for Condition albacore tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Milestones are aligned with the latest iteration of the WCPFC harvest strategy Milestones workplan (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N). Dates are aligned with the WCPFC

calendar (i.e. decisions taken at plenary held annually in December) (see summary below). At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that the harvest strategy for WCPO albacore tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving the management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. This evidence will include a summary of the actions taken by the client and other relevant parties to achieve this outcome in alignment with the WCPFC agreed work plan (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N) (see summary below). Score 70. At the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Score 80. Summary of harvest strategy work plan timeline for SP albacore: End 2017: Target reference point agreed; SC provides advice on candidate HCR options.

End 2018: SC provide advice on performance of candidate HCRs, TCC consider implications of candidate harvest control rules.

End 2019: On further advice on candidate HCRs and consideration by TCC; Commission considers candidate HCRs

End 2020: HCR agreed. Harvest strategy satisfying CMM 2014-06 requirements in place.

Sustainable management of the fisheries resources is a high priority for the Fiji Client action plan Government. High on this list of fisheries resources is the Tuna species noting

the current pessimistic statuses of the Tuna stocks within the WCPO. At the national level, Fiji has in place harvest strategies in its fisheries waters, which are embebed in its fisheries laws and policies. These are:

Page 196 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

1. Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012 and its Reguations 2014. 2. Tuna Management Plan 2014-2018 3. National Fleet Strategy fishing in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. 4. Obligations under relevant WCPFC CMMs. In addition, Fiji continues to work closely with SPC and FFA to ensure its MCS strategies remain stringent and updated with recent developments in the ever- evolving Tuna fishery. Internationally, Fiji has ratified the Tokelau Arrangement and is supportive and actively participating in the developing and confirming harvest control rules for Albacore tuna. In addition, Fiji continues to support and push for harvest control rules and reference points of the tunas in the WCPFC process. In order to demonstrate that the harvest strategy for albacore tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, the client will: Year 1 (2018) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries, including through the submission of a position statement, towards ensuring that delegations: • Provide constructive input towards finalising a Catch Management Arrangement for SP albacore via The Tokelau Arrangement. • Support the Scientific Committee’s advice to the Commission on candidate HCRs and the development of other harvest strategy elements for South Pacific albacore fisheries as prescribed by CMM 2014-06. Year 2 (2019) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries to ensure that delegations to meetings provide: • Further support for progress by the SC on the assessment of candidate HCR performance (i.e. management strategy evaluation) for SP albacore in order for the elements of the harvest strategy to be available for consideration by the SC and WCPFC in December 2019. • Collaborate with industry sectors and NGOs towards encouraging the WCPFC to agree on all the elements of a harvest strategy for the albacore stock as prescribed by CMM 2014-06 and the agreed Work Plan. Year 3 (2020) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries and FFA members and WCPFC delegates from other major countries fishing the stock, in advance of the annual WCPFC meetings, towards: • Encouraging the finalisation of HCRs by the SC, their acceptance by the TCC and the adoption by the WCPFC Commission of HCRs for SP albacore; • Agreeing on the adoption of a formal harvest strategy for SP albacore. Year 4 (2021) Provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Page 197 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

WCPFC have already expressed their intention of addressing this issue (see Consultation on CMM 2014-06), so consultation with WCPFC is not required other than ongoing condition support by the client and the Fiji Government for WCPFC processes. The client will consult and coordinate primarily with the Ministry of Fisheries but also with the FFA, the SPC and the SC and TCC of the Commission as may be appropriate. The client will also consult with other CCMs engaged in fishing for SP albacore and with environmental NGOs as may be required towards achieving the desired outcome on this Condition.

Condition 2

UoA 1:

Target Species Albacore tuna Performance PI 1.2.2 Indicator (a) Well defined HCRs are in place 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, or for key LTL species a Scoring Issue level consistent with ecosystem needs. (SG80) (b) The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. (c) Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Score 60

See UoA 1 evaluation table for PI 1.2.2. Rationale This condition has been carried over from the previous assessment of the Fiji longline fishery. As detailed in the 4th surveillance audit of the fishery, MSC provides guidance on the exceptional circumstances which allow conditions to be carried over into reassessment (Akroyd and McLoughlin, 2017). Within RFMO managed fisheries, ‘exceptional circumstances’ can apply in specific cases where ongoing research projects are required to finalise management objectives related to Principle 1. Note: the score for this PI is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016). This condition is carried over due to lack of progress in the formalisation of the harvest strategy at WCPFC. MSC CR v2.0 section GSA2.5.2 states that “In cases where the stock has not yet been reduced and ‘available’ HCRs are scored as meeting the 60 level, the condition assigned to this PI may allow longer than the normal five-year time period for delivery.” MSC have also provided further comment on HCRs with their notice of 16 December, 2015 “Interpretation on Harvest Control Rules (HCR)”. MSC CR v2.0 lays out two conditions for acceptance of HCR being available sufficient to justify scoring at the SG60 level. These conditions and a description of how they are met are presented in the evaluation table for PI 1.2.2. As discussed in the report, there has been progress in satisfying the requirements for this PI. CMM 2014-06 has been adopted, defining the approach for a harvest strategy with harvest controls and reference points to be adopted. A work plan for implementation was accepted at the 2015 WCPFC

Page 198 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Commission meeting (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y) and revised at the 2016 meeting (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N) (see summary below).

SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in Condition place 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 HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Milestones are aligned with the latest iteration of the WCPFC harvest strategy Milestones workplan (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N). Dates are aligned with the WCPFC

calendar (i.e. decisions taken at plenary held annually in December) (see summary below). At the first annual surveillance audit and subsequent surveillance audits, the client will provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that well defined harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for albacore tuna and that these are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. This evidence will include a summary of the actions taken by the client and other relevant parties to achieve this outcome in alignment with the WCPFC agreed work plan (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N). Score 60. By the fourth surveillance audit, the client will provide evidence that well-defined harvest control rules taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for albacore tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as limit reference points are approached. Score 80. Summary of harvest strategy work plan timeline for SP albacore: End 2017: Target reference point agreed; SC provides advice on candidate HCR options.

End 2018: SC provides advice on performance of candidate HCRs; TCC consider implications of candidate harvest control rules.

End 2019: Further advice on candidate HCRs and consideration by TCC; Commission considers candidate HCRs

End 2020: HCR agreed. Harvest strategy satisfying CMM 2014-06 requirements in place.

Fiji joins other FFA members that have an Albacore fishery in continuing to Client action plan advocate for harvest control rules and reference points through a revised and

strengthened WCPFC CMM. With attempts being unsuccessful over the past few years, FFA members have taken the lead to take a unified stand to have stronger management regimes through the Tokelau Arrangement.

In order to demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for albacore that ensure the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and that are

Page 199 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, the client will: Year 1 (2018) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries ensuring that delegations to regional and WCPFC meetings encourage: • Ongoing analyses required for the development of harvest control rules for albacore in accordance with the agreed Work Plan for the adoption of harvest strategies under CMM 2014-06. • The FFA members to implement initiatives that will facilitate the adoption HCRs for albacore, in particular: o Seek support from Tokelau Arrangement members for the adoption of a pragmatic approach to setting country allocations (i.e. a Catch Management Arrangement for EEZs). o Seek agreement from WCPFC’s Secretariat to promote the adoption by the Commission of high seas limits for South Pacific albacore fisheries towards setting a global TAC/TAE for the stock. Year 2 (2019) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries towards ensuring delegations to meetings: • Encourage and support initiatives being undertaken to complete the management strategy evaluation of candidate HCRs for consideration by the Commission in December 2019. • Collaborate with other CCMs and environmental NGOs towards securing their support for WCPFC’s adoption of HCRs for the albacore stock. Year 3 (2020) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries towards ensuring delegations to meetings: • Continue to collaborate with FFA members and WCPFC delegates from other major countries fishing the stock, in advance of the annual WCPFC meeting, to seek support for the adoption of HCRs for the SP albacore stock, as may be required. Year 4 (2021) (a) Demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place that ensure the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and that are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. (b) Provide evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. (c) Demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

WCPFC have already expressed their intention of addressing this issue (see Consultation on CMM 2014-06), so consultation with WCPFC is not required other than ongoing condition support by the client and the Fiji Government for WCPFC processes. The client will consult and coordinate primarily with the Ministry of Fisheries but also with the FFA, the SPC and the SC and TCC of the Commission as may be appropriate. The client will also consult with other CCMs engaged in fishing for SP albacore and with environmental NGOs as may be required towards achieving the desired outcome on this Condition.

Page 200 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Condition 3

UoA 2:

Target Species Yellowfin tuna Performance PI 1.2.1 Indicator (a) The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements Scoring Issue of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management (SG80) objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Score 60

See UoA 2 evaluation table for PI 1.2.1. Rationale There has been progress in satisfying the requirements for this PI in recent years. CMM 2014-06 has been adopted, defining the approach for a harvest strategy with harvest controls and reference points to be adopted. A work plan for implementation was accepted at the 2015 WCPFC Commission meeting (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y) and revised in 2016 (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N). A limit reference point has been adopted for yellowfin. The Commission tasked the SC with support from the Scientific Service Provider to undertake the activities specified in the agreed work plan. To date, the measures in place have achieved stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80 and assessment projections indicate they will continue to do so, meeting SG60 requirements. However, there has been a lack of progress in the development of management measures for some components of the overall fishery for yellowfin. The elements of the harvest strategy are not considered to be working together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, hence SG80 requirements for this scoring issue are not met. The score for this PI is in agreement with the outcomes agreed at the MSC harmonisation meeting (Hong Kong 21-22 April 2016).

By the fourth surveillance audit, demonstrate that the harvest strategy for Condition yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

Milestones are aligned with the latest iteration of the WCPFC harvest strategy Milestones workplan (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N). Dates are aligned with the WCPFC

calendar (i.e. decisions taken at plenary held annually in December) (see summary below). Years 1, 2 and 3: (Resulting score 70) • The client will need to provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that the harvest strategy for WCPO yellowfin tuna is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving the management objectives reflected in the target and limit reference points. This evidence will include a summary of the actions taken by the client and other relevant parties to achieve this outcome in

Page 201 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

alignment with the WCPFC 2016 agreed work plan (see summary of requirements below). Year 4: (Resulting score ≥80) • The client will need to provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. Summary of harvest strategy work plan timeline for yellowfin: End 2017: SC provide advice on Interim performance indicators to evaluate performance of harvest control rules; Commission to agree interim performance indicators. End 2018: SC provide advice on target reference points and Commission agree target reference point for yellowfin. End 2019: SC provide advice on a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points; Commission agree to a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. End 2020: HCRs agreed. Harvest strategy satisfying CMM 2014-06 requirements in place

Sustainable management of the fisheries resources is a high priority for the Fiji Client action plan Government. High on this list of fisheries resources is the Tuna species noting

the current pessimistic statuses of the Tuna stocks within the WCPO. At the national level, Fiji has in place harvest strategies in its fisheries waters, which are embebed in its fisheries laws and policies. These are: 1. Offshore Fisheries Management Decree 2012 and its Reguations 2014. 2. Tuna Management Plan 2014-2018 3. National Fleet Strategy fishing in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction. 4. Obligations under relevant WCPFC CMMs. In addition, Fiji continues to work closely with SPC and FFA to ensure its MCS strategies remain stringent and updated with recent developments in the ever- evolving Tuna fishery. Internationally, Fiji has ratified the Tokelau Arrangement and is supportive and actively participating in the developing and confirming harvest control rules for Albacore tuna. In addition, Fiji continues to support and push for harvest control rules and reference points of the tunas in the WCPFC process. In order to 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 stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80, the client will: Year 1 (2018) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries through the submission of a position statement, towards ensuring delegations to meetings: • Support the adoption by the Commission of an agreed TRP for yellowfin tuna. • Support the evaluation by the SPC of candidate HCRs for yellowfin tuna as prescribed by the work plan agreed under CMM 2014-06. Year 2 (2019)

Page 202 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries towards ensuring delegations to meetings: • Promote and support the Scientific Committee’s advice to the Commission on the outcomes of HCR evaluation. • Support the adoption of an agreed monitoring strategy to assess fishery performance against reference points. • Encourage further development of harvest strategy elements as prescribed by CMM 2014-06. Year 3 (2020) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries to ensure delegations to meetings: • Provide further support for progress by the SC on the management strategy evaluation of candidate HCRs for yellowfin tuna in order for the elements of the harvest strategy to be available for consideration by the SC and WCPFC in December 2020. • Collaborate with CCMs and environmental NGOs towards encouraging the WCPFC to agree on the adoption of all the required elements of a harvest strategy for the yellowfin tuna stock at the December 2020 Commission meeting. Year 4 (2021) Provide evidence that the harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and that the elements of the harvest strategy work together towards achieving management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80.

WCPFC have already expressed their intention of addressing this issue (see Consultation on CMM 2014-06), so consultation with WCPFC is not required other than ongoing condition support by the client and the Fiji Government for WCPFC processes.

Condition 4

UoA 2:

Target Species Yellowfin tuna Performance PI 1.2.2 Indicator (a) Well defined HCRs are in place 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, or for key LTL species a Scoring Issue level consistent with ecosystem needs. (SG80) (b) The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. (c) Available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Score 60

Scoring issue (a): Rationale WCPFC CMM 2014-06 established a process for the adoption of harvest control rules, however, well-defined harvest control rules are not currently in place and SG80 is not met. Following the MSC Notice, “Scoring of ‘available’ Harvest Control Rules (HCRs) in CRv1.3 fisheries” of 24th November 2014, PI 1.2.2 si(a) has been scored using CRv2.0 provisions for SG60 (as above) scoring for a number of fisheries, including several tuna fisheries. MSC have also provided further comment on

Page 203 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

HCRs with their notice of 16 December, 2015 “Interpretation on Harvest Control Rules (HCR)”. MSC CRv2.0 lays out two conditions for acceptance of HCR being available sufficient to justify scoring at the SG60 level (MSC 2014). 1) CRv2.0 SA2.5.2a provides for HCR being recognised as available, “…if stock biomass has not previously been reduced below BMSY or has been maintained at that level for a recent period of time”. The yellowfin tuna stock assessment provides probabilistic estimates of parameters of interest, and uncertainty has been extensively explored using a crosswise grid of sensitivity tests. Previous yellowfin tuna assessments indicate that SB has not been reduced below SBMSY. The 2014 assessment estimates of spawning biomass (2011) are also above the level that will support the MSY (SBlatest/SBMSY = 1.24 for the base case and from 1.05 to 1.51 across key models of the grid used in the assessment) (WCPFC 2014a). WCPFC (2014a) also indicated that “Future status under status quo projections (assuming 2012 conditions) depends on 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, or to become subject to overfishing (F>FMSY). If recent (2002–2011) actual recruitments are assumed, spawning biomass will remain relatively constant, and the stock is exceptionally unlikely (0%) to become overfished or to become subject to overfishing, and it was very unlikely (2%) that the spawning biomass would fall below SBMSY)” (WCPFC 2014a). The CRv2.0 SA2.5.2a condition is therefore met and HCRs are considered to be ‘available’. 2) CRv2.0 SA2.5.3b provides for HCR being recognised as available if, “…there is an agreement or framework in place that requires the management body to adopt HCRs before the stock declines below BMSY”. WCPFC CMM 2014-06 sets out the principles and elements for harvest strategies to be developed and implemented, including requirements for 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 CMM also included a requirement to adopt a workplan with an indicative timeframe no later than the 2015 Commission meeting, with application to skipjack tuna, bigeye tuna, yellowfin tuna, Pacific bluefin tuna, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. Work towards establishing reference points and harvest control rules is well underway through the Management Objectives Workshop process (a LRP has been adopted for yellowfin tuna and candidate TRPs are under consideration). Following discussions at WCPFC12 a workplan was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). The Commission tasked the SC with support from the SPC to undertake the activities specified in the agreed workplan (included in this report at Appendix 8). As indicated above, the current stock assessment and projections of future stock size indicate that the stock will remain above SSBMSY over the period agreed in the CMM 2014-06 workplan. The CRv2.0 SA2.5.3b requirement is therefore met. In summary, as conditions at both CR v2.0 SA2.5.2a and CR v2.0 SA2.5.3b are met, a score of SG60 is awarded. Scoring issue (b): HCRs are still under development and SG80 is therefore not met. Scoring issue (c):

Page 204 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

The rationale for this SI needs to address two CRv2.0 (MSC 2014) requirements. 1) CRv2.0 SA2.5.6 requires that as part of the evaluation of the effectiveness of HCRs, “…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”. CRv2.0 SA2.5.6 guidance (GSA2.5.2-7) states that “Evidence that current F is equal to or less than FMSY should usually be taken as evidence that the HCR is effective”. Evidence to support this is provided by the 2014 assessment indicating that overfishing is not occurring (Fcurrent/FMSY < 1 across the grid of model runs) (WCPFC 2014a). 2) In relation to SIa, above, CRv2.0 SA2.5.5b, requires that where HCRs are recognised as ‘available “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” shall be provided. As noted at SIa, CMM 2014-06 sets out elements of harvest strategies to be developed and implemented. The WCPFC agreed to adopt a work plan at the 2015 Commission meeting, with potential revision in 2017, with application to skipjack, bigeye, yellowfin, Pacific bluefin, and South and North Pacific albacore tunas. Work to establish reference points and harvest control rules has been in progress over recent years through the Management Objectives Workshop (MOW) process. WCPFC has adopted an explicit LRP for yellowfin and candidate TRPs are being considered. Following discussions at WCPFC12 a workplan was agreed (WCPFC 2015, Attachment Y). No additional trigger is required for the development of HCRs is required. The requirements detailed above are met and a score of 60 is awarded. SG80 refers to the tools ‘in use’ in the fishery. Given SIa finds HCRs are ‘available’, the tools are not considered to be in use and SG80 is not met.

SI a) By the fourth surveillance audit, the client shall demonstrate that well Condition defined HCRs are in place 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, the client shall provide evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. SI c) By the fourth surveillance audit, the client shall demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Milestones are aligned with the latest iteration of the WCPFC harvest strategy Milestones workplan (WCPFC 2016a, Attachment N). Dates are aligned with the WCPFC

calendar (i.e. decisions taken at plenary held annually in December).

Years 1, 2 and 3: (Resulting score = 60) • The client will need to provide evidence that it is actively working to ensure that well defined HCRs taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for yellowfin tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as LRPs are approached. This evidence will include a summary of the actions taken by the client and other relevant parties to achieve this outcome in alignment with the WCPFC agreed work plan (see summary below). Year 4: (Resulting score ≥80)

Page 205 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

• The client will need to provide evidence that well defined HCRs taking into account the main uncertainties are in place for yellowfin tuna that are consistent with the harvest strategy and ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as LRPs are approached. Summary of harvest strategy work plan timeline for yellowfin: End 2017: SC provide advice on Interim performance indicators to evaluate performance of harvest control rules; Commission to agree interim performance indicators. End 2018: SC provide advice on target reference points and Commission agree target reference point for yellowfin. End 2019: SC provide advice on a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points; Commission agree to a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. End 2020: HCRs agreed. Harvest strategy satisfying CMM 2014-06 requirements in place.

In order to demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place for yellowfin tuna Client action plan that ensure the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached and that

are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY, the client will: Year 1 (Dec 2018) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries towards ensuring that delegations to meetings: • Encourage the Commission to agree on interim performance indicators as a basis for evaluating the performance of harvest control rules • Support the adoption by the Commission of a target reference point for yellowfin tuna, as prescribed by the Work Plan under CMM 2014-06. Year 2 (Dec 2019) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries ensuring that delegations to meetings: • Advocate for the implementation by the Commission of a monitoring strategy to assess performance against reference points. • Promote completion of the management strategy evaluation of candidate HCRs for consideration by the Commission in December 2019. • Collaborate with CCMs towards encouraging the WCPFC Commission to agree on and adopt HCRs for the yellowfin stock. Year 3 (Dec 2020) Engagement with the Ministry of Fisheries to ensure that delegations to meetings of the FFA, SC and TCC, in advance of the annual WCPFC Commission meeting: • Seek support for the adoption of agreed HCRs for yellowfin tuna. • Advocate for the adoption of an agreed harvest strategy for yellowfin tuna that satisfies the requirements of CMM 2014-06. Year 4 (Dec 2021) a) Demonstrate that well defined HCRs are in place that ensure the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, and that are expected

Page 206 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

to keep the stock fluctuating around a target level consistent with (or above) MSY. b) Provide evidence that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. c) Demonstrate that available evidence indicates that the tools in use are appropriate and effective in achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

WCPFC have already expressed their intention of addressing this issue (see Consultation on CMM 2014-06), so consultation with WCPFC is not required other than ongoing condition support by the client and the Fiji Government for WCPFC processes. The client will consult and coordinate primarily with the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also with the FFA, the SPC and the SC and TCC of the Commission as may be appropriate. The client will also consult with other CCMs engaged in fishing for yellowfin tuna and with environmental NGOs as may be required towards achieving the desired outcome on this Condition.

Condition 5

UoA 1:

Target Species Albacore tuna Performance PI 2.2.3 Indicator Scoring Issue (c) Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main (SG80) secondary species.

Score 70

Bait usage by the client has been estimated from data provided by the client Rationale during the site visit. These data are a subset of the total usage. Information gathered by the client fishery from the importation of bait fish species is adequate to support measures required by SG60. However, this information is not currently collated in a way which allows consideration of its adequacy to support a partial strategy. There is a need to collate more detailed information on the bait species used and their origin. SG80 is not met.

By the fourth surveillance audit, information is adequate to support a partial Condition strategy to manage main secondary species.

Year 1: (Resulting score = 70) Milestones At the first annual surveillance audit, the client will need to present a plan to collate more detailed information on the bait species used and their origin. Year 2: (Resulting score ≥80) A report is available which details usage of bait species used and their place of origin sufficient to support a partial strategy.

Year 1 (2018): Client action plan The Offshore Fisheries Division (OFD) of the Ministry of Fisheries and FFIA MSC Group are to work towards expanding the regulation on importation of fish to also include bait to require a permit.

Page 207 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

In addition, all imported consignments of bait are to accompany information on species by volume, certificate of origin from authorities of origin of the products and copy of export permit of country of export. Year 2 (2019): FFIA in collaboration with the OFD are to produce a report clearly outlining breakdown of all imported baits by: origin, species, volume and whether they have management measures or any other harvesting guidelines ensuring sustainability of the imported bait species.

The FFIA MSC Group is to work with the OFD of the Ministry of Fisheries in Consultation on ensuring that the required information on bait import are collated and analysed condition in preparation for the annual surveillance audits.

Condition 6

UoA 2:

Target Species Yellowfin tuna Performance PI 2.2.3 Indicator Scoring Issue (c) Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main (SG80) secondary species.

Score 70

Bait usage by the client has been estimated from data provided by the client Rationale during the site visit. These data are a subset of the total usage. Information gathered by the client fishery from the importation of bait fish species is adequate to support measures required by SG60. However, this information is not currently collated in a way which allows consideration of its adequacy to support a partial strategy. There is a need to collate more detailed information on the bait species used and their origin. SG80 is not met.

By the fourth surveillance audit, information is adequate to support a partial Condition strategy to manage main secondary species.

Year 1: (Resulting score = 70) Milestones At the first annual surveillance audit, the client will need to present a plan to collate more detailed information on the bait species used and their origin. Year 2: (Resulting score ≥80) A report is available which details usage of bait species used and their place of origin sufficient to support a partial strategy.

Year 1 (2018): Client action plan The Offshore Fisheries Division (OFD) of the Ministry of Fisheries and FFIA MSC Group are to work towards expanding the regulation on importation of fish to also include bait to require a permit. In addition, all imported consignments of bait are to accompany information on species by volume, certificate of origin from authorities of origin of the products and copy of export permit of country of export. Year 2 (2019):

Page 208 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

FFIA in collaboration with the OFD are to produce a report clearly outlining breakdown of all imported baits by: origin, species, volume and whether they have management measures or any other harvesting guidelines ensuring sustainability of the imported bait species.

The FFIA MSC Group is to work with the OFD of the Ministry of Fisheries in Consultation on ensuring that the required information on bait import are collated and analysed condition in preparation for the annual surveillance audits.

Condition 7 UoA 1& 2 Performance 3.2.2 Indicator (b) Decision-making processes respond to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, Scoring issue in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take account of the wider implications of decisions. Score 75 Commission decision-making processes are based heavily on Scientific Committee reports on the status of target and non-target species and respond to serious issues, such as overfishing, and suspected overfished (e.g. status of bigeye). However, at the Thirteenth Regular Session of the WCPFC, December 2016, the Ocean Fisheries Programme of SPC reported that although the South Pacific Albacore stocks were not overfished, the decline in CPUE since 1992 has raised concerns over the economic viability of the fishery. The SPC projections suggest that current catch and effort is not sustainable and the SPC Rationale bio-economic analysis suggests that consideration should be given for the

implementation of alternative management measures as the CMM for South Pacific Albacore (CMM 2010-5) appears to not be effective in constraining effort. So far, the decision-making process has not responded effectively. The team decided to treat this issue as ‘important’ (based on its impact on many WCPFC CCMs including American Samoa), although not (as yet) ‘serious’ (based on the stock status). Therefore, for regional-level decision-making processes, the team concluded that SG60 is met, but SG80 is not yet met.

By the fourth surveillance audit WCPFC decision-making processes have Condition responded to the albacore catch rate issue by putting in place a harvest

strategy or some other suitable means. End 2017: Some evidence that the Commission is responding to the issue of SP albacore catch rates, e.g. by progressing with the harvest strategy as per the agreed workplan, or some other evidence.

Milestones End 2018: Ditto End 2019: Ditto End 2020: Decision-making processes have responded to the albacore catch rate issue by putting in place a harvest strategy, or by some other suitable means. Fiji joins other FFA members that have an Albacore fishery in continuing to advocate for harvest control rules and reference points through a revised and Client action plan strengthened WCPFC CMM. With attempts being unsuccessful over the past few years, FFA members have taken the lead to take a unified stand to have stronger management regimes through the Tokelau Arrangement.

Page 209 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

In order to demonstrate that WCPFC decision-making processes have responded to the albacore catch rate issue by putting in place a harvest strategy or some other suitable means, the client will: Year 1 (Dec 2018)

Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries towards ensuring that delegations to meetings of regional bodies and the Commission:

• Deliver the message that development by the SPC of harvest strategy elements for SP albacore, as prescribed by CMM 2014-06, should incorporate agreed biological, ecological, economic and/or social objectives.

Year 2 (Dec 2019) Engage with the Ministry of Fisheries towards ensuring that delegations: • Collaborate with FFA members, industry sectors and environmental NGOs towards encouraging the WCPFC to agree on and adopt a harvest strategy for the SP albacore stock that includes agreed economic and/or social objectives. Year 3 (Dec 2020) Engagement with the Ministry of Fisheries towards ensuring that delegations to meetings: • Collaborate with FFA members and WCPFC delegates from other major countries fishing the stock, in advance of the annual WCPFC meeting, to seek support for the adoption of a harvest strategy for SP albacore as prescribed by CMM 2014-06. Year 4 (Dec 2021) Provide evidence that WCPFC decision-making processes have responded to the albacore catch rate issue by putting in place a harvest strategy or some other suitable means.

WCPFC have already expressed their intention of addressing this issue (see CMM 2014-06), so consultation with WCPFC is not required.

The client will consult and coordinate primarily with the Ministry of Fisheries but Consultation on also with the FFA, the SPC and the SC and TCC of the Commission as may be condition appropriate. The client will also consult with other CCMs engaged in fishing for SP albacore, and with environmental NGOs, as may be required towards achieving the desired outcome on this Condition.

Page 210 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Appendix 1.4 Letter of support from Fiji Ministry of Fisheries

Page 211 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline Appendix 2 Peer Review Reports Peer Review A

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes/No CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence Yes presented in the assessment report? Justification: The background information and scoring is clearly argued and extensive references are provided.

Do you think the condition(s) raised are Yes/No CAB Response appropriately written to achieve the SG80 outcome within the specified timeframe? Yes [Reference: FCR 7.11.1 and sub-clauses] Justification:

Most of the conditions depend on the WCPFC for implementation. They might just take longer than 4 years to develop HCR’s for all the tuna species. Decision-making Agree processes are slow within the WCPFC processes, so it is also

possible that a new harvest strategy for albacore will not be in place by then. However, if the harvest strategy work plan is followed, HCR’s would be agreed by 2020. These harvest strategies are developed by SPC, so the client might not have the influence over the process as was specified in the report.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes/No CAB Response to close the conditions raised? Yes [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification:

The client action plan, if it all happens according to the harvest strategy workplan of the WCPFC will be sufficient to close the Agree. It is important that progress is conditions. This UoA is not the only one that is waiting for the made at WCPFC for several MSC- WCPFC to implement harvest strategies. All the MSC certified certified fisheries. tuna fisheries in the WCPO are in the same situation, which might just be enough pressure for the implementation to go ahead according to the schedule.

Page 212 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

1.1.1 Alb Yes Yes

1.1.2 Alb n/a

1.2.1 Alb Yes Yes

1.2.2 Alb Yes Yes

1.2.3 Alb Yes Yes

1.2.4 Alb Yes Yes, For 1.2.4d: Different assessment approaches have The comment is noted. The But maybe not not been rigorously explored, but alternative assessors conclude that for 1.2.4 d hypothesis and assumptions were tested the current score is thouroughly. warranted. This outcome is harmonised with other fisheries.

1.1.1 Yft Yes Yes

1.1.2 Yft N/a

1.2.1 Yft Yes Yes

Page 213 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

1.2.2 Yft Yes Yes

1.2.3 Yft Yes Yes

1.2.4 Yft Yes Yes For 1.2.4d: Different assessment approaches have The comment is noted. The not been rigorously explored, but alternative assessors conclude that hypothesis and assumptions were tested the current score is thouroughly. warranted. This outcome is harmonised with other fisheries.

Page 214 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

2.1.1 Yes, Yes, Just a comment on the note under BET 2.1.1a The comment re BET No for BET No for BET under 2.1.1a was added to For the latest BET assessment positive changes indicate that there was an are only observed under the new hypothesis. By assessment undertaken in considering the old growth and areas used in the 2017 subsequent to the 2014 assessments a further decline is estimated. initial preparation of the For this reason it is not highly likely that the BET report and the scoring is stock is above the PRI, neither is their evidence of not based on this recovery, so maybe the score of SG80 should be assessment. The outcome reconsidered for BET. is predominantly based on the level of catch not https://www.wcpfc.int/system/files/SC13-SA-WP- hindering recovery and 05%20%5Bbet-assessment%5D%20REV1.pdf accords with other MSC- certified fisheries taking “Of the four sets of models in the structural BET as a primary species. uncertainty grid (the combinations of old/new growth and 2017/2014 regions), only the old growth/2014 regions models estimate spawning potential to be below 20%SBF =0 for all models in the set. These models estimate SBlatest/SBF =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).”

Page 215 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

2.1.2 Yes Yes, maybe not As yet, there is not clear evidence that the partial In relation to BET for for BET for strategy/strategy is implemented successfully. Even 2.1.2c, the limitation on 2.1.2c if the Fiji fishery only catches a small percentage, vessel numbers by Fiji is they should do more than required by WCPFC for more than required by the recovery of the BET. WCPFC and are important in limiting BET catches. Fiji has adopted a high level of monitoring to support the implementation of the strategy.

2.1.3 Yes Yes

Page 216 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

2.2.1 Yes Yes If a scoring issue is justified as highly likely should it The assessors assume this not be based on some quantitive values? refers to 2.2.1a and bait species. The assessors have based their conclusion on the productivity of the bait species and the relatively low level used by the client fishery. However, the assessors have recognized that further information is required on bait species used in the fishery and have put a condition in place for PI 2.2.3.

2.2.2 Yes Yes

2.2.3 Yes Yes

2.3.1 Yes Yes

2.3.2 Yes Yes

Page 217 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

2.3.3 Yes Yes For 2.3.3b the assessors indicated a yes for SG Agreed. Scoring issue 100, but they do not justify it. On the contrary, they 2.3.3b is assessed as ‘N’, indicate that the information does not support a as indicated by the scoring comprehensive strategy. Probably just a printing comments and the overall error. score of 80 for PI 2.3.3.

2.4.1 Yes Yes

2.4.2 Yes Yes

2.4.3 Yes Yes

2.5.1 Yes Yes The paper Allain 2010 is listed, but no reference to A citation has been added. it could be found In this SI

2.5.2 Yes Yes The paper MFF 2014 is listed, but no reference to it A citation has been added. could be found In this SI

2.5.3 Yes Yes

3.1.1 Yes Yes

Page 218 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

3.1.2a Yes No This scoring issue looks at the funtion and the roles The score for 3.1.2a has and responsibilities of stakeholders within the been revised to 80. 3.1.2b Yes Yes management system. Functions, roles and 3.1.2c Yes Yes responsibilities are not explicitly defined and well understood for all areas of responsibility and interaction. The CAB admits to it in the following paragraph. The score should be SG80 and not SG100.

“Roles and responsibilities are not necessarily well understood in all areas, however. WCPFC has had a number of problems with flag states that have not applied appropriate controls to all their vessels, and it appears that not all vessels understand their responsibilities and in some cases there appear to be conflicts between requirements for confidentiality and the responsibilities to provide information necessary for management, which need to be resolved.”

3.1.3 Yes Yes There is a list of references that are not included in References have been the text. added to the reference list.

3.2.1 Yes Yes Same issue with the references here. References have been added to the reference list.

Page 219 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where possible. Please relevant and/or raised improve attach additional pages if necessary. information rationale used the fishery’s been used to to score this performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this Indicator the SG80 level? Indicator? support the (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No) given score? (Yes/No)

3.2.2 Yes Yes Same issue with the references here. References have been added to the reference list.

3.2.3 Yes Yes

3.2.4 Yes Yes Same issue with the references here. References have been added to the reference list.

Page 220 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Peer Review B

Has the assessment team arrived at an Yes CAB Response appropriate conclusion based on the evidence presented in the assessment report? Justification: Section 1 of the report says Determination The assessment team provided substantial evidence to On completion of the assessment appropriately score the Scoring Issues for P1, P2 and P3 for and scoring process, the Acoura the Fiji Albacore and Yellowfin tuna longline fishery. Some Marine assessment team has minor clarification of scoring is suggested for consideration. provisionally recommended that the fishery should be certified. This The Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement recommendation is subject to client, (Section 3.4) of the report is incomplete. However, the peer and stakeholder review. assessment team did provisionally recommend that the fishery Section 6.4 Determination, Formal should be certified. This is supported by the scoring results. Conclusion is to be completed for the PCR and FR

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 1-4 are appropriate and address the continuing shortcomings in PI 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 for tuna fisheries. Conditions 1 and 3 ensure that harvest strategies for WCPO south Pacific albacore and yellowfin to stocks will be implemented and that the harvest strategies will be responsive to the stock status, and that the elements of the strategies will be working together to achieve management objectives. Similarly, conditions 2 and 4 are raised by the CAB for supporting the development of appropriate HCRs for WCPO south Pacific albacore and yellowfin tuna stocks. Condition 5 ensures that information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main secondary species. Condition 6 ensures that at the Commission level, decision-making processes will respond to the declining catch rates of south Pacific albacore in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner.

If included: Do you think the client action plan is sufficient Yes CAB Response to close the conditions raised? [Reference FCR 7.11.2-7.11.3 and sub-clauses] Justification:

The client action plan is appropriate for this fishery. It is noted that as with other MSC assessments in other Regional Fisheries Management Organizations to close Conditions 1-4, agreements need to be reached by the Commission. Achieving these agreements is beyond the control of the client group. The slow progress in reaching these agreements is a big problem for continuing MSC certifications of tuna fisheries.

Page 221 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

ALBACORE

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

1.1.1 No Yes NA SIa: The conclusion that there is a high Reference to Cao 2016 has been degree of certainty that the stock is above added. the PRI would be strengthened if estimates of recruitment from an SS3 assessment (Cao et al., 2016) would be included in the rationale. SIb: Given the figure from Harley et al 2015 and since SBMSY is lower than the limit reference point the team correctly concluded that thre is a high degree of certainty that stock has been above SBMSY over recent years.

1.1.2 NA The albacore stock is not considered to be depleted.

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes Since the harvest strategy is not, or insufficiently responsive, to the status of the stock I agree with the 70 score. WCPFC has not determined what action would be taken if the stock fell below target levels. The condition raised will improve the fishery performance reaching the SG80 level.

Page 222 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes The two conditions for acceptance that HCR are available are substantiated and the score of 60 is justified.

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA SIa: Extensive data are collected for the SP albacore fishery, and even though some date gaps exist the score of 80 is appropriate. SIb: Score of 80 is appropriate given the efforts by Fiji to report catch, effort, landings, and length frequencies, etc. to the WCPFC. No reasons are given why SG100 is not met. SIc: Unfortunately some operational data is not reported by some fleets. But overall there is good information on removals from the albacore stock. An 80 score is justified.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA The MULTIFAN-CL is a state of the art stock assessment model. It is appropriate for assessing SP albacore as it takes the biology of albacore and the natture of the fishery into account. The 2015 albacore assessment also explores uncertainties and provides grid median, 5% and 95% values of parameters of interest. The 95 score is justified.

Page 223 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

YELLOWFIN

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA The overall 90 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

1.1.2 NA The yellowfin stock is not reduced.

1.2.1 Yes Yes Yes As with albacore, since the harvest startegy is not, or insufficiently responsive, to the status of the stock I agree with the 70 score. WCPFC has not determined what action would be taken if the stock fell below target levels. The condition raised will improve the fishery performance reaching the SG80 level.

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes The two conditions for acceptance that HCR are available are substantiated and the score of 60 is justified.

Page 224 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

1.2.3 Yes Yes NA For yellowfin tuna, sufficiently relevant fishery-dependent and fisheryindependent information on stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance, and fishery removals (with some exceptions) is available. This meets the 80 score for PI 1.2.3a. All three SG 80 issues are met despite some deficiencies in removal data. The overall score of 90 is justified.

1.2.4 Yes Yes NA The overall 95 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA The assessment team correctly noted that for P2 Primary species under MSC’s SA 3.1.3.1 it is required that YFT is considered as a P@ species in scoring the ALB UoA, and that ALB as a P2 species in scoring the YFT UoA. The information provided indicates that bigeye is not likely above the PRI and that MSC UoAs removals will not hinder recovery and rebuilding. The 90 score is supported by the elaborate information and justification provided.

Page 225 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

2.1.2 Yes Yes NA The overall score of 95 is supported by the information and justifications provided.

2.1.3 No No NA The 100 score is not supported by the The score of 100 was based on the high information and justifications provided. It is level of obsever coverage for this fishery. odd to recommend a report be prepared for This coverage provides adequate data. The observer data and yet give a 100 score for PI recommendation relates to difficulties in 2.1.3c. Score for PI 2.3c should be 80: obtaining the necessary data during the Information is adequate to support a partial assessment. The assessors agree that this startegy to manage main Primary species”. warrants reducing the score for 2.1.3c to 80. Overall score for PI 2.1.3 should be 90.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA The overall score of 95 is supported by the thorough examination of main and minor secondary stock status information and justifications provided.

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA The score of 80 is supported by the information and justifications provided.

2.2.3 Yes Yes Yes An explanation why PI 2.2.3b is not scored is The issue is not scored due to 80 not being needed. Given the need to collate more met at 2.2.3c. The explanantion has been detailed information on the bait species used added. in the fishery, I support the 70 score and the recommended condition.

Page 226 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

2.3.1 Yes No NA Justification for PI 2.3.1a should list the Clarification has been added. species that the client fishery intracts with so that one can judge whether the scoring issue is relevant or not. For PI 2.3.1band c the assessment team provided very through justifications which justifies the overal score of 85.

2.3.2 Yes NO NA Justification needed for PI 2.3.2b why the SG Justification has been added. 60, 80 and 100 are not relevant. The overall score is supported by the information and justifications provided for PI 2.3.2 a, c, d and e.

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA The 80 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA What are VME habitats? As non-demersal VME = Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem longline is not damaging seafloor the score of 100 is justified.

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA The 100 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA The 100 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

Page 227 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

2.5.1 No Yes NA The 80 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA The 80 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA The 90 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA The 85 score is supported by the information and justifications provided

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA The 95 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA The assessment team correctly identified the short coming of the WCPFC defining long term objectives. Thus indicating that the SG 100 is only partially met. I support the rationale and justification for the 90 score.

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA The 90 score is supported by the information and justifications provided.

Page 228 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Performance Has all Does the Will the Justification CAB Response Indicator available information condition(s) Please support your answers by referring to specific scoring issues and any relevant documentation where relevant and/or rationale raised improve possible. Please attach additional pages if necessary. information used to score this the fishery’s been used to Indicator support performance to Note: Justification to support your answers is only required where answers given are ‘No’. score this the given score? the SG80 level? Indicator? (Yes/No) (Yes/No/NA) (Yes/No)

3.2.2 Yes Yes Yes The 75 score is supported by the information and justifications provided. Condition 6 is appropriate.

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA For PI 3.2.3a Y has been indicated for SG The text should indicate that SG100 is met 100 yet the text on Page 190 indicates that and has been amended. SG 100 is not met. Thus the overall score for PI 3.3.3 should only be 80 not 85.

3.2.4 No Yes NA While the overall score of 90 is justifiable the The SI is about the fishery specific rationale could be bolstered by referring to management system subject to internal and the WCPC Secretariat’s annual report external review. The justification refers to detailing compliance of members with the various WCPFC committees and working reporting provisions of the Commission. groups that meet regularly to review and report their findings (internal) . There was also a external review of WCPFC performance in 2012. It only met 90 as there is no process in place for a regular external review.

Page 229 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline Appendix 3 Stakeholder submissions Appendix 3.1 MSC Technical Oversight SubID PageReference Grade RequirementVersion OversightDescription Pi CABComment As indicated there is possibility of UoC vessels fishing outside the UoC especially on the same trip. Please confirm if any non- Any voyage that includes fishing outside the UoC certified gear(s) is used when is a "non MSC" voyage. All Fiji flagged vessels have fishing outside the UoC, either to comply with MoF requirements in respect of on the same or different 27379 86 Guidance FCR-7.12.1.4 v2.0 gear whether inside or outside the UoC. The gear species and when fishing is inspected at the time of departure and on outside the certified area on return. The only gear used by the fleet is longlines. the same trip. This Additional text has been made to Table 3 clarification would be helpful in relation to Table 3 which shows bigeye and ‘other tuna like species’ are also landed by Fiji national fleet. Please clarify the point of The certification is to the point of landing in Suva. intended change of For the product to retain its MSC label the owner ownership. Pg 86 says “The of the fish has to have a CoC. The respective CoCs point of intended change of held by the companies are listed in the PDR. The ownership is the point of change of ownership may vary - it will depend on sale.” When does sale, i.e. 27380 86 Guidance FCR-7.12.1.5 v2.0 the terms of sale whether FOB or CIF/CNF Until change of ownership, occur? the fish is sold it is held under the catcher's CoC. (Does this coincide with .This could be at point of landing. This would be landing?) Further if possible shipped in a container for export and sold FOB. please list the company(s) of Additional words have been added to the report which the CoC from the point to clarify this. of landing will be covered by.

Page 230 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Would this be just PAFCO? This is to ensure the relevant CoC holder(s) is able to consider and cover activities from the point of landing onwards. Page 86 Section 5.2 5th and 6th paragraphs 5th paragraph typo: … vessel name, date (with comma) 27381 86 Guidance The report has been amended species, quantity and location… ; 6th paragraph typo: … the UoA there are no ‘other’ eligible fishers Condition 1 and 2. The assessment team has identified in Section 4.2 the reasons for why the existing conditions for PI 1.2.1. and PI 1.2.2. have been carried into reassessment. For clarity though, it would be worth including similar justification 1.2.1, The report has been amended to incorporate 27382 198-203 Guidance FCR-7.24.2.2 v2.0 in the condition tables in 1.2.2 statements as suggested. Appendix 1.3. For PI 1.2.1. This relates to the use of 'exceptional circumstances' as per the interpretation for RFMO P1 conditions. For PI 1.2.2., this relates to the adoption of 'available' prior to reassessment and the criteria remaining met. Both these

Page 231 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

reasons were outlined in the 4th surveillance report. PI2.2.1 scoring issue b: It is not clear in the rationale that biologically based limits are identified for all minor secondary species assessed by the team. i.e. short-billed spearfish, mahi mahi, wahoo, The rationale has been amended and scores 27383 143-145 Major FCR-7.10.6.1 v2.0 opah. The CAB may use the 2.2.1 adjusted for the species in question. criteria in Table 3 to make a decision on whether a fishery may or may not be data- deficient with respect to a PI. If found to be data-deficient the RBF in Annex PF should be applied. PI2.2.1 scoring issue a: The assessment team have not clearly demonstrated whether The wording has been amended to provide further the bait species used by the justification of the scoring of the bait species used fishery (main secondary in the fishery. The approach is in accord with that species) are within (SG60) or given for the recently certified American Samoa above (SG80) biologically 2.2.1, Longline Fishery based limits. 27384 142 Major FCR-7.10.6.2 v2.0 2.2.2, (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/american-

2.2.3 samoa-eez-albacore-and-yellowfin-longline- PI2.2.2 and PI 2.2.3 all scoring fishery/@@assessments). The assessment team issues: The rationale does not have acknowledged shortcomings in the data assess bait species following available on bait species and have recommended the critical guidance in a condition to improve this situation. GSA3.4.2. If the bait is purchased and it is main, teams need to assess the

Page 232 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

management and information PIs for the bait fishery for all scoring issues at SG60 and SG80 level.

As stated in GSA 3.4.2, although this might present a challenge in some cases, the MSC expectations are that all aspects of the fishery need to be sustainable, including those relating to the stocks of the bait species. Rationale, therefore, needs to be presented that even purchased bait comes from well-managed and healthy stocks. If the bait fishery supplying the UoA is a data- poor fishery and the RBF needs to be applied, the team may need to somehow estimate the susceptibility attributes for the PSA without the normal contributions of local stakeholders at the on- site visit.

Please see MSC interpretation 'Assigning bait category in FCR v2.0 (plus RBF and cumulative considerations)': http://msc- info.accreditation-

Page 233 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

services.com/questions/bait- species-can-come-from- various-sources-how-should- this-be-assessed-during-an- msc-fa/ It is not clear where shark species caught by the fishery but are not designated ETP in Table 8 are assessed. If the shark species are not designated as ETP as stated by the assessment team on page 51 in reference to Table 8: "not all elasmobranchs listed are ETP according to the MSC criteria". It is not clear in the assessment report where Sharks are discussed predominantly in Section these 'other' shark species are 3.6.3 of the report on ETPs given that many of 2.2.1, scored if not in ETP species. If them are covered by Fiji’s national endangered 27385 51 Major FCR-SA3.1.5 v2.0 2.2.2, there are shark species in the species legislation. However, the report has been 2.2.3 catch profile that are not amended to add comments on 'other' sharks designated as ETP these under the scoring for PI 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. should be designated as a primary or secondary P2 species following SA3.1.2 and associated clauses.

In addition, if shark species are designated as primary or secondary P2 species (even in negligible amounts) the shark finning scoring issue should be scored (PI2.1.2d or PI2.2.2d).

Page 234 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

PI2.2.3 scoring issue b: All scoring issues in PI2.2.3 must be scored. There is no The report has been amended to incorporate 27386 148 Major FCR-7.10.6.2 v2.0 2.2.3 allowance in the requirements changes as suggested. for scoring issue b not to be scored in this PI. PI2.3.2 scoring issues a and b: In scoring issue (b), the assessment team state "There are no requirements for protection or rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international Wording given for 2.3.2b was incorrect and has 27387 155-156 Major FCR-SA3.11.2 v2.0 2.3.2 agreements for the species been amended. with which there are interactions" Following SA3.11.2 and this statement, scoring issue (a) should not be scored and scoring issue (b) should be scored.

Page 235 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

Appendix 3.2 Other Stakeholder submissions

No other written stakeholder submissions were received.

Below is a summary report from the stakeholder WWF meeting – as agreed by the stakeholder.

MSC Fishery Assessment Stakeholder Interview Record

Assessment Names Team Lead Assessor Jo Akroyd P1 Team Member Kevin McLoughlin P2 Team Member Kevin McLoughlin P3 Team Member Jo Akroyd

Meeting Location WWF Offices Suva Date 8th March 2017 Stakeholders Name Affiliation Sally Bailey WWF Conservation Director Duncan Williams ( via Skype) WWF Programme Manager Ian Campbell ( part meeting) Shark Programme Manager

2. Status What is the nature of the organisations interest in the fishery

WWF Fiji is an NGO with a significant role and involvement in sustainable fisheries in and around Fiji. It has participated in the MSC assessment for the albacore tuna since the original assessment in 2012.

3. Stakeholder Key Issues

1. WWF is very supportive of the MSC process and the industry efforts to meet the MSC certification standards 2. WWF is working closely with the industry to ensure that they will meet the MSC standard for the new assessment that includes yellowfin and albacore in Fiji’s EEZ and the three adjacent high seas pocket. There is the possibility of NZ Aid to assist with working with FFIA on MSC certification and follow up. 3. WWF is working with the government on national fisheries policy that will set direction for sustainability and management etc. A draft of this Policy has been sent out for comment. WWF made a submission and believes that its input into the process has been taken onboard.

Page 236 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline

4. An MOU is being developed with WWF and the Ministry involving data sharing 5. Fiji working closely with Tokelau group to establish albacore limits. The industry participated in a HCR workshop with a number of Tokelau members in August this year. 6. - WWF are involved in a number of initiatives to work with the tuna industry e.g. developing a bycatch course, bringing people together as a consultative group. Terms of reference have been developed. 7. Some concerns o is the possibility that if vessels are fishing further south in the high seas pockets there may be some albatross. This will be discussed with the Ministry and observers o a moratorium on all shark landings other than blue and mako

7. Confirmation of record of meeting:

Acoura Lead Assessor Signature: Jo Akroyd

Page 237 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline Appendix 4 Surveillance Frequency

Table 4.1 : Surveillance level rationale Year Surveillance Number of Rationale activity auditors 1-4 e.g.On-site audit 2 auditors on-site Six conditions for this fishery mean that two on site auditors are required. This is the default surveillance level following FCR 7.23.4.

Table 4.2: Timing of surveillance audit Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit 1 December 2017 February/March 2018 WCPFC Commission meetings occur in 2 December 2018 February/March 2019 December and data for the previous year 3 December 2019 February/March 2020 available early in the new year. Also late 4 December 2020 February/March 2021 December and January holiday period

Table 4.3: Fishery Surveillance Program Surveillance Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Level Level 6 On-site On-site On-site On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

Page 238 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015 Acoura Marine Final Report Fiji albacore and yellowfin tuna longline Appendix 5 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection. (Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

Page 239 of 239 Acoura Marine Full Assessment Template per MSC V2.0 02/12/2015