Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Public Comment Draft Report

Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic longline bluefin tuna

On behalf of

Usufuku Honten

Prepared by

Control Union Pesca Ltd

August 2019

Authors: Hugh Jones Jo Gascoigne Sophie des Clers Yoko Tamura

Control Union Pesca Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573 E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.cupesca.com

Contents

CONTENTS ...... 1 QA ...... 3

GLOSSARY ...... 4

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 7

2 AUTHORSHIP AND PEER REVIEWERS ...... 9

3 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY ...... 11 3.1 Unit(s) of Assessment (UoA) and Scope of Certification Sought ...... 11 3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC) ...... 11 3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced ...... 11 3.1.5 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) ...... 11 3.1.3 Final UoC(s) ...... 12 3.1.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data ...... 13 3.2 Overview of the fishery ...... 14 3.2.1 History of the fishery ...... 14 3.2.2 The Client fishery – area and seasons ...... 14 3.2.3 Vessels in the UoA ...... 15 3.2.4 Gear type and operation ...... 16 3.2.5 Client Statistics ...... 19 3.2.6 History of the fishery and its management ...... 21 3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background ...... 22 3.3.1 Biology ...... 22 3.3.2 Stock definition and stock mixing ...... 23 3.3.3 Reference points ...... 25 3.3.4 Recruitment ...... 26 3.3.5 Stock status ...... 26 3.3.6 Stock status projections ...... 30 3.3.7 Stock status summary of different models ...... 31 3.3.8 Harvest strategy and control rule ...... 32 3.3.9 Information and monitoring ...... 35 3.3.10 ...... 38 3.3.11 Lower (LTL) considerations ...... 39 3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background ...... 40 3.4.1 Principle 2 cumulative impacts ...... 40 3.4.2 Designation of species under Principle 2 ...... 40 3.4.3 Observer Reports ...... 41 3.4.4 Defining species category ...... 42 3.4.5 Bait species ...... 43 3.4.6 Primary Species – Main ...... 45 3.4.7 Primary species - minor ...... 55 3.4.8 Secondary minor species – ribbonfish sp., longnose lancetfish, anglerfish spp...... 58 3.4.9 ETP ...... 58 3.4.10 Habitats ...... 64 3.4.11 Ecosystem ...... 65 3.4.12 Cumulative impact...... 67

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 1 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background ...... 68 3.5.1 Jurisdictions and legal framework ...... 68 3.5.2 Dispute resolution and respects for rights ...... 74 3.5.3 Consultation, Roles and Responsibilities ...... 75 3.5.4 Long-term objectives ...... 76 3.5.5 Fishery-specific objectives ...... 77 3.5.6 Fishery-specific decision-making processes ...... 78 3.5.7 Fishery-specific compliance and enforcement ...... 79 3.5.8 Fishery-specific monitoring and management performance evaluation...... 82

4 EVALUATION PROCEDURE ...... 84 4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment ...... 84 4.2 Previous assessments ...... 84 4.3 Assessment Methodologies ...... 84 4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques ...... 85 4.4.1 Site Visits ...... 85 4.4.2 Consultations ...... 86 4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques ...... 86 4.4.4 Stakeholder engagement ...... 88

5 TRACEABILITY ...... 90 5.1 Eligibility Date ...... 90 5.2 Traceability within the Fishery ...... 90 5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 95 5.4 Eligibility of Inseparable or Practicably Inseparable (IPI) stock(s) to Enter Further Chains of Custody ...... 96

6 EVALUATION RESULTS ...... 99 6.1 Principle Level Scores ...... 99 6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores ...... 99 6.3 Summary of Conditions ...... 100 6.4 Recommendations ...... 101 6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement ...... 101 6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment ...... 101

7 REFERENCES ...... 102

APPENDICES ...... 111

APPENDIX 1 SCORING AND RATIONALES ...... 112 Appendix 1.1 Principle 1 ...... 112 Appendix 1.2 Principle 2 ...... 133 Appendix 1.3 Principle 3 ...... 181

APPENDIX 2 CONDITIONS ...... 202

APPENDIX 3 PEER REVIEW REPORTS ...... 207

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 2 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Peer Reviewer 1 ...... 207 General Comments ...... 207 Performance Indicators Comments ...... 208 Peer Reviewer 2 ...... 215 General Comments ...... 215 Performance Indicator Comments...... 217

APPENDIX 4 STAKEHOLDER SUBMISSIONS ...... 232 Submission 1 ...... 232 Submission 2 ...... 233 Submission 3 ...... 237 Submission 4 ...... 243 Submission 5 ...... 244

APPENDIX 5 SURVEILLANCE FREQUENCY ...... 245

APPENDIX 6 OBJECTIONS PROCESS ...... 246

APPENDIX 7 ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA CATCH DOCUMENT (BCD) ...... 247

APPENDIX 8 BAIT SOURCING POLICY ...... 249

APPENDIX 9 FAJ LETTER OF SUPPORT TO THE FISHERY...... 251

QA

Stage Originator: HJ 04/04/19 Reviewer: HE 08/04/19 Approver: TT 06/08/19

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 3 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Glossary

Acronym Definition ABC Acceptable Biological Catch BCD ICCAT Bluefin Tuna Catch Documentation Scheme BFT-e North Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna BFT-w North Western Atlantic bluefin tuna BSH Blue CAB Conformity Assessment Body CAG Catch and Grow CMG ICCAT bluefin tuna Core Modelling Group CMM Conservation and Management Measures CMS Conservation of Migratory Species COC Capacity and Assistance and the Compliance Committee CPC Contracting Parties and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties, Entities or Entities CPUE Catch Per Unit of Effort CU Pesca Control Union Pesca EAF Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries eBCD Electronic bluefin tuna catch document EEZ EFCA European Fisheries Control Agency ETP Endangered, Threatened and Protected (species) EU European Union F Fishing Mortality FAJ Fisheries Agency Japan FAO United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation FCR 2.0 Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0 (MSC Scheme Document) FL Fork Length FPC Fishery Policy Council FRA Fisheries Research Agency GBYP Grand Bluefin Tuna Year Programme (Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna) GoF Gulf of Mexico GRT Gross Registered Tonnage HCR Harvest Control Rule(s) HMS Highly Migratory Species ICCAT International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas IMM Integrated Monitoring Measures

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 4 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Acronym Definition IPOA International Plans of Action ISBF Introduced Species Based Fishery ISSF International Sustainability Foundation IUU Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing JASTFA Japan Adjacent Sea Tuna Fishery Association JDP Joint Deployment Plan JDWTFA Japan Distant Water Tuna Fishery Association JFSPSFA Japan Far Seas Purse Seine Fishing Association JOP Japanese Observer Program JTSFC Japan Tuna and Skipjack Fishery Cooperative MAFF Fisheries Ministry MCS Monitoring Control and Surveillance MCZ Zones MLS Minimum Legal Size MSC Marine Stewardship Council MSE Management Strategy Evaluation MSY Maximum Sustainable Yield NAO North Atlantic Oscillation NEAFC North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission NRIFSF National Research Institute of Far Seas fisheries PA Precautionary Approach PCDR Public Comment Draft Report PCR Public Certification Report PI Performance Indicator PIEG ICCAT Port Inspection Expert Group for capacity building and assistance PR Peer Reviewer (of this MSC assessment) PRI Point of Recruitment Impairment PSM Port State Measures RBF Risk Based Framework RFMO Regional Organisation SAFC South Atlantic Fisheries Commission SCRS ICCAT Standing Committee for Research and Statistics SG Scoring Guidepost SI Scoring Issue SRDCP Shark Research and Data Collection Program SB Spawner

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 5 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Acronym Definition SSP Science Strategic Plan STACFAD Commission and the Standing Committee on Finance and Administration SWGSM Standing Working Group to Enhance Dialogue between Fisheries Scientists and Managers TAC Total Allowable Catch TRP Trigger Reference Point UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea UNFSA United Nations Agreement UoA Unit of Assessment UoC Unit of Certification

VPA Virtual Population Analysis WGCA Working Group on Convention Amendment WWF World Wide Fund for Nature

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 6 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

1 Executive Summary

This report covers the MSC full assessment of the Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic longline bluefin tuna fishery. The assessment team consisted of Hugh Jones (Team leader, Principle 2), Jo Gascoigne (Principle 1), Yoko Tamura (Principle 2 and 3) and Sophie des Clers (Principle 3). Site visits were held on the 24th – 26th September 2018 (Las Palmas) and further site visit was held in Tokyo on 30th October 2018 at the Japanese Fishery Authority. The assessment was undertaken in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements (FCR) version 2.0 for assessment procedure and scoring. The Risk- Based Framework (RBF) was not used. The fishery under assessment operates in international waters of the North Atlantic and consists of a single vessel operated by Usufuku Honten ltd. The vessel is part of the distant water fleet licenced under the Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ). It targets bluefin tuna using pelagic longline from the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock (BFT-e) using quota allocated to Japan by ICCAT as a Contracting Party. Catch is frozen onboard and transhipped at port by carrier to Japan where it is landed. This fishery is managed at three levels: ICCAT is the regional tuna fisheries management organisation (RFMO) and Japan is the UoA-vessel’s country of registration (Flag State). In addition, the vessel is based at the port of Las Palmas (Spain/Europe) and may also tranship its frozen catch in Cape Verde (both Port States). Japan is also the end-market state for the BFT-e caught by the fishery. The BFT Atlantic population is managed as two stocks, conventionally separated by the 45°W

meridian. The BFT-e stock is managed using F0.1 as a proxy for FMSY and has been tested and shown to be appropriate. B0.1 is a proxy for BMSY. B0.1 is not estimated, but ICCAT scientists point out that fishing

at or around F0.1 over the long term will result in the stock stabilizing at around B0.1 – even if a value cannot be assigned. ICCAT have recently moved from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan, which comes into force in 2019 (Rec. 18-02). The stated goal of Rec. 18-02 is to maintain the biomass around B0.1, to be achieved by fishing at F0.1 (since B0.1 cannot be measured directly). Some of the main uncertainties have been incorporated into the HCR (i.e. via applying it to F rather than B) but some have not (i.e. choice of stock assessment model, future recruitment). ICCAT so far have agreed to apply the HCR with circumspection; i.e. maintaining in 18-02 the agreed TACs from 17-07 rather than setting TACs based on F0.1 as implied by the HCR. This suggests that they are not confident that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties. There is also concern on the quantity of IUU fishing from the stock in the Mediterranean. Key data sources on interactions with other species were logbooks and observer reports. Main primary species were BFT Western stock (BFT-w) (identified through genetic analysis post capture), blue shark and Argentine shortfin squid (as bait). BFT-w is at or below the point of recruitment impairment however, the UoA impact on the stock is fractional. Observer records indicated no ETP interactions and the UoA employs mitigation measures beyond that required by the management system. There is no contact between the UoA and benthic habitats and the small UoA size and volumes caught are not estimated to impact the North Atlantic Ecosystem to great effect.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 7 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The preliminary determination is that the fishery meets the criteria for MSC certification. Aggregate scores for each Principle are as shown in the following table:

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 85.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 89.0 Principle 3 – Management System 82.1

Four conditions have been proposed; two on Principle 1 and two on Principle 2. The proposed conditions are as follows:

Number Condition Performance Indicator 1 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that the 1.2.2b HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. 2 By Year 4 the client should be able to show evidence 1.2.3c that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. 3 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that there 2.1.2b and 2.1.2e is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. Furthermore, there should be a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted blue shark catch. 4 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that the 2.1.3c information available for BFT-w is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main Primary species.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 8 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

2 Authorship and Peer Reviewers

Dr Hugh Jones (Team Leader, Principle 2) Hugh Jones has eight years experience of fishing impact on ecosystem dynamics, including ecosystem surveys. Hugh has published peer review works on the trophic pathways of pelagic food webs and zooplankton abundance in relation to environmental conditions. His work includes analysis of abiotic and biotic attributes which determine the functional ecology of fish species. He has secured research funding for ecological studies of fish populations in relation to climate change, which consider the coupling between demersal and pelagic pathways. It is proposed that Dr Hugh Jones will act as team leader for this assessment and will be responsible for bringing together the work of the team’s principle experts. Hugh will also have some responsibility for Principle 2 and for ensuring that the certification requirements are being met at each stage of the process. Hugh has successfully completed has completed the required Fishery Team Leader MSC training modules for the V2.1 Fisheries Certification Process Requirements including ISO9001 lead auditor training. Dr Jo Gascoigne (Principle 1) Jo Gascoigne, an CU Pesca associate, is a former research lecturer in at Bangor University, Wales. She is an expert on and management, with over 15 years’ experience as a consultant, working mainly on MSC pre-assessments and full assessments, as well as FIP scoping, planning and implementation. Jo has been involved as expert and lead auditor in a significant number of full MSC assessments and pre-assessments covering a range of demersal and pelagic fisheries in the Northeast Atlantic, Mediterranean, Indian Ocean, Southern Ocean and Pacific. In addition to numerous pre-assessments, Jo has considerable experience with full assessments of tuna fisheries in the MSC programme. On 20 May 2016 a variation request was granted by MSC, qualifying Dr Gascoigne as Principle 1 (P1) assessor for tuna fisheries. She was therefore responsible for the assessment of Principle 1. Yoko Tamura (Principle 2 and 3) Yoko Tamura is a fisheries and marine environment consultant working on broad topics on coastal management issues in Japan and globally. Her expertise spans coastal resources management, sustainable fisheries and international collaboration on marine conservation, and she has significant current knowledge of the country, language, policy and local fishery context. Previously, she worked as a technical expert for Japan International Cooperation Agency on oversea cooperation projects, and NGOs such as Conservation International and Sustainable Fisheries Partnership. She currently works partly with Seafood Legacy as a science specialist. Ms Tamura holds a MA in Marine Affairs from the University of Washington and a BSc. in Marine Resource Management from the Tokyo University of Marine Science and Technology. Yoko’s previous MSC experience includes a full assessment of the Kyoto Danish Seine Fishery Federation flathead flounder fishery. She has also participated in various pre-assessments and surveillance audits mostly for Japanese fisheries. Yoko was responsible for the assessment of Principle 3 for the flag state (Japan) and Principle 2. Dr Sophie Des Clers (Principle 3) Sophie des Clers is an independent scientific expert in fisheries management systems and has prior peer review experience for the MSC. She has over 30 years' experience in the formulation, monitoring, and evaluation of fisheries and projects to build management capacity in the public and the private sector. Sophie is trained in databases, applied statistics, population dynamics, microeconomics, law and public policy. Her past research and consultancy projects have taken her to

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 9 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

fishing ports around the UK, EU, Norway, Africa, the North Sea, Mediterranean, Atlantic, Pacific, Indian oceans and Caribbean. She has been involved in a number of previous MSC assessments and pre- assessments including lobster, cod, haddock, saithe, sole, herring, blue whiting, sardine, whelks (within the EU) and tuna and billfish fisheries. Sophie meets the following competency criteria in Table PC3: Fishery management and operations. She has also completed the required Fishery Team member MSC training modules for the V2.0 Fisheries Certification Requirements. Sophie was responsible for the assessment of Principle 3. Peer Reviewers: The MSC Peer Review College compiled a shortlist of potential peer reviewers to undertake the peer review for this fishery. Two peer reviewers were selected from the following list: • Joe Powers • John Neilson • Kevin Stokes • Paul Medley • Susana Sainz-Trapága

A summary of their experience and qualifications is available via this link: https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/usufuku-honten-northeast-atlantic-longline-bluefin-tuna- fishery/@@assessments

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 10 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3 Description of the Fishery

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

3.1.1 UoA and Proposed Unit of Certification (UoC)

CU Pesca confirms that the fishery under assessment is within the scope of the MSC Fisheries Standard (7.4 of the MSC Certification Requirements v2.0): • The target species is not an amphibian, reptile, bird or mammal; • The fishery does not use poisons or explosives; • The fishery is not conducted under a controversial unilateral exemption to an international agreement; • The client or client group does not include an entity that has been successfully prosecuted for a forced labour violation in the last 2 years; • The fishery has in place a mechanism for resolving disputes, and disputes do not overwhelm the fishery; • The fishery is not an enhanced fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.3; and • The fishery is not an introduced species-based fishery as per the MSC FCR 7.4.4.

3.1.2 Scope of Assessment in Relation to Enhanced Fisheries

The MSC defines enhanced fisheries as: Any activity aimed at supplementing or sustaining the recruitment or improving the survival and growth of one or more aquatic organisms, or at raising the total production or the production of selected elements of the fishery beyond a level that is sustainable by natural processes. It may involve stocking, habitat modification, elimination of unwanted species, fertilisation or combinations of any of these practices. The fishery under assessment is a wild capture fishery and does not meet the criteria for enhanced fisheries (see FCR v2.0 7.4).

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

The MSC defines Introduced Species Based Fisheries (ISBF) as: Any fishery which prosecutes a target fin or shellfish species that was intentionally or accidentally transported and released by human activity into an aquatic environment beyond its natural distribution range. This does not include species that are “introduced” into a location due to an expansion in their natural geographic range. The fishery is not an ISBF (see FCR v2.0 7.4).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 11 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

There are no other eligible fishers. Therefore, the UoC is the same as the UoA described below. UoA

Species Atlantic Bluefin tuna - Thunnus thynnus

Geographical range North Atlantic northwards of 420 N to 600N , and west of 100 W to 450 W

Method of capture Pelagic Longline

Stock Atlantic bluefin tuna – Eastern stock (BFT-e)

Management Systems International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), European Union, Japanese fisheries Agency (FAJ)

Client group Usufuku Honten

Other eligible fishers None

3.1.3 Final UoC(s)

(PCR ONLY)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 12 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.1.4 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

Atlantic bluefin tuna eastern stock (BFT-e) catches and TAC are provided in Table 1, Table 2 and Table 3. Table 1. Catch, TAC (tonnes) and TAC uptake for BFT-e from 2014-20 (ICCAT 2014a; ICCAT 2018i; ICCAT 2017a). *As of 28th September 2018

Year TAC Catch Catch/TAC (%) 2020 36,000 - - 2019 32,240 - - 2018 28,000 - - 2017 23,155 23,616* 102.0 2016 19,296 20,098 104.2 2015 16,142 16,201 100.4 2014 13,400 13,261 99.6

Table 2. Japan’s BFT-e TAC and share, catch and quota share 2014-18 (ICCAT 2014a; ICCAT 2018i)

Year TAC (t) Catch (t) Catch/TAC (%) Japan’s Percentage of TAC total 2018 2,279.00 - - 8.5 % 2017 1,910.80 1,905 99.7 2016 1,608.21 1,578 98.1 2015 1,345.44 1,386 103.0 2014 1,139.55 1,134 99.5

The TAC and catch data for Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd are shown in Table 3. There are 36 vessels registered and permitted to catch BFT-e from Japan of which the TAC is split equally. Table 3. BFT-e TAC, UoA quota and catch data for Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd. Source: Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd.

TAC Year 2019 Amount 32,240 t Year 2018 Amount 28,000 t Year 2017 Amount 23,155 t UoA share of TAC Year 2018 Amount 64.2 t Year 2017 Amount 56.7 t Total green weight catch by UoC Year (most recent) 2018 Amount 55.3 t Year (2nd most recent) 2017 Amount 48.8 t Year (3rd most recent) 2016 Amount 42.5 t

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 13 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.2 Overview of the fishery

3.2.1 History of the fishery

The industrial longline fishery, initially prosecuted by Japanese vessels in the Northwest Atlantic in the 1950s, spread to the whole of the North Atlantic in the 1990s. The purse seine fishery also progressively fished throughout the North Atlantic and Mediterranean during this period. In the Mediterranean, the purse seine fishery initially targeted young BFT in coastal waters but shifted its focus to the spawning grounds in the 1980s. In the last two decades, Atlantic BFT has been exploited by more than 20 countries, although the main countries have been France, Spain, Italy and Japan. Japan accounts for ca. 60 % of the total catch, with most of its BFT supplying the high-end sushi/sashimi market.

3.2.2 The Client fishery – area and seasons

Usufuku Honten http://www.usufuku.jp has been in business since 1882 and in early years they engaged in various other fisheries such as salmon and crab in Northern Japan and Russian waters. They started tuna fishing in the Atlantic Ocean around 37 years ago. Usufuku Honten owns six distant water longline fishing vessels, among which their vessel Shofuku Maru No. 1 is the only vessel targeting BFT-e and is considered in this assessment. The vessel, Shofuku Maru No. 1 is based in Las Palmas, Canary Islands (Spain) year-round. Shofuku Maru No. 1 fishes for BFT-e in October each year. Although available earlier in the year the UoA consider that BFT-e are smaller and thinner if fished in the earlier months, and bigger and in better condition in later months. All fish caught by the UoA are caught for sashimi grade within the Japanese domestic market. Due to ocean conditions in winter the client completes their annual operations before November and fish their available quota in about 20 days before returning to Las Palmas. Transhipment at port of the fish occurs with the fish transported to Japan by transport vessels or regular container ships. They use only registered ports for transhipments following ICCAT and EU regulations and follow the Japanese government’s requirements to report the port of entry and landings (this is discussed further under section 5). Before and after the BFT-e fishery the vessel targets bigeye (BET) and yellowfin (YFT) tuna in the central Atlantic, albacore, marlins, swordfish are also caught, but these activities are not considered as part of this preassessment. BFT (e or w) that are caught when targeting BET and YFT during other parts of the year and away from the operation area described are not considered as part of this assessment. The catch of bluefin tuna from these other areas is subject to real-time electronic monitoring (and self-reporting through documentation) and is not considered to be at risk of being mixed with the UoA. See Traceability section 5 for further information.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 14 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 1. Approximate area of operations for the Shofuku Maru No. 1 fishing for BFT-e in October each year, northwards of 420 N, and west of 100 W. A closed season for BFT-e for long-liners exists from June to December southwards of 420 N, and eastwards of 100 W. The solid black line indicates the east – west separation of the Atlantic for management of stocks by ICCAT. Source: Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd.

Figure 2. Annual catch and fishery area record for Shofuku Maru No. 1 from 2015. Source: Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd; image and annotations: CU Pesca.

3.2.3 Vessels in the UoA There is a single vessel in the UoA, the Shofuku Maru No. 11 which has a gross tonnage of 454 t and length 58.01 m (registration length 51.20 m) and uses Las Palmas as its home port (Figure 3). It is understood by the assessment team that the Shofuku Maru No. 1 will be sold at the end of 2019 and a newly built vessel will take over the ICCAT registration number. The vessel name is also likely to change. Vessel size, freezer capacity, fish hold capacity and safety measures are strictly controlled by the Japan Fishery Agency (FAJ). The vessel is inspected every two years by the FAJ to ensure compliance.

1 https://www.iccat.int/en/vesselsrecord.asp 3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 15 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 3. Shofuku Maru No. 1 at port in Las Palmas. Source: CU Pesca

3.2.4 Gear type and operation Shofuku Maru No. 1 is a pelagic long-lining vessel (Figure 4), using 5 mm nylon braid main lines and 15 m nylon branch lines (Figure 4, Figure 5) spaced at 40 m between branches (MAFF 2017). The single main line is ~ 150 Km in length and is set to 20 m depth, with the branches taking the single circle hooks to ~ 40 m depth (Figure 5, Figure 6). The line is set at night using a hydraulic line setter and branch line throw machine (Figure 7). Night setting, throwing machine, weighted branch lines and circle hooks measures assist in reducing seabird interactions (explored further in Section 3.4.9.2). Line setting takes approximately 6 hours, with surface buoys located every 300 m and radio buoys are deployed to aid recovery. Soak time is ~4 hours from time the final hook is set while total haul time is approximately 12 hours, with three teams of workers.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 16 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 4. Typical longline set. NOTE: measurements are not those of the UoA, image is used for diagrammatic purposes only, refer to text for the measures used by the UoA. Source: http://www.hokkatsu.net/gyohou.html

Figure 5. Example long line branch lines (left) and main line (right). The colours on the branch represent different diameter lines and these are used alternately on the longline, the design includes weighted sections to assist in taking the branch line below the surface quickly and avoiding bird catches. Source: CU Pesca.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 17 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 6. Circle hooks used by the UoA (left) and branch line rig as used aboard the Shofuku Maru No. 1. Source: CU Pesca.

Figure 7. Branch line throwing machine (left) and hydraulic line setter (right). Source: CU Pesca. When BFT-e come onto the deck of Shofuku Maru No. 1, the crew detach the hook line to remove the fish from the main longline. The spinal nerve is severed to kill the fish then the fish weighed by suspending the individual from a bar-scale (bou-bakari). The fish are processed by removing the gut and gills (GG) and the tailfin is removed, it may then be reweighed as a GG weight. Staff then attach a tamperproof etag to the fish and report the tag number and weight via radio to the bridge who record them into the vessel logbook. The logbook also records whether the fish was alive or dead at the point of capture. The fish are then slid into a -60 oC freezer for two days. After the fish is frozen to the core,

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 18 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

staff remove it and “glaze” it with a water layer, and paste a paper copy of the tag and company brand mark information on to the fish. The fish is then put into the fish the freezer storage area in the vessel.

3.2.5 Client Statistics

Fishing statistics for Usufuku Honten between 2012 and 2017 show catch is always greater than 99 % of the allocated TAC (Table 4). Annual mean fish weight across the period never dropped below 129 kg although range data were not provided (Table 4). The number of annual operating days targeting BFT-e ranged from 13 to 24 with daily catch ranging from 1,564 kg to 3,756 kg (Table 4). Squid is the principal bait used in the fishery, with minor contributions of sardine. This is considered under section 3.43.4.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 19 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 4. Fishing statistics for Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd for BFT-e between 2012 and 2017. Source: Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd.

Year Quota Catch Number of fish Mean weight (kg) Operating days Catch per day Bait Bait (kg) (kg) squid sardine (kg) (kg) 2012 47,284 47,191 354 133.3 24 1,966.3 12,768 1,213.0

2013 44,652 44,512 344 129.4 18 2,472.9 9,567 910.0

2014 29,768 29,712 188 158.0 19 1,563.8 10,108 960.0

2015 36,607 36,568 233 156.9 14 2,612.0 7,448 708.0

2016 42,082 41,996 248 169.3 21 1,999.8 11,172 1,061.0

2017 48,916 48,831 306 159.6 13 3,756.2 6,916 657.0

2018 64,212 55,254 372 148.5 26 2,125.2 10,911 698

average 44,789 43,438 292 150.7 19 2,356.6 9,841 887

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 20 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.2.6 History of the fishery and its management

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) was established on 21st March 1969 following the signing of the convention in Rio de Janeiro in 1966. The convention has been amended twice since, in 1984 and 1992. The objective of the Commission is to maintain the population of tuna and tuna-like fish in the Atlantic Ocean at levels that will permit maximum sustainable yields, as well as the implementation of research programmes, the analysis of fishing statistics and the formulation of stock conservation recommendations. The science component of ICCAT is known as the SCRS (Standing Committee for Research and Statistics). A concise history of the management of the BFT-e stock up to 2010 can be found in Meski (2010). The first measures for the management of BFT-e by ICCAT were adopted in 1993 and established a closed season for longline vessels in the Mediterranean and a recommendation to limit catches in the North East Atlantic [Rec. 93-06]. This limitation has been continued, with minor modifications, through the Resolution by ICCAT on Fishing for Bluefin Tuna in the Atlantic Ocean [Res. 02-12] and the Supplemental Resolution by ICCAT on Fishing for Bluefin Tuna in the Atlantic Ocean [Res. 04-08], and the Resolution by ICCAT on Fishing Bluefin Tuna in the Atlantic Ocean [Res. 06-08]. In 1994, initial measures to prevent increases in fishing mortality were introduced [Rec. 95-11] and in 1996 the sale of age-0 fish was prohibited [Rec. 96-03] and eventually extended to exclude sale of fish less than 3.2 kg in 1998 [Rec.98-04] and subsequently updated with minimum size limits in 2004 [Rec. 04-08]. In 1998 individual catch limits for eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna were introduced for the first time, and closed seasons were also introduced [Rec. 98-05 and 98-06]. By 2002 a multiyear management plan was introduced [Rec. 02-08]. Following the SCRS concerns expressed in 2006 about the decline in stock size as a result of increasing catches, the Commission adopted a rebuilding plan through the Recommendation by ICCAT to ‘Establish a Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean’ [Rec. 06-05], aimed at rebuilding the stock by 2023. The initial year of the plan the TAC was exceeded and a Recommendation by ICCAT in ‘Regard to Compliance with the Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean’ [Rec. 07-04], instituting a pay-back plan for the over-harvest, was adopted. Further strengthening of the plan was achieved in 2008 [Rec. 08-05] and 2009 [Rec. 09-06] by introducing higher monitoring and control measures and reducing purse seine seasons. BFT-e has been subject to a recovery plan since those Recommendations in 2006, implemented via a series of ICCAT Recommendations with the current recommendations [Rec. 17-07] and future [Rec. 18-02] discussed further under Principle 1 (Section 3.3) and Principle 3 (Section 3.5).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 21 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.3 Principle One: Target Species Background

3.3.1 Biology

The information in this section is taken from the summary of bluefin biology provided in ICCAT (2017h), except where otherwise indicated. Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) (BFT) are one of three species of bluefin tuna: the others are Pacific bluefin (T. orientalis) and Southern bluefin (T. maccoyii). Bluefin tuna have a more temperate distribution than the other large tuna species, with Atlantic bluefin living in the temperate North Atlantic, including the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf of St. Lawrence and Mediterranean; seasonally reaching quite high latitudes (e.g. Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) of Iceland and Norway). These high-latitude areas are historically known to have bluefin, which disappeared during the period of population decline but have recently reappeared; it is supposed that this relates to the overall recovery of the population with environmental factors also involved. Archival tagging data suggests that BFT maintain a stable internal body temperature over a wide range of external conditions, and also that they can dive to >1000 m, although they usually spend their time in the surface / immediate subsurface layers. Although BFT are highly mobile and migratory, they appear to return to the same spawning sites annually. The two main spawning areas known are in the Mediterranean Sea and the Gulf of Mexico, and it was thought that these sites correspond to the eastern Atlantic (BFT-e) and western Atlantic (BFT-w) stocks of T. thynnus. However, other potential spawning sites have recently been located (Richardson et al. 2016), suggesting that the situation may be more complex than thought. Bluefin tuna grow fast when young, although not as fast as the tropical tunas. Fish grow to ~30 cm – 40 cm and 1 kg in the first 6 months; at 10 years, a bluefin tuna is ~2 m fork length (FL) / 170 kg and can reach 2.7 m / 400 kg at age 20. Natural mortality is estimated to be low for larger fish (estimated in Canada from acoustic tags at 0.04-0.09; < 0.12) (see SCRS/2017/083 - Lauretta (2017)). BFT are a long-lived fish, estimated (by radiocarbon) to have a lifespan of ~40 years, by which time they will be >3 m long and can weigh ~0.75 tonnes. BFT-e which spawn in the Mediterranean, are thought to be 100 % mature by age 5. The western stock (BFT-w) appears to have a slower growth and maturity schedule, which spawning apparently starting at age 9 and peaking at age 15 (Porch & Hanke 2017); this, however, is uncertain and presents a problem for the BFT-w stock assessment.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 22 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 8. Life history parameters used in the stock assessments of BFT. Source: ICCAT (2017i)

3.3.2 Stock definition and stock mixing

The BFT Atlantic population is managed as two stocks, conventionally separated by the 45°W meridian, however efforts to understand the population structure through tagging, genetic and microchemistry studies indicate that mixing is occurring at various rates in the eastern, western and north-western Atlantic (Carruthers & Kell 2017; Rodríguez et al. 2017; Rooker et al. 2014; Morse et al. 2017; Arrizabalanga et al. 2019).

3.3.2.1 Stock definition The BFT-e and BFT-w stocks are assumed based on spawning grounds; known in the Mediterranean and Gulf of Mexico (GoM), with GoM fish spawning at larger size. A third spawning ground off North- eastern US (Slope Sea) has also been identified with fish visiting this ground and the Mediterranean in

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 23 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

different years (Richardson et al. 2016) This implies two things : i) if the spawning ground is used by BFT-w fish, they might spawning smaller/younger than previously thought (which would be more consistent with the BFT-e stock); and ii) there may be stronger links between the two stocks than previously thought (potentially representing a meta-population type situation); both of which suggest that the BFT-w stock might be less vulnerable to than previously thought. The conclusion that the BFT-w stock is less vulnerable has been challenged by Walter et al. (2016) who concluded that the Richardson et al. (2016) ‘makes several premature claims that carry considerable risk of being misused. Any conclusions regarding vulnerability should only be made in a population dynamics context with full consideration of the wealth of information now available through enhanced research programs.’

3.3.2.2 Stock composition In this section we evaluate the likely stock composition of UoA catches; this is important when the issue of key IPI stocks is evaluated in Section 5.4 below. Otolith microchemistry and DNA techniques have been used to assess the degree of mixing between the stocks across the range of the BFT-e stock (Rodríguez et al. 2017; Rooker et al. 2014). For the UoA, fishing takes place in the Northern and Eastern central Atlantic (Figure 9) and more precisely, in the two ICCAT areas North Central Atlantic (NC_ATL) and North East Atlantic (NE_ATL) which correspond to the area codes BF53 and BF54 in Figure 9.

Figure 9. Map identifying area of the North East Atlantic targeted by the UoA (red dashed square) for BFT-e. Solid red line shows the current stock boundary between BFT-e and BFT -w stocks used by ICCAT for management purposes. Blue numbers are ICCAT area codes for BFT of which BF53 and BF54 are relevant to the UoA. Adapted from (ICCAT 2016c). Findings on stock mixing were first published in 2014 (Rooker et al., 2014) and followed up in 2017 (Rodríguez et al. 2017). BFT stock composition information by area in the Atlantic is variable but there is no evidence of mixed stock composition within the two main spawning areas (i.e. 100% western

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 24 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

origin fish within the GoM and nearly 100% eastern origin fish within the MED) (Figure 10). There is minimal mixed stock composition within Southeast Atlantic, Eastern Atlantic and Central Atlantic East and greater mixed stock composition within the Western Atlantic and Gulf or St. Lawrence (Figure 10). Any interannual variability in stock composition, as well as variability by gear, within a given area is taken into account in the stock assessments by running assessment models based on the stock origin of the catch as well as catch location ICCAT (2017i). For BFT-e, because the overall stock biomass is much larger than BFT-w, the influence that BFT-w contributes to the overall assessment model was minimal and it was not included in the final model signed off for management purposes (ICCAT 2018i).

Figure 10. Percentage of samples, from genetic evidence, belonging to each spawning component from BFT individuals captured at each location with the minimum assignment score (90 %). Numbers in parenthesis indicate number of samples per location. Grey portions of pie charts are unassigned origin. For the UoA CAE = Central Atlantic East. Other area designations are NW = Norway, BB = Bay of Biscay, GI = Gibraltar, MS = Mauritania, MC = Canaries, MO = Morocco, PO = Portugal, CAW = Central Atlantic West, NL = Newfoundland, GSL = Gulf of Saint Lawrence and NS = Nova Scotia. Adapted from (Rodríguez et al. 2017).

3.3.3 Reference points

The objective of the BFT-e recovery plan is to achieve BMSY with at least 60 % probability, over the course of 15 years, starting in 2007 and hence running to 2022 (see Rec. 2014-04, (ICCAT 2014a)). Rec. 2014-04 (para. 4) also sets an interim management objective to maintain catches below the most precautionary estimate MSY for two years (i.e. 2015-16), then subsequently at this estimate of MSY after three years (i.e. 2017); after which the situation has been revised based on the results of the 2017 stock assessment.

Despite BMSY (or in practice, slightly above BMSY) being the stated objective of the recovery plan, the 2017 stock assessment group decided to base their management advice on F0.1 as a proxy for FMSY, as has been the practice in previous assessments (ICCAT 2017i). This is because the big problem in evaluating the status of this stock is in understanding recruitment dynamics and hence estimating likely future recruitment. Estimating MSY reference points depends on making assumptions about recruitment, as does estimating associated biomass reference points from F reference points (e.g.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 25 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

estimating B0.1 from F0.1). However, the scientists point out that fishing at or around F0.1 over the long

term will result in the stock stabilising at around B0.1 – even if they cannot put a figure on this biomass level.

For a given recruitment time series, the equilibrium yield from F0.1 should be somewhat lower than

from FMSY, while the equilibrium stock biomass can be higher or lower (e.g. see Brodziak & Overholtz (1995)). Rademeyer & Butterworth (2018) (SCRS/2017/227) looked at the relationship between F0.1

and FMSY for different stock-recruit relationships (different values of h – Beverton-Holt steepness) and found that F0.1 was lower (more precautionary) than FMSY for high h, but higher (less precautionary) for low h, with the transition value at ~0.68 for the BFT-e. Steepness is estimated at roughly this level in similar species (e.g. southern bluefin estimated at 0.6-0.8; tropical tunas usually in the range 0.75-

0.95), suggesting that F0.1 is a suitable proxy in this case. It is worth noting that this inability to estimate recruitment and hence reference points which require such estimates (or an SR relationship) is not likely to change. The SCRS in 2018 noted ‘the Committee does not expect to provide further clarity regarding future recruitment’, and in 2017 ‘the 2017 Committee has not gained any further insights into future recruitment potential … the Group expects such insights to remain elusive’ (ICCAT 2018i; ICCAT 2017h). The harvest strategy based on F0.1 as a

proxy for BMSY should therefore be the definitive, rather than interim, strategy.

3.3.4 Recruitment

As noted above, the key problem with estimating reference points and projecting future stock status is recruitment. Recruitment (as estimated from the VPA stock assessment base model) was low from the start of the time series (1968) to the early 1980s, then increased, was high from the early 1990s to ~2003, then apparently decreased back to the earlier low level (although recruitment since 2012 cannot be estimated with any confidence) (Figure 11). Stock assessment projections are based on three potential levels of long-term future recruitment: low (1968-1980 average), medium (1968-2012 – average of whole time series) and high (1990-2005 average).

Figure 11. Trends in recruitment as estimated from the VPA assessment model (ICCAT 2018i) (BFTE-Figure 4).

3.3.5 Stock status

Five different stock assessment models were tried during the stock assessment workshop in 2017 (see section 3.3.10). Only one (VPA) was considered advanced enough at the end of the meeting to provide the primary basis for management advice, but the group recommended ‘considering’ the results of

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 26 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

the other models in scientific advice as well (ICCAT 2017i). This is done by emphasising the uncertainty in the assessment and by recommending a step-wise rather than immediate increase in the TAC (see section 3.3.8) rather than by explicitly discussing alternative stock status scenarios. The problems with the VPA model are discussed in detail (section 3.3.10) but in brief the main issues are i) that the model is unstable (the results are strongly influenced by the final year of data); and ii) that one of the key assumptions of a VPA (that catch-at-age is known exactly) is not met. Despite this, the SCRS (2017) (ICCAT 2017g) notes that ‘the committee considers the following advice more reliable than that previously provided to the Commission’. Nevertheless, NGOs have expressed concern that the results of the SS3 model (which was used for the BFT-w stock assessment) were not taken more into account for the BFT-e stock assessment – particularly since they were less optimistic. Reportedly, a key reason was that at the end of the stock assessment workshop, the SS3 model was not yet completed (T. Rouyer, IFREMER, pers. comm.). The VPA model was tested in various ways during the stock assessment meeting (sensitivity runs with different assumptions, jack-knife runs removing individual datasets, retrospective runs removing the most recent years from the time series) and was also adjusted during the subsequent species group meeting (ICCAT 2017b); (Section 3.3.10). Nearly all these various model iterations, however, give the same qualitative pattern in spawner biomass (SB); i.e. a biomass maximum in the 1970s, followed by a decline to a minimum from 1990 to ~2000s, followed by an increase in the most recent data (Figure 12; Figure 13; Figure 14; Figure 15). The magnitude of the recent increase in biomass, relative to the previous minimum and the previous maximum is, however, uncertain. The other models for which results are presented (ASAP, SS3 and SCAL) showed the same increasing trend in recent years, but different trends prior to the mid-2000s and different quantitative levels of spawner biomass (Figure 15). The SCRS concludes, however, that despite uncertainties, the 2017 assessment gives higher confidence in the recent increase in spawner biomass, and note that Fcurrent ‘appears to be clearly

below’ F0.1 (base case estimate 0.34 (0.25-0.44)), with B already above B0.1 for low and medium future recruitment scenarios (Section 3.3.4) but still below it under the high recruitment scenario. This is based on the VPA model (base case as adjusted by the Species Group; (ICCAT 2017b)). The SS3 model, conversely, estimated spawner biomass at ~90 % of SBMSY.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 27 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 12. VPA original (left) and revised (right) base case model: from top to bottom, time series of recruitment, SSB, SSB scaled to 2008-10 average, F for ages 2-5 and F for ages 10+. Colours show retrospective analysis (sequential removal of years of data from the end of the input time series) as indicated by the scale at the top (as.factor(retro)). (ICCAT 2017b)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 28 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 13. VPA base case model (original): top left – recruitment; top right – SSB; bottom left – F ages 2-5; bottom right – F plus group. Colours show jack-knife analysis (removal of individual abundance indices), as indicated in the scale at the top. From (ICCAT 2017i)

Figure 14. Sensitivity runs for the VPA: Red – base case; other colours show a range of other scenarios (ICCAT 2017i).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 29 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 15. SSB time series from the various models tried during the stock assessment: blue – VPA; orange – SS3; grey – ASAP; yellow – SCAL (see also under ‘stock assessment’ below). From (ICCAT 2017i).

3.3.6 Stock status projections

Short-term projections from 2017-2022, for the base case VPA under the recent recruitment scenario, are provided by the SCRS under different TAC scenarios. Unfortunately, they are all based on a constant TAC from 2018 onwards, hence none of them project the agreed TAC scenario of stepwise increases from 2017-2020. A constant TAC of 36,000 t or less (2018-2022) maintains the probability of F

lower than this so the associated probability of F being below F0.1 should be a little higher. Biomass projections suggest that fishing at F0.1 throughout the time series would result in a constant TAC of

~40,000 t (logically giving a mean probability of F60 % probability to 2022 (and 2025) for constant TAC up to 45,000 t; high: F

in a TAC of ~12,000 t - 13,000 t to 2022 (F0.1 being considerably lower than FMSY under this model configuration), while a constant TAC of 30,000 t puts the SB at ~80 % of the MSY level in 2022, or at

70 % SBMSY for a constant TAC of 35,000 t. Returning, however, to the VPA base case / recent recruitment projections, some examples of the estimated SB under different constant TAC scenarios are set out in Table 5. It is worth noting that for a 60 % difference in the TAC there is a ~15 % difference in the projected SB in 2022 (the rebuilding target date). In other words, the level of the TAC is likely to be less significant in defining the stock trajectory than other factors such as uncertainties in the stock assessment models and variability in

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 30 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

recruitment; while it is important to be precautionary, changes of a few thousand tonnes in the TAC are not likely to have much discernible impact on the stock trajectory relative to these much greater uncertainties. Table 5. Projected SB (2022) under different scenarios of constant TAC (2018-2022) (t) for the VPA base case model with recent recruitment assumed to continue (ICCAT 2018i).

Constant TAC 2018-2022 (t) Projected SB (2022) (t) (approx.) 24,000 (2017 TAC) 575,000 36,000 (2020 TAC) 520,000

40,000 (~F0.1) 500,000

It is important to bear in mind with these projections, that neither the stock assessment group nor the SCRS had much confidence in the estimates of biomass relative to reference points and in fact declined to provide a Kobe plot on this basis. It is therefore preferable to focus on the estimates and projections relating to F where possible.

3.3.7 Stock status summary of different models

Stakeholders for this fishery have requested that the report be clear about the different conclusions of different stock assessment models, and for the VPA, recruitment scenarios. To do this, we have provided Table 6, noting that because the models estimate different parameters in different ways, and projections have been done for different scenarios for each model, they are not particularly easy to compare.

For the VPA model, F0.1 is considered likely to be a good proxy for FMSY, while for the SS3 model they are very different, with F0.1 much lower (more precautionary) than FMSY. The projections (2018, 2025) for the VPA model have been done under three different recruitment scenarios, while the SS3 model estimates a Beverton-Holt stock-recruit curve within the model (which is likely to be a significant source of process error). Unfortunately, there are no estimates of SB or F relative to reference points for the ASAP or SCAL models, the VPA projections have been done in terms of F while the SS3 projections in terms of catch and SC, and the TAC scenarios for the two sets of projections are not the same. Therefore, compare with caution. Table 6. An attempted comparison of the results of the four different stock assessment models attempted during the stock assessment workshop (ICCAT 2017i). kt = 1,000 t.

VPA low VPA med VPA high SS3 ASAP SCAL SSB 2015 610 kt (sensitivities 500-900 kt) 240 kt 660 kt 910 kt

F>F0.1 2015 ‘not likely’

SB

SB

F>F0.1 2018 (28 kt TAC) prob 2 % prob 0 % prob 0 %

F>F0.1 2025 (35 kt TAC) prob 62 % prob 3 % prob 0 %

SB / SBMSY 2018 (30 kt TAC) 0.85

SB / SBMSY 2025 (35 kt TAC) 0.63

2018 TAC for F=0.8FMSY 20,723 t

2018 TAC for F0.1 11,802 t

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 31 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.3.8 Harvest strategy and control rule

ICCAT adopted a rebuilding plan for eastern bluefin in 2007, amended in 2013, 2014 (Rec. 2014-04, (ICCAT 2014a)) and 2017 (Rec. 2017-07, (ICCAT 2017a)). 2014-04 set TACs for 2015-17, and 2017-07 set TACs and quotas for 2018-2020 (Table 1). In 2017, SCRS recommended based on the results of the stock assessment that the Commission move from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan; this was adopted in 2018 (Rec. 2018-02, (ICCAT 2018d)) and started in 2019. The management plan is consistent with SCRS advice for 2018 (ICCAT 2018i), which can be summarised as follows: • It is too early to evaluate the impact of Rec. 17-07; • The combination of size limits and catch reduction has ‘certainly contributed to a rapid increase of the abundance of the stock’; • The stepped increase in TAC for 2019, set out in 17-07, can be maintained; • ICCAT should move from a rebuilding plan to a management plan.

The management objective of 17-07 and previous iterations of the rebuilding plan was to achieve BMSY

with at least 60 % probability. The management objective of 18-02 is slightly different: to achieve B0.1 (proxy for BMSY) by fishing ‘at or below’ F0.1; i.e. a slightly lower objective (ICCAT 2018d). Nevertheless, the key management measure (the TACs up to 2020) has not changed from 17-07 to 18-02 (Table 7), on the basis that TACs are being increased incrementally to the F0.1 level. Some other measures have been slightly relaxed (e.g. some longer open seasons, additional derogations from the minimum size, provisions for quota exchange and small amounts of carry-over) (Table 8). Table 7. Eastern bluefin TACs, 2015-2020. Sources : ICCAT (2017a; 2018d)

Year TAC under 14-04 (t) TAC under 17-07 (t) TAC under 18-02 (t) 2015 16,142 2016 19,296 2017 23,155 2018 28,200 2019 32,240 32,240 2020 36,000 36,000

Stakeholders have noted that the 2020 TAC is the highest ever set for this stock, which is true since the first TAC which was set in 1998 was ~34,000 t2 and TACs subsequently (eventually) decreased to a low in 2009-2014 before starting the incremental increase set out above. There are, however, two elements which need to be borne in mind in relation to this before/after comparison: i) in the period 1998-2008, TACs were not respected at all – estimated annual catch was of the order of 50,000 t or higher; and ii) the size-frequency in the catch is now completely different from the size-frequency in the 1990s, as a consequence of the minimum size limits in the various rebuilding plans. This is clear if the bottom-left figure of Figure 13 is inspected; F on small size-classes (ages 2-5) has decreased by an order of magnitude (~0.25-~0.02) since ~2000. This means that absolute estimates of biomass

2 reading off a graph therefore the assessment team can’t be exact.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 32 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

reference levels such as B0.1 and BMSY will be different, and hence the two situations (before vs after) are not comparable in that way.

Table 8. Comparison of the provisions of the 2017 rebuilding plan (to end 2018) and the 2018 multiannual management plan (starting 2019). Source ICCAT 17-07 and 18-02.

Provision Recovery plan (17-07) Multiannual management plan (18-02)

Management BMSY with at least 60 % probability by Maintaining the biomass around B0.1, via target 2022 (para. 1) (B0.1 as a proxy for BMSY, fishing at or less than F0.1 (para. 1) evaluated via F0.1) TAC 2019 (t) 32,240 t; 650 t unallocated reserve 32,240 t; 100 t unallocated reserve (para. (para. 5) 5) TAC 2020 (t) 36,000 t; 750 t unallocated reserve 36,000 t; 115 t unallocated reserve (para. (para. 5) 5) Transfer of quota / Minor provisions (para. 5) Same except Libya→Algeria transfer research provision removed (para. 5) Provisions for stock Commission may suspend fishery No such provision, but if stock assessment decline / collapse based on ‘serious threat of fishery suggests that B0.1 is not being achieved, collapse’ (para. 6) SCRS shall provide new TAC advice for the following year (para. 114) Annual fishing Required from each CPC by 15 Feb., Same; requirements of plans a bit more plans covering quota allocations, inspection, clearly specified (paras 14-16,19) capacity management and farms (paras 8,10) Individual quotas For catching vessels >24m (para. 9) Not required Sport / recreational Quota allocation optional by CPC Same (paras 39-44); sport tag/release fisheries (para. 11); authorisation required vessels do not require quota if in the (para. 31); bag limit one context of a scientific research programme fish/day/vessel for private (para. 45) consumption (para. 32,33) Quota carry-over Not allowed (para. 14) A CPC may carry over up to 5 % of 2019 quota to 2020, if included in fishing plan (para. 7) Quota transfer By authorisation of CPCs and By authorisation of CPCs; Commission to be Commission (para. 15) informed in advance (para. 10); allowed between gear groups / fleets within a CPC as long as Commission informed (para. 17) Chartering Not allowed (para. 16) Not allowed (para. 11) Joint Fishing Provisions for CPCs with <5 purse seine Same, but also provisions for other gear Operations vessels, under strict regulation (para. types (paras 59-62) 17) Open fishing 1 Jan-31 May, except west of 10oW Same (para. 31) season: longline and north of 42oN and in Norwegian zone (NEZ) – 1 Aug-31 Jan (para. 18) : purse seine 26 May-24 June, except NEZ – 25 Jun- 26 May-1 July, except E. Med (open 15 31 Oct (para. 19) May), Adriatic (to 15 July), NEZ and Iceland zone (25 June-15 Nov), Morocco (1 May-15 June) (para. 29); may be expanded up to 10 days to allow for bad weather (para. 30)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 33 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Provision Recovery plan (17-07) Multiannual management plan (18-02) : baitboats, 1 Jul-31 Oct; CPCs outside To be set by CPCs and approved by Panel 2 Mediterranean may stipulate a (para. 32); complete review of seasons for different starting date but same all gears by Commission by 2020 (para. 33) duration (para. 20) : pelagic trawlers 16 Jun-14 Oct (E. Atlantic only) (para. 21) : recreational 16 Jun-14 Oct (para. 22) : other gears any time (para. 23) Aerial searching Not allowed (para. 25) Not allowed (para. 48) Minimum size 30 kg or 115 cm FL with derogations to Same, except additional derogation to 6.4 8 kg / 75 cm for some fleets; max. 5 % kg/66 cm or 70 cm for some fleets with % undersized bycatch for catching tolerance to be fixed by CPCs (7 % for vessels / traps (paras 26-8) Croatia) (paras 34-35); rules for catching vessels / traps the same (para. 36) Bluefin bycatch for 5 % max by weight and piece (para. 29) Quota to be allocated for bycatch by CPCs; non-bluefin vessels not to include 20 % of catch onboard; to be kept separate; dead to count against quota (para. 38) Capacity Number and GRT of fishing vessels by Fishing and farming capacity to be adjusted management gear type limited to level of 2007-8; in line with quota availability via a capacity traps limited to number on 1 July management plan to be approved by ICCAT 2008; purse seiners limited to 2013/14 Panel 2; farming capacity not to increase level for fishing plans 2018-20; farm over 2018 level; farm input not to increase input not to increase over 2005-8 over 2005-8 levels (paras 18-27) levels; fishing and farm management plans required (paras 35-50) Control measures ICCAT to maintain a record of all Same, except data to be provided by 31 catching and other vessels and traps; July of the following year (paras 49-58,74- catch and effort to be reported by 76) CPCs by vessel, no later than April 1 of the subsequent year (paras 51-57); logbooks required (paras 61-62); for quota consumption to be done monthly (paras 67-9) Landing and Only in designated ports of CPCs (paras Same (paras 69-73,77-82) transhipment 58-60) with reporting and control requirements (paras 59-60,64-65) Transfer and caging To be authorised in advance (paras 71- Same (paras 86-104) operations 72,79), reporting (paras 73,82,86), video monitoring (paras 75,81,83), observer (paras 76-77,84), video to be made available to ICCAT and observers; tamperproof (para. 93) CPC observer Pelagic trawlers, longliners, baitboats Same (para. 83) coverage >15m: 20 %; towing vessels and trap harvesting: 100% (para. 88) ICCAT Regional 100 % coverage on purse seiners and Same (paras 84-5) Observer transport and farm activities (transfer, transport, harvesting) (para. 89)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 34 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Provision Recovery plan (17-07) Multiannual management plan (18-02) Growth rates, To be provided by SCRS To be provided by SCRS (para. 28) conversion factors VMS No mention Required for vessels >15 m (see also Rec. 18-10) Review of the 2020 and after confirmation of ‘full management plan recovery of the stock’

An Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) process is underway at ICCAT for BFT-e; a preparatory meeting was held in April 2018 (ICCAT 2018f). SCRS (2018) (ICCAT 2018i) provide a workplan for the remained of the MSE process for bluefin tuna (see Appendix 15 of that document), which aims to have a revised management plan based on an MSE for adoption by the Commission at the end of 2020.

3.3.9 Information and monitoring

3.3.9.1 Catch documentation scheme All ICCAT contracting or cooperating parties (CPC) must submit information to ICCAT on the origin of each bluefin tuna using the bluefin tuna Catch Documentation Scheme – an electronic data submission system. The requirements for the Bluefin Catch Document (BCD) are set out in Rec. 11-20 (ICCAT 2011c) (a BCD copy is shown in Appendix 7). The document itself requires the following information to be provided, with each section individually validated by national authorities: • Catch: Details of vessel(s): name, flag, ICCAT record number, individual quota allocation; Details of catch: date, area, gear, number of fish, weight, tag numbers if any • Trade: Product, point of departure and company details, details of buyer or destination farm with ICCAT FFB number • Transfer: Towing vessel with flag and ICCAT Rec. no, number and weight of dead fish during towing, number of transfer declaration form • Transhipment: Carrier vessel details, date and position, product and quantity • Farm: Farm details, number and weight of fish • Farm harvesting: Date, number and weight of fish, tags, ICCAT observer details • Trade: Product, weight, exporters, transport

Each form must be individually numbered following a schema developed by each CPC. The catch documentation system also requires that vessels (fishing, carrier), traps, farms and exporters be registered with the system. While the scheme is apparently not fool proof (see Section 3.5.7 - P3 compliance below), it certainly makes this fishery one of the best monitored anywhere.

3.3.9.2 GBYP ICCAT started the Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna (GBYP) in 2008, with the aim of improving the scientific advice by improving basic data on bluefin biology and ecology. The programme has benefited from various external contributions from CPCs (notably the EU) as well as

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 35 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

private institutions and research foundations. GBYP has a coordinator and a Steering Committee, and its Annual and Steering Committee reports and budgets are publicly available3. The stated objectives of the GBYP are as follows: • improve basic data collection: historical data mining, size of caged fish, fishery- independent surveys and large-scale tagging; • improve understanding of biological and ecological processes: electronic tagging, biological sampling (gonads, liver, otoliths, spines etc.), analysis of reproductive state, analysis of mixing and population structure, predator-prey relationships; • improve stock assessment and scientific advice: modelling of biological processes (growth, stock-recruit relationship), stock assessment models including mixing, operational models for MSE. The key activities of the GBYP have been4: • Aerials surveys, focusing on spawning areas in the Mediterranean, in late spring (spawning aggregations) and late summer-autumn (juvenile feeding aggregations) – as well as conducting surveys, development of methodology and training is also critical. • Large-scale tagging in the initial phase of the project, moving towards electronic tagging more recently; also awareness-raising for tag recovery. • Historical data mining: This has various elements and has contributed to developing the ‘inflated catch’ time series essential to the stock assessment (see below) as well as in generating a trap fishery catch time series which goes back to 1512 (see for example Garcia et al. (2017)). • Biology and ecology: Genetics, otolith and spine aging and microchemistry, surveys of spawning areas. • Modelling: The MSE process.

3.3.9.3 Data required for stock assessment The data required for the stock assessments are described below: Catch data: Catch data has in the past been problematic, because of the large quantity of undeclared catches in the ‘bad old days’ (1998-2007). The level of this IUU has been estimated using the likely catch rates of the vessels known to have been operating, or using market data (Apostolaki et al. 2018). The resulting ‘inflated catch’ is applied to the purse seine fishery for this period as the best catch estimate; reported purse seine catches are not used. This is inevitably uncertain, and SCRS (ICCAT 2018i) notes that attempts to retrieve historical data for this period have finished and the situation is not likely to improve. At the data preparatory workshop for the stock assessment (ICCAT 2017j), the group revised completely the catch data with help from national scientists. Altogether ~15 % of the catch records were adjusted, but these adjustments were mainly confined to better defining and completing gear-based time series and did not results in a significant change to estimates of overall catches.

3 See https://www.iccat.int/GBYP/en/overview.asp and select tab ‘documents’ 4 See https://www.iccat.int/GBYP/en/index.asp and select individual tabs

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 36 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Abundance indices: A series of nine abundance indices were used in the 2017 stock assessment, including two trap indices, five CPUE indices and two survey (fishery-independent) indices. These are: • Combined Morocco/Spain trap index, 1981-2011 • Combined Morocco/Portugal trap index, 2012-15 • Japanese longline, eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean, 1975-2009 • Japanese longline, northeast Atlantic, 1990-2009 • Japanese longline, northeast Atlantic, 2010-15 • Spain baitboat (pole-and-line), 1952-2006 • Combined Spain and France baitboat, 2007-2014 • French aerial survey (see under GBYP above), 2000-03, 2009-12 and 2014-15 • Larval survey index, western Mediterranean, 2001-05, 2012-15

A problem with the fishery CPUE indices, as noted by SCRS (ICCAT 2018i) is that CPUE has been significantly affected by the wide range of regulatory measures that have come in since the start of the rebuilding plan, which has changed the fishing season, target sizes, quota availability and hence operational pattern. Despite standardisation techniques, it is difficult to separate out changes in CPUE from changes in the operation of the fishery from those due to changes in stock abundance. (This is a problem which is not specific to this fishery.) Catch at size: The stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT 2017j) noted that revisions to various data sets have improved estimates of catch-at-size and catch-at-age matrices (for details of aging and growth curves, see below). This includes revision and improvement of existing data sets (e.g. by Japanese scientists) as well as new size data (e.g. from Algeria and Sardinia). Crucially, it is now required to record cage transfer operations using stereoscopic camera, allowing direct size measurement of fish (available since 2014). Nevertheless, size in vs size out from the farms remains a problem, because the growth rates of farmed fish has not been fully quantified, when fish are retained for longer periods. An attempt to compare growth as back-calculated from harvesting data, with direct measures from stereoscopic cameras (Ortiz 2018) was successful in some cases (i.e. the two sets of measurements matched) but not in others. Further investigation of this question is ongoing, but the analysis was not ready as a input to the 2017 stock assessment. Age and growth: Work is ongoing in this area, and the stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT 2017j) reviewed various analyses; e.g. analysis of age and growth of young-of-the-year fish in the Mediterranean, to evaluate variation in early growth rates in time and space and how that might relate to spawning areas and timing; validation of growth curves via independent estimates of Linf and Lmax; methods to identify outliers in the size/age database; comparison of BFT-e and BFT-w growth curves; evaluation of different methods for obtaining catch-at-age estimates from size data using real and simulated data. Catch-at-size data have also been recovered from market and auction data (Natale et al. 2017). Based on tagging and otolith data, the data preparation workshop (ICCAT 2017j) reviewed the fit of two different growth curves for BFT-e, and concluded that one had a better fit for smaller fish, while one worked better for larger fish. On this basis, they recommended fitting a revised growth curve for the stock assessment and recommended more otolith aging of large fish. Stock composition: Tagging, genetics and otolith microchemistry have all contributed to an analysis of stock composition and stock mixing – details are given in Section 3.3.2 above.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 37 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Natural mortality: M has been investigated extensively for BFT (Lauretta 2017), with various models evaluated against tagging data. There was extensive discussion at the data preparation workshop as to how M should be treated – previously a M vector from southern bluefin was used. M clearly varies by size, and may also vary over time, although the data are not sufficient to estimate a time-varying M vector. Tagging: According to GBYP Steering Committee reports, ~60 electronic tags were deployed in 2018, and ~70 in 2017 (ICCAT 2018c; ICCAT 2017e). Prior to this there was extensive conventional tagging which has been used to evaluate growth and mortality as discussed above.

3.3.10 Stock assessment

The stock assessment process at ICCAT is as follows: a data preparation workshop is convened, which reviews all available fisheries data sets, and any new information (e.g. recent relevant research, new data) and makes recommendations as to the use of different abundance indices, growth curves, natural mortality and other data inputs to the stock assessment. A stock assessment workshop is then convened, which runs and reviews the various competing models across an evolving range of settings and assumptions over the course of several days. The stock assessment group concludes regarding which model and settings should be considered the ‘reference case’, although it may recommend a range. The results of the stock assessment are then passed to the species group, which formulates management advice which is goes to SCRS for review and approval. As already noted above, a range of stock assessment modelling platforms were tried during the stock assessment meeting, but ultimately only the VPA model was considered sufficiently advanced to be used to provide management advice, although the stock assessment group recommended ‘considering’ the other results in the advice as well. Other than the VPA, the most advanced model was the SS3 model, which is used for the assessment of BFT-w. VPA is a method for using observed fisheries mortality (catch) plus assumed or estimated natural mortality to back-calculate the size of age-cohorts over time, generally carried out using the modelling platform XSA. VPA is a widely used technique in fisheries stock assessment; e.g. it is commonly used by ICES for assessments of North East Atlantic stocks, although it is gradually being superseded by more sophisticated statistical models such as SS3, CASAL, MULTIFAN etc. which are already commonly used for tropical tuna stocks. The results of the VPA are presented in detail above and are not repeated here. The uncertainties in the assessment have already been emphasised: the stock assessment workshop was particularly concerned about the inconsistency in recruitment shown in the retrospective analysis (Figure 12). However, the VPA was subsequently amended slightly (ICCAT 2017b) providing a new reference case model in which retrospective instability was somewhat less marked (Figure 12). A key issue with VPA is the assumption that catch-at-age is known without error; the stock assessment group considered that the poor quality of historical catch-at-size data and the problems inherent in converting size data to age data were key sources of uncertainty for the VPA. These problems are less significant for some of the other models (SS3, SCAL), but nevertheless the group concluded that the results of these models were ultimately ‘not more reliable’ than those of the VPA (ICCAT 2017i). Fromentin et al. (2014) provide a nice summary of the range and sources of uncertainty in the BFT-e stock assessment over time; noting that in practice, the situation is not all that different from many other exploited fish stocks. It is relatively rare that a stock assessment presents and compares the results of several different modelling approaches using the same data. It is also usual that recent and future recruitment and the Stock recruitment (SR) relationship are a big source of uncertainty; most tuna stock assessments simply assume a SR relationship rather than address this specifically (but see the alternative approach of IATTC for its tropical tuna stocks – who assume no SR relationship; (IATTC 2017). Age and growth is another significant source of uncertainty for many stock assessments,

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 38 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

including tuna species; the recent assessment history of western Pacific bigeye tuna is a good example (Sieben et al. 2019).

3.3.11 Lower Trophic Level (LTL) considerations

Bluefin tuna has a trophic level of 4.5 and is not considered a low trophic level (LTL) species (Fishbase 2019c).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 39 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem Background

3.4.1 Principle 2 cumulative impacts

The MSC introduced requirements for cumulative impact assessments in Principle 2 with the release of the Fisheries Certification Requirements v2.0. These requirements are to ensure that MSC certified fisheries will no longer cumulatively be at risk of generating negative impacts on Principle 2 species (and habitat). • For primary species, cumulative impacts assess whether the collective impact of overlapping MSC fisheries are hindering the recovery of ‘main’ primary species that are below a point of recruitment impairment (PRI); i.e. ensuring that the combined impact of MSC fisheries are not harming the recovery of the stock; • For secondary species, the same intent applies when a species is below a biologically based limit, but only in cases where two or more MSC fisheries have ‘main’ catches that are ‘considerable’, defined as a species being 10 per cent or more of the total catch; • For ETP species, the combined impacts of MSC fisheries on all ETP species needs to be evaluated, but only in cases where either national and/or international requirements set catch limits for ETP species and only for those fisheries subject to the same national legislation or within the area of the same binding agreement’; • For habitats, in contrast, cumulative impacts are evaluated in the management PI (PI 2.4.2). The requirements here aim to ensure that vulnerable marine ecosystems (VMEs) are managed cumulatively to ensure serious and irreversible harm does not occur.

However, there are presently no overlapping MSC certified fisheries for which cumulative impacts apply. As a result, the lack of cumulative impacts to consider for this fishery are summarised in Table 15 with methods shown in section 4.1.

3.4.2 Designation of species under Principle 2

The fishery’s impact of non-target species is analysed differently if the species is from a “managed” stock or not, or considered Endangered, Threatened or Protected (ETP). These are defined as follows: Primary species (MSC Component 2.1): • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 • Species that are within scope of the MSC program, i.e. no amphibians, reptiles, birds or mammals • Species where management tools and measures are in place, intended to achieve stock management objectives reflected in either limit (LRP) or target reference points (TRP). Primary species can therefore also be referred to as ‘managed species’. Secondary species (MSC Component 2.2): • Species in the catch that are not covered under P1 • Species that are not managed in accordance with limit or target reference points, i.e. do not meet the primary species criteria • Species that are out of scope of the programme, but where the definition of ETP species is not applicable (see below).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 40 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

ETP (Endangered, Threatened or Protected) species (MSC Component 2.3) are assigned as follows: • Species that are recognised by national ETP legislation • Species listed in binding international agreements (e.g. CITES, Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), ACAP, etc.) • Species classified as ‘out of scope’ (amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals) that are listed in the IUCN Redlist as vulnerable (VU), endangered (EN) or critically endangered (CE). Both primary and secondary species are defined as ‘main’ if they meet the following criteria: • The catch comprises 5 % or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC; • The species is classified as ‘less resilient’ and comprises 2 % or more by weight of the total catch of all species by the UoC. Less resilient is defined here as having low to medium productivity, or species for which resilience has been lowered due to anthropogenic or natural changes to its life-history; • The species is out of scope but is not considered an ETP species (secondary species only); • Exceptions to the rule may apply in the case of exceptionally large catches of bycatch species.

3.4.3 Observer Reports

Longline vessels are not subject to the ICCAT Regional Observer Programme, but ICCAT requires each CPC to ensure they have at least 20 % coverage on active longline vessels (over 15 m LOA) in the BFT fishery (ICCAT 2014b). These observers must be issued with an official identification documentation. Japan maintains the Japan Observer Plan (JOP), in coordination with various stakeholders. Japan’s observer coverage rate is reported by the Japanese Fisheries Agency (FA) as 26.5 %, greater than the required 20 %. JOP is administered by a third-party consulting company consigned by FA. Vessels which carry observers are generally chosen by lottery within their Fisheries Cooperatives, however Shofuku Maru No. 1 has spearheaded the implementation and volunteered to carry observers from 2013 to 2015; they are therefore currently exempt from carrying observers. A copy of full observer reports was not available based on the confidential nature agreed between the JFA, Fisheries cooperative and the third-party consulting companies, however bycatch data summary for Shofuku Maru No.1 compiled from the Shofuku Maru observer reports was provided by the FA and further data-related questions were answered upon request. The summarized observer data provided information on fishing trip period, observer’s onboard period, numbers of catch and bycatch species identified and numbers of retained / release / discard for each species. No survival status or released species were available. Although JOP does not have an openly available observer manual unlike the ICCAT Regional Observer Programme, the manual was available for viewing upon request. JOP is operated as one of the projects of Comprehensive International Resources Management Systems Construction Program, and widely known as the “scientific observer survey and analysis project” in Japan. The manual emphasizes the scientific nature of the observer needs, to reduce troubles between fishers and onboard observers. Basic compliance data (use of bycatch mitigation measures, operation hours) are also collected by the observer. The assessment team supplemented the information available with a published observer report from 2008 on Japanese longline fisheries in the northeast Atlantic (Boyd 2008).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 41 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

It is worth noting that there are some discrepancies in catch numbers between the observer data and official reports. The observer data mostly shows a lower catch number than those reported officially by the fishery, but FA explained that this is due to the observer program design, in which observers are only responsible to report catch observed while they are on duty. Reported observer counts were mostly less than vessel’s report for all three years of available observer-onboard duration.

3.4.4 Defining species category

Catch reports from the vessel, logbook data and summarized observer data provided by FA are used to determine P2 species category for this assessment (Table 9). The fishery is required to fill out an official Logbook for Large Scale Tuna Longline Vessels and submit this to FA. The logbook format provided by FA is designed to record number and weight of target catch (retained fish) and number of released species (not weight), thus the client has been reporting number and weight of BFT and sometimes blue shark, when they decided to retain. A survival status report is only required for seabirds and sea turtles, not fish species. JOP observer’s priority tasks are identification and recording of observed species and length measurement of fish. Measurement of weights were given less priority. There was no ETP species count in the summarised JOP data, however the FA provided assurance that if ETP species were observed, it would be included in the summary. Thus, the non-appearance of ETP in the data summaries indicates no observations, as observers are instructed to count if they encounter ETP species while they are on duty. Shofuku-Maru No.1 sometimes do not retain blue shark (Prionace glauca) and release them immediately (see 2.4.6.2 for detail), in that case the released number is recorded but weight is not recorded /reported. The average of blue shark weight reported with logbook in 2016 season ranged from 32.1 kg to 52.9 kg. According to FA, average weight of blue shark in 2014 catch was estimated as 29.3 kg, from observer data using the length-weight conversion method by Nakano (1994). The assessment team used the FA’s estimation for 2014 blue shark catch weight to estimate total blue shark catch weight in 2014 while for other years used the reported maximum weight of 53 kg from the client report. Blue shark survival rates from longline post-release has been extensively studied and reviewed in a metanalysis which concluded that; there is no compelling reason to ignore commonalities in mortality rates across different fisheries and locations and that post-release fishing mortality was 0.17 (Musyl & Gilman 2019). The authors also found some indication that J hooks increased mortality rates. Summarized bycatch data from the observer report provided by FA is the only source of information for identifying bycatch other than blue shark. The observer data available between 2013 to 2015 indicate insignificant bycatch rates, consisting of minor bycatch species (Table 9). Records show that average weight of shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) was 23 kg in 2014. Observer data showed that average weight of Ribbonfish (Desmodema polystictum) was 4.0 kg (from data in 2013), lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) was 5.5 kg, anglerfish (Lophiiformes Spp.) was in range 11 to 34 kg. We used the observed maximum weights as a precautionary estimate in bycatch species to produce Table 9, while annual logbook reported BFT-e total weight used. Note the mortality rate of shark bycatch is assumed to be taken from observer data, in order to report to ICCAT, though the assessment team could not find mortality information from summarized observer data provided by FA.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 42 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 9. 2013 – 2015 of Shofuku-Maru No. 1. Catch composition and designation of Principle 2 species based on MSC definition. Weight data of bluefin shark is taken from client logbook, and blue shark and other bycatch species are estimated from logbook and observer records (not all weight data are taken as these are not retained all the time). Source: Fisheries Agency Japan and Usufuku Honten. (* signifies estimated weight)

Year Species Weight Number % catch Main/Minor composition 2013 Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus 44,512 344 96.7 Target sp.

Blue shark Prionace glauca 1,484* 28 3.2 Primary (@53 kg) Main Ribbonfish sp. Desmodema 4* 1 0.008 Secondary polystictum minor Longnose lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox 38.5* 7 0.08 Secondary minor Total 46,038* 2014 Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus 29,712 188 74.7 Target sp. Blue shark Prionace glauca 9,933* 339 25 Primary (@29.3 Main kg) Ribbonfish sp. Desmodema 4* 1 0.01 Secondary polystictum minor Longnose lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox 33* 6 0.08 Secondary minor Anglerfish spp. Lophiiformes Spp. 45 2 0.11 Secondary minor Shortfin mako shark Isurus oxyrinchus 23* 1 0.058 Primary Minor Total 39,790 2015 Bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus 36,568 233 73 Target sp. Blue shark Prionace glauca 13,409* 253 27 Primary (@53 kg) Main Longnose lancetfish Alepisaurus ferox 38.5* 7 0.07 Secondary spp. minor Anglerfish. Spp. Lophiiformes Spp. 11 NA 0.02 Secondary minor Total 50,026*

3.4.5 Bait species

The client has reported that they have in the past occasionally used Japanese flying squid, however with its severe resource depletion it is not currently available as an option and has not been used in the past few seasons. The client currently uses two kinds of bait species for the fishery. Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus), アルゼンチンマツイカ: sourced from various suppliers, and Japanese pilchard (Sardinops melanostictus), マイワシ: sourced from a company based at Choshi, Chiba prefecture, Japan. This stock is fished near the Japan coast, off Chosi in the Pacific Ocean. Table

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 43 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

9 shows the bait use of Shofuku Maru No.1 and the percentage compared to the estimated total weight of bluefin tuna each fishing season since 2012. Table 10. Bait use (in weight) from 2012 – 2017 by Shofuku Maru No. 1 for targeting of BFT-e. Percentage columns are catch per annum multiplied by 100. Source: Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd bait purchase records.

Year BFT (kg) bait squid (kg) bait sardine (kg) % squid % sardine

2012 47,191 12,768 1,213 27.1 2.6

2013 44,512 9,567 910 21.5 2.0

2014 29,712 10,108 960 34.0 3.2

2015 36,568 7,448 708 20.4 1.9

2016 41,996 11,172 1,061 26.6 2.5

2017 48,831 6,916 657 14.2 1.3

2018 55,254 10,911 698 19.7 1.3

average 43,438 9,841 887 23.3 2.1

Table 11. Principle 2 elements for Primary and Secondary species. *see section 3.4.6.1 for explanation.

P2 species classification Estimated weight % P2 Species in this assessment (precautionary estimate from vessel and observer report) Primary main (>5%) <15* Atlantic bluefin tuna west stock 3.2〜27 Blue shark (North Atlantic stock) 23.3 Argentine shortfin squid (bait) Primary minor (<2%) 0.058 Shortfin mako shark 2.1 Japanese pilchard (bait) Secondary main (>5%) N/A N/A Secondary minor (<5%) 0.008〜0.01 Ribbonfish sp. 0.07〜0.08 Longnose lancetfish 0.02〜0.11 Anglerfish. Spp.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 44 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.4.6 Primary Species – Main

3.4.6.1 BFT-w BFT-w and BFT-e are the same species with distinct breeding grounds on either side of the Atlantic (eastern (Mediterranean Sea) and western (Gulf of Mexico) (Rooker et al. 2014). There is no way to determine the origins of an individual fish reliably by external morphological traits. Identification is conditional on otolith or DNA techniques (Rodríguez et al. 2017; Rooker et al. 2014), which is not possible during normal fishing operations. The CAB identified that there was potential for catches of non-target BFT-w that are inseparable or practicably inseparable (IPI) from target (P1) BFT-e (Section 5.4) and therefore were required to establish the proportional contribution of BFT-w catches to the UoA.

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and its Scientific Committee (SCRS) have undertaken work to understand stock mixing based on otolith and genetic links between the BFT stocks. The Japanese fisheries research institute has completed DNA and otolith research on Japan-caught longline BFT-e as part of their shared information requirements to ICCAT.

There are several published articles and ICCAT reports on otolith and DNA techniques which assess the degree of mixing between the stocks across the range of the BFT-e stock. Findings on stock mixing which include the Japanese longline fleet data were published in 2014 (Rooker et al., 2014) and 2017 (Rodríguez et al. 2017; Morse et al. 2017). Stock mixing data is accounted for the stock assessment sessions by running the model based on the stock origin of the catch as well as catch location (ICCAT 2017i) and is being considered in the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) program (ICCAT 2019d).

A recent publication by ICCAT highlighted new information from the analyses of otolith chemistry and genetics data on stock mixing (ICCAT 2019d; Arrizabalanga et al. 2019). The observation was made that potentially as soon as BFT-e fish depart the Mediterranean for the wider Atlantic, its otolith chemistry signal starts to be less differentiable from the Gulf of Mexico fish. It suggests that this may

be due to the sharp gradient in delO18 chemistry between the Mediterranean and adjacent Atlantic waters (ICCAT 2019d). When the same samples were analysed for both otolith chemistry and genetics, different perceptions of stock assignments were produced. The otolith chemistry suggests more BFT- w fish in the Eastern Atlantic while the genetics data which is more consistent with the tagging methods suggest fewer BFT-w fish (ICCAT 2019d). Finally, the scientific group recommended that genetics should be used primarily to determine stock of origin, not otolith chemistry (ICCAT 2019d).

The genetic study was undertaken by ICCAT using a genetic traceability tool consisting of 96 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) which took place over a five-year period between 2011-2015 and was published by ICCAT in 2017 (Rodríguez et al. 2017).

According to this genetic analysis, the proportion of BFT-w in the area Central Atlantic (East) (CAE) from the Japanese longline fleet ranged from 0 to 11 % with a 5 year average of 3.8 % when an assignment score threshold of 90 % was applied (Rodríguez et al. 2017) (Table 12). The annual variability under this method was also < 15 % (maximum 11.1 %) for the CAE area and confirms that temporal variability for the past five years of available data is < 15 % by the Japanese long line fleet as a proxy for the UoA.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 45 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 12. Percentage of BFT assigned to the BFT-w stock per year from the total of assigned individuals when a minimum assigned score is set to 70 % or 90 % for Central Atlantic (East) (CAE). Adapted from (Rodríguez et al. 2017).

Year % BFT-w Total Assigned

70% 90% 70% 90%

2011 5.7 0.0 35 29

2012 8.1 3.2 37 31 2013 3.7 0.0 27 24 2014 10.0 11.1 10 9 2015 10.7 4.8 28 21 Average 7.6 3.8 27.4 22.8 Minimum 3.7 0 10 9 Maximum 10.7 11.1 37 31

The information above allowed the CAB to announced the use of FCR2.0 annex PA. Clause PA2.1.1.1 requires that the IPI catch is assessed under the primary or secondary species component of Principle 2, and with BFT-w having a formal stock assessment and potential catches of a maximum 11.1 % per annum BFT-w is considered a ‘main’ Primary species.

Stock Assessment The 2017 stock assessment was conducted for BFT-w (ICCAT 2018i). In addition to substantial revisions to historical fishery data, new fishery-independent series of relative abundance, and new information on life history, a wide range of estimation models were applied, including revised configurations of the virtual population analyses (VPAs), statistical catch-at-length, statistical catch-at-age and other integrated assessment models. Of these, the only models deemed to have progressed enough at the conclusion of the meeting to be considered as the basis of management advice were the VPA and Stock Synthesis (SS) models. For the VPA 12 indices of abundance were available for the model, however with some conflicting trends among indices, the final VPA model excluded two indices on the basis of opposing trends to indices most sensitive to shifting spatial distributions (ICCAT 2018i). The SS model was initially developed from thirteen fleets data from 1951-2015, with modifications to the structure required to ensure similar data composition. A ‘near virgin’ stock was assumed for 1950, and a Beverton-Holt stock-recruitment function was assumed. Alternative assumptions on natural mortality were explored along with alternative approaches to estimating selectivity in some indices before the group settled on a final model run (ICCAT 2018i). VPA results for 2017 are considered consistent with previous analyses in that the SB was estimated to decline sharply between 1974 and 1985, level off through the 1990s, and then begin increasing over the last decade. The estimates of recruitment (age 1) fall sharply after 1975 and then fluctuate around a lower level with little trend except for a relatively strong year-class in 2003 and exceptionally weak year classes in 2010 and 2011 (Figure 16). The estimated apical fishing mortality rate was very high during the 1970s but decreased substantially during the following decade when catch limits were imposed (Figure 17). Estimated fishing mortality rates fluctuated around 0.2 for the period from 1984 to 2005, with an observed decline since 2006. Until very recently (2012-2015), fishing mortality rates

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 46 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

have exceeded F0.1 substantially (Figure 17). Within the new model configuration there was no longer sufficient data from the early period of the fishery to provide sufficient contrast for estimating the steepness of the Beverton-Holt curve. Therefore the ICCAT group could no longer provide a range of possible MSY-based reference points from the VPA results and elected to focus on giving short-term

advice based on F0.1 (the fishing mortality rate corresponding to 10% of the slope of the yield per recruit curve at the origin) and a range of short-term assumptions about recruitment. For the SS3 model a longer-term historical perspective to the assessment (1950) is possible when a Beverton-Holt spawner-recruit relationship is assumed (Figure 16). Total biomass in 2015 was 18 % of biomass in 1950 and 45 % of biomass in 1974 (Figure 16).

Figure 16. Estimated recruitment and total biomass for BFT-w time series from two models – stock synthesis (SS) and Virtual Population Analysis (VPA). The 80% confidence intervals are indicated with dashed lines. The recruitment estimates for the last three years of the VPA are considered unreliable and have been replaced by the average estimates from 2007 to 2012 and the replaced values are shown in the figure for reference. Source: (ICCAT 2018i).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 47 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 17. Estimated fishing mortality relative to the F0.1 reference point estimated by stock synthesis (SS) and Virtual Population Analysis (VPA) from the 2017 stock assessment. The 80 % confidence intervals are indicated with dashed lines. F0.1 is a proxy for FMSY based on recent recruitment estimates for the period 2007 to 2012. Source (ICCAT 2018i). Both results from the VPA and SS were equally weighted to formulate advice by ICCAT (ICCAT 2018i). As per BFT-e management advice for BFT-w is focused is on giving short-term advice based on F

reference point (F0.1), a proxy for FMSY, it uses recent recruitment assuming that near term recruitment will be similar to the recent past recruitment. Current F relative to the F0.1 reference point was 0.72 (VPA) and 0.56 (SS3) indicating that overfishing is not occurring (Table 13). However, The SS biomass estimates suggest that historical biomasses were considerably higher than current ones (18 % of 1950). Table 13. Estimated recent fishing mortality rate (geometric mean of apical F for the period 2012 to 2014) relative to the F reference point, F0.1 (a proxy for FMSY based on recent recruitment estimates for the period 2007 to 2012). An 80 % confidence interval of estimated Fs and F reference points are shown in parentheses. Source: (ICCAT 2018i).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 48 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

A stock rebuilding plan was initiated in 1998 over 20 years aimed at achieving SBMSY with 50 % probability. This plan has not been achieved. SCRS note that the 2017 assessment estimated that the biomass has increased between 2004 to 2015, but short-term projections from 2018 -2020 result in stock decline despite the F limited to F0.1. The decline is predicted based on the 2003 year class moving out of the fishery (ICCAT 2018i). The Committee also noted that the TAC recommendation [Rec. 17- 06] (ICCAT 2017f) is expected to lead to decreases in the stock but not lead to overfishing as noted in the 2017 advice. The Committee also notes that recent catches are below TACs (Figure 18). The SCRS in way of explaining the F0.1 strategy and predicted short term decline conclude that ‘if an F0.1 strategy were to continue to be applied, over the longer term the resource would fluctuate around the true, but unknown value of B0.1 whatever the future recruitment level. The F0.1 strategy compensates for the effect of recruitment changes on biomass by allowing higher catches when recent recruitment is higher and reducing catches when recent recruitments are lower. Under this strategy, biomass may decrease at times because the stock is above B0.1 or following lower recruitments’ (ICCAT 2018i).

Figure 18. Historical catches of western bluefin tuna: (a) by gear type and (b) in comparison to TAC levels agreed by the Commission. Source: (ICCAT 2018i).

3.4.6.2 Blue Shark

The average weight of individual blue caught in 2016 ranged from 32.2 kg to 52.9 kg. The assessment team used the reported maximum weight of 53 kg to estimate the total blue shark catch weight (Table 9).

Under MAFF’s ministry order article 28-2, all released sharks need to be recorded in the logbook’s section of “bycatch species” with the number of fish and the species name. It also requires that the bycatch number should be proved robust, including against cross-checking with observer reports. As pointed earlier, there are some discrepancy between the data resultant of observer working hours. The blue shark count record from observer data consistently shows less than client report, except for 2013 where 1 count is higher in observer data – this could be considered as a minor human error (Table 8).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 49 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The Shofuku Maru No.1, rarely keep blue shark in recent years due to its low market value and the whole-body storage of sharks reduces space for bluefin tuna. The company was aware of the need to comply with ICCAT and FA regulations, to store blue sharks without separating body and fins, and land at foreign ports without transhipment if they decide to keep them. The vessel’s decision of whether they retain blue sharks to sell at foreign ports or release immediately depends on the space availability in storage, and timing of reporting to foreign port. Table 14. Blue shark bycatch and release / discards by Shofuku Maru No. 1, provided by Usufuku Honten between 2012 and 2017. 2013-2015 includes data obtained from the CRC observer programme obtained from FA. Weight of caught blue shark was reported up to 53 kg (maximum) and this max weight was used as a precaution. Numbers inside parentheses represent numbers reported by observers.

Year Blue shark Blue shark Bluefin tuna Ratio BFT Estimate % bycatch Release number BS/BFT weight d weight BS/BFT+BS number number (number) total BS (weight) 2012 95 0 354 0.26 47,191 5,035 9.64 2013 27 (28) 27 (28) 344 (276) 0.07 44,512 1,431 3.11 2014 339 (259) 339 (259) 188 (163) 1.80 29,712 17,967 37.68 2015 253 (207) 253 (206) 233 (199) 1.08 36,568 13,409 26.83 2016 204 0 248 0.82 41,996 10,812 20.47 2017 244 244 306 0.80 48,831 12,932 20.94 2018 129 129 372 0.34 55,254 8,637 15.63

Although there is variance on catch contribution by year, blue shark is highly likely to constitute more than 5 % of the catch and is therefore considered as a ‘main’ primary species under MSC assessment (Table 14). Blue shark catch ratio with BFT-e in weight ranges from 3% to 38 % (Table 14). This pattern appears common in longline fisheries however, and the North West Atlantic Canada longline fisheries (FR v1.3)5 have been MSC certified with similar bycatch issues for this species. Atlantic blue shark comes under the remit of ICCAT, who distinguish two stocks, North and South Atlantic, with a possibly a third one in the Mediterranean. The most recent stock assessment for the North Atlantic stock was in 2015; although an improvement on previous assessments, the working group found it impossible to provide a robust estimate of absolute biomass levels (ICCAT 2015c). Although the Committee acknowledged that there still remained a high level of uncertainty in data inputs and model structural assumptions, all current model scenarios suggested that the stock is sustainably exploited, and ICCAT consider that overfishing is ‘unlikely’ (ICCAT 2015c; ICCAT 2017a) (Figure 19) and that the stock is above MSY (Figure 19, Figure 20). In fisheries that are not directed at sharks ICCAT through the CPCs encourages the release of live sharks, especially juveniles, to the extent possible, that are caught incidentally and are not used for food and/or subsistence (ICCAT 2004a). Due to the level of uncertainty, ICCAT recommendation on management strategy is to continue monitoring of the fisheries by observer and port sampling programmes. This is to ensure that catch levels are not increased beyond those of recent years. (ICCAT, 2015). In the ICCAT meeting in 2016, it was agreed that the North Atlantic stock of blue shark is managed with a total limit of 39,000 t (average of 2011~2015 catch). Under ICCAT recommendation 16-12 (ICCAT 2016a), blue shark catches are monitored with respect to the average annual catch in any two consecutive years from 2017 onward to examine if it exceeds the average level observed

5https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/north-west-atlantic-canada-longline-swordfish/@@assessments

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 50 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

during the period 2011‐2015. Based on the monitoring the effectiveness of the current measures will be examined and changes bought about as required at the next stock assessment or sooner if information is sufficient to justify it (ICCAT 2016a). Under 16-12 (ICCAT 2016a) and following 16-13(ICCAT 2016b), CPCs must: • ensure that vessels record their blue shark catches • implement data collection programmes that ensure the reporting of accurate blue shark catch, effort, size and discard data to ICCAT in full accordance with the ICCAT requirements. • include in their Annual Reports to ICCAT information on the actions they have taken domestically to monitor catches and to conserve and manage blue sharks.

Figure 19. North Atlantic blue shark stock assessment summary. (ICCAT 2017a).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 51 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 20. Blue shark in the North Atlantic. Estimated biomass relative to BMSY (in red) and harvest rate relative to the MSY level (blue), for the BSP runs. Source ICES (2017). All RFMOs require that the whole body of retained sharks is used, with all parts attached until landing or transhipment, as well as reporting of catch data (Kai 2017; ICCAT 2004a).

3.4.6.3 Argentine shortfin squid Assessment team considered that Argentine shortfin squid is a main primary species with usage equating to approximately 20 % of total catch. The Argentinian short-finned squid, Illex argentinus, is distributed along the shelf and slope in the Western South Atlantic from 22° to 54°S (Haimovici et al. 1998). Several population units from a single year-class, with spawning seasons and areas, have been recognized on the Argentinian shelf and slope. The stock is distributed within the Argentine Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), the British territory of the Falkland Islands (Falkland Islands Conservation Zone – FICZ), and part of the High Seas. As a shared straddling stock, the stock is managed by both Argentine and Falkland governments. The species is managed on an annual basis to ensure a 40 % proportional escapement by limiting the number of fishing licenses and shortening the fishing season if necessary (Basson et al. 1996). The stock is divided by the 44o South line into North and South stocks for the ease of management. The North stock is managed by the Argentine government, and the southern stock by the Falklands Islands. Traditional age- or length-structured models have difficulty evaluating the influence of commercial jigging fleets on species like I. argentinus due to its unique life history. The stocks have shown to be resilient to reported depletion in one year with recovery the following year, there are large fluctuations in biomass within 1 - 2 year spans the short-span lifecycle in which squid reproduce and die buffers them from heavy fishing pressure (Safina 2014). Research has indicated that squid abundance is significantly affected by the environmental conditions at the spawning grounds (Wang,

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 52 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Chen, Staples, et al. 2018) and that sea surface temperature, sea surface height and chlorophyll a can be useful in predicting abundance and distribution (Wang, Chen & Chen 2018). Between 2001 and 2010, catches of squid in Argentinian waters have been estimated to vary between 93,300 t and 372,200 t per year (Villasante et al. 2015) and have varied between 2,360 t and 357,722 t per year between 2011 and 2016 in the Falkland Islands fishery (FIG 2018). Retrospective stock assessment analysis from Taiwanese catches over the entire distribution range shows that, even though recruitment and abundance varied widely between years, influenced by changes in environmental conditions, long-distance migrations and management measures, historical exploitation rates (1983-2013) were lower than 60 % and complied with the conservation goal of a 40 % escapement rate (Figure 21) (Chang et al. 2016). The work concluded that the Argentine shortfin squid remains in a healthy status under current fisheries exploitation (Chang et al. 2016). A further retrospective analysis on fishing pressure and stock biomass revealed that the fishing mortality

coefficient of from 2000 to 2010 was smaller than the values of F0.1 and FMSY and that the biomass of were in a good state and not presently experiencing overfishing (Figure 22) (Wang, Chen, Staples, et al. 2018).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 53 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 21. Contour maps of the annual abundance index [ln (CPUE + 1)], intrapolations were made using the SURFER software Kriging gridding method incorporated with annual variogram model parameters. Source Chang et al. (2016).

Figure 22. Development of the I. argentinus fishery from 2000 to 2010 based on the Surplus Production model (a) and a environmentally dependent surplus production model (b). Source: Wang, Chen, Staples, et al. (2018). In Argentina The National Institute of Fisheries Research and Development (Instituto Nacional de Investigación y DesarrolloPesquero, INIDEP) is the public body responsible of the assessment of the fishery resources. INIDEP gives advice to the Federal Fishing Council (Consejo Federal Pesquero, CFP) and Undersecretariat of Fisheries and Aquaculture (Subsecretaría de Pesca y Acuicultura, SSPyA) in the sustainable use of the resources, with the aim to preserve the marine ecosystem. The assessment of the resource comprises two units which are evaluated from reproductive biomass and pre-recruit research surveys (FishSource 2017).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 54 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Management of stocks is primarily based on effort control by limiting the length of the fishing seasons and the number of vessels. There is a target reference point set and effort control measures set for the stocks, with a real-time monitoring system. The assessment is based in a real-time monitoring (observers) that report on the weekly evolution of the fishery from which the starting point is the Pre- recruits estimated in the research surveys. The management objective is to allow the escape of enough spawners to ensure a good recruitment next year. The level of fishing mortality was adjusted to insure 40 % proportional escapement (this was defined as the ratio of the final stock size after fishing to the final stock size that would have been present in the absence of fishing) (Agnew et al. 2005). Foreign vessels need permission to participate in the fishery. The measures in place include a precautionary measure to apply minimum escapement of 40,000 t if the stock status is considered low. This monitoring strategy can be considered as a mechanism in place to account for emergency situations caused by environmental conditions and potential overfishing. For instance, in the region south of 44ºS the 2002 and 2003 seasons were closed earlier to protect the resource (Kalikoski et al. 2006). Another point to note is the magnitude of fishing in the High Seas and in the Argentine EEZ by the foreign fleet. The number and distribution of foreign jigger vessels during the fishing season is estimated by INIDEP and used for evaluation of the fishery performed in waters outside of the Argentine EEZ (FishSource 2017). There are areas of the continental platform that extend beyond the 200 nautical miles of the EEZ into the international high seas where fleets from Japan, China, Taiwan, Korea and Spain do operate; some of these fleets cross into the Argentinean EEZ to fish illegally (Kalikoski et al. 2006). A level of IUU fishing is known to exist by the foreign fleet in the Argentinean EEZ potentially reaching 40 % of the total catches (2012-2015). 2016 estimates are highly uncertain. Recently the Argentinian government established a certification and control system, which is a mandatory mechanism for foreign fleets to prove the legality of catches, to provide sustainability to the fishery resources and certify that these species have been legally captured within the Argentine EEZ waters (Disposition 78 - E/2016, 05/09/2016). The MSC view IUU fishing under P2 in Box GSA2 on FCR 2.0: The requirement for compliance with national and international laws combined with the requirement that the UoA should not be causing serious and irreversible harm in Principle 2 means that the UoA should also be free from IUU fishing for Principle 2 species. While the impact of other IUU fishing on Principle 2 components should be documented where known, unlike in Principle 1, it need not be introduced into the assessment of the specific impact of the UoA (or cumulative UoAs). The client has committed to a sustainable sourcing policy since 2017 and now only source bait with valid traceability to show its legality (see Appendix 8). Additionally, it is noted that the importation of bait into the EU requires catch certification and finally, it is noted that the fishery uses less than ~12 t year on average (Table 10) when the annual catch on the stock is more than 500,000 t, this represents less than 0.001 % of annual landings of this stock.

3.4.7 Primary species - minor

3.4.7.1 Shortfin mako shark Shortfin mako sharks are rarely caught in this fishery (Table 9) and they are released. Shortfin mako shark is considered as a ‘minor’ primary species, since it is estimated as less than 2 % of the total catch and managed via a stock assessment. Although shortfin mako shark is categorized by IUCN as a vulnerable and a less resilient species, it is not listed as a restricted species in Japan’s Plan of Action on the Conservation and Management of

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 55 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Sharks (JFA 2001), and it is not managed with any particular limits under Japanese national legislation nor specific international agreements such as CITES. The 2017 assessment of the status of North Atlantic stocks of shortfin mako shark represents a significant improvement in understanding of current stock status compared to the 2012 assessment, employing updated time series of biological inputs. A number of assessment models were run on the stock and agreed that the northern stock was overfished and was undergoing overfishing, with a combined 90 % probability of overfishing (ICCAT 2017k). However, the CPUE series have been decreasing since 2010 (the last year in the 2012 assessment models) (ICCAT 2017k). In 2017 annual meeting ICCAT issued a recommendation to prohibit possession of shortfin mako shark as a principle and recommended CPCs to strengthen their monitoring and data collection efforts to monitor the future status of this stock, including total estimated dead discards and the estimation of CPUE using observer data. The effectiveness of the conservation measure will be reviewed in 2019 (ICCAT 2017g). Within the three years of observer data of the UoA, a single shortfin mako shark was recorded and released, thus it appears that Shofuku Maru’s bycatch of this species is rare. According to SCRS studies, the survival rate after release of shortfin mako shark is around 70 % (ICCAT 2017g; ICCAT 2017k). The ICCAT conservation and management measures (CMM) necessitates CPCs to require vessels to promptly release North Atlantic shortfin mako in a manner that causes the least harm, and to record through their observer programs the number of dead discards and live releases and report it to SCRS. As this clause came into effect for the 2018 fishing season, and without a current observer report submission from post 2017 for the UoA, the assessment team were unable to verify if the Japanese observer program collects live / dead status of this species. However, there is no reason to consider that compliance will be an issue.

Figure 23. North Atlantic shortfin Mako summary. Source: ICCAT (2017k).

3.4.7.2 Shark finning has been banned in European fisheries since 2004 (ICCAT 2004b) and through ICCAT since its 21st session in May 2017. ICCAT has a draft recommendation to further measures on finning within ICCAT (2018b) requiring that CPCs prohibit the removal of shark fins at sea and require that all sharks be landed with their fins naturally attached (fully or partially) through the point of first landing of the shark. The UoA does not practice shark finning and in recent years releases almost all incidental catches of blue shark as discussed above. Furthermore, Japan has prohibited Japanese longline vessels from retaining on board, transhipping or landing any part or whole carcass of silky shark, hammerhead sharks, whitetip shark, bigeye thresher shark and by Ministerial Order (ICCAT 2017c). Regarding shark conservation measures generally, in 2016 Japan made a number of suggestions to improve CPCs reporting (ICCAT, 2016b).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 56 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.4.7.3 Japanese pilchard The quantity of Japanese pilchard used by the fishery is less than 5 % of the total catch. It is therefore regarded as a minor primary species. The bait suppliers harvest Japanese pilchard from the Pacific Ocean stock (distribution shown in Figure 24). Total catch of 2017 was 452,000 t. The FRA conducts an annual stock assessment, with the 2018 assessment being the most recent (FRA 2018a). The assessment scientists use cohort analysis to estimate biomasses at age and evaluate SSB against a Blimit of 221,000 mt to determine stock status.

Blimit was the estimated SSB in 1996, a level below which recruitment is thought to be poor (FRA 2018b). Estimated biomass has shown an increasing trend since 2011 with good recruitment, although abundances are much lower than they were in the 1980s and early 1990s. 2017 SSB estimate (2,150,000 t) also showed a rapid increase from 2016 (891,000 t). This is above the Blimit (Figure 25). Fishery effort had decreased since late 2000 and a low effort has been maintained since. Available information suggests that the stock is currently above PRI and recovering, although abundance is still far below peak levels (FRA 2018a).

Figure 24. Distribution of the Pacific Ocean stock of Japanese pilchard, outlined in pink. Spawning areas are shown in orange. Image from: http://abchan.fra.go.jp/digests2018/html/2018_01.html

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 57 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 25. Estimates of SSB (blue dots, left y-axis with units in thousands of mt) and recruitment (white dots, right y-axis with units in numbers of fish per kg) over time for the Pacific Ocean stock of Japanese pilchard. The top dashed line shows the threshold between high and medium stock status, while the lower dashed

line shows the Blimit and threshold between medium and low status. Image from: http://abchan.fra.go.jp/digests2018/html/2018_01.html

3.4.8 Secondary minor species – ribbonfish sp., longnose lancetfish, anglerfish spp.

Fish that are only rarely caught in the fishery, such as ribbonfish (Trachipterus arcticus), longnose lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox) and anglerfish. (Lophius spp.) are categorized as secondary minor species (Table 9). These species are without stock assessment and have low catches (e.g. < 5 %). The catch composition by weight is low, and for the fishery there is no commercial value for these species and are therefore released when encountered, the survival rate is unknown. The number of fish caught is minimal; one ribbonfish, approximately six longnose lancetfish per fishing season and one anglerfish in three years. A report by an Irish observer for Japanese bluefin tuna longline fishery in the northeast Atlantic fished in Autumn of 1997 (Boyd 2008) also recorded a number of lancetfish and ribbonfish discards, with only one anglerfish also recorded throughout the season. These species appear to be distributed globally and are caught by various fisheries as bycatch. With these low rates of catch, the impact of UoA is considered minimal.

3.4.9 ETP

3.4.9.1 Sharks The “Expanded Ecological Risk Assessment of Pelagic Sharks Caught in Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fisheries” conducted by several members of ICCAT’s Shark Species Group, showed that the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) is one of the most vulnerable sharks to ICCAT fisheries because of its low productivity and high susceptibility to catch, and that the blue shark (Prionace glauca) is also susceptible to catch in ICCAT fisheries (Cortes 2012). Blue shark are listed as an Appendix 2 species under the Conservation of Migratory Species (CMS) as of 2017 (CMS 2018). However, they are not subject to any legally binding treaties (the Agreements), Memoranda of Understanding, Action Plan or Species Initiative and therefore not considered ETP under the MSC definition (SA3.1.5 and

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 58 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

GSA3.1.5.2). As per section 3.4.4, both sharks are considered as primary species under this assessment. No other sharks were evident in the fishery observer or logbook records.

3.4.9.2 Seabirds and turtles The Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) requires bycatch mitigation measures, reporting of bycatch and release numbers are required to be submitted by a pre-fixed format. There are no reports of occurrence of seabird or turtle interaction with the UoA from observer data or client records. A past study on Japanese BTF longline fisheries in the northeast Atlantic by an Irish observer in 1997 (Boyd 2008) also recorded no avian or . Interactions with sea turtles and seabirds, if they occur, are reported annually (national report for 2016 (ICCAT 2017c). The recording of bycatch information in the logbook revealed that crew sometimes omit entering “zero” although it is mandatory within the instructions. The client has started to improve this practice to ensure the rules are complied. Longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species are known to have interactions with a range of ETP species with precautions and mitigation measures required by ICCAT. However, this fishery’s operational area is not subject to specific ICCAT requirements for having seabird bycatch mitigation measures, though there is recommendation (ICCAT 2011a) that ‘CPCs shall seek to achieve reductions in levels of seabird by-catch across all fishing areas, seasons, and fisheries through the use of effective mitigation measures, while giving due consideration to the safety of crew members and the practicability of mitigation measures’ (ICCAT 2011a). ICCAT recommendations for the fishery include reductions in seabird bycatch through the use of several mitigation measures, including tori lines (which is mandatory for longline vessels operating below 200 South). Other mitigation measures include: • Sinking hooks quickly using weighted lines and thawed bait. • Line setting at night, preventing seabirds from locating bait. • Not discarding fish parts and used baits during setting.

The UoA employs each of these measures as part of their fishing operation and on inspection the assessment team were shown examples of the weighted branch lines (Figure 5) and tori lines (Figure 27) which appeared to meet the ICCAT technical standards (Figure 26).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 59 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 26. ICCAT Mitigation measures that comply with the following minimum technical standards. Source: ICCAT (2011a). Seabird mitigation measures are aimed at reducing sea bird bycatch in longline fisheries and seek to disrupt one of the five steps (Kiyota 2010): • fishing operations overlap with the distribution of non-target animals; • non-target animals perceive the baited hook (or hooked fish) as food and approach it; • contact with the fishing gear; • become hooked or entangled; • death.

In addition to the ICCAT recommendations above, the UoA use a bait-throwing machine which has been shown to reduce the principal factors (distance, location and bait thrown in ships wash) which cause bird bycatch in manually-thrown bait deployments (Brothers 2017). The UoA uses circle hooks which have been shown to significantly reduce seabird bycatch in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries (Li et al. 2012) and the UoA deploys tori lines as part of their practice on all operations even though technically this is not a requirement under ICCAT regulations for the area fished (ICCAT 2011a) (Figure 27).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 60 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 27. Tori line and Tori pole onboard the Shofuku Maru No. 1, while at port in Las Palmas. Source CU Pesca. Posters are available from ICCAT to mitigate seabird bycatch, in various languages such as Portuguese, Japanese, Mandarin Chinese, Turkish and Chinese along with seabird identification guides 6 . The assessment team also were shown seabird bycatch procedure posters (in Indonesian, the crew’s native language), turtle dehooking guides and shark identification guides onboard the Shofuku Maru No. 1 as part of the site visit (Figure 28, Figure 29, Figure 32). Carrying of tools such as line cutters, hook remover, and scoop net for handling of turtles is required by each vessel by the FAJ and ICCAT [10-09] (ICCAT 2010a).

6https://www.iccat.int/Documents/ByCatch/ACAP_Bycatch%20ID%20Guide_A5_ENGLISH%20August%202015. pdf

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 61 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 28. Bird dehooking guide, observed on the bridge of Shofuku Maru No. 1. Source CU Pesca.

Figure 29. Shark identification guide observed on the bridge of Shofuku Maru No. 1. Source CU Pesca.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 62 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

SCRS/2012/097 summarises bycatch distribution and standardized CPUE of sea turtles using data from the Japanese scientific observer programme of longline fisheries in the Atlantic from 1997 to 2010 (Minami et al. 2013). The results showed that interactions mainly occurred in the northern area and in the eastern tropical area, through bycatch distribution changed by species and /or season (Minami et al. 2013), (Figure 30). In general, sea turtles spend most of their time within the shallow surface layer of the water column. Although shallow longlining has a higher risk of catching sea turtles, the study found that many of the hooked sea turtles were retrieved and released alive (Figure 31).

Figure 30. The number of sea turtles and the mortality rates 1997-2010. Source (Minami et al., 2013).

Figure 31. Occurrence of turtle bycatch in ICCAT longline fisheries between October and December. UoA for this fishery is northwards of 420 N, and west of 450 W. Figure 31 shows very low overlap with the fishery area but could suggest some possibility of interaction with protected sea turtles within the fishery under assessment. The study result indicates that safe handling and live release is effective in reducing incidental mortality. ICCAT issued a recommendation on bycatch of sea turtles in ICCAT fisheries (10-09, ICCAT (2010b) and ICCAT (2013)), with specific recommendations as below to pelagic longline fisheries. • CPC to require that monitoring by gear type and other information be conducted and report the results to ICCAT. • The pelagic longline vessels operating in the Convention area carry on board safe- handling, disentanglement and release equipment capable of releasing sea turtles in a manner that maximizes the probability of their survival (Figure 32). • Fishermen on pelagic longline vessels use the equipment specified in above (point 2) to maximize the probability of sea turtle survival and are trained in safe- handling and release techniques.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 63 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 32. Turtle identification guide and dehooking guide, observed on the bridge of Shofuku Maru No. 1. Source CU Pesca.

3.4.10 Habitats

Longline gear used by the fishery is set around 40 m – 58 m depth from the ocean surface, and there is no contact or general interaction with seafloor with the fishery. BFT-e longlines are set at night the lines are short and indicated by buoys, the vessel remains within the vicinity until the line is hauled. There are no records of lost lines or hooks within the logs of the vessel.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 64 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Since the fishing operation for the target and bycatch take place in the upper part of the water column, the fishery is considered to have no direct impact on seafloor habitat. Given the scale and intensity of the fishery with no gear loss, indirect impacts are also considered to be negligible. ’s report on US longline fisheries suggests that mitigation measures to reduce the impact of pelagic longlines on bottom habitats are not generally needed (Seawatch 2016a). North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC) reports number of closure of VME, in the north east Atlantic, such as Hatton Bank 1 and Rockall Bank closed in 2007 and 2014, respectively. Coral species such as Lophelia pertusa and Madrepora occurrences were observed to be associated with the VME. However no current impacts from bottom fisheries are reported (NEAFC 2014). Extensive seabed mapping using multibeam acoustics (Durán Muñoz et al. 2009), as well as video and photographic surveys of the seafloor revealed features including extensive ridges, rock outcrops, pinnacles, channels, and hollows. The European Union’s deep-sea access regulation (EU 2016/2336) article 8 prohibits fishing with bottom trawls at depths deeper than 800 m. There is no regulation applicable for pelagic longline fisheries and UoA is complying with management requirements for VMEs. ICES Special Request Advice is issued for North Atlantic Ecoregion on locations and likely locations of VMEs in EU waters of the NE Atlantic, and the fishing footprint based on 2009 to 2011 survey. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats (ICES 2018).

3.4.11 Ecosystem

The ecosystem under consideration is the North East Atlantic. The Standing Committee on Research and Statistics of ICCAT has a sub-committee on ecosystems, dealing with a wide range of issues, including the ecosystem approach to fisheries and oceanographic factors affecting tuna biology and fisheries. The sub-committee’s role is to integrate the research and monitoring activities related to ecosystem that are required by SCRS in fulfilling its advisory role to the Commission. The Sub-Committee will meet as required by SCRS, usually in conjunction with the SCRS annual meeting. ICCAT Information on bycatch of Tuna Fisheries states that “a great deal of concern has been expressed by fishery managers and conservation/environmental groups that bycatch and discards may be contributing to biological overfishing and altering the structure of marine ecosystems. Such claims are frequently based on observations of large numbers of discards and high discard ratios or rates, but infrequently on detailed population assessments of impacted stocks. This is perhaps because comprehensive and historical datasets involving discards have generally been unavailable to demonstrate such claims, although a growing body of literature does support the conclusion that for some species and regions of the world, biological and ecological impacts are discernible.” and for this reason “there has been increasing interest in addressing by-catch issues, and a joint meeting of the tuna Regional Fisheries Management Organisations (tRFMOs) in Brisbane 2010 as part of the KOBE process, specifically focused on this topic.” (ICCAT 2019a) At ICCAT, in order to improve the knowledge on bycatch species the SCRS recommended that a short- term bycatch coordination study be conducted with the objectives of: (a) creating a meta-database of reports and publications providing information about by-catch species from tuna and related fisheries; (b) developing a database for unprocessed and aggregated by-catch data for priority species such as marine mammals, turtles, sea birds, and many sharks, rays and fish that are not subjected to stock assessment by ICCAT; (c) establishing interaction with scientists leading national observer programmes to obtain previously unreported data and to make an inventory of past and current observer programmes; and (d) developing forms and protocols for the collection of more and higher

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 65 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

quality by-catch data in the future. The study was completed in 2010. In 2012, the ICCAT Secretariat hired a By-catch Coordinator to harmonise and analyse fishery datasets related to by-catch species of tuna fisheries in the ICCAT area. As part of his/her tasks, the bycatch coordinator is in charge of updating and maintaining the ICCAT by-catch meta-database (ICCAT 2019a). The subcommittee worked on spatial production methods and matters regarding by-catch, such as estimating procedures and measures to reduce the impact of tuna fisheries. Bycatch mitigation measures for sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and impact study of FADs, as well as stock assessment of target species have been continued. With the fishery under assessment catch is dominated by the target species, bluefin tuna with blue shark. Key ecosystem elements are the predator prey relationships and predator depletion. The fishery has very small rates of bycatch. The bycatch and substrates effects from the fishery are considered minimum, and the largest impact the UoA may pose to the ecosystem may be considered as the impact from the removal of the target species. BFT is a apex predator, meaning that it is at or near the top of the oceanic food chain, According to a World Wildlife Fund paper, the BFT plays a significant role in the ecosystem by consuming a wide variety of fish—herring, anchovies, sardines, bluefish, mackerel, and others—and keeping their populations in balance. According to the WWF paper cited in 2012, "ecological extinction of this species would thus have unpredictable cascading effects in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean, and Gulf of Mexico ecosystems and entail serious consequences to many other species in the food chain (Kiger 2012).” In the Mediterranean ecosystem modelling of BFT-e removal for aquaculture concluded that increases in biomass of lower trophic level functional groups were observed with reductions in biomass from higher trophic level predators (BFT-e). These outcomes demonstrate that removal of biomass at top and intermediate trophic levels can have direct and indirect outcomes on the structure of the ecosystem due to the complexity of the food web (Forrestal et al. 2012). The structural complexity of near shore ecosystems in the Mediterranean, are highly unlikely to be directly comparable to the deep-water ocean environment in which the UoA operates. However, that removal of BFT can cause changes in lower trophic abundances is noted.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 66 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.4.12 Cumulative impact

As per Section 3.4.1. there are presently no overlapping MSC certified fisheries for which cumulative impacts apply for Principle 2 elements. The cumulative impacts to consider for this fishery are summarised in Table 15 with methods of how the team addressed this given in section 4.1. Table 15. MSC cumulative impact table.

Outcome Performance Element Cumulative impact? Rationale Indicator

2.1.1 Primary species Blue shark No Not below PRI (main) Northern Atlantic stock 2.1.1 Primary species Argentine shortfin No Not below PRI (main) squid

2.1.1 Primary species Bluefin tuna No The stock is assessed to be below the (main) Western Atlantic PRI, however harmonisation stock activities conducted by CU Pesca (see section 4.1) found that no other MSC fishery had BFT-w listed as ‘Main’ Primary therefore no cumulative impact is required. 2.2.1 Secondary species N/A N/A No main secondary species (main)

2.3.1 ETP outcome N/A N/A No ETP species with limit identified

2.4.2 VME management N/A N/A This fishery does not interact with any benthic habitats

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 67 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3.5 Principle Three: Management System Background

3.5.1 Jurisdictions and legal framework

The fishery targets the eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna stock (BFT-e), outside national jurisdictions on the High Seas (FAO 27) (Figure 1 and Figure 9) to the south of Iceland’s EEZ. The BFT-e is a highly migratory species (HMS) of temperate tuna from the North Atlantic and Mediterranean (see section 3.3). There are several key jurisdictions of relevance, listed in Table 16. ICCAT is the regional tuna fisheries management organisation (RFMO) and Japan is the UoA-vessel’s country of registration (Flag State). In addition, the vessel is based at the port of Las Palmas (Spain/Europe) and may also tranship its frozen catch in Cape Verde (both Port States). Japan is also the end-market state for the BFT-e caught by the fishery. Table 16. Jurisdictions involved in the fishery’s management system.

Jurisdiction Key instruments ICCAT: BFT-e Recovery Plan (until 2018) followed by multi-annual Management Plan Tuna RFMO (from 2019), conservation and management measures (CMM); Vessel registers (fishing and carriers); VMS; eBCD; inspections.

Japan: IUU-specific and other Flag State Measures (FSM), limited vessel licensing and vessel quota systems, individual fish tag; VMS, limited fishing season and area; Flag State reporting obligations including discards; 20 % Observer Coverage; International Conventions and IPOAs. Overseas port: Transhipments at ICCAT- registered ports only - Spain and EU, and Port States Cape Verde: IUU Port State Measures (PSM) Landings only in Japan: registered ports, 100% inspection. End-market State Japan: IUU Port State Measures (PSM) and import verification.

3.5.1.1 Fishery’s management organisation ICCAT, the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, is the Regional Fisheries Management Organisation (RFMO) in charge of tuna, tuna-like and associated species targeted by the fishery. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas is the formal body that establishes the international legal and administrative structure for the management of tuna and tuna- like stocks (ICCAT 2007). Under the Convention, the Contracting Parties and Cooperating non‐ Contracting Parties, Entities, and Fishing Entities (CPCs) undertake to collaborate and carry out studies on target fish stock biology, abundance and data collection and analyses on current conditions and trends of target fish stocks and other fish species caught incidentally, such as sharks. In addition to its Secretariat, which performs multiple administration and coordination functions for the Commission and the Standing Committee on Finance and Administration (STACFAD), the Commission organises its fisheries management work through a number of Committees, Panels and Working Groups (WG, Table 17 and ICCAT 2006-2016 Chap. 1). The Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) is tasked to ensure that the Commission has available at all times the most complete and current statistics concerning fishing activities in the Convention area as well as biological information on the stocks that are fished. It also coordinates various national research activities, develops plans for special international cooperative research programmes, carries out stock assessments, and advises the Commission on the need for specific conservation and management measures. There are four species-focused Panels, Panel 2 is the one relevant to this fishery’s target species.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 68 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Several ad hoc groups may also be convened, in support of the Commission as a whole (COM) such as the Technical and Legal Editing Group of Contracting Parties, the Integrated Monitoring Measures WG (IMM) or the Port Inspection Expert group for Capacity and Assistance and the Compliance Committee (COC). The Commission has also set up several data collection and research programmes funded by the Commission as part of the regular budget, and in some cases funded by contributions from individual Contracting Parties and other agencies. They include the Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna (GBYP) and the Shark Research and Data Collection Program (SRDCP)7. Table 17. ICCAT subsidiary bodies, Panels and BFT Research programme

Acronyms Names STACFAD Standing Committee on Finance and Administration Standing Committee on Research and Statistics • Bluefin Species Group • Working Group on Stock Assessment Methods • Data preparatory Meetings SCRS • Species Stock Assessment Meetings • Bluefin MSE Technical Group • Species Group Meetings • Shortfin Mako Stock Assessment Update Meeting • Sub-Committee on Ecosystems (ECO) COC Conservation & Management Measures Compliance Committee Permanent Working Group for the Improvement of ICCAT Statistics and Conservation PWG Measures SWGSM Standing Working Group on Dialogue between Fisheries Scientists and Managers Panel 1: Tropical tunas (yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack) Panel 2: Northern temperate tunas (albacore and Atlantic bluefin) Panels Panel 3: Southern temperate tunas (albacore and southern bluefin) Panel 4: Other species (swordfish, billfishes, small tunas) GBYP Atlantic-Wide Research Programme for Bluefin Tuna

Ahead of meetings, the Commission may take the initiative or act on the proposal of an appropriate Panel and, “on the basis of scientific evidence, make recommendations designed to maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes that may be taken in the Convention area at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch” (art. VIII). Recommendations become effective for all Contracting Parties (CPs) six months after its notification from the Commission, unless a majority of CPs raise an objection, and only for CPs that have not raised an objection if at least one fourth of the CPs have objected (within a set period of 60 days+). Recommendations may include set expiry dates. Recommendations concern management measures of the target species, eastern stock of the Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna (BFT-e, Principle 1), of associated species (Principle 2) as well as data collection, research and compliance (Principle 3). The Commission holds a regular meeting every two years and special meetings as needed. The last (25th) Regular Meeting of the Commission was held in Marrakesh, Morocco, (14-21 November 2017). Following its regular meetings, ICCAT issues a Biennial Report, which contains the Report of the Regular Meeting and the reports of meetings of the Panels, Standing Committees and Sub-

7 See list: https://www.iccat.int/en/ResProgs.html

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 69 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Committees, as well as some of the Working Groups. It also includes a summary of the activities of the Secretariat and the Annual Reports of the Contracting Parties of the Commission and Observers, relative to their activities in tuna and tuna-like fisheries in the Convention area. All reports are available from the ICCAT website (see ICCAT Manual 2006-2016). The 21st Special Meeting of the Commission was held in Dubrovnik (Croatia) 18-25 November 2018. The BFT-e stock has been managed by ICCAT through a 15-year Recovery Plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean initiated in 2007 and updated several times since. The plan fixes annual total allowable catches (TACs), which are then distributed based on established national shares. For the years 2018-2020 TACs were set at: 28,200 t for 2018; 32,240 t for 2019; and 36,000 t for 2020, with a possibility of annual TACs reviews by the Commission, based on the advice of the SCRS. For Japan, the corresponding quota allocations were 2,279 t in 2018; 2,528 t in 2019; and 2,801 t for 2020 [Rec 17-07] (ICCAT 2017a). For vessels over 24 m targeting BFT with longlines (the UoA-vessel in this fishery), fishing is permitted in the eastern Atlantic area delimited by West of 10°W and North of 42°N, as well as in the Norwegian Economic Zone, from 1 August to 31 January. The start and closure dates of fishing seasons differ between CPCs, and generally between fleet segments and gear for each CPC (ICCAT 2018j). In effect, the vessel fishes its quota over a period of one to three weeks in October - November, from a much small area on the High Seas to the South of Iceland. The following are also prohibited: catching, retaining on board, transhipping, transferring, landing, transporting, storing, selling, displaying or offering for sale bluefin tuna weighing less than 30 kg or with fork length less than 115 cm. Table 18. Active ICCAT Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions for BFT-e as of December 20188.

Year [ref.] Management and other measures

Bluefin tuna (Principle 1)

2006 [06-07] Recommendation by ICCAT on Bluefin Tuna Farming 2006 [06-08] Resolution by ICCAT on Fishing Bluefin Tuna in the Atlantic Ocean Resolution by ICCAT Concerning Atlantic Bluefin Tuna Scientific Research on 2008 [08-06] Stock Origin and Mixing Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Atlantic-Wide Research Programme 2011 [11-06] for Bluefin Tuna (GBYP) Recommendation by ICCAT Amending the Recommendation 13-07 by ICCAT to 2014 [14-04] Establish a Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Recommendation by ICCAT on the Development of Harvest Control Rules and 2015 [15-07] of Management Strategy Evaluation (all ICCAT species stocks) Recommendation by ICCAT to Supplement Recommendation 14-04 by ICCAT 2016 [16-09] Amending the Recommendation 13-07 by ICCAT to Establish a Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Recommendation by ICCAT amending the recommendation 14-04 by ICCAT to 2017 [17-07] establish a multi-annual recovery plan for Bluefin Tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean

8 https://iccat.int/com2018/ENG/PLE_102_ENG.pdf

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 70 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Year [ref.] Management and other measures

Bycatch species, habitats and ecosystems – Principle 2

2005 [05-08] Resolution by ICCAT on circle hooks [16-12] Recommendation by ICCAT on Management Measures for the Conservation of 2016 Atlantic Blue Shark Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries Recommendation by ICCAT on Improvement of Compliance Review of 2016 [16-13] Conservation and Management Measures regarding Sharks Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries Resolution by ICCAT on Ecosystems that are Important and Unique for ICCAT 2016 [16-23] Species Recommendation by ICCAT on the Conservation of North Atlantic Stock of 2017 [17-08] Shortfin Mako Caught in Association with ICCAT Fisheries

Monitoring, Compliance, Management planning – Principle 3

Recommendation by ICCAT to Establish a Process for the Review and reporting 2008 [08-09] of Compliance Information Recommendation by ICCAT on an electronic Bluefin tuna catch documentation 2010 and [10-11] programme (eBCD) 2017 [17-09] Recommendation by ICCAT amending Recommendation [15-10] on the application of the eBCD programme Resolution by ICCAT Concerning the Application of an Ecosystem Approach to 2015 [15-11] Fisheries Management Resolution by ICCAT Concerning the Use of a Precautionary Approach in 2015 [15-12] Implementing ICCAT Conservation and Management Measures 2015 [15-13] Resolution by ICCAT on Criteria for the Allocation of Fishing Possibilities 2016 [16-15] Recommendation by ICCAT on Transhipment Guidelines for preparing the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Bluefin tuna 2016 [16-24] fishing, inspection and capacity management plan

ICCAT decisions become active 6 months after being accepted. It is therefore relevant to also consider two forthcoming recommendations, which will apply to the 2019 fishing season (Table 19). Table 19. Forthcoming (not yet active) ICCAT Resolutions, Recommendations and other Decisions for BFT-e as of December 2018.

Reference Key Title

Recommendation by ICCAT establishing a multi-annual management plan for bluefin tuna [18-02] in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea Resolution by ICCAT on development of initial management objectives for eastern and [18-03] western bluefin tuna

The same TACs are kept in the forthcoming multi-annual Management Plan [Rec. 18-02] as for the Recovery Plan, with slightly increased national quotas (for Japan 2,544 t in 2019 and 2,819 t for 2020) resulting from the redistribution of part of the Unallocated Reserves although the Commission

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 71 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

stresses that this “shall not be interpreted to have changed the allocation keys” (see section 3.3.8, Table 8).

3.5.1.2 Flag State (Japan) Japan is a Contracting Party of ICCAT, which means that management measures are binding for its vessels targeting tuna and tuna-like species within the ICCAT area including the High Seas as soon as they are translated into Japanese legislation through Ministerial Orders, which appears to be systematic. Japan is also a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the 1995 Compliance Agreement and subsequent 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA), it has developed a Japanese version of the 1995 FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fishing operations and supports the four International Plans of Action (IPOA) - on seabirds, sharks, fishing capacity and IUU fishing. The Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) within the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) is responsible for preserving and managing marine biological resources and fishery production activities. The FAJ requires that all vessels operating in the Atlantic targeting BFT submit daily catch records. Measures to comply with minimum sizes, time area closures and so on have been incorporated into Japanese legislation by Ministerial Order, as per ICCATs recommendations. Japan maintains several research institutes, such as the National Research Institute of Far Seas fisheries (NRIFSF), see ICCAT (2017d) for the full description of their roles and functions of Japan. When ICCAT conservation and management measures (CMM) are agreed upon, member states’ performance requirements are determined. As a member state, Japan has an obligation to implement them in accordance with the Fisheries Act (1949), the Law for Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996), both of which were amended this time (the Act to amend a part of the fisheries Laws, 2018), and the fisheries basic law (2001). If the implementation of the new CMMs requires related domestic law amendment, the FAJ consults with the Fishery Policy Council (FPC). Within the FPC, which consists of government, academic and industry representatives, the possible actions for implementation and law modification are discussed. Ministerial orders may be issued to implement a change in fishery management system. Once the law amendment or management reform is made, FAJ announces them through the national government’s official gazette, as well as in letters sent directly to the Japan Tuna and Skipjack Fishery Cooperative (JTSFC), which would then issue guidance to each member fishing company, which includes Usufuku Honten. Any change of regulation after RFMO meetings or guidance issued by FAJ to guide compliance measures with fishermen are disseminated through the JTSFC. Japanese-specific measures Almost all the regulations applicable in Japan for Atlantic bluefin tuna fishery are such that ICCAT decisions on CPC requirement have been translated as Japanese Ministerial Orders. The longline vessel operators are prohibited from conducting BFT fishing in the area delimited by West of 10°W, East of 45°W and North 42°N during the period from 1 February to 31 July, and in other areas during the period from 1 of June to 31 December. Compliance is monitored by VMS data. The FAJ sets catch quotas for BFT-e and BFT-w and allocates each permitted vessel with catch limits. Japan adjusts its fishing capacity to ensure that it is commensurate with its allocated BFT quota. To this effect, Japan established an annual fishing management plan for discussion and approval by the Commission in 2017 (see ICCAT (2017m; 2017l)). Records of fishing vessels larger than 20 meters in length overall (LSFVs) have been established. The FAJ requires all tuna vessels operating in the Atlantic Ocean to carry the catch limit allocation order

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 72 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

while under operation, submit logbooks with designated formats and provide daily catch information from each vessel to the FAJ. All BFT must be tagged with year-coloured plastic tags (see section 0 traceability), and the fish numbers and tag numbers must be reported to FAJ daily during the period of fishery operation. An electronic catch document programme (eBCD) is in operation (see section 0 traceability). Other compliance requirements include (VMS) reporting and implementing observer programmes with more than 20 % coverage. Usufuku Honten is one of the only two companies who spearheaded the trial use of eBCD at its inception and also volunteered to carry observers at the start of CPC observer program in Japan. To ensure compliance, FAJ also inspects landings of Japanese fishing vessels at designated Japanese ports for landing BFT to check consistency with pre-reported eBCD and catch landing report. One patrol vessel is dispatched by Japan to the North Atlantic each year to monitor and inspect Japanese and foreign tuna fishing vessels catching BFT as a responsibility of being an ICCAT member country. A prior authorization from FAJ is required in the case that Japanese tuna longline vessels trans-ship bluefin tuna at designated port. At-sea transhipment is prohibited for BFT. The use of bycatch mitigation measures and bycatch and release numbers for each operational day are required for submission on a pre-fixed format. Carrying of bycatch release tools such as line cutters, hook remover, and scoop net for handling of turtles is required by each vessel. Seabird mitigation measures are only required for operations between 200 S to 250 S, however Shofuku Maru No.1 applies the use of these measures even at the North Atlantic BFT-e fishing ground. The Japanese government issues four types of tuna longline fishery licenses: • coastal (smaller than 20 Gross register tonnage (GRT) and can fish only in the Japanese EEZ), • small offshore (10 - 20 GRT) • offshore (10 - 120 GRT) • distant-water (larger than 120 GRT).

In order to catch BFT-e, Shofuku Maru No. 1 carries the Atlantic Bluefin catch allocation document in addition to a distant-water tuna and skipjack fishery licence for longline fishery, in compliance with Japanese . The license requires the vessel to comply with all relevant regulations applicable by ICCAT, Japan and port states or foreign EEZ where the vessel enters. The distant-water tuna and skipjack fishery licence allows the vessel to operate within all Japanese territorial sea and in international waters. The number of licenses is strictly limited and closely controlled by MAFF. The license is valid for five years.

3.5.1.3 Port States The EU jurisdiction is relevant for monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) purposes (section 3.5.7) because the vessel is based in the Canary Islands (Spain) at the port of Las Palmas between fishing trips. The EU is also an ICCAT CP, and all ICCAT Recommendations have been transposed into European law (ICCAT 2018h). As part of the European (CFP Regulation (EU) No 1380/2013), the EU has a specific control and inspection programme targeting fisheries (including recreational) exploiting the BFT-e stock in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (EU 2008) and conducted by EU vessels/ fish farmers / operators / citizens. In addition, the EU Regulation to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing (Council Regulation (EC) No.1005/2008 - IUU Regulation (EU 2008)), which entered into force on 1 January 2010, applies to all

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 73 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

landings and transhipments of EU and third-country fishing vessels in European ports, and all trade of marine fishery products to and from the EU. The FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate, Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing (PSMA) adopted in 2009 is the 1st binding international agreement specifically targeting IUU fishing (FAO 2009). The provisions of the PSMA apply to fishing vessels seeking entry into a designated port of a State which is different to their flag State. The European Union and Cape Verde are parties to the PSMA (FAO 2019b), which entered into force in 2016. The fishery tranships only in ports. The BFT-e fish caught are unloaded from the UoA- into a freezer container only once, which mostly happens in the Port of Las Palmas (Spain - EU). Unloading is done directly from the UoA-vessel into a freezer container kept at -50°C by using a second (empty) freezer container coupled at one extremity of the one being loaded. Once loaded, the freezer container is sealed for export until its destination in Japan. The operation is witnessed by official controlling agents. The UoA-vessel may also use the port of Mindelo in Cape Verde for in-port transhipping. Both Las Palmas and Mindelo are ICCAT designated port for BFT-e. As a CPC, Japan communicates a list of the designated ports it plans to use to the ICCAT Secretariat by 1 March each year. For a port to be determined as designated port, the Port state shall specify permitted transhipping times and places or/and permitted landing times and places. An up-to-date list of designated ports for BFT-e is kept on the ICCAT website9.

3.5.1.4 End-market State Japan is the end-market state for the BFT-e caught by the fishery. Japan is a full member of ICCAT and also party to the PSMA (FAO 2019b). As such, Japan has a full set of measures in place, to verify the origin and legitimacy of the fish caught, including designated ports where BFT-e can be landed, a risk- based inspection system of containers importing the catch of its Distant Fleet vessels, a centralised reporting system checked by the FSA, the individual electronic tagging of all fish caught and records at each transhipment point, all reported to ICCAT.

3.5.2 Dispute resolution and respects for rights

3.5.2.1 ICCAT ICCAT has a tradition of making decisions by consensus and resolving disputes informally. This is evident in ICCAT species Panel 2, for example, where issues and concerns raised by individual CPCs and thee Commission are aired to avoid disputes. In cases where disputes cannot be avoided, the ICCAT Convention provides a process of objection allowing individual Contracting Parties to withdraw from endorsing and implementing an ICCAT recommendation (ICCAT Convention Article VIII). This procedure has been used infrequently in the course of ICCAT’s history; 12 times since 1969, with 7 of these being objections raised by two member states with respect to their bluefin tuna allocation (Spencer et al. 2016). Nevertheless, ICCAT has recognised the need for a more formal dispute settlement procedure and a Working Group on Convention Amendment (WGCA) was tasked with looking at this issue in 2012 (one of the priority matters listed in the Annex 1 of ICCAT Recommendation 12-10). The latest WGCA meeting in 2018 noted some progress on the issue although, not yet some points of disagreement remain, such as whether dispute settlement procedures would be compulsory or not and whether procedures could only be instituted jointly by all parties to a dispute or, instead, by a single or number of Contracting Parties. At this stage, after

9 https://www.iccat.int/en/Ports.asp

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 74 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

incorporating all agreed revisions, the WGCA Chair noted that there was agreement in principle on the text of Article VIII bis and to retain Annex 1. These proposals are finalised would need to be officially incorporated into the ICCAT’s Convention to be final (ICCAT 2018j). The new provisions will then need to be tested and proven effective as the need arises. Regarding fishing rights, ICCAT includes a specific Recommendation on “Criteria for the Allocation of Fishing Possibilities” or national (CPCs) quota allocations (ICCAT 2015e). Among these criteria, the interests of artisanal, subsistence, small-scale coastal fishers, coastal fishing communities, coastal states and regions dependent on fishing, as well as the right to fish on the high seas are recognised. For BFT-e, the same formal commitment to established rights holds. For example, several CPCs expressed concerns (based on 2005 quotas / catch levels) that certain specific needs had not been met and dissatisfaction with their quota for 2018. These were considered by Panel 2, to allow adjustments to the 2019 and 2020 quotas for those CPCs, using some of the reserved quotas, with an agreement that the allocation keys would be re-considered in 2020 (ICCAT 2018h).

3.5.2.2 Japan In Japan, the Fisheries Basic Act (2001) has set up the Fisheries Policy Discussion Committee within MAFF, which deals with issues related to all fisheries-related laws in Japan (Chapter 4, Article 35-39). This approach allows resolution of issues by discussion before it actually develops into a dispute; therefore development of legal disputes is rare. The Committee can advise the Minister or related administration’s chief or request cooperation for information and clarification. The scheduled committee meetings and minutes are open and available online. It is considered that this is generally effective, as legal disputes are minimal in the fisheries management in Japan although internal discussions are frequent. The provision for Common Fishery Rights with the 1949 Fisheries Law (amended 2018) demonstrates clear commitment to traditional fisheries. Japan’s Fisheries Act chapter II (article 6 to 51) observes and protects rights of coastal fishermen that are dependent on fishing for food or livelihood. The systematic co-management system protected by the Fisheries Cooperative Law (1948, amended 2018) allows fishermen’s discretion in the management of local resources within the legal framework.

3.5.3 Consultation, Roles and Responsibilities

3.5.3.1 ICCAT The ICCAT Convention and basic texts (ICCAT 2007) define the roles and responsibilities of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies (see section 3.5.5.1), of the Secretariat and the Contracting Parties (CPCs). The ICCAT Convention (Article XI) states that the Commission may invite any appropriate international organization and any non-member Government that is a member of the UN or of any Specialized Agency to send observers to meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. ICCAT Commission meetings provide the consultative mechanism for the current 52 CPCs to agree management measures and share information through annual national reports. Annual reports include feedback on technical measures, local knowledge and other matters pertinent to management to be reviewed in Commission meetings and included in its reports. The ICCAT Manual (ICCAT 2016d) provides an organisational chart and explicitly describes the functions, roles and responsibilities of the various ICCAT subsidiary bodies. ICCAT meetings are advertised and provide opportunities for all interested and affected parties to be involved, including in the Scientific process. Each year, scientists from the CPCs are invited to present their results to the relevant ICCAT Panels and Species Groups and to the SCRS. Up-to-date information and analyses contributed by groups and individual experts become part of the knowledge base used in stock assessments. This scientific process is demonstrably consultative and the SCRS provides a

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 75 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

forum that reports on how the information obtained is used or not, which is demonstrated in its reports. The participation of NGOs (environmental, industry representatives or other) in ICCAT meetings is explicitly mentioned in the “Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Observer Status at ICCAT Meetings” (ICCAT 2005). All NGOs which support the objectives of ICCAT and, with a demonstrated interest in the species under the purview of ICCAT, are eligible to participate as an observer in all but extraordinary meetings held in executive sessions or meetings of Heads of Delegations. Observers may be required to pay a fee to contribute to additional expenses generated by their participation. Applications have to be made through the Secretariat at least 50 days in advance of the meeting. CPCs are notified and given opportunity to object, although applications are accepted unless one-third of the CPCs object. Observers are not allowed to vote, but they can, upon invitation by the chair, make an oral statement during the meeting and distribute documents at meetings through the Secretariat. Evidence of their contribution are available in each meeting report, from the list of participants and written contributions included in full.

3.5.3.2 Japan The FAJ regularly undertakes both formal and informal consultation with stakeholders and other interest groups. The government interacts throughout the year with industry stakeholders that provide the parties opportunities to inform on the management system. The key industry stakeholder groups are the Japan Tuna and Skipjack Fishery Cooperative (JTSFC), the Japan Distant Water Tuna Fishery Association (JDWTFA), the Japan Adjacent Sea Tuna Fishery Association (JASTFA) and the Japan Far Seas Purse Seine Fishing Association (JFSPSFA). These organisations represent the interests of the tuna fisheries. The Fisheries Research Agency (FRA), an incorporated administrative agency, conducts a wide range of research and development activities on fisheries, from basic research and application to practical use. The National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries (NRIFSF) was established at Shimizu city (now Shizuoka city), Shizuoka prefecture in 1967. As one of the national research institutes of the FAJ, NRIFSF covers the research for tunas, whales, walleye pollock, snapper, squids, and krill caught by the Japanese fisheries operating widely in the Pacific, Indian, Atlantic and Antarctic Oceans. A meeting takes place annually (in person or electronically), in which FAJ, FRA, NRIFSF and other national and prefectural research institutes coordinate and plan activities. Many of those activities are ongoing and the annual plan includes both ongoing and new multi-year projects as well as shorter duration activities. However, the plan and meeting records are not public. The Fisheries Policy Council, consists of various stakeholders, meets regularly to discuss fisheries management matters and the minutes are widely available. The government also seeks the public’s views and stakeholder involvement when amending laws and regulations. Japan communicates its activities relating to fishing activities with ICCAT through annual reports, which are available on the ICCAT website. WWF is the NGO in Japan that has a particular interest in tuna fisheries. WWF Japan is involved and included in the Japanese government tuna discussions. It also participates as an observer in several of ICAAT’s statutory bodies such as Panel 2 on bluefin tuna (ICCAT 2017m).

3.5.4 Long-term objectives

3.5.4.1 ICCAT The long-term objective set out in Article VIII of the ICCAT Convention is to “maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes that may be taken in the Convention area at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch”. There is no mention of the precautionary approach in the Convention

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 76 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

text as it stands but it is explicitly mentioned since the ICCAT’s 2015 adoption of two resolutions consistent with the UN Fish Stock Agreement and the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, that when making recommendations pursuant to Article VIII of the Convention, the Commission should: • Apply an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management ([Resolution 15-11] (ICCAT 2015d), and • Use a precautionary approach in implementing ICCAT conservation and management measures ([Resolution 15-12] (ICCAT 2015b)), in accordance with relevant international standards.

Clear long-term objectives to guide management consistent with MSC Principles and Criteria and the precautionary approach, are explicit within ICCAT’s management policy. For Principle 1, the objective of ICCAT’s Multi-Annual Recovery Plan for Bluefin Tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean [Rec.16-09] since 2014 has been to recover by 2022 and maintain the Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB)

over or at a level corresponding to SSBMSY and to manage fishing activities by maintaining catches at or below the most precautionary MSY estimate of the SCRS [Rec 17-07] (ICCAT 2017a). Regarding Principle 2, ICCAT’s Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) has a Sub- Committee on Ecosystems, which according to its Terms of Reference, aims to serve as the scientific cornerstone in support of an Ecosystem Approach to Fisheries (EAF) in ICCAT. It also has a number of species groups, including a Sharks Group that meets inter-sessionally and carries out stock assessments and ecological risk assessments (ERAs). The use of a precautionary approach in implementing ICCAT CMM as set out in Resolution [Res.15-12] (ICCAT 2017a) is not required by ICCAT because resolutions are non-binding under the current terms of Article VIII. However, for BFT-e specifically, the use of a precautionary approach is explicitly referred to in all management measures, including MSY estimate of the SCRS [Rec.17-07] (ICCAT 2017a) and for Principle 2 species (i.e. other tuna and tuna-like species, sharks – see [Rec 16-13], (ICCAT 2016b)). through recommendations, which are binding on ICCAT CPCs. Therefore, although long-term objectives make explicit reference to the ecosystem and the precautionary approaches for the BFT-e stock management and this fishery, these are not required by ICCAT’s management policy.

3.5.4.2 Japan In Japan, the recent amendment of the Fisheries Act (1949, partly amended in 2018) has integrated to include the Law of Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996) (“TAC law”), which legally enshrines the use of MSY and measurable science-based objectives for fisheries management and implementation of precautionary approach, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), ratified in 1996. Also, Japan is a signatory to the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity and this formally commits Japan to the precautionary principle. The law also guides to protect the surrounding ecosystem and habitat. A National Fisheries Master Plan of 2018 shows the commitment to full utilization of fishery resources with sustainable management to provide stable supply of products and contribute to development of fishing communities.

3.5.5 Fishery-specific objectives

3.5.5.1 ICCAT The overarching objective of ICCAT is to maintain catches at maximum sustainable levels (ICCAT 2007). For the short-term and specifically for BFT-e, this was translated – with CPCs commitment - into drastic

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 77 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

reductions in fishing mortality in support of the Recovery Plan [Rec. 17-07] (ICCAT 2017a). The Recovery Plan has been effective enough in meeting its objectives to justify a transition to a multi- annual management Plan [Rec.18-02] (ICCAT 2018d). The agreement on a reduced TAC, reducing fishing capacity and fishing plans, together with country-specific quota allocations resulted in a recovery of the stock ahead of schedule, showing that the objectives were both well‐defined and measurable.

3.5.5.2 Japan Japan adopts decisions of ICCAT as a member state and they are translated into Japan’s objectives. The result of ICCAT meeting decisions are announced by FA to stakeholders. As a member of ICCAT, Japan applies decisions of ICCAT and apply its CMMs in management. The details are explained in Section 3.5.1.2 - Japan has to adjust its fishing capacity to ensure that it is commensurate with its allocated BFT-e quota. To this effect, Japan established an annual fishing management plan for discussion and approval by the Commission in 2017 (see ICCAT (2017m; 2017l)) In the 2017 report Japan highlighted monitoring of BFT-e landings via daily catch reports, inspection, and tagging. Japanese fishing vessels began using the eBCD system in 2015 and it was affirmed that this practice would continue in 2016.

3.5.5.3 Usufuku Honten Usufuku Honten, holds a rigorous company policy to “co-exist” with ocean resources, and participates in various activities to improve fisheries management, either by the company itself and together with other stakeholders. Voluntary on-board insemination and release of BFT eggs gained from the discarded guts are carried out occasionally by the crews of Shofuku Maru No .1, as an education method for the crew and viewed as a practice of good deed in the spirit of supporting a . This is in line with the company’s policy to support maintaining fisheries resources. The activities’ results are not monitored. This voluntary practice is conducted by this vessel only and the resources does not rely on artificial propagation. Per MSC FCR 7.4.3 Table 1, this fishery is not an enhanced fishery.

3.5.6 Fishery-specific decision-making processes

The fishery consists in a single Japanese registered UoA-vessel. There are therefore two levels of decision-making processes. ICCAT’s level coincides with the decision-making processes, stakeholders and approach to disputes described in sections 3.5.1 to 3.5.4.

3.5.6.1 ICCAT Decisions regarding the BFT-e stock management taken by the Commission are based on scientific advice provided by the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) and its working groups (see Table 17. ICCAT subsidiary bodies, Panels and BFT Research programme) to evaluate fishing mortality and resulting BFT-e stock status. The SCRS proposed a Total Allowable Catch (TAC) set at 36,000 t to be reached in 2020 in a gradual stepwise way without undermining the success of the recovery plan ([Rec. 17-07] amending [Rec. 14-04] (ICCAT 2017a)). It is also SCRS who advised, as foreseen in paragraph 4 of [Rec. 17-07], that the Commission could “consider moving from the recovery plan to a management plan and that the current status of the stock no longer appears to require the emergency measures introduced under the Recovery plan”. Accordingly, a multi-annual management plan for Bluefin tuna in the Eastern Atlantic and the Mediterranean developed by SCRS

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 78 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

was formalised by the Commission as [Rec. 18-02] (ICCAT 2018d), which will come into force on 21 June 201910. The ICCAT website provides a comprehensive and easy access to ICCAT’s documents and reports. Minutes of meetings and the preamble to ICCAT’s Recommendations refer to the fishery-specific objective and the precautionary approach. The ICCAT fishery managers for BFT-e meet annually in Panel 2 (Northern temperate tunas) to examine annual national fishing, inspection and capacity management plans presented by CPCs with BFT-e quota. Plans may be endorsed, or actions (clarification within set time) may be required to be communicated to the Chair by correspondence before the next Commission meeting. The Commission meets to approve the recommendations of the SCRS, Panels and other subsidiary bodies, providing another opportunity for discussion and decision-making in response to serious issues. The second Independent Performance Review of ICCAT (Spencer et al. 2016) found the consensus decision-making process adopted within ICCAT had not always been able to ensure the adoption of conservation and management measures “in a timely manner”, especially as the number of CPCs (currently 52) increased over time. At the time, this concern related notably to the highly depleted BFT-e stock. As detailed in this report’s previous sections, additional conservation and management measures have been adopted in a much more timely and effective manner since, resulting in stock recovery ahead of what was originally expected. ICCAT adopted its 2015-2020 Science Strategic Plan (SSP) for the functioning and orientation of the SCRS in 2014. The plan sets out a Mission, a Vision, Goals, Objectives and Strategies to achieve each goal as well as measurable targets. Before its adoption, it was presented to the First Meeting of the Standing Working Group to Enhance Dialogue between Fisheries Scientists and Managers (SWGSM) in 2014. The SSP aims to improve data collection and analyses relating to ,Principle 1 (stock assessment, uncertainties and management advice for BFT-e) and Principle 2 (bycatch species, habitats, ecosystems) and encourages an open dialogue between the SCRS and Working Groups, the Commission and stakeholders (through the Standing Working Group to Enhance Dialogue between Fisheries Scientists and Managers (SWGSM) including the wider scientific community. Another issue of relevance is a lack of transparency in decision-making relating to the allocation of fishing opportunities noted by some CPCs. This matter has been noted by the Ad Hoc Working Group on the follow up of the 2nd ICCAT Performance Review (ICCAT 2017l) and Panel 2, and is scheduled to be thoroughly analysed by 2020 when allocations keys will be re-examined (ICCAT 2017m). The ICCAT Secretariat is accessible to stakeholders and supports direct enquiries through its website and to locate relevant ICCAT documents.

3.5.6.2 Japan See section 3.5.1.2 for detailed procedure Japan established on how to translate ICCAT decisions and CMMs into domestic rules and regulations.

3.5.7 Fishery-specific compliance and enforcement

There are three levels to the fishery’s compliance system that correspond to each jurisdictional level: • The Atlantic High Seas level, coordinated through ICCAT Joint Scheme of International inspections (Annex 7 of Rec. 14-04, (ICCAT 2014a));

10 See https://www.iccat.int/Documents/newsletter/NEWSLETTER_ENG_29.pdf

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 79 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

• The fishery’s UoA-fishing vessel’s individual compliance with the Japanese flag state management arrangements and international obligations; and • The Spanish/European system, which prevails locally when the vessel is steaming in EU waters or back to port in Las Palmas where it is based year-round.

In addition, for trade-related matters, the INTERPOL11 Global Fisheries Enforcement team may be involved to “ensure the traceability and legality of fish along all points of the supply chain”. The Agency also has a Fisheries Crime Working Group that engages with fisheries and tax authorities, customs, police, navies and coastguards. Its “cross-sector approach is strengthened by collaboration with intergovernmental organizations, NGOs, academia and the public and private sectors, who are encouraged to enter into dialogue with national enforcement authorities and combine their efforts to tackle transnational fisheries crime.” For BFT-e stock, its European counterpart, EUROPOL is currently leading an investigation that concern an alleged 2,500 t tonnes annually of undeclared farmed BFT-e involving Spanish, French and Italian Mediterranean Ports and tuna farms in Malta (‘Operation Tarantelo’12). The matter is very serious because of the very large quantities of IUU fish that are estimated to have entered the market unnoticed, which are greater than the annual Japanese share of the TAC. Another cause for concern is the growing risk of IUU fishing that accompanies the widening spatial distribution range and abundance of BFT-e in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. As the stock is recovering, it is resulting in an increasing risk of IUU fishing activities from recreational fishers and from un-licensed fishing operators (EFCA 2017). For the Mediterranean alone, a compilation of IUU BFT-e catches seized by surveillance authorities in Italy, Spain and Tunisia and Algeria in 2017 and 2018 shows that present surveillance and control programs (at sea, in port, transport, supply chain, restaurants), and the high levels of sanctions applied (fines, destruction, licence revocation) are not deterrent enough (WWF Mediterranean team, pers. com.). Finally, as quantities that can be caught legally increase, transhipment events at sea also become more frequent and carrier vessels more numerous, the need for control increases and the risks of IUU fish being put on the market also increase (PEW 2018).

3.5.7.1 ICCAT As with other RFMOs, ICCAT relies on its Contracting Parties to implement management measures, through their annual fishing plans and other control measures, which are set out and monitored annually through Panel 2. The ICCAT Convention does not explicitly provide ICCAT with competence related to monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS), but there are a large number of reporting and inspections obligations, which are monitored by the Conservation and Management Measures Compliance Committee (COC). CPCs’ annual reports to the COC have five sections: • Annual fisheries information; • Research and statistics; • Compliance with reporting requirements under ICCAT conservation and management measures;

11 https://www.interpol.int/Crimes/Environmental-crime/Fisheries-crime 12 https://www.europol.europa.eu/newsroom/news/how-illegal-bluefin-tuna-market-made-over-eur-12- million-year-selling-fish-in-spain

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 80 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

• Implementation of other ICCAT Conservation and Management Measures; and • Difficulties encountered in implementation of and compliance with ICCAT conservation and management measures.

Annual COC reports are publicly available on ICCAT’s website with each Commission meeting set of reports. ICCAT’s MCS system has been greatly strengthened over recent years, with coordinated inspection and data entry and validation systems that allow near real-time and at least daily updates at all levels (ICCAT 2018a) Catch certification or catch document schemes encouraged in the FAO's International Plan of Action on IUU Fishing have been fully implemented for this fishery through ICCAT's Bluefin Tuna Statistical Document Programme (e-BCD). ICCAT has also integrated all key Port State Measures (PSM) requirements in its recommendations established or interventions undertaken by port states which a foreign fishing vessel must comply with or is subjected to as a condition for use of ports within the port state. National PSM would typically include requirements related to prior notification of port entry, use of designated ports, restrictions on port entry and landing/transhipment of fish, restrictions on supplies and services, documentation requirements and port inspections, as well as related measures, such as IUU vessel listing, trade-related measures and sanctions. Many of these measures have in recent years seen their inclusion and development in international instruments. The 2nd Performance Review (Spencer et al. 2016) found that “with the exception of eastern bluefin tuna, ICCAT does not possess sufficient mechanisms for effective at-sea monitoring of fishing operations for most stocks, and that a modern high seas boarding and inspection (HSBI) Scheme needs to be adopted” (ICCAT 2018j). A stronger compliance assessment process is also needed (see WWF (2018)). Therefore, although the BFT-e fishery is probably one of the most documented fishery in the world and there are no instance of systematic non-compliance for UoA-vessel or the Japanese Longline- fishery, it appears that scope for non-compliance is generally on the increase, with previously well- known risks (IUU trade of farmed fish, high-seas transhipments) increasing again, together with new risks of IUU fishing from recreational and small scale operators coming across increasing quantities of fish.

3.5.7.2 Japan The Fisheries Agency of Japan (FAJ) has set catch quotas for western and eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna as well as for southern albacore, northern and southern Atlantic swordfish, blue marlin, white marlin, spearfish and bigeye tuna, and has required all tuna vessels operating in the Atlantic Ocean to submit logbook and, for bluefin tuna, daily catch information. All Japanese longline vessels operating in the Convention Area have been equipped with satellite tracking devices onboard. In accordance with ICCAT recommendations, FAJ has taken necessary measures to comply with its minimum size regulations, time area closures and so on by the Ministerial Order. A statistical or electronic catch document program has been conducted for each species. Records of fishing vessels larger than 20 m in length overall (LSFVs) have been established. Along with international and regional initiatives aimed at implementing and enforcing PSM, individual states are rapidly adopting such measures. Whether it is the implementation of PSM schemes adopted by Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs) or nationally adopted PSM, national legal frameworks and their implementation are crucial in enabling port states to apply PSM to combat IUU fishing. Japan requires its nationals to obtain the permission of the Government of Japan before working aboard non-Japanese fishing vessels operating in the Atlantic bluefin tuna and southern

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 81 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

bluefin tuna fishing areas. The goal of this measure is to prevent Japanese nationals from becoming involved in IUU fishing aboard foreign vessels (Doulman & Swan 2012). In 2016, Japan dispatched one patrol vessel to the North Atlantic to monitor and inspect Japanese tuna vessels catching BFT and also observe fishing activities of fishing vessels from other nations. FAJ also inspected landings of Japanese fishing vessels at Japanese ports to enforce the catch quotas and minimum size limits. A prior authorization from FAJ is required in the case that Japanese tuna longline vessels tranship tuna or tuna products to carriers at foreign ports (ICCAT 2017c). A summary of the Port Inspection Scheme and a list of approved transhipment and landing ports is provided by ICCAT13. In Japan’s annual report to ICCAT Compliance Committee, ICCAT secretariat noted that reports on the implementation of the Recommendation were received from Japan in 2018 (ICCAT 2018e). Japan reported the implementation of TACs and quotas, associated conditions for large-scale longliners catching BFT, with a total of 33 license in 2017, fishing season and compliance of the areas fished was confirmed by monitoring VMS data, and no fish under 30 kg was caught. Each vessel made a daily catch report, and the government of Japan submitted a weekly report to ICAAT Secretariat, as well as a monthly report. 100 % landing inspection was conducted at port with eBCD implemented. No infraction was detected via enforcement activities. Japan has also been submitting an evaluation report every October to ICCAT. In Japan sanctions are issued through ministerial orders based on the Fisheries Act (1949) and the Law of Marine Resources Conservation and Protection (1996) for violation on fishery permits and relevant conditions including catch quota, vessel capacity, catch reporting, surveillance compliance, VMS, transhipment, landing of fish, use of designated port etc. The sanctions are either imprisonment, fines, permit removals or suspensions, confiscation of catch, boat or gear or combination of these. Fishery permits are given under a point system and only given to those who have not accumulated more than 5 points of violation in the past. For a Japanese longline vessel in 2018, one infringement was reported by South Africa during the inspection of a Japanese vessel (species on board not consistent with AREP). As this was within the jurisdiction of the port State, a fine was issued (ICCAT 2018j). For this fishery there is no past record that any illegal activity has been reported.

3.5.7.3 Las Palmas (Spain, EU) The EU jurisdiction is relevant for this fishery, because the vessel is based in the Canary Islands (Spain) when it is not fishing, at the port of Las Palmas. The European Union signed the UN Agreement on Port State measures (PSM) to prevent and deter IUU fishing at its onset in 2009. The Agreement entered into force on 5th June 2016, and Japan acceded to it in May 201714. Therefore IUU-control procedures adopted by ICCAT CPCs for bluefin tuna are integrated; this includes inspections in port and at sea, including the High Seas, under the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA 2017) Eastern Atlantic/Mediterranean Bluefin Tuna Joint Deployment Plan (JDP).

3.5.8 Fishery-specific monitoring and management performance evaluation

There are internal and external reviews and evaluations of the fishery’s management system and components as follows. The performance of ICCAT is presently to be independently evaluated every five years. The second Performance Review (ICCAT 2017l) issued recommendations that are examined by all components of

13 https://www.iccat.int/en/portinspection.htm 14 http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/037s-e.pdf

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 82 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

the ICCAT structure, and progress reported is monitored and summarised annually by an ad hoc Working Group (ICCAT 2017l). ICCAT’s results, in terms of stock health are also closely monitored, and analyses are discussed in WG, SCRS and Commission meetings and commented upon throughout the year by Environmental NGOs with observer status, and also published in peer-reviewed scientific papers. ICCAT is also developing a Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) for bluefin tuna, which aims to check the adequacy of management measures, and their robustness to key sources of uncertainty, in the models and the data used to provide scientific management advice. One of the main goals of the SCRS current Science Strategic Plan (2015-2020) is to evaluate precautionary management reference points and robust harvest control rules (HCRs) through management strategy evaluations (MSE). These are presently developed and discussed annually between ICCAT scientists for the BFT-e specifically (Carruthers & Kell 2017). ICCAT’s BFT research programme (GBYP) is also externally evaluated. It was reviewed by ICES in 2001, by an independent panel at mid-term in 2013 (Fonteneau et al. 2014) and again in 2016 (MRAG 2016).

3.5.8.1 Japan As a CPC, Japan reports to ICCAT annually on its implementation of active recommendations, and contributes to all relevant ICCAT bodies and meetings. The recent report is available in the Report of implementation of BFT-e Management Plan (ICCAT 2018e) and the detail is discussed in compliance sections (Section 3.5.7.2). The FA implements the “Comprehensive International Resources Management Systems Construction Program”(FA 2017b) is available online, and the evaluation of observer programs seems to have been conducted internally. However the performance results and evaluation documents are not available in public. Based on this, there are some unclarity in how the evaluation is conducted internally to trigger the improvement when necessary.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 83 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

4 Evaluation Procedure

4.1 Harmonised Fishery Assessment

There are no current certified fisheries with BFT-e as the target stock, however there is one other BFT- e targeted fishery in assessment (https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/sathoan-french- mediterranean-bluefin-tuna-artisanal-longline-and-handline-fishery/@@view ). This fishery targets the same stock as this fishery but within a different area (Mediterranean FAO 37). The fishery is under assessment by CU Pesca and internal harmonisation methods have been employed since announcement of both fisheries. For Principle 1 the same expert is responsible for both assessments. Under Principle 3 there is overlap in management measures for both fisheries (ICCAT and EU) but the addition of the flag states (Japan (this fishery) and France) mean that complete harmonisation of scores is not possible. Under Principle 2 – cumulative impacts - CU Pesca identified that several other assessments fished in the North Atlantic and therefore may take BFT-w, Argentine shortfin squid and blue shark as a main species. CU Pesca emailed CABs with potential main catches of these species on 14/03/19. Lloyds Register, DNV-GL, BV, MRAG and SCS all confirmed no fisheries belonging to them had BFT-w as main bycatch by the 22/03/19. CU Pesca reviewed a number of other fisheries from the MSC website and found no others with these species as main under FCR 2.0.

4.2 Previous assessments

None

4.3 Assessment Methodologies

This assessment was conducted in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0 and MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template version 2.0 (8TH October 2014). The default assessment tree was used with adjustments for IPI stocks in accordance with Annex PA (PA2.1.1.1) for the Primary Species component of Principle 2. As per PA2.1 The CAB reviewed to the default tree and determined that no amendment to the default tree was required. The IPI stock (BFT-w) was scored under Primary Species component of Principle 2 as per PA2.1.1.1. To meet PA2.1.1.2 the CAB assessed the impact of all fishing activity on the IPI stock(s) considered for entry into certified chains of custody using the criteria specified in PA4.2 in section 5.4. Stakeholder comments and CAB responses have been included in Section 4.4.4 and Appendix 4.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 84 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

4.4 Evaluation Processes and Techniques

4.4.1 Site Visits

The first site visit was held Las Palmas, on the 24th – 26th September 2018. A stakeholder meeting was held in Madrid on the 27th September at request of PEW Charitable Trust. A second Site visit was held in Tokyo on 30th October 2018 at the Japanese Fishery Authority. The individuals met during both site visits and their roles in the fishery are listed in Table 20. Table 20. List of attendees at the on-site meetings.

Affiliation Position Name

CU Pesca Team Leader Hugh Jones

CU Pesca Team Member Sophie des Clers

CU Pesca Team Member Yoko Tamura

CU Pesca Team Member Jo Gascoigne

ASI ASI Auditor Sergio Cansado

Usufuku Honten Co., Ltd President Sotaro Usui

Usufuku Honten Co., Ltd Advisor Kouji Oyama

Usufuku Honten Co., Ltd Advisor Tomohiro Kimura

Japan Tuna Fisheries Corporation Overseas Team Supplies Division Masatoshi Abe

Usufuku Honten Co., Ltd Captain and Fishing Master Norihiro Oyama

Usufuku Honten Co., Ltd Chief of Communication Norifumi Kunii

Usufuku Honten Co., Ltd Chief Officer Mutsuo Sato

CU Pesca Translator Ana Cecilia Ahumada

AEAT Spanish Customs Alvaro Gurmain

Ministerio de Agricultura,Pesca y Head of fisheries – Las Palmas Luis Ortin Alimentación AEAT Javier fder

SEREX Translator for client Yuriko Ota

Autoridad Portuaria de Las Raul Perez Marrero Palmas Imperial College London Former ICCAT scientist BFT-e Laurence Kell

WWF Spain WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative Raul Garcia Rodriguez

PEW Charitable Trust Officer, Global Tuna Conservation Grantly Galland

The Ocean Foundation Shana Miller

IFremer ICCAT BFT-e Stock assessment Scientist Tristan Rouyer

NOAA – NMFS ICCAT BFT-e Stock assessment Scientist John Walter

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 85 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

4.4.2 Consultations

In addition to the scheduled site visits. Stakeholder consultations were held with the following:

4.4.2.1 Madrid 27th September 2018. WWF and PEW/Ocean foundation submissions associated with this meeting are found in appendix 5

Organisation Position Name

WWF Spain WWF Mediterranean Marine Initiative Raul Garcia Rodriguez

PEW Charitable Trust Officer, Global Tuna Conservation Grantly Galland

The Ocean Foundation Shana Miller

IFremer ICCAT BFT-e Stock assessment Scientist Tristan Rouyer

NOAA – NMFS ICCAT BFT-e Stock assessment Scientist John Walter

Imperial College London ICCAT scientist Laurence Kell

4.4.2.2 Phone 16th October 2018 Minutes associated with this meeting are found in appendix 4 and Section 4.4.4.5.

Organisation Position Name

Marine Conservation Society Head of Fisheries & Aquaculture Samuel Stone

4.4.2.3 Email correspondence Organisation/Role Name Context

Marine Conservation Society Samuel Stone Suitability of BFT-e to the MSC standard

MAFF Shuya Nakatsuka IPI stock status in ICCAT

FAJ Shinji Hiruma IPI stock status and BFT-w stock assessments

Imperial College London Laurie Kerr MSE status and stock assessments for BFT-e and BFT-w ICCAT scientist Tristan Rouyer Lead scientist for the SS3 model

ICCAT scientist John Walter Lead scientist for the stock assessments of BFT-e

ICCAT scientist Haritz Arrizabalaga Genetic and otolith publications

ICCAT scientist Fransisco Almney Genetic and otolith publications

ICCAT scientist Ai Kimoto Genetic and otolith publications

WorldAquaculture.org William Connor Stakeholder submission

4.4.3 Evaluation Techniques

a) Media announcements: CU Pesca announced the fishery on the MSC website and through a MSC press release, which targeted a wide range of stakeholders within the industry. b) Methodology for information gathering: Review of data and documentation.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 86 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

c) Scoring process: Scoring was partly completed during the site visit (10/03/18) and finalised afterwards following further information collection. Final scores were agreed across assessors via email. The scores were decided as follows: Note that where there is only one scoring issue in the SG, the issue can be partially scored – In this case the team used their judgement to determine what proportion of it was met, e.g. at the 100 level, a small part met = 85, about half met = 90, nearly all met = 95. Table 21. Example scoring process

How many scoring issues SG60 SG80 SG100 met? All 60 80 100 Half FAIL 70 90 Less than half FAIL 65 85 More than half FAIL 75 95

d) Decision rule for reaching the final recommendation: A UoA cannot be certified if: • the weighted average score for all PIs under each Principle is less than 80 for any of the three Principles • any individual scoring issue is not met at the SG60 level, contributing to a score of less than 60 on any PI.

The aggregate score for each Principle is the sum of the weighted score of each Performance Indicator within that Principle. Table 22. Scoring elements.

Component Scoring elements Main/Not main Data-deficient or not Principle 1 Bluefin tuna Eastern NA not Atlantic stock Primary Blue shark Northern Main not Atlantic stock Primary Argentine shortfin squid Main not Primary Bluefin tuna Western Main not Atlantic stock Primary Shortfin mako Minor not Primary Japanese Pilchard Minor not Secondary ribbonfish sp. Minor Data-deficient Secondary longnose lancetfish, Minor Data-deficient Secondary anglerfish spp. Minor Data-deficient

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 87 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

4.4.4 Stakeholder engagement

There are five stakeholder submissions in relation to this assessment prior to PCDR publication (as detailed in Appendix 4). An additional stakeholder period of 30 was opened on after the 9 month period of the MSC process for publication of the PCDR was exceeded. This closed on 16th June 2019 without additional stakeholder comments.

4.4.4.1 Submission 1 – ISSF The information provided by ISSF was of general interest in the fishery and its assessment under MSC and ISSF’s goals. CU Pesca ensured the ISSF were kept informed of the fishery progress, through stakeholder updates.

4.4.4.2 Submission 2 – WWF WWF supplied a written submission of extracts from a pre-assessment carried out with association with WWF in the Mediterranean on BFT-e. These evaluated that the HCRs for BFT-e were not sufficiently developed to meet the MSC standard. CU Pesca met with WWF in Madrid (see section 4.4.2) and corresponded by email. CU Pesca were provided with further information regarding WWFs position on the status of the stock, HCRs and IUU fishing. These have been considered in the scoring and CU Pesca are grateful for the submission.

4.4.4.3 Submission 3 – PEW PEW supplied a written submission under 3 comments addressed below. CU Pesca met with PEW in Madrid (see section 4.4.2) corresponded by email and maintained contact throughout the assessment through stakeholder announcements. Replies to specific comments are provided below: Comment 1: PEW highlight that the BFT 2017 assessment did not determine the overfished status of the eastern stock due to failure to agree to a reference point. Specifically this relates to biomass reference points and section 3.3.5 through 3.3.7 discusses the uncertainty in all assessment models in relation to biomass reference points. On this basis and in accordance with the MSC standard where biomass

reference points are undefined, CU Pesca evaluated the stock status on F reference points (F0.1) which ICCAT provided within the BFT 2017 stock assessment and were investigated by ICCAT to ensure consistency with MSY (Rademeyer & Butterworth 2018). CU Pesca contacted ICCAT scientists (L. Kell, T. Rouyer and J. Walter) for information on the validation of the 2017 assessment results as part of the team’s audit activities. PEW note that Recommendation 17-07 (ICCAT 2017a) (and now subsequently 18-02 (ICCAT 2018d)), sets the eastern quota at 28,200 mt for 2018, 32,240 mt for 2019, and 36,000 mt for 2020 and that these projections show this management regime will lead to population decline in the short term. This is acknowledged by the assessment team and the team take this into account when scoring Principle 1. PEW also refer to a published figure from the SCRS which shows these short-term projections at fixed TACs. The assessment team note that this figure does not present the projection of 17-07 or 18- 02 TAC allocations as the TACs shown in each scenario in the figure are fixed unlike in the step-wise

TAC set by these recommendations. In addition, CU Pesca note the SCRS conclusion that fishing at F0.1 in the long term will result in B at B0.1 even if B is undefined. On request of PEW and WWF CU Pesca have provided background and scoring rationale considering each of the proposed models and where possible evaluated reference points across models (Sections 3.3.5 through to 3.3.7 and scoring of PI 1.1.1)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 88 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Comment 2: IUU is highlighted as a problem by PEW and WWF and CU Pesca have engaged with the ICCAT scientists to understand the impact this has on the stock assessment. CU Pesca have rationalised this within the scoring of PI 1.2.3 and raised a condition on this. As noted in the body of the report (see section 3.5.7.3) and under Principle 3 (PI 3.2.3 compliance) investigations are ongoing by interpol without conclusion to date. Comment 3: The IPI issue was raised by PEW and taken into account by CU Pesca. The CAB has made considerable efforts to understand the extent of the potential for IPI in the UoA catches. This is addressed through sections 3.3.2, 3.4.6.1, 3.4.12 and 5.3 the research undertaken by CU Pesca also resulted in a condition being raised on PI 2.1.3. CU Pesca submitted VR requests to the MSC in regard to Annex PA in addition. Regarding the ‘Arrizabalaga et al., unpublished data’ provided as evidence in the PEW submission, the assessment team contacted the author to enquire further. The primary author (Arrizabalaga) was unsure as to where the NGO had got that information and was unhappy that it was cited, rather they preferred that the information base should be limited to published information and supplied the assessment team with an article in peer review (Rodríguez et al. 2017) which is referenced throughout the report and represents the most recent information on stock mixing and spatial variation in stock contributions. The assessment team viewed this document as the principle source of information on stock mixing above those cited in the submission by the NGO as it is more recent and it contains a wider temporal and spatial coverage than other reports. A further document Arrizabalanga et al. (2019) was also received by the assessment team upon request from the author in March 2019 and used in conjunction with ICCAT (2019b) to inform on mixing issues.

4.4.4.4 Submission 4 - W. Connor This submission expressed support of the assessment and Mr Connor was updated throughout the process by email to stakeholders.

4.4.4.5 Submission 5 - Sam Stone – Marine Conservation Society (MCS) MCS requested a phone call for clarity on the assessment process and the timeline of the assessment. Specifically, they raised concerns on the certainty in the biomass assessment from the ICCAT stock assessment and how this fed into the MSC process. They noted the importance of IUU considerations in the Mediterranean and how this was taken into account in the assessment. The team leader provided details on the Performance Indicators where biomass (PI 1.1.1) and IUU (PI 1.2.3 and 3.2.3) would be considered by the team and how F based reference point could be used in relation to PI 1.1.1. The team leader also gave an update on the information gained from the site visit and meeting with ICCAT scientists in Madrid. MCS noted that they wished to remain informed as to the progress of the project and the team leader confirmed that they would receive stakeholder emails.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 89 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

5 Traceability

5.1 Eligibility Date

The Eligibility Date has been set as the date of publication of the PCDR, pending the successful outcome of this evaluation. Product caught by Shofuku Maru No. 1 for Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd after the date of certification will be eligible to enter further chains of custody.

5.2 Traceability within the Fishery

BFT-e landed by Shofuku Maru No. 1 for Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd would be eligible for further chains of custody if the fishery described in this report is able to meet the MSC standards. Evaluation of the traceability of this product suggests that the point of landing of the fish in Japan should be considered the point at which onward chain of custody for the product should be applied. Details of at sea processing, tagging and transfer of BFT-e to containers at port by the UoA are detailed below. When BFT-e come onto the deck of Shofuku Maru No. 1, the crew detach the hook line to remove the fish from the main longline. The spinal nerve is severed to kill the fish then the fish weighed by suspending the individual from a bar-scale (bou-bakari). The fish are processed by removing the gut and gills (GG) and the tailfin is removed, it may then reweighed as a GG weight. Staff then attach a tamperproof etag to the fish (Figure 33) and report the tag number and weight via radio to the bridge who record them into the vessel logbook. The fish are then slid into a -60 oC freezer for two days (Figure 34). After the fish is frozen to the core, staff remove it and “glaze” it with a water layer before pasting a paper copy of the tag and company brand mark information on to the fish. The fish is then put into the fish the freezer storage area in the vessel.

Figure 33. E-tags and paper tags aboard the Shofuku Maru No. 1 prior to fishing season 2018 (left) and Etag Readers (right). Source CU Pesca.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 90 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 34. Minus 600C freezer on Shofuku Maru No. 1, fish are held here for two days following capture. Source: CU Pesca. Vessel logbook entries are transferred to the ICCAT Electronic bluefin tuna catch document eBCD portal daily (https://etuna.iccat.int/Account/Login.aspx?ReturnUrl=%2f) and sent to the FAJ via email. The eBCD system is independent of the client and a method of streamlining document validation. Included in the electronic document is catch transhipment and trade information (Figure 35) and individual fish tag information (Figure 36). Shofuku Maru No. 1 volunteered for this new electronic tag system as part of the FAJ program. The tamperproof etags are supplied by the FAJ and are individually numbered with the colour changed each year. The vessel holds etag readers to ensure the tags are operational throughout the fishing process (Figure 33). Fish without tags can lead to lose of licence to fish under the FAJ rules. Upon completion of the fishery trip, a operation completion report must be completed and submitted, this includes information on number of tags issued and licence number. The vessel will complete a declaration of offloading abroad and transhipment declaration 10 days prior to arrival in port. The fish are offloaded at Las Palmas or previously at Cabo Verde. Transhipment at port of the fish occurs (see section 5 of Figure 35) and this is tracked through the ICCAT eBCD portal and ICCAT transhipment records (Figure 37) with the fish consigned to Japan by transport vessels or regular container ships (Table 23).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 91 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 35. ICCAT bluefin tuna catch document (eBCD) transhipment information included. Source: CU Pesca.

Figure 36. ICCAT bluefin tuna catch document (eBCD) extract, showing individual fish identification tag number weight, product type and product shape. JRUL is the Shofuku Maru No.1 unique radio callsign, -15- is for 2015. Source: CU Pesca.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 92 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 37. ICCAT transhipment declaration. Extract taken from FAJ regulations provided to the Client. As per ICCAT recommendations the client only uses registered ports for transhipments (Table 23). Prior to arriving at the port for transhipment the client vessel must register with the port for unloading authority >12 hours ahead of arrival. Additionally, 72 hours prior to arrival in port the UoA must contact Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, Food and Environment (MAPA) and register the quantity of fish held onboard by species as per EU regulations. In Las Palmas form PEC-03 must be completed. This controls the access of foreign vessels to port and the unloading of fish product. In the case of BFT- e caught by the UoA a declaration of intent to temporary land fish within the confines of the port must be granted prior to unloading and a Summary Declarations of Temporary Storage (DSDT) certificate issued. MAPA and port police will be present at all unloads from the vessel and the port authorities monitor activity with CCTV. Upon unloading the fish are weighed prior to being placed in freezer containers with officials present. There is a 5 % tolerance on the weights given in the prior declaration to MAPA and those weights at port. Administrative penalties apply if required and these are communicated with the FAJ. Once the fish are unloaded the containers are sealed by customs and the UoA. Following the unloading port police produce a report and this is sent to MAPA. A ICCAT transhipment declaration is signed by the port and client and this must be received in Japan 10 days before landing. Interviews with Port Authorities, MAPA and Customs during the site visit noted 100 % compliance by the UoA with respect to port measures. The UoA follows Japan government’s requirements to report the port of entry and landings in Japan as per the transhipment declaration. At the receiving port in Japan buyers are waiting at the dock for each sized / graded fish that they have already negotiated price on with Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd using the catch record / weight / individual fish list the company created from the catch report. Four FAJ officials are in place at the docks to check the landings based on the landing report which the vessel will have submitted 10 days in advance. Some random checks are also conducted to weigh individual fish, and check tag attachments / number against the eBCD (Catch Documentation form). The whole track record is scaled to make sure the traded total weight of the fish is correct. A weight inspection table is produced as a result. The buyer receives the fish they have bought by negotiation in advance from the price list agreed and Usufuku Honten receives the total fish trade summary with individual weights, tag number, fish types etc from the buyer.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 93 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 23. Transportation information for Usufuku Honten BFT-e from 2015-2018 Landing Site / Port Agent Storage Services Transport Services Receiving Port in fish auction hall, Year Transport Japan market or place of 1st Vessel sale Mindelo/Sao Vicente Agencia Nacional M.V CHIKUMA MRS Corporation Shimizu TOYOREIZO CO LTD 2015 CHIKUMA Island De Viagens Mindelo/Sao Vicente Agencia Nacional M.V GENTA MARU Toei Reefer Line Shimizu TOYOREIZO CO LTD 2016 GEMTA MARU Island De Viagens Mindelo/Sao Vicente Agencia Nacional M.V SHOTOSE MRS Corporation Shimizu TOYOREIZO CO LTD 2016 CHITOSE Island De Viagens Mindelo/Sao Vicente Agencia Nacional M.V TAISEI MARU Taiseimaru Kaiun Shimizu TOYOREIZO CO LTD 2017 TAISEI MARU Island De Viagens No.24 No.24 Las PALMAS/Gran SEREX Maesk Maersk Line(A.P Shimizu TOYOREIZO CO LTD 2018 Container Canaria MARITIMOS, S.L Moller Maersk) TBC

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 94 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 24. 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) Potential for non-certified gear/s to be used None – Shofuku Maru No. 1 is designed and rigged only for within the fishery pelagic longlining. Vessels are not permitted to carry any gear on board other than that specified in their permits. Potential for vessels from the UoC to fish None – VMS systems monitor the vessels movements. outside the UoC or in different geographical European and international enforcement agencies monitor areas (on the same trips or different trips) vessel activities and

Potential for vessels outside of the UoC or None- the UoA is a single vessel monitored by VMS and all client group fishing the same stock catch is subject to etag and eBCD system and port checks.

Risks of mixing between certified and non- The etag and eBCD system’s together with monitoring of the certified catch during storage, transport, or UoA at port mean handling activities are strictly controlled. Fish handling activities (including transport at sea are tagged (electronically) at point of capture and daily logs and on land, points of landing, and sales at and trip logs sent via email to the representative authorities. auction) Port state measures at Las Palmas follow strict protocol and prior notification and declarations of catch are required and logged through the EBCD system which includes catch, trade and transport information. Transshipmnent declarations must be produced and signed prior to entry in Japan. Weight and tag checks are conducted at both transhipment ports and at landings in Japan. Risks of mixing between certified and non- No risk. The individual tamperproof etags and portside certified catch during processing activities (at- inspections / weight checks mean there is minimal risk of sea and/or before subsequent Chain of substitution or addition of non-certified catch. The only Custody) processing prior to point of sale is at sea and consists of gilling and gutting the fish, after which the weight is taken and it is this weight that is used throughout the transport process Risks of mixing between certified and non- The containers are tamperproof sealed by authorities at the certified catch during transhipment unloading port and stamped prior to transport to Japan. FAJ representatives are present at landing in Japan to check seals and are present when containers are opened. Any other risks of substitution between fish None from the UoC (certified catch) and fish from outside this unit (non-certified catch) before subsequent Chain of Custody is required

5.3 Eligibility to Enter Further Chains of Custody

Bluefin tuna Eastern stock caught by Shofuku Maru No. 1 for Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd in the high seas area of the Northeast Atlantic will be eligible to enter further chains of custody after the date of certification. Chain of Custody is required at the point of landing in Shimizu, Japan. Only Usufuku Honten Co. Ltd will be eligible to use the fishery certificate and sell product as MSC certified. As per PA 4.1.1 - The MSC ecolabel is only permitted for use on IPI catches of BFT-w for a maximum of one certification period see section 5.4.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 95 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

The UoA had a variation request (VR) against clause FCR2.0 7.4.13.1.c accepted on 09/05/19 a copy of the acceptance letter is shown at https://fisheries.msc.org/en/fisheries/usufuku-honten-northeast- atlantic-longline-bluefin-tuna-fishery/@@view. The VR allows the percentage of IPI catch to be considered at the UoA fleet level rather than the UoA. The UoA therefore meets the requirements for 7.4.13.1 sub-clauses as described below and as defined in Table 3 of the Variation Request: 7.4.13.1 a. The non-target catch is practicably indistinguishable during normal fishing operations (i.e., the catch is from a stock of the same species or a closely related species) Western Atlantic (BFT-w) and Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT-e) (Thunnus thynnus) are the same species with distinct breeding grounds on either side of the Atlantic (eastern (Mediterranean Sea) and western (Gulf of Mexico) (Rooker et al. 2014). There is no way to determine the origins of an individual fish reliably by external morphological traits. Identification is conditional on otolith or DNA techniques (Rodríguez et al. 2017; Rooker et al. 2014), which is not possible during normal fishing operations. 7.4.13.1.a is therefore met. 7.4.13.1 b. When distinguishable, it is not commercially feasible to separate due to the practical operation of the fishery that would require significant modification to existing harvesting and processing methods. Does not apply as the stocks are indistinguishable. 7.4.13.1 c. The total combined proportion of catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) for the UoA UoAs fleet*. *based on the accepted VR. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and its Scientific Committee (SCRS) have undertaken work to understand stock mixing based on otolith and genetic links between the BFT stocks. The Japanese fisheries research institute has completed DNA and otolith research on Japan-caught longline BFT-e as part of their shared information requirements to ICCAT. There are a number of published articles and ICCAT reports on otolith and DNA techniques which assess the degree of mixing between the stocks across the range of the BFT-e stock. Findings on stock mixing which include the Japanese longline fleet data were published in 2014 (Rooker et al., 2014) and 2017 (Rodríguez et al. 2017; Morse et al. 2017). Stock mixing data is accounted for the stock assessment sessions by running the model based on the stock origin of the catch as well as catch location (ICCAT 2017i) and is being considered in the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) program (ICCAT 2019d). A recent publication by ICCAT highlighted new information from the analyses of otolith chemistry and genetics data on stock mixing (ICCAT 2019d; Arrizabalanga et al. 2019). The observation was made that potentially as soon as BFT-e fish depart the Mediterranean for the wider Atlantic, its otolith chemistry signal starts to be less differentiable from the Gulf of Mexico fish. It suggests that this may

be due to the sharp gradient in delO18 chemistry between the Mediterranean and adjacent Atlantic waters (ICCAT 2019d). When the same samples were analysed for both otolith chemistry and genetics, different perceptions of stock assignments were produced. The otolith chemistry suggests more BFT- w fish in the Eastern Atlantic while the genetics data which is more consistent with the tagging methods suggest fewer BFT-w fish (ICCAT 2019d). Finally, the scientific group recommended that genetics should be used primarily to determine stock of origin, not otolith chemistry (ICCAT 2019d).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 96 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

CU Pesca have therefore adopted ICCAT’s recommendation and used genetic data from the Japanese longline fleet to assess mixing within the Japanese longline fleet catches. The genetic study was undertaken by ICCAT using a genetic traceability tool consisting of 96 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) which took place over a five-year period between 2011-2015 and was published by ICCAT in 2017 (Rodríguez et al. 2017). According to this genetic analysis, the proportion of BFT-w in the area Central Atlantic (East) (CAE) from the Japanese longline fleet ranged from 0 to 11 % with a 5 year average of 3.8 % when an assignment score threshold of 90 % was applied (Rodríguez et al. 2017) (Table 3.1). The annual variability under this method was also < 15 % (maximum 11.1 %) for the CAE area and confirms that temporal variability for the past five years of available data is <15 % by the Japanese long line fleet as a proxy for the UoA. Table 25. Percentage of BFT assigned to the BFT-w stock per year from the total of assigned individuals when a minimum assigned score is set to 70 % or 90 % for Central Atlantic (East) (CAE). Adapted from (Rodríguez et al. 2017).

Year % BFT-w Total Assigned

70% 90% 70% 90%

2011 5.7 0.0 35 29

2012 8.1 3.2 37 31

2013 3.7 0.0 27 24

2014 10.0 11.1 10 9

2015 10.7 4.8 28 21

Average 7.6 3.8 27.4 22.8

Minimum 3.7 0 10 9

Maximum 10.7 11.1 37 31

Note: it is important to note that 7.1.13.1.c requires the percentage contributions to the UoA to be considered by weight. BFT-e fish are faster maturing than BFT-w fish (ICCAT 2017i) indicative of increased weight at age for BFT-e. This is suggestive that the percentage of contributions of BFT-w by weight in the genetic research is highly unlikely to be greater than the assigned genetic percentages. Conclusion Data specific to the UoA is not obtainable on the basis of it being a single vessel, but data collected from the UoA as part of the Japanese fisheries research institute observer programme is analysed above and provides genetic evidence of contributions by stock. The Japanese longline fleet level data shows that mixing levels do not exceed 15 % by weight for BFT-w and that 7.4.13.1.c can be met based on the Variation Request against 7.4.13.1.c that the Japanese longline fleet level data is a suitable proxy for the UoA. 7.4.13.1 d. The stocks are not ETP species. Thunnus thynnus is not an ETP species therefore 4.7.13.1.d is met.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 97 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7.4.13.1 e. The stocks are not certified separately. At present neither BFT-e or BFT-w are certified by the MSC therefore 4.7.13.1.e is met.

5.4.1.1 Western stock Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT-w) Annex PA requirements: PA 2.1 – The CAB reviewed the DAT and found no need to modify the tree. PA 2.1.1.1 – BFT-w is scored under Primary species as per this clause PA 2.1.1.2 –fishing activity across all BFT-w fisheries is assessed in this section. PA 4.1 – Is addressed in section 5.4 and in condition 4. As per PA 4.1.1 - The MSC ecolabel is only permitted for use on these catches of BFT-w for a maximum of one certification period. Background information on the stock assessment and stock status of BFT-w are provided in Section 3.4.6.1 and BFT-w is scored as a Main Primary species in Appendix 1.2. As per FCR2.0 Annex PA under this section the following clauses require consideration (Note PA 4.2.2 does not apply as evidenced below the stock status is not poorly known.): PA4.2.1 - The IPI stock(s) are likely to be above biologically based limits or if below the limits, there are measures in place that are expected to make sure that all fishing-related mortality does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of IPI stock(s). PA4.2.3 - The measures are considered likely to work, based on plausible argument (e.g., general experience, theory or comparison with similar fisheries/species). As noted in PI 2.1.1a total biomass in 2015 was 18 % of biomass in 1950 and 45 % of biomass in 1974 (Figure 16). Therefore even though F is lower than F0.1, the biomass level of 18 % cannot be considered to be likely above the PRI. A stock rebuilding plan was initiated in 1998 over 20 years aimed

at achieving SSBMSY with 50 % probability. This plan has not been achieved. SCRS note that the 2017 assessment estimated that the biomass has increased between 2004 to 2015, but short term

projections from 2018 -2020 result in stock decline despite the F limited to F0.1. The decline is predicted based on the 2003 year class moving out of the fishery (ICCAT 2018i). The Committee also noted that the TAC recommendation [Rec. 17-06] (ICCAT 2017f) is expected to lead to decreases in the stock but not lead to overfishing as noted in the 2017 advice. Importantly the Committee also notes that recent

catches are below TACs (Figure 18). The SCRS in way of explaining the F0.1 strategy and predicted short term decline conclude that ‘if an F0.1 strategy were to continue to be applied, over the longer term the

resource would fluctuate around the true, but unknown value of B0.1 whatever the future recruitment level. The F0.1 strategy compensates for the effect of recruitment changes on biomass by allowing higher catches when recent recruitment is higher and reducing catches when recent recruitments are lower. Under this strategy, biomass may decrease at times because the stock is above B0.1 or following

lower recruitments’ (ICCAT 2018i). Using F0.1 as a proxy for FMSY, current F estimated from the VPA relative to the F0.1 reference point was 0.72, while for SS Fcurrent/F0.1 was 0.56 indicating that

overfishing is not occurring under both models. Under the SS model F has been below F0.1 since 2004 while for the VPA model since 2012 (Figure 17). Furthermore, current biomass estimates in both models are higher than those between 1985 and 2005 (Figure 16) and have increased since 2004. This is indicative of current total biomass being a product of lower past biomasses. Finally, similar rebuilding strategies were applied for BFT-e which has seen stock recovery (see Principle 1). On the weight of evidence from above the team are confident that all fishing-related mortality does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of BFT-w stock and the measures are likely to work.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 98 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

6 Evaluation Results

6.1 Principle Level Scores

The final principal scores are provided in Table 26. Table 26. Final Principle Scores

Principle Score Principle 1 – Target Species 85.0 Principle 2 – Ecosystem 89.0 Principle 3 – Management System 82.1

6.2 Summary of PI Level Scores

Princip Componen Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score le t

1.1.1 Stock status 0.5 90 Outcome 0.33 1.1.2 Stock rebuilding 0.5 NA 1.2.1 Harvest strategy 0.25 95 One Manageme 1.2.2 Harvest control rules & tools 0.25 75 0.67 nt 1.2.3 Information & monitoring 0.25 75 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status 0.25 85 2.1.1 Outcome 0.33 90 Primary 0.2 2.1.2 Management strategy 0.33 75 species 2.1.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 75 2.2.1 Outcome 0.33 80 Secondary 0.2 2.2.2 Management strategy 0.33 85 species 2.2.3 Information/Monitoring 0.33 95 2.3.1 Outcome 0.33 100 ETP Two 0.2 2.3.2 Management strategy 0.33 80 species 2.3.3 Information strategy 0.33 80 2.4.1 Outcome 0.33 100 Habitats 0.2 2.4.2 Management strategy 0.33 95 2.4.3 Information 0.33 100 2.5.1 Outcome 0.33 100 Ecosystem 0.2 2.5.2 Management 0.33 95 2.5.3 Information 0.33 85 Three 0.5 3.1.1 Legal &/or customary framework 0.33 80

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 99 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Princip Componen Wt Performance Indicator (PI) Wt Score le t

Consultation, roles & Governanc 3.1.2 0.33 85 e and responsibilities policy 3.1.3 Long term objectives 0.33 80 3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives 0.25 80 Fishery 3.2.2 Decision making processes 0.25 80 specific 0.5 manageme 3.2.3 Compliance & enforcement 0.25 80 nt system Monitoring & management 3.2.4 0.25 90 performance evaluation

6.3 Summary of Conditions

Table 27. Summary of conditions.

Number Condition Performance Indicator 1 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that the 1.2.2b HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. 2 By Year 4 the client should be able to show evidence 1.2.3c that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. 3 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that there 2.1.2b and 2.1.2e is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. Furthermore, there should be a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted blue shark catch. 4 By Year 4 the client should be able to show that the 2.1.3c information available for BFT-w is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main Primary species.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 100 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

6.4 Recommendations

None

6.5 Determination, Formal Conclusion and Agreement

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

1. The report shall include a formal statement as to the certification determination recommendation reached by the Assessment Team about whether or not the fishery should be certified. (Reference: FCR 7.16)

(REQUIRED FOR PCR)

2. 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.

6.6 Changes in the fishery prior to and since Pre-Assessment

Since the Pre-assessment the client has introduced a sustainable bait sourcing policy (see Appendix 9).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 101 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

7 References

Agnew, D.J. et al., 2005. Sustainability and Management of Southwest Atlantic Squid Fisheries. Bulletin of Marine Science, 76(2), pp.579–594. Available at: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/umrsmas/bullmar/2005/00000076/00000002/ar t00019.

Anon, 2018. The best practices for reduction of bycatch in longline tuna fisheries, Sustainable Fisheries Partnership, Greenpeace, Birdlife International and The Nature Conservancy. Available at: https://www.sustainablefish.org/Media/Files/Best-Practices-Tuna/SFP-Best-Practices-in- Tuna-Longline-Fisheries-Report.

Apostolaki, P. et al., 2018. Alternative catch estimates from market and third party data. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 75(6), 2536-2553.

Arrizabalanga, H. et al., 2019. Population structure and mixing : new information and analyses SCRS/P/2019/02 GBYP Phase 8, ICCAT.

Basson, M. et al., 1996. Assessment and management techniques for migratory annual squid stocks: the Illex argentinus fishery in the Southwest Atlantic as an example. Fisheries Research, 28(1), pp.3–27. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016578369600481X.

Boyd, J., 2008. The Japanese bluefin tuna longline fishery in the northeast Atlantic: Report of an Irish observer. Irish Fisheries Investigations No.20/2008, Fishery Science Services, Marine Institute, Rinville, Oranmore, Co. Galway.

Brodziak, J. & Overholtz, W., 1995. A comparison of some biological reference points for fisheries management. NOAAlNational Marine Fisheries Service Northeast Fisheries Science Center Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543-1097.

Brothers, N., 2017. mechanised Bait Throwing Device for Longline Fisheries Performance Assessment of a Test Machine., Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels - Eighth Meeting of the Seabird Bycatch Working Group Wellington, New Zealand, 4 – 6 September 2017. Available at: https://www.bmis- bycatch.org/system/files/zotero_attachments/library_1/WP3XFH2H%20- %20SBWG8_Inf_31%20Mechanised%20Bait%20Throwing%20Device_BROTHERS.pdf.

Carruthers, T. & Kell, L., 2017. Simulation testing a multi-stock model with age-based movement., ICCAT SCRS/2016/144, Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT.

Chang, K.-Y. et al., 2016. Argentine Shortfin Squid (Illex argentinus) Stock Assessment in the Southwest Atlantic Using Geostatistical Techniques. Terr. Atmos. Ocean. Sci.,, 27(2), pp.281–292.

CMS, 2018. Appendices I and II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), effective 26 January 2018, Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals. Available at: https://www.cms.int/sites/default/files/basic_page_documents/cms_cop12_appendices_e_ 0.pdf.

Corriero, A. et al., 2005. Size and age at sexual maturity of female bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus L. 1758) from the Mediterranean Sea. Journal of Applied , 21, pp.483–486.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 102 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Cortes, E., 2012. Expanded Ecological Risk Assessment of Pelagic Sharks Caught in Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fisheries, ICCAT - Standing Committee on Research and Statistics. SCRS/2012/167.

Doulman, D.J. & Swan, J., 2012. A guide to the background and implementation of the 2009 FAO Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated Fishing., FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Circular No. 1074. Rome, FAO, 165 pp. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2590e/i2590e00.pdf.

Durán Muñoz, P. et al., 2009. Seabed mapping for selecting cold-water coral protection areas on Hatton Bank, Northeast Atlantic. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 66(9), pp.2013–2025. Available at: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icesjms/fsp170.

EFCA, 2017. European Fisheries Control Agency - Annual Report 2016, European Fisheries Control Agency. 153p.

EU, 2008. COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1005/2008 of 29 September 2008 establishing a Community system to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, amending Regulations (EEC) No 2847/93, (EC) No 1936/2001 and (EC) No 601/2004 and repealing Regulations (EC) No 1093/94 and (EC) No 1447/1999, European Union.

Faillettaz, R. et al., 2019. Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillations drive the basin-scale distribution of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Science Advances 5(1), eaar6993 DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.aar6993.

FAJ & FREI, 2015. Status of International Fishery Resources Heisei 26, Argentine shortfin squid, 66 Southwest Atlantic Ocean, Fisheries Agency Japan. Available at: http://kokushi.fra.go.jp/H26/H26_66.pdf.

FAO, 2009. AGREEMENT ON PORT STATE MEASURES TO PREVENT, DETER AND ELIMINATE ILLEGAL, UNREPORTED AND UNREGULATED FISHING, FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/legal/docs/037s-e.pdf.

FAO, 2019a. NEAFC VME fact sheets 2018. Hatton Bank 1. [online]. Rome. Updated 7 March 2019. [Cited 12 March 2019]. http://www.fao.org/fishery/, FAO.

FAO, 2019b. Parties to the PSMA. Web based information, FAO. Available at: http://www.fao.org/port- state-measures/background/parties-psma/en/.

FIG, 2018. Fishery Statistics 2017, Vol. 22, Falkland Islands Government, Fisheries Department Fisheries Statistics, Volume 22, 2017: 100pp Stanley, FIG Fisheries Department. Available at: http://www.fig.gov.fk/fisheries/component/jdownloads/send/2-fisheries-bulletins/79- fisheriesbulletin22?Itemid=0.

Fishbase, 2019a. Alepisaurus ferox, Long snouted lancetfish. Available at: https://www.fishbase.de/summary/99.

Fishbase, 2019b. Desmodema polystictum (Ogilby, 1898) Polka-dot ribbonfish. Available at: https://www.fishbase.de/summary/3263.

Fishbase, 2017. Prionace glauca (Linnaeus, 1758) Blue shark. Available at: http://www.fishbase.org/summary/898.

Fishbase, 2019c. Thunnus thynnus (Linnaeus, 1758) Atlantic bluefin tuna. Available at: https://www.fishbase.org/summary/147.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 103 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

FishSource, 2017. Species profile of Argentine Shortfin Squid, FishSource. Available at: https://www.fishsource.org/stock_page/1626.

Fonteneau, A., Suzuki, Z. & Payne, A.I., 2014. Mid-term review of the ICCAT Atlantic-wide research programme on bluefin tuna (ICCAT/GBYP Phase 3-4), ICCAT. Available at: http://www.iccat.int/GBYP/Documents/RESEARCH/GBYP_Mid-Term_Review2013.pdf.

Forrestal, F. et al., 2012. Ecosystem effects of bluefin tuna Thunnus thynnus thynnus aquaculture in the NW Mediterranean Sea. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 456, pp.215–231.

FRA, 2018a. Status of Coastal Fishery Resources, Japanese Pilchard,, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency (FRA). Available at: http://abchan.fra.go.jp/digests2017/html/2017_01.html.

FRA, 2018b. Status of International Fishery Resources, Argentine Shortfin Squid,, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency (FRA). Available at: Southwest Atlantic, http://kokushi.fra.go.jp/H29/H29_68.html.

FRA, 2018c. Status of International Fishery Resources, Shortfin Mako Shark, Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency (FRA). Available at: http://kokushi.fra.go.jp/H29/H29_38.htm.

Fromentin, J. & Kell, L., 2008. Evaluation of the performance and robustness of VPA-based stock assessment and MSY-based management strategy to process error: the Atlantic bluefin tuna case study. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 44(2), pp.491–506.

Fromentin, J.-M. et al., 2014. The spectre of uncertainty in management of exploited fish stocks: The illustrative case of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Marine Policy 47, 8-14.

Gallagher, A.J. et al., 2014. Vulnerability of oceanic sharks as pelagic longline bycatch. Global Ecology and Conservation, 1, pp.50–59. Available at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2351989414000055.

Garcia, A.P. et al., 2017. REPORT ON REVISED TRAP DATA RECOVERED BY ICCAT GBYP FROM PHASE 1 TO PHASE 6. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 73(6), pp.2074–2098.

Haimovici, M. et al., 1998. Illex argentinus. 28-58 pp Squid Recruitment Dynamics: The Genus Illex as a Model, the Commercial Illex Species, Influences on Variability, Food and Agriculture Organization.

IATTC, 2017. TUNAS, BILLFISHES AND OTHER PELAGIC SPECIES IN THE EASTERN PACIFIC OCEAN IN 2017, IATTC - Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

ICCAT, 2004a. 04-10 BYC RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT CONCERNING THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION WITH FISHERIES MANAGED BY ICCAT, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2004-10-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2010a. 10-09 RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON THE BY-CATCH OF SEA TURTLES IN ICCAT FISHERIES, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf- e/2010-09-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2011a. 11-09 BYC SUPPLEMENTAL RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON REDUCING INCIDENTAL BYCATCH OF SEABIRDS IN ICCAT LONGLINE FISHERIES, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2011-09-e.pdf.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 104 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

ICCAT, 2011b. 11-17 GEN - RESOLUTION BY ICCAT ON BEST AVAILABLE SCIENCE, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2011-17-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2015a. 15-07 GEN RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF HARVEST CONTROL RULES AND OF MANAGEMENT STRATEGY EVALUATION, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2015-07-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2015b. 15-12 Resolution by ICCAT concerning the use of a precautionary approach in implementing ICCAT conservation and management measures, see https://iccat.int/Documents/Recs/COMPENDIUM_ACTIVE_ENG.pdf, ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2016a. 16-12 RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC BLUE SHARK CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION WITH ICCAT FISHERIES, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.ccsbt.org/sites/default/files/userfiles/file/other_rfmo_measures/iccat/ICCAT_ 2016-12-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2016b. 16-13 RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON IMPROVEMENT OF COMPLIANCE REVIEW OF CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT MEASURES REGARDING SHARKS CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION WITH ICCAT FISHERIES, ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2017a. 17-07 RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION 14-04 ON BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC AND MEDITERRANEAN, International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna, Madrid. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2017-07-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 1993a. 93-08 MISC RESOLUTION BY ICCAT ON COOPERATION WITH THE CONVENTION ON INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN ENDANGERED SPECIES OF WILD FAUNA AND FLORA (CITES), ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/1993-08-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 1993b. 93-09 MISC RESOLUTION BY ICCAT CONCERNING THE COMPOSITION OF DELEGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTING PARTIES TO ICCAT FROM CITES, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-f/1993-09-f.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017b. Addendum to the detailed report of the 2017 bluefin tuna stock assessment session. Updates to bluefin tuna stock assessment models adopted during the 2017 bluefin tuna species group meeting, ICCAT, BFT STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION - SCRS 2017/188. Available at: http://iccat.org/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2017_BFT_ASS_REP_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017c. Annual reports of Contracting Parties – ANN-024 Japan., ICCAT. Available at: http://www.iccat.int/com2017/TRI/COC_301_TRI.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017d. Annual reports of Contracting Parties – ANN-024 Japan. ICCAT., ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2018a. Compendium Management recommendations and resolutions adopted by ICCAT for the Conservation of the Atlantic Tunas and Tuna-like species, ICCAT. Available at: https://iccat.int/com2018/ENG/PLE_102_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2018b. DRAFT RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT CONCERNING THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION WITH FISHERIES MANAGED BY ICCAT, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/com2018/ENG/PA4_806_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2018c. GBYP Steering Committee Meeting Madrid, 18‐19 April 2018, ICCAT.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 105 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

ICCAT, 2005. Guidelines and criteria for granting observer status at ICCAT meetings [Rec. 05-12]. https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2005-12-e.pdf, ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2017e. ICCAT GBYP Steering Committee Meeting – Phase 7 07-08 March 2017 REPORT, ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2016c. ICCAT geographical definitions (version 2016, 02 EN), ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2019a. ICCAT Information on By-Catch of Tuna Fisheries, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/en/bycatch.html.

ICCAT, 2016d. ICCAT Manual. International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna. In: ICCAT Publications [on-line]. Updated 2016. https://www.iccat.int/en/iccatmanual.html, ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2011c. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT AMENDING RECOMMENDATION 09-11 ON AN ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA CATCH DOCUMENTATION PROGRAM - 11-20, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2011-20-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2013. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT AMENDING RECOMMENDATION 10-09 ON THE BY-CATCH OF SEA TURTLES IN ICCAT FISHERIES, ICCAT 13-11.

ICCAT, 2014a. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT AMENDING THE RECOMMENDATION 13-07 BY ICCAT TO ESTABLISH A MULTI-ANNUAL RECOVERY PLAN FOR BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC AND MEDITERRANEAN, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2014-04-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2004b. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT CONCERNING THE CONSERVATION OF SHARKS CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION WITH FISHERIES MANAGED BY ICCAT, ICCAT, 04-10 , pp. 1.

ICCAT, 2018d. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ESTABLISHING A MULTI-ANNUAL MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR BLUEFIN TUNA IN THE EASTERN ATLANTIC AND THE MEDITERRANEAN SEA 2018-02, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNA. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2018-02-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017f. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT FOR AN INTERIM CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WESTERN ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2017-06-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017g. RECOMMENDATION BY ICCAT ON THE CONSERVATION OF NORTH ATLANTIC STOCK OF SHORTFIN MAKO CAUGHT IN ASSOCIATION WITH ICCAT FISHERIES - 17-08, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS. Available at: https://iccat.int/Documents/Recs/compendiopdf-e/2017-08-e.pdf.

ICCAT, 2010b. Recommendation to mitigate the by-catch of sea turtles in ICCAT fisheries (Recommendation 10-09), ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2017h. Report for biennial period, 2016-17 PART I (2017) - Vol. 2 Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS) and its appendices., International Commision for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/BienRep/REP_EN_16-17_II-2.pdf.

ICCAT, 2018e. Report of implementation of E-BFT Management Plan Doc. No. COC-302 / October 2018., ICCAT.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 106 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

ICCAT, 2014b. REPORT OF THE 2014 ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION, ICCAT, BFT STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION – MADRID 2014. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2014_BFT_ASSESS-ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2015c. REPORT OF THE 2015 ICCAT BLUE SHARK STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION, ICCAT - anário de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal - July 27 to 31, 2015. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2015_BSH%20ASSESS_REPORT_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017i. REPORT OF THE 2017 ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION, ICCAT, BFT STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION – Madrid, Spain 20-28 July, 2017.

ICCAT, 2017j. REPORT OF THE 2017 ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA DATA PREPARATORY MEETING, ICCAT, BFT STOCK ASSESSMENT SESSION – Madrid, Spain 6-11 March, 2017. Available at: http://iccat.org/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2017_BFT_ASS_REP_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017k. REPORT OF THE 2017 ICCAT SHORTFIN MAKO ASSESSMENT MEETING (Madrid, Spain 12-16 June 2017), INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS,. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/SCRS/DetRep/SMA_SA_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2018f. REPORT OF THE 2018 ICCAT SUB-COMMITTEE ON ECOSYSTEMS MEETING (Madrid, Spain 4-8 June, 2018), ICCAT, SUB-COMMITTEE ON ECOSYSTEMS MEETING – MADRID 2018. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2018/REPORTS/2018_SC_ECO_REP_ENG. pdf.

ICCAT, 2019b. REPORT OF THE 2019 INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA MSE TECHNICAL GROUP (Madrid, Spain – 7-9 February 2019), ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2019/REPORTS/2019_BFT_MSE_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2019c. REPORT OF THE 2019 INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA MSE TECHNICAL GROUP (Madrid, Spain – 7-9 February 2019), ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2019/REPORTS/2019_BFT_MSE_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2019d. REPORT OF THE 2019 INTERSESSIONAL MEETING OF THE ICCAT BLUEFIN TUNA SPECIES GROUP (Madrid, Spain – 11-15 February 2019), ICCAT, PA2 Doc. No. PA2-23 /i 2019 March 4, 2019 (1:07 PM).

ICCAT, 2018g. Report of the 6th meeting of the Working Group on Convention Amendment, 28pp., ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2018/2018_CONV_ENG.PDF.

ICCAT, 2017l. Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on the follow up of the 2nd ICCAT Performance Review, Madrid 27-28 June 2017, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2017_PERF_REP_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2018h. REPORT OF THE INTER-SESSIONAL MEETING OF PANEL 2 (Madrid, Spain, 5-7 March 2018), ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2016_PA2_REP_ENG.pdf.

ICCAT, 2017m. Report of the Inter-sessional meeting of Panel 2, Madrid 2-3 March 2016. Japan national report: 37-39, ICCAT. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2016_PA2_REP_ENG.pdf.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 107 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

ICCAT, 2016e. Report of the second independent performance review of ICCAT. Special Issue., ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2018i. REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND STATISTICS (SCRS), INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS, Madrid, Spain, 2 to 6 October 2017. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2018/REPORTS/2018_SCRS_REP_ENG.pdf .

ICCAT, 2015d. Resolution 15-11 by ICCAT concerning the application of an ecosystem approach to fisheries management, see https://iccat.int/Documents/Recs/COMPENDIUM_ACTIVE_ENG.pdf, ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2015e. Resolution 15-13 by ICCAT on Criteria for the allocation of fishing possibilities, 3 pp., ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2018j. Secretariat report to the ICCAT Conservation and Management Compliance Committee, Doc. No. COC-303 / 2018, 19pp, ICCAT.

ICCAT, 2007. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (as amended), The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. Available at: http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Commission/BasicTexts.pdf.

ICES, 2018. Advice on locations and likely locations of VMEs in EU waters of the NE Atlantic, and the fishing footprint of 2009–2011, ICES Special Request Advice North Atlantic Ecoregion, 2018, 10., ICES.

ICES, 2017. Report of the Working Group on Elasmobranchs, ICES WGEF Report 2017, ICES Advisory Committee. ICES CM 2017/ ACOM:16. June 2017. Lisbon, Portugal., ICES.

JFA, 2001. Japan’s National Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, Japan Fisheries Agency, IOTC-2006-WPBy-07. Available at: http://www.iotc.org/documents/japans- national-plan-action-conservation-and-management-sharks.

Kai, M., 2017. Status of International Fisheries, Blue shark, 37 all areas, Fisheries Research Agency. Japan. Available at: http://kokushi.fra.go.jp/H28/H28_37.html.

Kalikoski, D.C., Vasconcellos, M.C. & Pitcher, T., 2006. An estimation of compliance of the fisheries of argentina with article 7 (Fisheries management) of the un code of conduct for responsible fishing, Available at: http://repositorio.furg.br/handle/1/1512.

Kiger, 2012. Bluefin Tuna 101, Biology, Ecology, Economics, and Politics,, National Geographic. Available at: https://www.nationalgeographic.com.au/people/bluefin-tuna-101.aspx.

Kimoto, A. & Itoh, T., 2017. The Standardised Bluefin CPUE of Japanese Longline fishewry in the Atlantic up to 2017 fishing year. Collect. Vol. Sci. Papers. ICCAT, 74(6), pp.2686–2711.

Kiyota, K. Masashi & Yokota, 2010. Review of bycatch mitigation measures in tuna longline fishery. NIPPON SUISAN GAKKAISHI, 76, pp.348–361.

Lauretta, M., 2017. A brief review of Atlantic bluefin natural mortality assumptions SCRS/2017/083, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 108 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Li, Y., Browder, J. & Jiao, Y., 2012. Hook Effects on Seabird Bycatch in the United States Atlantic Pelagic Longline Fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science, 88.

MAFF, 2017. The logbook for large scale tuna longline vessels - Format 1 For vessels which enter the Atlantic Ocean,, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan.

Meski, D., 2010. Letter to: The secretary General of CITES from ICCAT, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS. Available at: https://www.cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/cop/15/doc/E15-68A04.pdf.

Minami, H. et al., 2013. BYCATCH DISTRIBUTION AND STANDARDIZED CPUE OF SEA TURTLE USING DATA FROM JAPANESE SCIENTIFIC OBSERVER PROGRAM OF LONGLINE FISHERY IN THE ATLANTIC. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 69(4), pp.1901–1909. Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV069_2013/n_4/CV069041901.pdf.

Morse, M. et al., 2017. AN UPDATED ANALYSIS OF BLUEFIN TUNA STOCK MIXING, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS, SCRS/2017/190.

MRAG, 2016. Second Review of the Atlantic-wide research programme for bluefin tuna (ICCAT GBYP PHASE 6-2016), 94p. https://www.iccat.int/GBYP/Docs/GBYP_Second_Review_2016.pdf, MRAG.

MSC, 2014. MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements and Guidance, Version 2.0, 1st October, 2014, Marine Stewardship Council.

Musyl, M. & Gilman, E., 2019. Meta-analysis of post-release fishing mortality in apex predatory pelagic sharks and white marlin. Fish and Fisheries.

Nakano, 1994. Age, reproduction and migration of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean. , Bulletin of National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, 31, pp.141–25.

Natale, A.D. et al., 2017. Bluefin tuna weight frequencies from selected market and auction data recovered by the GBYP. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 73(6): 2129-2149.

NEAFC, 2014. 33rd Annual Meeting of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, Report, 10-14 November 2014 NEAFC, 16 pp. (FAO database http://www.fao.org/fishery/vme/24317/169537/en), North East Atlantic Fisheries Commisson.

Ortiz, M., 2018. Estimation of size at catch and potential growth of farmed bluefin tuna from farm harvest database, 2014-16. Collect. Sci. Pap. ICCAT 74(6), 2670-2685.

PEW, 2018. The Charitable Trusts’ Statement to the Compliance Committee of the 21st Special Meeting of ICCAT, November 2018. COC_320/2018, 13pp., PEW.

Porch, C. & Hanke, A., 2017. Estimating the fraction of western Atlantic bluefin tuna that spawn by age from size frequency data collected on the Gulf of Mexico spawning grounds SCRS/2017/164, INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR THE CONSERVATION OF ATLANTIC TUNAS.

Rademeyer, R.A. & Butterworth, D.S., 2018. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN F0.1 AND FMSY VALUES FOR THE NORTH ATLANTIC BLUEFIN ASSESSMENT AND ITS DEPENDENCE ON THE BEVERTON- HOLT STOCK RECRUITMENT STEEPNESS PARAMETER h. SCRS/2017/227. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 74(6), pp.3560–3564.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 109 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Richardson, D.E. et al., 2016. Discovery of a spawning ground reveals diverse migration strategies in Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(12), pp.3299–3304. Available at: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/12/3299.abstract.

Rodríguez, N. et al., 2017. GENETIC ASSIGNMENT OF ATLANTIC BLUEFIN TUNA FEEDING AGGREGATIONS TO SPAWNING GROUNDS. SCRS/2017/027.

Rooker, J.R. et al., 2014. Crossing the line: migratory and homing behaviors of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 504, pp.265–276.

Rouyer, T. & Miller, S., 2018. Updating fishing capacity estimates for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean sea, SCRS/2018/130.

Safina, 2014. Species Profile of Argentine Shortfin Squid. 16 pp., Safina Centre. Available at: http://safinacenter.org/documents/2014/08/argentine-squid-full-species-report.pdf.

Seawatch, 2016a. United States: Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Canada: North Atlantic: Pelagic longline, SeaWatch, USA. Available at: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/- /m/sfw/pdf/reports/t/mba_seafoodwatch_albacore_blackfin_bigeye_swordfish_yellowfin_ us_can_longline_report.pdf.

Seawatch, 2016b. United States: Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Canada: North Atlantic: Pelagic longline, SeaWatch, USA. Available at: https://www.seafoodwatch.org/- /m/sfw/pdf/reports/t/mba_seafoodwatch_albacore_blackfin_bigeye_swordfish_yellowfin_ us_can_longline_report.pdf.

Sieben, C., Gascoigne, J. & Watt, P., 2019. Public Certification Report SZLC CSFC & FZLC FSM EEZ Longline Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna Fishery (Bigeye UoA), Marine Stewardship Council (MSC).

Spencer, J., Maguire, J.J. & Molenar, E., 2016. Report of the Independent Performance Review of ICCAT., Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Other/0- 2nd_PERFORMANCE_REVIEW_TRI.pdf.

Villasante, S. et al., 2015. Reconstruction of marine fisheries catches in Argentina (1950-2010),

Walter, J. et al., 2016. Implications of alternative spawning for bluefin tuna remain unclear. PNAS 113 (30) E4259-E4260.

Wang, J., Chen, X., Staples, K., et al., 2018. A stock assessment for Illex argentinus in Southwest Atlantic using an environmentally dependent surplus production model. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 37(2), pp.94–101. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-017-1131-y.

Wang, J., Chen, X. & Chen, Y., 2018. Projecting distributions of Argentine shortfin squid (Illex argentinus) in the Southwest Atlantic using a complex integrated model. Acta Oceanologica Sinica, 37(8), pp.31–37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13131-018-1231-3.

WWF, 2018. Position paper presented at the 21st Special Meeting in Dubrovnik, Croatia, November 2018, 5pp. https://www.iccat.int/com2018/TRI/PLE_120.pdf, WWF.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 110 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendices

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 111 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 1 Scoring and Rationales

Appendix 1.1 Principle 1

Evaluation Table for PI 1.1.1 – Stock status

PI 1.1.1 The stock is at a level which maintains high productivity and has a low probability of 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 above the point It is highly likely that the stock is above the There is a high degree of certainty that the stock is ost where recruitment would be impaired (PRI). PRI. above the PRI.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific Definitions: ation MSC define a default level for the PRI at 0.5BMSY or 20%B0 (GSA 2.2.3.1). SA2.2.1: Likely means greater than or equal to the 70th percentile; Highly likely 80th percentile, High degree of certainty 95th percentile. Scoring stock status against the different models used in the stock assessment: The stock assessment workshop used a range of different models to tackle the stock assessment of BFT-e, as described in the P1 background section. They took one model (VPA) forward as the basis for management advice but noted that the results of a second model (SS3) should be ‘taken into account’. Since the results of these two models are qualitatively different, this presents a difficultly for the assessment team in terms of how much weight should be placed on each. The assessment team noted the following points: • The stock assessment workshop selected the VPA model, noting that the SS3 was ‘not more reliable’ than the VPA ((ICCAT 2017i), p.17); • The SS3 model was not completed at the end of the workshop (T. Rouyer, pers. comm.); the report notes that only the VPA was sufficiently advanced to provide the primary basis for management advice (ref; p. 15), although in the same paragraph the group also expresses its concern over the validity of some of the assumptions in the VPA; • Because the VPA was taken as the basis for management advice, more information is available on this model from the stock assessment report, plus amendment, the species group report and the SCRS report, compared to the others.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 112 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

• The key uncertainty in terms of estimating biomass and MSY reference points (see Section 3.3.3) – i.e. recruitment and the SR relationship – does not disappear with the other models, although it is mainly discussed in the context of the VPA (because more information is provided about this model). Although the SS3 model attempts to estimate B/BMSY, and provides forward projections based on a SR relationship estimated within the model, inspection of the various time series of biomass vs recruitment will immediately show that this must be highly uncertain.

• Management is based on the assumption that F0.1 is a suitable proxy for FMSY, which is a valid assumption in the VPA model (Rademeyer & Butterworth 2018) but not in the SS3 model (see Section 3.3.10 and note also the group’s reluctance to estimate MSY reference points). For these reasons, the assessment team (after discussion and agreement) decided that the scoring approach should be based primarily on the VPA model, but that the results of the other models (mainly the SS3 model) should be considered as part of the team’s evaluation of uncertainties in the VPA conclusions. Analysis:

For this stock, F0.1 is used as a proxy for FMSY and has been tested and shown to be appropriate (Rademeyer & Butterworth 2018). Hence logically B0.1 is a proxy for BMSY. B0.1 is not estimated, but ICCAT scientists point out that fishing at or around F0.1 over the long term will result in the stock stabilizing at around B0.1 – even if a value cannot be assigned. Stock assessment projections from the base-case VPA model estimate that for low (recent) and medium (time-series average) recruitment scenarios, fishing at F0.1 results in a decline in biomass; i.e. that SB is currently above B0.1. Under the high recruitment scenario, this is not the case (but under that scenario, recruitment is not impaired by definition). (Note that in the stock assessment report, the retrospective analysis shows much of the recent increase in biomass driven by the final year of data, but this is much improved in the amended version where the final year of data shifts the whole biomass time series upwards but does not change relative trends; unfortunately a revised jack-knife analysis is not provided.)

Under GSA 2.2.3 MSC require that when there is explicit use of only a target reference point (F0.1) there should be some implicit consideration of a limit reference point (LRP). For the VPA model this is considered from Figure 1 below. Empirically, the base-case VPA results show a peak in recruitment ~1990-2010, corresponding to the low in the SB time series with an increase in SB since (see Figure 38 below; it is not very clear but is the only figure showing recruitment estimates for the amended base-case model used by SCRS (ICCAT 2017b). Taking into consideration the other stock assessment models, which were not used for providing advice, the SS3 and ACAP models show the same qualitative pattern; i.e. a recruitment maximum corresponding with a SB minimum and an increase in SB since (Figure 39). (The SCAL model shows a completely different biomass trend and estimates biomass to be higher than the other models but also increasing.) Taking this biomass low point as an implicit LRP, it is clear from the associated estimated trends in recruitment that it is above the PRI. Only the SS3 model was used to estimate stock status directly in relation to biomass reference points; projections for 2018 estimated SB at 85 % of SBMSY (see Table 5); i.e. significantly above the MSC default PRI of 50%SBMSY, although probability estimates are not provided.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 113 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 38. Trends in R (top) and SSB (bottom) for the original (left) and amended (right) base case VPA model. From (ICCAT 2017b)

Figure 39. Recruitment (left) and SB (right) as estimated by the four different assessment models. From (ICCAT 2017i) Scoring: There is no clear quantitative analysis which allows us to use the probabilistic definitions of likely, highly like etc. provided by MSC. Scoring therefore needs to be based on qualitative perceptions of probability and risk. The following summary points are relevant:

• For the base-case VPA model with recent or average recruitment, biomass is estimated to be already above B0.1 (i.e. fishing at F0.1 results in a decline in biomass); only a high recruitment scenario estimates that biomass is below B0.1 (because in this case, B0.1 is higher). In other words, according to the VPA either the biomass is already above the BMSY target level (proxy) or recruitment is high.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 114 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

• The SS3 model estimates biomass at ~85 % of SBMSY, which is above the MSC default PRI. • Both models are uncertain: the VPA assumption that catch-at-age is known is breached, while estimating MSY reference points based on a SR-relationship is very problematic. • Qualitatively, both models, plus the ASAP model show a peak in recruitment corresponding to a low in biomass (which is required to drive the observed rapid recovery of biomass), suggesting that recruitment cannot be driven by SB down to the minimum observed biomass level (LRP implicit proxy). • Scientists working in the Mediterranean on BFT-e spawning noted that ‘there are small fish everywhere’ (T. Rouyer, pers. comm.).

The team concluded on this basis, that it is at least ‘highly likely’ that the stock is above the PRI and recruitment is not impaired; SG80 is met. In relation to SG100 (high degree of certainty, 95% probability), the team decided to turn the question around, and evaluate if there could be considered to be a 5 % probability that the stock is below the PRI / recruitment is impaired. The team noted that the VPA estimates that recruitment is not impaired (SB at target level or recruitment high), the SS3 model says that recruitment is not impaired (SB at 85 % of SBMSY), all the models show maximum recruitment at biomass levels lower than the current levels and the perception of stakeholders is that recruitment is currently high. On this basis, the team concluded that it is not possible to argue for any significant possibility of recruitment impairment. SG100 is therefore met.

b Stock status in relation to achievement of MSY

Guidep The stock is at or fluctuating around a level There is a high degree of certainty that the stock has ost consistent with MSY. been fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY or has been above this level over recent years.

Met? Y N

Justific Neither the stock assessment group nor the SCRS considered that biomass reference points were reliable indicators of stock status, so this Scoring ation Issue is evaluated in relation to F0.1 (the agreed proxy for FMSY for the VPA model), although it is impossible to avoid drawing inferences about biomass. MSC FCR2.0 GSA 2.2.4 is used as a reference here.

The stock assessment (VPA base-case model, recent (low) recruitment) estimated that F/F0.1 = 0.34 (0.25-0.44 ~10 % and 90 % CIs). Biomass projections for the base-case model suggest that fishing at F0.1 would imply a TAC of ~40,000 t and would result in a decline in biomass, suggesting that biomass is at or above B0.1 (although this value remains unmeasured). Although under the VPA high recruitment scenario, B is estimated to be still below B0.1, TACs in the range set in recent years all result in F

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 115 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Under GSA 2.2.4 when using F as a proxy for scoring stock status the MSC state that:

‘At least an 80 score is justified (B highly likely above the PRI and at or fluctuating around BMSY) if F is likely to have been at or below FMSY for at least two generation times (or for at least four years, if greater) … while most species require about 2 generation times to recover from the PRI to BMSY when fishing is at FMSY, when F is reduced to 80 % FMSY or 60 % FMSY, the time for recovery may be halved.’ Generation time for BFT-e, calculated using MSC’s default method (Box GSA4) is 11 years, based on the age-at-maturity estimate published by Corriero et al. (2005) (5 years) and the age-specific rates of natural mortality used in the last stock assessments of BFT-e published by (Lauretta 2017), extrapolating the plus 10 age group to 20 years. This would give a default recovery time of ~22 years. However, this assumed recovery time can be halved when F is 60-80 % of FMSY. Under the VPA base model F2.5 (F on age classes 2-5) has been below F0.1 since 2007 and below F0.05 since 2008 (Figure 12). For F for the age plus group, F has been below F0.1 since 2009 and below F0.05 since 2010 (Figure 12). This means that the MSC requirements based on scoring F are met for F2.5 (23 years compared to the requirement of 22, taking two years for each year that F

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 116 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Figure 40. Mean (95 % Confidence Intervals) and median apical F calculated from the maximum value of each from 26 VPA scenario runs between 1968-2017.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 117 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

References Fromentin & Kell (2008), ICCAT (2017j; 2017b; 2018i; 2017i; 2018e), Rademeyer & Butterworth (2018), Carruthers & Kell (2017), MSC (2014).

Stock Status relative to Reference Points

Type of reference point Value of reference point Current stock status relative to reference point Reference point Empirical patterns in n/a n/a used in scoring recruitment and stock relative biomass to PRI (SIa) Reference point F0.1, B0.1 F0.1 = 0.107 (0.103-0.120) (median and ~10 F/F0.1 = 0.34 (0.25-0.44) used in scoring % and 90 % CIs, based on base case VPA stock relative with recent recruitment); B0.1 is not directly to MSY (SIb) estimated

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 118 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for 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 expected to The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of ost achieve stock management objectives the stock and the elements of the harvest strategy the stock and is designed to achieve stock reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. work together towards achieving stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80. SG80.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific MSC defines a harvest strategy as ‘the combination of monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control rules and management actions, which may ation include an MP or an MP (implicit) and be tested by MSE’ (MSC – MSCI Vocabulary v1.1). ICCAT have recently moved from a rebuilding plan to a multi-annual management plan, which came into force in 2019 (Rec. 2018-02). The stated goal of Rec. 2018-02 is to maintain the biomass around B0.1, to be achieved by fishing at F0.1 (since B0.1 cannot be measured directly). B0.1 is considered to be a reasonable proxy for BMSY. The plan is complex, with a wide range of elements (summarized in Stakeholders have noted that the 2020 TAC is the highest ever set for this stock, which is true since the first TAC which was set in 1998 was ~34,000 t and TACs subsequently (eventually) decreased to a low in 2009-2014 before starting the incremental increase set out above. There are, however, two elements which need to be borne in mind in relation to this before/after comparison: i) in the period 1998-2008, TACs were not respected at all – estimated annual catch was of the order of 50,000 t or higher; and ii) the size-frequency in the catch is now completely different from the size-frequency in the 1990s, as a consequence of the minimum size limits in the various rebuilding plans. This is clear if the bottom-left figure of Figure 13 is inspected; F on small size-classes (ages 2-5) has decreased by an order of magnitude (~0.25-~0.02) since ~2000. This means that absolute estimates of biomass reference levels such as B0.1 and BMSY will be different, and hence the two situations (before vs after) are not comparable in that way. Table 8, and section 3.3.8). The main measure is the TAC, which has been increased step-wise to 36,000 t, which will be reached in 2020. This TAC is still somewhat below the TAC implied by F0.1 under the base-case stock assessment model (see Table 6), reflecting the goal of the rebuilding plan (Rec. 17-07 and previous iterations) which was to achieve BMSY (B0.1) with at least 60 % probability (implying a median estimate of B somewhat above B0.1). The plan also contains a series of technical measures; notably minimum size provisions and a series of seasons by gear, as well as a large quantity of provisions for reporting and inspection which are intended to ensure that the TACs and other management measures are respected (see discussion in Section 3.3.8 and PI 3.2.3).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 119 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Unlike the previous rebuilding plan, the management plan does not include a specific provision allowing ICCAT to suspend the fishery from one year to the next. It does, however, include various provisions for modification of the plan based on new information: e.g. paragraph 1 allows for the plan to be modified based on the outcome of the MSE (currently underway; see Section 3.3.9), while paragraph 114 (Safeguards) allows the SCRS to propose adjustments to the TAC if stock assessment suggests that the plan is not achieving its objective and paragraphs 115-116 (Review clause) allow for i) annual review by Panel 2 and ii) review of the plan in 2020. On this basis, the harvest strategy can be said to be responsive to the state of the stock. The plan has been designed as a whole rather than put in place piecemeal and is the result of lessons learned over several years of rebuilding plans (since Rec. 2013-07). It includes the full range of elements in the MSC definition of a harvest strategy (i.e. monitoring, stock assessment, a harvest control rule and management actions), as well as implementation and enforcement provisions; but not yet an MSE, which is still in development. On this basis, SG80 and SG100 are met.

b Harvest strategy evaluation

Guidep The harvest strategy is likely to work The harvest strategy may not have been fully The performance of the harvest strategy has ost based on prior experience or plausible tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its been fully evaluated and evidence exists to show argument. objectives. that it is achieving its objectives including being clearly able to maintain stocks at target levels.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The stock assessment base case model, with stock projections under different scenarios (see Sections 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 ) provide evidence that the ation strategy is achieving its objectives, with F likely to be

In relation to SG100, the uncertainties in the stock assessment (which notably do not allow a robust estimate of B0.1 or B/B0.1) do not provide evidence that the plan is ‘clearly’ (i.e. with high certainty) able to maintain the stock at target levels; for example, the SS3 model suggested that TACs should be lower (Table 6). The harvest strategy has not been fully evaluated, although an MSE process is currently underway. SG100 is not met.

c Harvest strategy monitoring

Guidep Monitoring is in place that is expected ost to determine whether the harvest strategy is working.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 120 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y

Justific Monitoring and data collection (in general and of the UoA) is described in Section 3.3.9. This includes the CPC Bluefin Catch Document (BCD) ation scheme (the UoA uses the electronic version) and the GBYP programme for improving biology information. The stock assessment is compiled from information from the following sources: Catch data. Abundance indices Catch at size information Age and growth dtaa Stock composition data Natural mortality information Tagging studies

This comprehensive list indicates that appropriate monitor is in place that is expected to determine if the HS is working. SG60 met

d Harvest strategy review

Guidep The harvest strategy is periodically reviewed and ost improved as necessary.

Met? Y

Justific The harvest strategy (rebuilding plan / management plan) has been reviewed extensively; e.g. in 2013 (Res. 13-07); 2014 (14-04; 2017 (17-07) and ation 2018 (18-02). The management plan (18-02) is due to be reviewed again in 2020. Whether it has been improved is perhaps another question; the target biomass was reduced slightly from 17-07 to 18-02, and practical changes from 17-07 to 18-02 were mainly about reducing some of the practical requirements (seasons a bit longer, more derogations, some of the reserve quota distributed) rather than making substantive improvements. Nevertheless, an MSE process is underway, and the management plan is due for a full review in 2020, when the MSE is due to be completed. More generally, ICCAT’s approach could be summarised as subjecting the stock to

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 121 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

incremental increases in fishing pressure with monitoring to evaluate the outcome. Given the uncertainty in the stock assessment, this seems like a reasonable empirical approach. SG100 Met.

e Shark finning

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

Met? N/A N/A N/A

Justific BFT-e is not a shark (SA2.4.3) therefore this SI is not applicable. ation f Review of alternative measures Guidep There has been a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biannual review of the potential ost effectiveness and practicality of effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative alternative measures to minimise UoA- measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of related mortality of unwanted catch of unwanted catch of the target stock and they are unwanted catch of the target stock, and they are the target stock. implemented as appropriate. implemented, as appropriate.

Met? N/A N/A N/A

Justific In PIs 2.1.2 and 2.2.2, the term ‘unwanted catch’ shall be interpreted by the team as the part of the catch that a fisher did not intend to catch but ation could not avoid and did not want or chose not to use (SA3.1.6). There is no unwanted catch in this fishery; each BFT-e brought on board is treated with great care and tagged with an individually-numbered tag. There is no catch of undersized fish in this fishery, since it takes place at relatively high latitude where only large fish are found. Not applicable.

References ICCAT (2014a; 2018i; 2017a; 2018d), MSC (2014), also see background Sections 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 for figures.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 122 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for 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 HCRs are in place or Well defined HCRs are in place that ensure The HCRs are expected to keep the stock fluctuating ost available that are expected to reduce the that the exploitation rate is reduced as the at or above a target level consistent with MSY, or exploitation rate as the point of recruitment PRI is approached, are expected to keep the another more appropriate level taking into account impairment (PRI) is approached. stock fluctuating around a target level the ecological role of the stock, most of the time. consistent with (or above) MSY, or for key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem needs.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The HCR, as based on the management objectives of Rec. 2018-02 with TACs set such that F=F0.1. In practice, however, the TACs set out in 2018-02 ation are most likely somewhat below this level (see Table 7). As noted above, this is because they are the same as those already agreed under the rebuilding plan (Rec. 17-07) where the objective was more conservative (B above B0.1 with 60 % probability). In addition, it was proposed by the SCRS and agreed by the Commission that TACs should be increased step-wise rather than in large jumps. Thus the TACs set out in 2018-02 do not in practice conform to the HCR. Nevertheless, given the history of this stock, it is hard to criticize ICCAT for being cautious (in fact, criticism generally says the opposite). The HCR is clearly defined and should ensure that exploitation rate is maintained around B0.1 (by way of adjusting exploitation rate to maintain F at F0.1, depending, for example, on future levels of recruitment). B0.1 is considered by the SCRS to be a suitable proxy for BMSY, F0.1 will decrease as B declines so the rate of fishing mortality on the stock is reduced as the PRI is approached. SG80 is therefore met. In relation to SG100, the HCR does not take into account the ecological role of the stock. There are also significant uncertainties, some of which are incorporated (e.g. via management by F rather than B) and some of which are not (e.g. choice of stock assessment model, recruitment regime shifts). On that basis, it is difficult to predict what will happen more than a couple of years into the future; hence SCRS have proposed a further stock assessment in 2020, as well as a review of the management plan, and have not proposed TACs beyond this point. SG100 is not met.

b HCRs robustness to uncertainty

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 123 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guidep The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main The HCRs take account of a wide range of ost uncertainties. uncertainties including the ecological role of the stock, and there is evidence that the HCRs are robust to the main uncertainties.

Met? N N

Justific As noted above, some of the main uncertainties have been incorporated into the HCR (i.e. via applying it to F rather than B) but some have not (e.g. ation choice of stock assessment model, future recruitment). SCRS have so far proposed (and ICCAT have agreed) to apply the HCR with circumspection; i.e. maintaining in 2018-02 the agreed TACs from 2017-07 rather than setting TACs based on F0.1 as implied by the HCR. This suggests that they are not confident that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties. Indeed, if at the next stock assessment the Stock Synthesis model can be developed to a point where it is equally as suitable as the VPA for providing management advice (as is the case for the western stock), conclusions as to F and TACs may be somewhat different. On this basis, it is hard to argue that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties; in our view, ICCAT are wise to use it with caution. SG80 is not met.

c HCRs evaluation Guidep Evidence clearly shows that the tools in use are There is some evidence that tools used or Available evidence indicates that the tools ost effective in achieving the exploitation levels required available to implement HCRs are appropriate in use are appropriate and effective in under the HCRs. and effective in controlling exploitation. achieving the exploitation levels required under the HCRs.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The main tool to implement the HCR is TACs, which as noted in 1.2.2a are currently at a lower level than implied by the HCR, on the basis that ation increases should be incremental. The stock assessment assumes that there are no unreported catches which may not in fact be the case (see Principle 3.2.3), but overall monitoring, reporting and enforcement measures are strict relative to most fisheries. A range of other tools are also in use; i.e. minimum legal size (MLS), seasonal closure and requirements on CPCs to manage capacity (Table 8). The MLS provisions appear to have been successful in reducing F on juveniles enormously (an order of magnitude; see Figure 14). Fishing capacity has also clearly declined since 2008 but may now be increasing faster than estimated by SCRS (Rouyer & Miller 2018) however for capacity to build it must be presented in a capacity management plan to be approved by ICCAT Panel 2.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 124 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Despite uncertainties in the stock assessment, the SCRS appear confident that F is likely to be below F0.1, has been since 2010 (VPA model, Figure 12) and will likely continue to be based on the current TAC regime for the next few years. Biomass can be seen to be recovering in all the stock assessment models (Figure 15). SG80 is met.

SG100 requires that the evidence ‘clearly shows’ that tools are effectively achieving F0.1 or below. While this is likely, the judgement of the team is that the stock assessment remains too uncertain to make this statement definitively. Furthermore, while catches should be restrained by the TAC, clearly a faster underlying increase in capacity risks increasing political pressure for increases in the TAC above a precautionary level. SG100 is not met.

References ICCAT (2014a; 2018i; 2017a; 2018d), MSC (2014), also see background Sections 3.3.6 and 3.3.7 for figures.

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 1

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 125 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for 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 information related to Sufficient relevant information related to stock A comprehensive range of information (on stock ost stock structure, stock productivity and structure, stock productivity, fleet composition structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock fleet composition is available to and other data is available to support the abundance, UoA removals and other information such support the harvest strategy. harvest strategy. as environmental information), including some that may not be directly related to the current harvest

strategy, is available.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific There has been a massive effort to improve information and monitoring for BFT-e over the last decade; both in terms of monitoring the fishery ation (the electronic catch documentation scheme) and in terms of understanding the biology, ecology and dynamics of the stock (GBYP). The requirements of the eBCD and the objectives and activities of the GBYP are described in Section 3.3.9. In relation to the types of information listed in the SGs: Stock structure: Otolith microchemistry, genetics and tagging have been used to evaluate stock structure and specifically mixing between eastern and western Atlantic stocks, although in terms of stock assessment, this is more of an issue for the western Atlantic stock which is much smaller. The stock assessment has been run based on fish origin as well as fish capture location. Details are given in Section 3.3.2. Stock productivity: Age and growth has been extensively studied; some information about recent work is given in Section 3.3.9. It remains a source of uncertainty in the assessment, as it does for most tuna stock assessments (see for example recent MSC assessments of western Pacific bigeye and yellowfin), but particularly in this case because of the assumptions underlying a VPA, and because age cohorts are hard to distinguish above a certain size. Size composition in cages is monitored directly via stereoscopic cameras during cage transfer operations. Various options for estimating and modelling natural mortality were considered by the stock assessment during the data preparation phase. Fleet composition: Fleet composition is known; all vessels targeting BFT-e must be registered with ICCAT and have quota allocation. Stock abundance: Various indices are used as proxies for stock abundance, including passive fishery indices (trap indices), fishing CPUE indices and fishery-independent indices (larval and aerial surveys); see Section 3.3.9 for a list.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 126 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Removals: As noted above, the eBCD system aims to track all removals with high confidence and accuracy. Growth of farmed fish (weight in vs weight out) remains problematic, although stereoscopic cameras are now used for monitoring of all transfers. As noted below, it is not foolproof (see PI 3.2.3) but is better than exists in most tuna fisheries. Biology: As well as age/growth, natural mortality and genetics, other aspects of bluefin basic biology have been studied under the GBYP programme; e.g. using conventional and electronic tags to evaluate migratory routes, seasonal movements, dive behaviour and the location of feeding and spawning areas. Environmental information: Seasonal movements, spawning and (crucially) recruitment are thought to be linked to environmental cues and drivers; there has been research in this area although as for most species of fish, it is not well understood. Other: A remarkable result of the GBYP, and is extremely rare for an exploited fish species, is the study of the history of exploitation of BFT-e and the development of extremely long historical time series of catches – back as far as the early 16th century. This has allowed exploration of multi- decadal trends and cycles and their possible connection with large-scale oceanographic processes such as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) (Faillettaz et al. 2019). On this basis, we conclude that there is a comprehensive range of information available, sufficient for the harvest strategy and including some not directly related to the harvest strategy (although nevertheless of great interest). SG100 is met.

b Monitoring

Guidep Stock abundance and UoA removals Stock abundance and UoA removals are All information required by the harvest control rule is ost are monitored and at least one regularly monitored at a level of accuracy and monitored with high frequency and a high degree of indicator is available and monitored coverage consistent with the harvest control certainty, and there is a good understanding of with sufficient frequency to support rule, and one or more indicators are available inherent uncertainties in the information [data] and the harvest control rule. and monitored with sufficient frequency to the robustness of assessment and management to this support the harvest control rule. uncertainty.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Stock abundance and removals (total and UoA) are monitored as described in SIa above; as specified in the provisions of Rec. 18-02. Because of ation the eBCD system, coverage and accuracy are thought to be high, although estimates of some removals such as recreational catch may be less accurate. Indicators are reviewed annually by SCRS, and there are periodic stock assessments (2014, 2017, recommended for 2020). SG80 is met. Although uncertainties for the HCR relate more to structural factors in the stock assessment (e.g. choice of assessment model), some information which would be extremely useful in applying (or choosing) the HCR is not easily available; notably recruitment. Although recruitment is monitored

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 127 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

to some extent (e.g. via aerial surveys of spawning aggregations and larval surveys in the western Mediterranean, and from fisheries which take relatively small individuals), factors which might predict the level of recruitment (be that spawner biomass or environmental factors) are not well understood, and this is a significant source of uncertainty in the stock assessment and hence the application of the HCR. It is also not possible to estimate biomass-based reference points, requiring the HCR to be expressed in terms of F. There are also concerns about how fishing capacity is estimated and monitored; a potential future risk. SG100 is not met.

c Comprehensiveness of information

Guidep There is good information on all other fishery ost removals from the stock.

Met? N

Justific MSC guidance GSA2.6.1: The reference to ‘other’ fishery removals in scoring issue (c) relates to vessels outside or not covered by the unit of ation assessment. These require good information but not necessarily to the same level of accuracy or coverage as that covered by the second scoring issue. The ICCAT requirements for recording catch information (catch documentation scheme) are summarised in Section 3.3.9.1. These apply to all fisheries targeting bluefin tuna or which have bluefin quota. There is therefore good information on these removals. There are two areas of potential concern: IUU removals and the recreational fishery. WWF-Mediterranean have been compiling information on seizures of illegal bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean (which has been the key area for IUU on BFT-e for several decades) since 2015. They record IUU landings over the last 4 years (2015-2018) ranging from 35-117 tonnes per year, from four countries – Spain, Italy, Tunisia and Algeria. 117 t of bluefin represents 0.4% of the TAC for 2018. It is of course likely (in the nature of IUU) that the real quantity of IUU landings is much higher than the quantity seized. If we make the assumption that 10% of IUU landings are seized and recorded by WWF, this means that Mediterranean IUU would account for ~4% of the TAC. (This is, however, just an order of magnitude estimate). The team were given an overall estimate of 2,500 t IUU, but neither the source nor the time period over which this occurred is clear, however, if over one year this would represent 9 % of the (2018) TAC. The recreational fishery is likewise mainly from the Mediterranean, and mainly from EU countries. The stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT 2017j) indicates that recreational catches are quantified in the catch data, at least in the more recent parts of the time series (since 1990), although they may not be that accurate. It is reported in France that recreational catches are estimated to be minor (~1 % of the quota) but this may not be the case though out the Mediterranean.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 128 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Overall, there is no clear evidence that unquantified removals are a major concern for the stock assessment; they are one of a range of uncertainties, and most likely not the most serious. However, it is not possible to say at this point that there is ‘good’ information on all removals from the stock – not met.

References Fonteneau et al. (2014), Garcia et al. (2017), ICCAT (2017l; 2017k; 2011c; 2018g; 2018c; 2017e; 2019b), Lauretta (2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 2

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 129 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 1.2.4 – Assessment of stock status

PI 1.2.4 There is an adequate assessment of the stock status Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Appropriateness of assessment to stock under consideration

Guidep The assessment is appropriate for the stock and The assessment takes into account the major features ost for the harvest control rule. relevant to the biology of the species and the nature of the UoA.

Met? Y N

Justific The stock assessment uses a wide range of data, as described in Section 3.3.9. A range of models were tried, and hence the outcome makes the best ation use of the available data. It provides the required information (F/F0.1) for the HCR, giving a range of results for different scenarios. SG80 is met. The assessment incorporates elements of the biology of the species (e.g. age/growth, M, size/age at maturity etc.). However, VPA is an unsophisticated stock assessment approach compared to that used for most tuna assessments (including for BFT-w) and cannot take account of elements such as population spatial structure (although this is not guaranteed to improve the output; (Carruthers & Kell 2017)). There remain issues in the biology of the species which cause considerable problems for the VPA assessment; notably the requirement for accurate catch-at-age data, as well as drivers of recruitment. SG100 is not met.

b Assessment approach

Guidep The assessment estimates stock status The assessment estimates stock status relative ost relative to generic reference points to reference points that are appropriate to the appropriate to the species category. stock and can be estimated.

Met? Y Y

Justific Reference points F0.1 (and implicitly B0.1) are considered more appropriate for the stock than MSY reference points, because it is not possible to ation make a robust estimate of a SR relationship. F0.1 can be estimated and hence forms the basis of the HCR – fishing at F0.1 will result in biomass B0.1 in the long term even if this is unknown and variable (due to changes in recruitment). Given the uncertainties, this seems to be the best approach. SG80 is met.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 130 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

c Uncertainty in the assessment

Guidep The assessment identifies major The assessment takes uncertainty into account. The assessment takes into account uncertainty and is ost sources of uncertainty. evaluating stock status relative to reference points in a probabilistic way.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The uncertainties in the assessment are highlighted by the stock assessment group as well as SCRS; a Kobe plot is not provided because estimates of ation biomass reference points are not considered robust. Projections under the VPA are given under three different recruitment scenarios, and the scientists do not try to predict which is the ‘reference case’ from these three. The results of alternative models and model settings were extensively considered and discussed during the stock assessment workshop. SG80 is met.

Approximate CIs are provided for some parameter estimates (e.g. F/F0.1) from the VPA reference case model, but of course this is not a true reflection of the actual level of uncertainty (i.e. considering other possible VPA settings, other models). SG100 is not met.

d Evaluation of assessment

Guidep The assessment has been tested and shown to be ost robust. Alternative hypotheses and assessment approaches have been rigorously explored.

Met? N

Justific The assessment is not very robust, for reasons already outline above and in PI 1.1.1. Testing with simulated data shows the potential for bias in ation outputs. Alternative approaches have been extensively tried but so far have not proved robust either. Not met.

e Peer review of assessment

Guidep The assessment of stock status is subject to The assessment has been internally and externally peer ost peer review. reviewed.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 131 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y Y

Justific It is the intent of ICCAT to provide external review as part of their initiative to provide best available science (see Resolution 2011/017). The ation assessments are conducted by a group of 30-40 scientists of many different nationalities and representing many different countries as well as formal observers ( groups, NGOs). Qualified scientists representing different interest groups are often included within a member state's scientific delegation, as are scientists hired as external reviewers by the member state. Additionally, the ICCAT-SCRS has a system of bringing on external reviewers for key issues on the SCRS agenda including BFT. Also, BFT-e status has been reviewed through CITES criteria with FAO expert working groups. Finally, BFT assessments have had a history of journal-peer review articles addressing aspects of the assessment. The degree of "peer" review of Atl BFT surpasses most assessments. Sg100 is met.

References ICCAT (2017j; 2017a; 2017i), Carruthers & Kell (2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 132 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 1.2 Principle 2

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.1 – Primary species outcome

PI 2.1.1 The UoA aims to maintain primary species above the PRI and does not hinder recovery of primary species if they are below the PRI. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main primary species stock status

Guidepost Main primary species are likely to be above Main primary species are highly likely to be There is a high degree of certainty that main the PRI above the PRI primary species are above the PRI and are fluctuating around a level consistent with OR OR MSY. If the species is below the PRI, the UoA has If the species is below the PRI, there is either measures in place that are expected to evidence of recovery or a demonstrably ensure that the UoA does not hinder effective strategy in place between all MSC recovery and rebuilding. UoAs which categorise this species as main, to ensure that they collectively do not hinder recovery and rebuilding.

Met? Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - N Blue Shark – Y Blue Shark – Y Blue Shark – N Argentine shortfin squid – Y Argentine shortfin squid – Y Argentine shortfin squid – N

Justification The main primary species identified for this fishery are Western stock of Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT-w), blue shark and Argentine shortfin squid. Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w): The SCRS found that it was not possible to calculate biomass-based reference points (e.g., BMSY and FMSY) without knowledge (or assumptions) about how future recruitment potential relationship to spawning stock biomass. In the absence of such knowledge, the SCRS in the 2017 stock assessment provided short-term management advice based on a fishing mortality rate (i.e. F0.1) that the SCRS considers to be a reasonable proxy for FMSY. The SCRS indicated that fishing consistently at F0.1 would, over the long-term, cause the stock to fluctuate around a biomass level associated with that fishing mortality rate (i.e., B0.1), whatever the future recruitment potential. Under the SS3 model F has been below F0.1 since 2004 and for the VPA model since 2012 (Figure 17). In the cases where a PRI is undefined MSC GSA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 133 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

2.2.3.1 notes where neither BMSY nor the PRI are analytically determined, the following default reference points may be appropriate for measuring stock status depending on the species: BMSY=40%B0; PRI=20%B0 = ½BMSY. Total biomass in 2015 was 18 % of biomass in 1950 and 45 % of biomass in 1974 (Figure 16). Therefore even though F is lower than F0.1, the biomass level of 18% cannot be considered to be likely above the PRI. However, the genetic evidence from the Japanese Longline fleet suggest a maximum of 11 % BFT-w catch in the BFT-e catch (7.4.13.1 a. The non-target catch is practicably indistinguishable during normal fishing operations (i.e., the catch is from a stock of the same species or a closely related species) Western Atlantic (BFT-w) and Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna (BFT-e) (Thunnus thynnus) are the same species with distinct breeding grounds on either side of the Atlantic (eastern (Mediterranean Sea) and western (Gulf of Mexico) (Rooker et al. 2014). There is no way to determine the origins of an individual fish reliably by external morphological traits. Identification is conditional on otolith or DNA techniques (Rodríguez et al. 2017; Rooker et al. 2014), which is not possible during normal fishing operations. 7.4.13.1.a is therefore met. 7.4.13.1 b. When distinguishable, it is not commercially feasible to separate due to the practical operation of the fishery that would require significant modification to existing harvesting and processing methods. Does not apply as the stocks are indistinguishable. 7.4.13.1 c. The total combined proportion of catches from the IPI stock(s) do not exceed 15% by weight of the total combined catches of target and IPI stock(s) for the UoA UoAs fleet*. *based on the accepted VR. The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) and its Scientific Committee (SCRS) have undertaken work to understand stock mixing based on otolith and genetic links between the BFT stocks. The Japanese fisheries research institute has completed DNA and otolith research on Japan-caught longline BFT-e as part of their shared information requirements to ICCAT. There are a number of published articles and ICCAT reports on otolith and DNA techniques which assess the degree of mixing between the stocks across the range of the BFT-e stock. Findings on stock mixing which include the Japanese longline fleet data were published in 2014 (Rooker et al., 2014) and 2017 (Rodríguez et al. 2017; Morse et al. 2017). Stock mixing data is accounted for the stock assessment sessions by running the model based on the stock origin of the catch as well as catch location (ICCAT 2017i) and is being considered in the Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) program (ICCAT 2019d). A recent publication by ICCAT highlighted new information from the analyses of otolith chemistry and genetics data on stock mixing (ICCAT 2019d; Arrizabalanga et al. 2019). The observation was made that potentially as soon as BFT-e fish depart the Mediterranean for the wider Atlantic, its otolith chemistry signal starts to be less differentiable from the Gulf of Mexico fish. It suggests that this may be due to the sharp gradient in delO18 chemistry between the Mediterranean and adjacent Atlantic waters (ICCAT 2019d). When the same samples were analysed for both otolith chemistry and genetics, different perceptions of stock assignments were produced. The otolith chemistry suggests more BFT-w fish in the Eastern Atlantic while the genetics data which is more consistent with the tagging methods suggest fewer BFT-w fish (ICCAT 2019d). Finally, the scientific group recommended that genetics should be used primarily to determine stock of origin, not otolith chemistry (ICCAT 2019d). CU Pesca have therefore adopted ICCAT’s recommendation and used genetic data from the Japanese longline fleet to assess mixing within the Japanese longline fleet catches. The genetic study was undertaken by ICCAT using a genetic traceability tool consisting of 96 Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms (SNP) which took place over a five-year period between 2011-2015 and was published by ICCAT in 2017 (Rodríguez et al. 2017).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 134 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

According to this genetic analysis, the proportion of BFT-w in the area Central Atlantic (East) (CAE) from the Japanese longline fleet ranged from 0 to 11 % with a 5 year average of 3.8 % when an assignment score threshold of 90 % was applied (Rodríguez et al. 2017) (Table 3.1). The annual variability under this method was also < 15 % (maximum 11.1 %) for the CAE area and confirms that temporal variability for the past five years of available data is <15 % by the Japanese long line fleet as a proxy for the UoA. Table 25). As a precaution the assessment team took this maximum rather than the average (3.8 %) to define annual catch against the UoA records. This amounts to 5.4 t in 2016 and 4.7 t 2017 based on the UoA catches values in Table 3. The annual TAC for BFT-w for 2018 – 2020 is set at 2,350 t of which the UoA catch would amount to 0.2 % of the overall TAC (6 t/2,350 t*100). There are currently no other MSC certified fisheries which define BFT-w as a ‘main’ species therefore cumulative impacts are not required (Section 0). The overall impact of the UoA and therefore ‘all MSC UoAs which categorise this species as main’ is the same (~0.2 %) of the TAC. This low level of catch is a result of the strategy in place from ICCAT limiting spatial access to the BFT-w resource through issuing of stock area based TACs. The UoA under consideration here hold no BFT-w quota and cannot fish to the west of 450 W. The low impact (as percentage of TAC) and the lack of access to the area in which BFT-w primarily reside constitute an effective strategy to not hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG80 is met.

Blue shark: Atlantic blue shark comes under the remit of ICCAT, who distinguish two stocks, North and South Atlantic, with possibility of a third one in the Mediterranean. The most recent Northern Blue shark stock assessment was in 2015; although an improvement on previous assessments, the working group found it impossible to provide a robust estimate of absolute biomass levels (ICCAT 2015c). Although the Committee acknowledged that there still remained a high level of uncertainty in data inputs and model structural assumptions, all current model scenarios suggested that the stock is sustainably exploited, and ICCAT consider that the status of the North Atlantic stock is unlikely to be either overfished or subject to overfishing (ICCAT, 2015). Figure 19 shows that current B is above BMSY and F below FMSY thus highly unlikely to be below PRI. Thus SG60 and SG80 is met. Figure 19 and Figure 20 indicate that B is above MSY and has been for the entire time series, suggestive that SG100 could be met but the uncertainty in the model structure the team score precautionary and SG100 is not considered met.

Argentine shortfin squid: Argentine shortfin squid stock status is currently considered as low but showing recovery since 2016, according to the latest monthly catch result within Argentine EEZ reported by Argentine government. Both of the independent evaluation by FishSource (2019) and Safina Center (2014) evaluate the stock level to be recovering. The natural annual variability in the stock, resultant from its annual life-cycle means that biomass estimates are required in real time from recruit surveys and observer data. Retrospective analysis has concluded that the Argentine shortfin squid management program has maintained a healthy status under current fisheries exploitation (Chang et al. 2016; Wang, Chen, Staples, et al. 2018) with F < 0.1, presumably this reflects a an equivalent B exploitation of ~0.1 and therefore the stock is not near PRI. Indeed the total squid biomass for the studied years was estimated more than 2-fold higher than the annual catch, indicating that the stock remains in a healthy status under current fisheries exploitation. Analysis of the stock to 2010 indicate that the stock was approximate to MSY (Figure 22) Based on the information above the team consider SG60 and SG80 to be met. However, catch data includes a level of uncertainty and the stock is subject to natural fluctuations between depletion and recovery resultant from stock

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 135 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

recruitment being highly environmentally and annually dependent and there is no current certainty in regard to MSY year on year, therefore SG100 is not met.

b Minor primary species stock status

Guidepost Minor primary species are highly likely to be above 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? Shortfin mako shark – Y Japanese pilchard - Y

Justification Shortfin mako shark: Shortfin mako shark is currently depleted and in need of recovery with high degree of certainty, reference to a PRI within the stock assessment is not explicit however as a precaution the assessment team considered that this may be possible. However, observer records provide evidence that the fishery catch very minor quantities of this species (one in three years) and this was immediately discarded (Figure 7). Survival rates of discard shortfin mako sharks are high (70 %). On this basis the UoA is not likely to hinder the recovery and rebuilding of the stock SG100 is met

Japanese pilchard (bait): The bait suppliers harvest Japanese pilchard from the Pacific Ocean stock. The assessment scientists use cohort analysis to estimate Japanese pilchard Pacific Ocean stock biomasses at age and evaluate SSB against a Blimit of 221,000 mt to determine stock status. Blimit was the estimated SSB in 1996, a level below which recruitment is thought to be poor. 2017 SSB estimate (2,150,000 t) showed a rapid increase from 2016 (891,000 t), showing the stock is highly likely above the Blimit (a suitable proxy for PRI). Available information suggests that the stock is currently above PRI and recovering, although abundance is still far below peak levels. SG100 is considered to be met for both species.

References Agnew et al. (2005), Porch & Hanke (2017), FAJ & FREI (2015), Fishbase (2017), FRA (2018c; 2018b), ICCAT (2015c; 2017g; 2017k; 2017f; 2016a), Wang, Chen & Chen (2018), Kai (2017), Chang et al. (2016), FRA (2018a)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 136 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 137 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.2 – Primary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of primary species, and the UoA regularly reviews and PI 2.1.2 implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There are measures in place for the UoA, if There is a partial strategy in place for the There is a strategy in place for the UoA for necessary, that are expected to maintain or UoA, if necessary, that is expected to managing main and minor primary species. to not hinder rebuilding of the main primary maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of the species at/to levels which are likely to above main primary species at/to levels which are the point where recruitment would be highly likely to be above the point where impaired. recruitment would be impaired.

Met? Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) – N Blue shark – Y Blue shark – Y Blue shark – N Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - N Minor species - N

Justification Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w): A rebuilding strategy has been in place for the stock since 1998 with an aim to reach BMSY with 50 % certainty. This has not been met. Rather current management advice is however based on fishing mortality reference points rather than SSB due to uncertainty in long term recruitment potential. The F reference point use to assess the fishery is F0.1 with short term yield-based projection based on recent recruitment. The principle management measure in place is the TAC. The Commission in recommendation 17-06 set a TAC of 2,350 t for 2018, 2019 and 2020. Projections indicate that these catches would be unlikely to lead to overfishing for this three-year time period. As there were no signs in the fishery indicators (10 CPUEs indices and two survey data sets) in 2018 data that would indicate a reason to alter current management in 2018 this recommendation was maintained. As per PI 2.1.1a. the UoA catch would amount to 0.2 % of the overall TAC (6 t/2,350 t*100). This low level of catch is a result of the strategy in place from ICCAT limiting spatial access to the BFT-w resource through issuing of stock area based TACs. The UoA under consideration here hold no BFT-w quota and cannot fish to the west of 450 W. The low impact (as percentage of TAC) and the lack of access to the area in which BFT-w primarily reside constitute an effective strategy to not hinder recovery and rebuilding. SG80 is met. The lack of possible formal identification of BFT-w in all UoA catches prevents SG100 being met

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 138 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Blue shark: Due to existing data uncertainty in bluefin shark stock assessment, continued monitoring of the fisheries by observer and port sampling programmes are recommended to ensure that catch levels are not increased beyond those of recent years. In the ICCAT meeting in 2016, it is agreed that the North Atlantic stock of blue shark is managed with a total limit of 39,000 t (average of 2011~2015 catch). ICCAT via recommendation 16-12 ensure that a review of current measures will take place if current catch limits exceeds average catch levels between 2011-2015 (ICCAT 2016a). All RFMOs require that the whole body of retained sharks is used, with all parts attached until landing or transhipment, as well as reporting of catch data. Under this recommendation, MAFF’s ministerial order article 28-2 require that all released sharks need to be recorded in the logbook at the section of “bycatch species” with the number of fish and the species name. In addition, the robustness of reported bycatch number shall be cross-checked with observer reports. However, there is a clear limit in observer records’ accuracy (they can only record while on duty) as seen in the discrepancy in the vessel and observer’s reported number of blue sharks in this assessment and it is not clear how this cross-check requirement has been met. The vessel conducts a partial strategy to record and report bycatch numbers with provided logbook format. However at the site visit, there were some inconsistencies in response of crews in released blue shark count and reporting measures. The UoA strategy includes releasing blue shark upon capture and using circle hooks. Blue shark survival rates indicate that quick release and use of circle hooks reduce post-release fishing mortality (Musyl & Gilman 2019). Unobserved mortality (post capture) has been evaluated in Atlantic longliners and found to be <20 % for blue shark (Gallagher et al. 2014). Therefore SG80 is considered to be met. However as demonstrated in the data discrepancy and unclearness of protocols established in reporting released blue shark number at vessel, there does not seem to have a strategy to fully manage main and minor primary species to ensure accuracy and other review of monitoring compliance, thus SG100 is not met.

Argentine shortfin squid (bait) As per https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Assigning-bait-category-in-FCR-v2-0-plus-RBF-and-cumulative-considerations-FCR- v2-0-SA-3-1-7-SA-3-4-2-GSA-3-4-2-1527262006141 For bait and this SI the team have to evaluate the management PIs for the external bait fishery, therefore evaluating those scoring issues for a completely separate fishery outside the UoA.

Management of stocks is primarily based on effort control by limiting the length of the fishing seasons and the number of vessels. There is a target reference point set and effort control measures set for the stocks, with a real-time monitoring system. The assessment is based in a real-time monitoring (observers) that report on the weekly evolution of the fishery from which the starting point is the Pre-recruits to the fishery estimated in the research surveys. The management objective is to allow the escape of a sufficient number of spawners to ensure a good recruitment next year. The level of fishing mortality is adjusted to insure 40 % proportional escapement (this was defined as the ratio of the final stock size after fishing to the final stock size that would have been present in the absence of fishing) (Agnew et al. 2005). The Shofuku Maru No.1 has a sustainable sourcing policy from 2017 (Appendix 8) to only source baits from registered vessels to ensure that baits sources are not IUU origin. Since baits are sourced through a number of buyers between the fishery origin and the company selling to the UoA, the origin of baits is known from catch certification since the Argentinean government started to issue in 2016 (Disposition 78 -

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 139 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

E/2016, 05/09/2016). In addition, Bait importation into the EU requires catch certification. The fishery uses less than 12 t year when the annual catch on the stock is >500 000 t, therefore the amount of bait used is considered insignificant in comparison to the total landings of the stock. The sustainable sourcing policy includes the company’s strategy to consider other available resources when the resources stock status is low and ensure to confirm legal origin and required certification upon purchase of baits from 2019. This can be considered as a partial strategy in place for the fishery to maintain the impacts of the fishery in minimum. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met.

Minor primary species (SG100 only) Shortfin Mako There are measures in place from ICCAT through resolution 07-06 that until sustainable levels of harvest can be determined through stock assessments CPCs shall take appropriate measures to reduce F for shortfin mako. It does not stipulate the measures but Japan is required to show evidence of measures through resolution 16-13. Though with current catch rate (less than one per year), UoA does not seem to hinder the recovery and rebuilding of this species, and UoA measures include the return to the water those sharks caught as soon as possible. Unobserved mortality (post capture) has been evaluated in Atlantic longliners and found to be <30 % for shortfin mako shark (Gallagher et al. 2014).However, to meet SG100, the client needs to practice recording and reporting in logbooks when shortfin mako shark is accidentally caught, as currently observer record is the only way to be reported to analyse existing catch. Therefore SG100 is not met for this species.

Japanese pilchard As per https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Assigning-bait-category-in-FCR-v2-0-plus-RBF-and-cumulative-considerations-FCR- v2-0-SA-3-1-7-SA-3-4-2-GSA-3-4-2-1527262006141 For bait and this SI the team have to evaluate the management PIs for the external bait fishery, therefore evaluating those scoring issues for a completely separate fishery outside the UoA. The FAJ conduct annual stock assessments on this stock with a suitable TAC as the principle control tool. Available information suggests that the stock is currently above PRI and recovering, although abundance is still far below peak levels (FRA 2018a).

Japanese pilchard is used as bait for this fishery. The client has in place the sustainable bait sourcing policy as described above, this does not currently include Japanese pilchard sourcing, however it is likely the sardine bought exported into the EU/Las Palmas would carry a catch certificate, though this could not be verified at the site visit. Overall, it is not considered that a strategy for management is in place and thus SG100 is not met for this species. b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g., general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 140 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

experience, theory or comparison with based on some information directly about information directly about the fishery similar fisheries/species). the fishery and/or species involved. and/or species involved.

Met? Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) -Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - N Blue shark – Y Blue shark – N Blue shark – N Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - N Minor species - Y Minor species - Y Minor species - N

Justification Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w): The partial strategy relates to the limited access of the UoA to the BFT-w resource (those fish which cross the 450W management boundary) and the proportional impact of the UoA against the principle control tool (TAC). The 2017 stock assessments do not provide management advice based on MSY reference points. Instead, the focus is on giving short-term advice based on F reference point (F0.1), a proxy for FMSY, using recent recruitment assuming that near term recruitment will be similar to the recent past recruitment. Short term projections from 2018 -2020 result in stock decline despite the F limited to F0.1. The decline is predicted based on the 2003 year class moving out of the fishery (ICCAT 2018i). The Committee noted though that the TAC recommendation [Rec. 17-06] (ICCAT 2017f) is expected to lead to decreases in the stock but not lead to overfishing. Most importantly, SCRS state that if a F0.1 strategy continues to be applied, over the longer term the resource would fluctuate around the true, but unknown value of B0.1 whatever the future recruitment level. Two stock models were selected by the research committee from four tested, these were virtual population analysis (VPA) and Stock Synthesis (SS). Using F0.1 as a proxy for FMSY, current F estimated from the VPA relative to the F0.1 reference point was 0.72, while for SS Fcurrent/F0.1 was 0.56 indicating that overfishing is not occurring under both models. Under the SS model F has been below F0.1 since 2004 while for the VPA model since 2012 (Figure 17). Furthermore, current biomass estimates in both models are higher than those between 1985 and 2005 (Figure 16) and have increased since 2004. This is indicative of current total biomass being a product of lower past biomasses. Finally, similar rebuilding strategies were applied for BFT-e which has seen stock recovery (see Principle 1). On the weight of evidence from above the team are confident that SG80 is met. For SG100 testing of the strategy will improve with the development of the MSE on BFT (ICCAT 2019b) but this is not currently developed therefore SG100 is not met.

Blue shark: Monitoring and reporting along with measures not to increase bycatch are recommended and measures are in place in several layers of management (ICCAT and CFC management body including MAFF in Japan). The UoA strategy includes releasing blue shark upon capture and using circle hooks. Blue shark survival rates indicate that quick release and use of circle hooks reduce post-release fishing mortality (Musyl & Gilman 2019). Therefore SG60 is considered to be met. However, ICES (2017) reports that overall catch data for Atlantic blue shark is incomplete, and the extent of finning in high seas fisheries is unclear (however see description of this for the UoA under SI d). The historical use of generic shark categories is also problematic, although European countries now report more species-specific data. Generally, the overall data for blue shark (and sharks in general) reported to

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 141 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

ICCAT has improved over time (more complete series by species, lesser quantities of unclassified sharks, less weight of unclassified gears in the shark series, etc.) (Anon., 2015). Japanese catches (landings and discards) from tuna longliners in the North Atlantic are estimated to have fluctuated between 1,400 t - 2,400 t in 2006-2014, but a large increase to about 8,200 t was observed in 2015. These are higher than reported landings of the target species (bluefin tuna) from Japanese longliners in this period (ICCAT, 2008). Another study of Japanese bluefin tuna longline fisheries showed that the ratio of blue shark to the target species was about 1:1 (Boyd, 2008). There appears a need to improve data accuracy between fishery reporting and estimation of bycatch by observers to provide an objective basis for confidence. Within MAFF, and noted in SI a., the cross-checking of data to support compliance seems to be not fully implemented between observer data and logbook data. Until the discrepancy is clarified and there is improved exchange of information between the management body and the vessel this situation will remain uncertain. It was unclear if an evaluation is conducted within MAFF to trigger the improvement in the data quality if necessary. This may be implemented, however there is no evidence to verify this. The observer data mostly shows a lower catch number than those reported officially by the fishery, however there was also at site visit some inconsistencies in responses of crews in released blue shark count and reporting measures. Therefore, the protocols of reporting of release shark number is not so clear and evaluation at UoA level is not available. The UoA strategy includes not keeping blue shark and using circle hooks. SG60 is met but SG80 is not met .

Argentine shortfin squid (bait): As per https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Assigning-bait-category-in-FCR-v2-0-plus-RBF-and-cumulative-considerations-FCR- v2-0-SA-3-1-7-SA-3-4-2-GSA-3-4-2-1527262006141 For bait and this SI the team have to evaluate the management PIs for the external bait fishery, therefore evaluating those scoring issues for a completely separate fishery outside the UoA. The objective basis for confidence for the measures at the fishery comes from the management goal of a 40 % escapement rate and the real-time monitoring of the resource. Additionally the ability of the stock to recover from low levels resultant from the life-history of the species provides further confidence that the measures will work. SG80 is met. At the UoA level the measure in place is the sustainable sourcing policy to only source baits from registered vessels to ensure that baits sources have official Argentinian catch certificates and therefore are not IUU origin. The policy includes the confirmation of traceability of baits and catch certification (since 2017). For years prior to the bait policy the client provided the assessment team with alternative documents that provided evidence of bait source. This information included the purchase records for the past 5 years with where available pictures of purchased bait boxes. With this evidence, the team defined that the partial strategy is likely to work for the UoA. Thus SG80 is met. However testing of the stock for future biomass is not predictable with a high confidence, due to the sizable annual oscillations in stock size therefore SG100 is not met.

Minor species

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 142 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

For Shortfin mako shark, with current low catch rate by the UoA provides an objective basis for confidence that the strategy is working and UoA does not seem to hinder the recovery and rebuilding of this species. The low rate of catch is considered to be a strategy and meets SG80, although the client needs to practice recording and reporting in logbooks to meet SG100.

For Japanese pilchard, fishery use this species as bait. As per https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Assigning-bait-category-in- FCR-v2-0-plus-RBF-and-cumulative-considerations-FCR-v2-0-SA-3-1-7-SA-3-4-2-GSA-3-4-2-1527262006141 For bait and this SI the team have to evaluate the management PIs for the external bait fishery, therefore evaluating those scoring issues for a completely separate fishery outside the UoA. The objective basis for confidence for the measures at the fishery comes from the total fishery effort on the stock has decreased since late 2000 and a low effort has been maintained since, with a suitable TAC as the principle control tool. Available information suggests that the stock is currently above PRI and recovering, although abundance is still far below peak levels (FRA 2018a). For the UoA the low rate use of this species compared to landings of this species (0.657 t in 2017, total Japanese catch in 2017 is 452,000 t) and its lower comparative use by the UoA as bait compared to Argentine squid (Table 10) can be considered a strategy to take effect in not hindering the recovery of this species. SG80 is met, but in the absence of ‘testing’, SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/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? Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - N Blue shark – Y Blue shark – N Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - N Minor species - Y Minor species - N

Justification Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w): The partial strategy relates to the limited access of the UoA to the BFT-w resource (those fish which cross the 450W management boundary) and the proportional impact of the UoA against the principle control tool (TAC). The UoA has no quota for BFT-w and therefore cannot fish to the west of 450W. The UoA is subject to strict VMS and data reporting requirements and there is no evidence that the UoA has

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 143 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

attempted to enter Western waters. SG80 is met. In relation to SG100, a rebuilding plan is in place for the stock, which is achieving the objective in terms of the level of F, but has not yet achieved the objective of rebuilding the stock to the MSY level.

Blue shark All RFMOs require that the whole body of retained sharks is used, with all parts attached until landing or transhipment, as well as reporting of catch data. Under this recommendation, MAFF’s ministry order article 28-2 require that all released sharks need to be recorded in the logbook at the section of “bycatch species” with the number of fish and the species name, which should be reported every 10 days of fishery operation. In addition, the robustness of reported bycatch number shall be cross-checked with observer reports. Shofuku Maru No. 1 has been reporting the number of bycatch in the logbook format and duly submitting to FA accordingly. Thus there is some evidence that the measures / partial strategy is being implemented successfully for this UoA; SG80 is met. However for the overall management strategy objective to be implemented, an evidence that the overall objective is met by the strategy through evaluation outcome with monitoring program is required. As pointed in a., the implementation of cross-check of data is performed by the Fisheries Research institute, and the results is planned to be reported. However assessment team was not able to view objective documents to verify this. The Terms of Reference for “Comprehensive International Resources Management Systems Construction Program” is available online, however the performance results and evaluation documents are not available. It was unclear how the evaluation is conducted to trigger the improvement if needed. SG100 is not met.

Argentine shortfin squid As per https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Assigning-bait-category-in-FCR-v2-0-plus-RBF-and-cumulative-considerations-FCR- v2-0-SA-3-1-7-SA-3-4-2-GSA-3-4-2-1527262006141 For bait and this SI the team have to evaluate the management PIs for the external bait fishery, therefore evaluating those scoring issues for a completely separate fishery outside the UoA. Evidence of the measures for the fishery come from the real-time feedback during the fishing season from observers, remote sensing of foreign vessels and catch documentation requirements. Data provision is sufficient to allow retrospective stock assessment analysis and concluded that the Argentine shortfin squid management program can maintain a healthy stock status under current fisheries exploitation. SG80 is met. However in the past pre-recruitment surveys have been missed due to disputes within the argentine government and therefore implementation of the strategy is not sufficiently clear to meet SG100. SG80 is met. The voluntary sustainability policy of the UoA for bait purchases should increase the strategy implementation, however data from this is limited in 2018 meaning overall objectives at SG100 are not met.

Minor species For Shortfin mako shark, with current low catch cate evidenced from observer reports, shows that the strategy is clearly implemented. However, to meet SG100 the client needs to practice recording and reporting in logbooks when shortfin mako shark is accidentally caught, as currently observer record is the only way to be certain the reported catch is accurate. Therefore SG100 is not met for this species.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 144 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

For Japanese pilchard, the client has in place the sustainable bait sourcing policy for Argentine squid as described above, however it does not currently include Japanese pilchard sourcing strategy. The low use of this species as bait compared to landings of this species (0.657 t in 2017, total Japanese catch in 2017 is 452,000 t) and its lower comparative use by the UoA as bait compared to Argentine squid (Table 10) can be considered an partially implemented strategy to take effect in not hindering the recovery of this species. SG80 is met, but in the absence of sourcing policy implementation’, SG100 is not met. d Shark finning

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

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Relevant here are blue shark and shortfin mako shark. ICCAT recommendation 04-10 (ICCAT 2004a) requires CPCs to take necessary measure to ensure fishers utilize entire catches of sharks and ensure that fins do not exceed 5 % of the weight of sharks. It also requires that fins are not transshipped. This has been transposed into Japan’s ministry order 60-2-2 which requires vessels to retain all part of shark body (except head, skin, guts) unless they land in foreign port, until landing in Japan. The fishery does not practice shark finning and reportedly releases all incidental catches of blue shark, if not landing to see whole body in foreign ports. Observer report does not show any evidence that client has retained finned sharks. Port-side monitoring (EU jurisdiction – Spain) has been conducted to monitor the compliance and there has been no report that evidence of shark finning has found.

e Review of alternative measures

Guidepost There is a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species. of unwanted catch of main primary species of unwanted catch of all primary species, and they are implemented as appropriate. and they are implemented, as appropriate.

Met? Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) – N/A Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - N/A Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - N/A

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 145 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Blue shark – Y Blue shark – N Blue shark – N Argentine shortfin squid - N/A Argentine shortfin squid - N/A Argentine shortfin squid – N/A Minor species - Y Minor species - Y Minor species - N

Justification Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w): Not applicable: BFT catches do not fit with the definition of unwanted catch (SA3.1.6), the UoA do not intend to catch BFT-w but cannot avoid it (hence being IPI), but as they cannot identify these against BFT-e they are kept. Blue shark: There are number of studies on shark bycatch mitigation measures effectiveness, in tuna longline fisheries to reduce of shark species (IOTC, 2017). These include using circle hooks, night setting and hook depth all of which the UoA applies (Section 3.4.9). ICCAT through recommendation 16-12 ensure that conservation measures for blue shark will be reviewed if average catches from period 2011 - 2015 are exceeded (ICCAT 2016a), this is to be done at the 2021 stock assessment or earlier if the limits are exceeded. Within MAFF, as pointed in SI b. the cross-checking of data to support impact and compliance seem to be not fully implemented through exchange of information between management body and the vessel. It was unclear if any review or evaluation is conducted within MAFF to trigger the improvement in the data quality of blue shark bycatch reporting and if it is necessary alternative measures. The current ICCAT recommendations appear likely to work with time, as seen in the recent general improvement in the overall data, but cross-check analysis, testing, and implementation of accurate reporting is not evident. SG80 is not met Argentine shortfin squid For Argentine shortfin squid, from the source fishery there is no unwanted catch as no size limits apply and all squid captured are marketed SG80 is met. Within the UoA the bait purchase decision is made based on quality and price by the sourcing staff who is consistently (annually) reviewing the most reasonable bait supply in the market. The sustainable sourcing policy includes the company’s strategy to consider other available resources when the resources stock status is low and ensure to confirm legal origin and required certification upon purchase of baits from 2019. There is no unwanted catch, as only the required bait volume is purchased each year SG100 is met Minor species The catches of these species already appear to be minimalized to lowest possible levels as per SA3.5.3.1 and MSC interpretation https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/unwanted-and-population-status-SA-3-5-3-1-1527262011109 SG80 is therefore considered met but SG100 is not.

References Agnew et al. (2005), Porch & Hanke (2017), FAJ & FREI (2015), Fishbase (2017), FRA (2018c; 2018b), ICCAT (2015c; 2017g; 2017k; 2017f; 2016a), Wang, Chen & Chen (2018), Kai (2017), Chang et al. (2016), FRA (2018a)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 146 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 3

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 147 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.1.3 – Primary species information

Information on the nature and extent of primary species is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the effectiveness of the PI 2.1.3 strategy to manage primary species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information adequacy for assessment of impact on main species

Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and is estimate the impact of the UoA on the main and is adequate to assess the impact of the adequate to assess with a high degree of primary species with respect to status. UoA on the main primary species with certainty the impact of the UoA on main respect to status. primary species with respect to status. OR OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: If RBF is used to score PI 2.1.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility Some quantitative information is adequate attributes for main primary species. to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main primary species.

Met? Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - N Blue shark – Y Blue shark – Y Blue shark – N Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - Y

Justification Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w): The most recent (2017) stock assessment used 10 CPUE and two survey indices up to 2015 including an acoustic survey. One of the 10 CPUE indices is the Japanese longline fishery. The UoA catch is registered with the Japanese Fishery Agency (FAJ) and this data is submitted to ICCAT. Quantitative information is available on the proportion of BFT-w via the genetic research program conducted by the FAJ observer scheme (Table 12). This data is presented in fleet form, which includes 3 years of data from the UoA and given the representativeness of the Japanese fleet to the UoA is considered adequate to asses UoA impact on the stock SG80 is met. SG100 cannot be met for this stock as there remains uncertainties in the appropriateness of stock identity methods and that the data is not specific to the UoA. Blue shark:

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 148 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The number of blue sharks caught and the number of discard/released are available from fishery logbook and observer reports (when the vessel carries an observer: 3 years in the past 8 years). Though not all blue shark weights are recorded by the fishery, sampled and average weights are recorded by the fishery, in this way the impact of the UoA on its stock status can be adequately counted towards its stock assessment. Therefore SG80 is met. The fishery does not report the dead/alive status of blue shark when it is released, therefore UoA impact on the stock is not known with high degree of certainty and no UoA or fleet specific post-capture mortality work is available. SG100 is not met. Argentine shortfin squid: The quantity of bait sourced is recorded by the fishery and available for this assessment. The fishery uses less than 12 t year when the annual catch on the stock is >500, 000 t, therefore the amount of bait used is adequate to assess with a high degree of certainty and can considered insignificant in comparison to the total landings of the stock. The sustainable sourcing policy of 2017 includes the company’s strategy to choose other available resources when the stock status is low, in addition to ensuring legal origin upon purchase of baits from 2019. SG100 is met.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impact on minor species

Guidepost Some quantitative information is adequate to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor primary species with respect to status.

Met? N

Justification Shofuku Maru No.1 records and reports on the target catch of BFT-e and blue shark, but for non-target fish there is no instruction by FAJ to report weights nor survival status (uncategorized fish must be reported by its number) in the logbook. However, the vessel keeps its own record, i.e., shortfin mako shark was caught for internal trade records (often weight data is also recorded) and is consistent with the observer records. Since this is not reported to the FAJ in non-observer-carrying years, the data is not used officially. Without official evaluation reports and information on how this is reported to ICCAT or through SCRS WG, the detail is not exactly known. Thus SG100 is not met.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 149 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guidepost Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a measures to manage main primary species. strategy to manage main Primary species. strategy to manage all primary species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - Y Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w) - N N Blue shark – Y Blue shark – Y Argentine shortfin squid - Y Argentine shortfin squid - Y

Justification Bluefin tuna Western stock (BFT-w): The information presented by the FAJ from the observer program on stock mixing is utilized by ICCAT in testing and develop stock assessment models for stock mixing. There is continued development of the reliability data on stock mixing, evidenced by Arrizabalanga et al. (2019) and plans for the data’s inclusion in the new MSE (ICCAT 2019d). SG60 is met. However, the issue of IPI remains apparent and the UoA is currently unable to show explicitly its impact on the BFT-w stock. Rather it is reliant on the Japanese longline fleet data as a proxy (a good proxy) as the primary information source to manage the strategy. SG80 is not met Blue shark: To inform the stock status of blue shark, a number of different sources of information are collected at RFMOs since blue shark occurs globally and is caught by different fisheries. Although highly uncertain at large, gear specific fishing pattern, quota update, effort data and some regional IUU report and bycatch mitigation / some regional mortality studies are available to increase robustness of the fishery assessment. Based on these, there has been improvement on data and ICCAT had determined to recommend continued monitoring of the fisheries by observer and port sampling programmes (ICCAT, 2015). Data (observer and logbook) from the UoA is entered into the data system in Japan, which forms the basis of their data input into stock assessments, including for blue sharks. The information to support the decision is deemed adequate to support the partial strategy in place. However, for the reporting of released number in the logbook of UoA there is not high certainty that this strategy is achieving its objective. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met. Argentine shortfin squid: As per https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Assigning-bait-category-in-FCR-v2-0-plus-RBF-and-cumulative-considerations-FCR- v2-0-SA-3-1-7-SA-3-4-2-GSA-3-4-2-1527262006141 For bait and this SI the team will evaluate the management and information PIs for the external bait fishery, therefore evaluating those scoring issues for a completely separate fishery outside the UoA.”

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 150 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Management of both North and South stocks is based on effort control by limiting the length of the fishing seasons and the number of vessels. There is a target reference point set and effort control measures set for both stocks, with a real-time monitoring system. Foreign vessels need permission to participate in the fishery and are subject to VMS and catch documentation requirements. There are some uncertainties in fisheries data, with lack of regional coordination to estimate migrating stocks between borders, and some IUU by foreign fleets reported historically in the Argentinean EEZ. Remote sensing of foreign vessels allows some estimation of foreign effort. However, data provision is sufficient to allow retrospective stock assessment analysis and concluded that the Argentine shortfin squid remains in a healthy status under current fisheries exploitation. SG100 is not met as information on minor species is not available from the UoA and /or utilized by the FAJ.

References Agnew et al. (2005), Porch & Hanke (2017), FAJ & FREI (2015), Fishbase (2017), FRA (2018c; 2018b), ICCAT (2015c; 2017g; 2017k; 2017f; 2016a), Wang, Chen & Chen (2018), Kai (2017), Chang et al. (2016), FRA (2018a)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 75 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): 4

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 151 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.1 – Secondary species outcome

The UoA aims to maintain secondary species above a biological based limit and does not hinder recovery of secondary species if they are PI 2.2.1 below a biological based limit. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Main secondary species stock status

Guidepost Main Secondary species are likely to be Main secondary species are highly likely to There is a high degree of certainty that main within biologically based limits. be above biologically based limits secondary species are within biologically based limits. OR OR If below biologically based limits, there are If below biologically based limits, there is measures in place expected to ensure that either evidence of recovery or a the UoA does not hinder recovery and demonstrably effective partial strategy in rebuilding. 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? NA NA NA

Justification There is no main secondary species identified from observer data and therefore this scoring issue is not scored as per MSC interpretation: https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/P2-species-outcome-PIs-scoring-when-no-main-or-no-minor-or-both-PI-2-1-1- 1527262009344

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 152 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

b Minor secondary species stock status

Guidepost For minor species that are below biologically

based limits’, there is evidence that the UoA does not hinder the recovery and rebuilding of secondary species

Met? N

Justification Minor secondary species are ribbonfish. sp, longnose lancetfish and anglerfish. spp. The catch composition by weight is low, and for the fishery there is no commercial value and released when found. The number of animals caught is minimal with less than 10 of each species per annum: (1 ribbonfish and 6 to 7 longnose lancetfish in a fishing season and 1 anglerfish spp. caught in 1 of the 3 observed years). These species were also identified in the Japanese longline observer report from 2008 suggesting that the composition of bycatch is stable over time. With these low catch rates, and oceanic distribution of these species (both ribbonfish sp, longnose lancetfish are known from Atlantic and Pacific Oceans) it is likely that the UoA would not hinder the recovery and rebuilding these stocks. However, these stocks are data deficient and the position of the stocks in relation to biologically based limits is not defined SG100 cannot be met.

(Fishbase 2019a; Fishbase 2019b), (MSC 2014), Observer data reports, Boyd (2008) References https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/Minor-species-and-scoring-element-approach-at-SG100-7-10-7-1527586956233

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 153 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.2 – Secondary species management strategy

There is a strategy in place for managing secondary species that is designed to maintain or to not hinder rebuilding of secondary species PI 2.2.2 and the UoA regularly reviews and implements measures, as appropriate, to minimise the mortality of unwanted catch. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There is a strategy in place for the UoA for There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if managing main and minor secondary which are expected to maintain or not necessary, for the UoA that is expected to species. hinder rebuilding of main secondary species maintain or not hinder rebuilding of main at/to levels which are highly likely to be secondary species at/to levels which are within biologically based limits or to ensure highly likely to be within biologically based that the UoA does not hinder their recovery. limits or to ensure that the UoA does not hinder their recovery.

Met? Y Y N

Justification There are no main secondary species identified, suggestive the that area of operation and current fishing practice is sufficient strategy to manage main secondary species catches. SG80 met by default. The minor secondary species are ribbonfish. sp, longnose lancetfish and anglerfish. sp. With the fishery’s extremely low catch rates and the distribution of these widely dispersed species. There is no evidence that the UoA could avoid catching these few if they wanted to; but the fishing method employed, low overlap with the species (small fishery footprint against trans-ocean distribution of the stocks) and immediate release conducted by the fishery are considered as a partial strategy to maintain minimal UoA impact on the species. At SG100 a strategy is required and the current measures cannot be considered as such under the MSC definition. Table SA8 FCR2.0 - A “strategy” represents a cohesive and strategic arrangement which may comprise one or more measures, an understanding of how it/they work to achieve an outcome and which should be designed to manage impact on that component specifically. A strategy needs to be appropriate to the scale, intensity and cultural context of the fishery and should contain mechanisms for the modification fishing practices in the light of the identification of unacceptable impacts.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g. general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 154 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

experience, theory or comparison with based on some information directly about information directly about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/species). the UoA and/or species involved. species involved.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The three years of observer data from the UoA demonstrates that the fishery catch these minor secondary species at a very low frequency. The MSC definition for "testing" states that "experience from analogous fisheries" can be used as evidence (https://mscportal.force.com/interpret/s/article/testing-and-directly-1527586953851 ). The report by an Irish observer for Japanese bluefin tuna longline fishery in the northeast Atlantic (not within the UoA) recorded similar species and numbers of lancetfish (Alepisaurus ferox), ribbonfish (Trachipterus arcticus) and anglerfish (Lophius spp.) providing high confidence that the strategy as effective. The observer report indicates that the numbers of these individuals was small and released without commercial value. This shows that there is no incentive to increase catch of these minor species, and thus SG80 is considered to be met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/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 Y

Justification There are no main secondary species. Observer report result shows that there is very little minor secondary species bycatch potential for this fishery based on the information directly about the UoA. The nature of gear supports the observer data result and the partial strategy is implemented successfully to achieve the objective (a). Therefore SG100 is considered to be met.

d Shark finning

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

Met? NA NA NA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 155 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Justification There are no secondary species which are sharks therefore SA 3.8.2 does not apply and this SI is not scored.

e Review of alternative measures to minimise mortality of unwanted catch

Justification There is a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main secondary of unwanted catch of main secondary of unwanted catch of all secondary species, species. species and they are implemented as and they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? Y – default Y – Default N

Guidepost There are no main secondary species therefore SG80 is met be default. Empirical catch profile available from observer data shows that the fishery does not have any main secondary species and very little, non-valued species minor secondary bycatch. The nature of the fishery which target very high-valued species and gear used, as well as fisher’s interview shows there is regular effort to avoid bycatch to minimize additional work to release unwanted catch. It is quite clear that the fishery does not have any incentive in increasing secondary species bycatch. However there is no evidence of ‘biennial’ review of alternative measures SG100 is not met

References (Fishbase 2019a; Fishbase 2019b), (MSC 2014), Observer data reports, Boyd (2008), logbook data

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 156 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.2.3 – Secondary species information

Information on the nature and amount of secondary species taken is adequate to determine the risk posed by the UoA and the PI 2.2.3 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

Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is available Quantitative information is available and estimate the impact of the UoA on the main and adequate to assess the impact of the adequate to assess with a high degree of secondary species with respect to status. UoA on main secondary species with respect certainty the impact of the UoA on main OR to status. secondary species with respect to status. If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: OR If RBF is used to score PI 2.2.1 for the UoA: Qualitative information is adequate to estimate productivity and susceptibility Some quantitative information is adequate attributes for main secondary species. to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for main secondary species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Observer data is available for 3 years from 2013 to 2015 for the UoA which covers the total duration of the season but not every haul. There is secondary information via the independent observer report from 2008 which supports the UoA observer data and the result demonstrates there is no main secondary species bycatch. Therefore SG80 is considered to be met. SG100 is not met on the basis that 5 years data from the observer program is not available for the UoA and logbook records are not considered reliable enough for unwanted secondary species.

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts on minor secondary species

Guidepost Some quantitative information is adequate

to estimate the impact of the UoA on minor secondary species with respect to status.

Met? Y

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 157 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Justification Observer data is available for 3 years from 2013 to 2015. The result suggests there is very little secondary species bycatch. The low rates demonstrated in the number of reported minor secondary species shows that information is adequate to estimate the minimal impact of UoA on these species.

c Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidepost Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to support a partial Information is adequate to support a measures to manage main secondary strategy to manage main secondary species. strategy to manage all secondary species, species. and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether the strategy is achieving its objective.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Observer data information is available for 3 years from 2013 to 2015 for the UoA which supports the partial strategy to manage main secondary species (there are none) SG80 is met. The same observer reports provide an information base to evaluate with high certainty that that strategy to minimize bycatch of secondary species is effective.

References (MSC 2014), Observer data reports, Boyd (2008), logbook data

95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 158 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.3.1 – ETP species outcome

The UoA meets national and international requirements for the protection of ETP species PI 2.3.1 The UoA does not hinder recovery of ETP species Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Effects of the UoA on population/stock within national or international limits, where applicable

Guidepost Where national and/or international Where national and/or international Where national and/or international requirements set limits for ETP species, the requirements set limits for ETP species, the requirements set limits for ETP species, effects of the UoA on the population/stock combined effects of the MSC UoAs on the there is a high degree of certainty that the are known and likely to be within these population/stock are known and highly combined effects of the MSC UoAs are limits. likely to be within these limits. within these limits.

Met? NA NA NA

Justification No ETP species are identified from observer reports or other data sources (see Section 3.4.9) and therefore for the UoA SA3.10.1.1 applies - if there is no applicable national legislation or binding international agreement, scoring issue (a) shall not be scored.

b Direct effects

Guidepost Known direct effects of the UoA are likely to Known direct effects of the UoA are highly There is a high degree of confidence that not hinder recovery of ETP species. likely to not hinder recovery of ETP species. there are no significant detrimental direct effects of the UoA on ETP species.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification No ETP species are identified from observer reports and therefore SA3.2.1 applies If a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI.

c Indirect effects

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 159 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guidepost Indirect effects have been considered and There is a high degree of confidence that are thought to be highly likely to not create there are no significant detrimental indirect unacceptable impacts. effects of the fishery on ETP species.

Met? Y Y

Justification No ETP species are identified from observer reports and therefore SA3.2.1 applies If a team determines that a UoA has no impact on a particular component, it shall receive a score of 100 under the Outcome PI.

References SA3.2.1, (MSC 2014), Observer data reports, Boyd (2008), logbook data

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 160 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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)

Guidepost There are measures in place that minimise There is a strategy in place for managing the There is a comprehensive strategy in place the UoA-related mortality of ETP species, UoA’s impact on ETP species, including for managing the UoA’s impact on ETP and are expected to be highly likely to measures to minimise mortality, which is species, including measures to minimise achieve national and international designed to be highly likely to achieve mortality, which is designed to achieve requirements for the protection of ETP national and international requirements for above national and international species. the protection of ETP species. requirements for the protection of ETP species.

Met? NA NA NA

Justification SA3.11.2.2 - Where there are no requirements for protection and rebuilding provided through national ETP legislation or international agreements, the team shall score scoring issue (b). b Management strategy in place (alternative)

Guidepost There are measures in place that are There is a strategy in place that is expected There is a comprehensive strategy in place expected to ensure the UoA does not hinder to ensure the UoA does not hinder the for managing ETP species, to ensure the the recovery of ETP species. recovery of ETP species. UoA does not hinder the recovery of ETP species

Met? Y Y N

Justification The fishery’s operational area is not subject to specific ICCAT requirements for having seabird bycatch mitigation measures and there are only recommended measures in place for ETP species, however the UoA has adopted these as standard practice (see section 3.4.9). The

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 161 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

fishery uses weighted branch lines (Figure 5) and tori lines (Figure 27) which appeared to meet the ICCAT technical standards (Figure 26). In addition, the fishery use a bait throwing machine which has been shown to reduce the principal factors (distance, location and bait thrown in ships wash) which cause bird bycatch in manually thrown bait deployments (Brothers 2017), and employs circle hooks and tori lines as part of their practice on all operation in the northeast Atlantic even though this is not a requirement under ICCAT regulations. Posters to show appropriate handling of seabirds and sea turtles when caught, and to help identification of shark species are posted within the vessel for crew information. SG80 is met. However, in auditing vessel logbooks the assessment team found that in past years there have been occasions that the vessel omitted entering of “zero” in the bycatch and ETP species report when these are not caught, and therefore the strategy can not be considered comprehensive as yet. SG100 is not met.

c Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is an objective basis for confidence The strategy/comprehensive strategy is based on plausible argument (e.g., general that the measures/strategy will work, based mainly based on information directly about experience, theory or comparison with on information directly about the fishery the fishery and/or species involved, and a similar fisheries/species). and/or the species involved. quantitative analysis supports high confidence that the strategy will work.

Met? Y Y N

Justification ETP interaction is reported as absent in UoA logbook data, and consolidated observer data supports that there is no interaction with ETP species. The northeast Atlantic longline fisheries are not considered to have significant impact on ETP species, as opposed to the fisheries operated in tropical zones where ICCAT requires use of seabird mitigation measures etc. In 2012, the ICCAT Secretariat hired a bycatch Coordinator to harmonise and analyse fishery datasets related to bycatch species of tuna fisheries in the ICCAT area. Through reporting requirements to members, ICCAT updates and maintain the ICCAT bycatch meta-database to evaluate bycatch mitigation strategy. Previously, a number of short-term studies was completed at SCRS in 2010, in order to improve the knowledge on bycatch species. The objectives included: (a) creating a meta-database of reports and publications providing information about bycatch species from tuna and related fisheries; (b) developing a database for unprocessed and aggregated by-catch data for priority species such as marine mammals, turtles, sea birds, and many sharks, rays and teleost fish that are not subjected to stock assessment by ICCAT; (c) establishing interaction with scientists leading national observer programmes to obtain previously unreported data and to make an inventory of past and current observer programmes; and (d) developing forms and protocols for the collection of more and higher quality by-catch data in the future (ICCAT, 2019).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 162 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The SG80 is considered to be met on the above information, but the lack of 5 years of observer data means high confidence cannot be assured SG100 not met.

d Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the measures/strategy is being implemented strategy/comprehensive strategy is being successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective as set out in scoring issue (a) or (b).

Met? Y N

Justification The fishery uses weighted branch lines (Figure 5) and tori lines (Figure 27) which appeared to meet the ICCAT technical standards (Figure 26). These were viewed at the site visit. In addition, the fishery use a bait throwing machine which has been shown to reduce the principal factors (distance, location and bait thrown in ships wash) which cause bird bycatch in manually thrown bait deployments, and employs circle hooks and tori lines as part of their practice on all operation in the northeast Atlantic even though this is not a requirement under ICCAT regulations. These are the vessel’s measures employed in addition to required regulations, thus meeting SG80. In the past there are years that vessel omitted entering of “zero” in the bycatch and ETP species report when these are not caught, and the fishery has just decided to improve the reporting since 2018. However the evidence of implementation is only available in the coming years, therefore SG100 is not met.

e Review of alternative measures to minimize mortality of ETP species

Guidepost There is a review of the potential There is a regular review of the potential There is a biennial review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of ETP species. of ETP species and they are implemented as ETP species, and they are implemented, as appropriate. appropriate.

Met? NA NA NA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 163 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Justification GSA3.11.3 states that guidance for clauses GSA3.5.3 and its sub-clauses applies here, noting that ….in ETP the aim is to minimise UoA- related mortality of all ETP species. GSA3.5.3 states that where there is negligible unwanted catch of a species (or ETP mortality as in this component), the team may use their discretion as to whether the scoring issue would be scored. Given the absence of ETP catches the assessment team used their discretion not to score this SG.

References (MSC 2014), Observer data reports, Boyd (2008), logbook data, ICCAT (2013; 2010a; 2011a)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): NA

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 164 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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: • Information for the development of the management strategy; PI 2.3.3 • 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

Guidepost Qualitative information is adequate to Some quantitative information is adequate Quantitative information is available to estimate the UoA related mortality on ETP to assess the UoA related mortality and assess with a high degree of certainty the species. impact and to determine whether the UoA magnitude of UoA-related impacts, may be a threat to protection and recovery mortalities and injuries and the OR of the ETP species. consequences for the status of ETP species. If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to If RBF is used to score PI 2.3.1 for the UoA: estimate productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species. Some quantitative information is adequate to assess productivity and susceptibility attributes for ETP species.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Consolidated quantitative data from Shofuku Maru No.1 observer program data is available for three years and does not contain any ETP species interactions, which is a requirement of the program if they are observed. This data is verifiable against similar accounts for the Japanese longline fleet (Boyd 2008), is provided by 3rd party to the UoA following strict guidelines and for the years taken included the entire fishing season (though not every haul). It is therefore considered an adequate information source. Fishery logbook data also requires ETP interactions to be recorded and there appears to be no records of ETP in these records either. This data has annual continuity is verifiable against the observer data and the wider longline fleet, however there appear to be missing ‘zero’ in some of these logbooks. Overall, the assessment team considered the quantitative data as adequate to determine the impact of the UoA on ETP species so SG80 is met. However, within the logbooks examined by the assessment team the entering of zero for ETP catches was omitted by fishers on occasion, and therefore the there is no high degree of certainty in the magnitude of the interactions. In addition there is no requirement

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 165 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

within the logbook to record injuries, mortalities and consequences to ETP species from UoA interactions. There is only three years of observer records for the UoA so there is no continuity in this data source. Therefore SG100 is not met.

b Information adequacy for management strategy

Guidepost Information is adequate to support Information is adequate to measure trends Information is adequate to support a measures to manage the impacts on ETP and support a strategy to manage impacts comprehensive strategy to manage impacts, species. on ETP species. minimize mortality and injury of ETP species, and evaluate with a high degree of certainty whether a strategy is achieving its objectives.

Met? Y Y N

Justification At the UoA level, the observer data is provided by a 3rd party to the UoA following strict guidelines and for the years taken included the entire fishing season (though not every haul). It is therefore considered an adequate information source from which to develop a strategy. It is used by the FAJ to compile annual reports to ICCAT and at a fleet level represents > 20 % of the fleet per annum. The logbook’s bycatch information sheet provided by FAJ provides the second source of information to support measures. However, some are returned incomplete and the FAJ revealed that fishers tend to find it difficult to complete the format as the data entry work can be time-consuming. (entering numerous zero’s for non-observed species) therefore blank reporting sheet appeared common for some fisheries. At the RFMO level, ICCAT requires member states to report ETP interaction through a predetermined format. Japan submits annual reports to the secretariat and scientists report additional information to feed into analysis conducted by the working groups. In 2012, the ICCAT Secretariat hired a bycatch coordinator to harmonise and analyse fishery datasets related to bycatch species of tuna fisheries in the ICCAT area. Through reporting requirements to members, ICCAT updates and maintain the ICCAT bycatch meta-database to evaluate bycatch mitigation strategy. Previously, a number of short-term studies was completed at SCRS in 2010, in order to improve the knowledge on bycatch species. The objectives included: (a) creating a meta-database of reports and publications providing information about bycatch species from tuna and related fisheries; (b) developing a database for unprocessed and aggregated bycatch data for priority species such as marine mammals, turtles, sea birds, and many sharks, rays and teleost fish that are not subjected to stock assessment by ICCAT; (c) establishing interaction with scientists leading national observer programmes to obtain previously unreported data and to make an inventory of past and current observer programmes; and (d) developing forms and protocols for the collection of more and higher quality by-catch data in the future (ICCAT, 2019).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 166 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

At a national level, each nation’s reporting mechanism and the implementation of measures may be not comprehensive. In Japan, there is no openly available information on how reported observer data and fishery logbook data are used and evaluated, including the ETP species mortality and injury occurring in the fisheries. The actual use of the collected information whether it is achieving its objectives, and feedback mechanism to fishers are not all clearly known. Overall SG80 is met but SG100 is not met for this PI.

References (MSC 2014), Observer data reports, Boyd (2008), logbook data, ICCAT (2013; 2010a; 2011a)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 167 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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(s) covered by PI 2.4.1 the governance body(s) responsible for fisheries management. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Commonly encountered habitat status

Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce There is evidence that the UoA is highly function of the commonly encountered structure and function of the commonly unlikely to reduce structure and function of habitats to a point where there would be encountered habitats to a point where there the commonly encountered habitats to a serious or irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm. point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Longline gear used by the fishery is set around 45 m to 58 m depth from the ocean surface in an area away from the continental shelf there is no contact with the benthic substrate. Therefore, only possible harm from the fishery is interaction with other species, such as bycatch and gear-loss which may cause ghost fishing. Bycatch effects were discussed in other PIs and the effect was considered minimal. The gear and disposal waste management are also discussed at PI 2.3.1c-indirect effect to ETP species, and it is considered as well-managed. There is a number of literatures that claims the minimal impact on substrate from longline gears. Seafood watch’s report on US longline fisheries suggests that mitigation measures to reduce the impact of pelagic longlines on bottom habitats are not generally needed (Seawatch 2016a).

b VME habitat status

Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to reduce structure and The UoA is highly unlikely to reduce There is evidence that the UoA is highly function of the VME habitats to a point structure and function of the VME habitats unlikely to reduce structure and function of where there would be serious or irreversible to a point where there would be serious or the VME habitats to a point where there harm. irreversible harm. would be serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y Y

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 168 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Justification Longline gear used by the fishery is set around 45 m to 58 m depth from the ocean surface in an area away from the continental shelf there is no contact with the benthic substrate and therefore VMEs SG100 is met

c Minor habitat status

Guidepost There is evidence that 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

Justification Longline gear used by the fishery is set around 45 m to 58 m depth from the ocean surface in an area away from the continental shelf there is no contact with the benthic substrate and therefore minor habitats, SG100 is met

References ICES (2018) and Seawatch (2016b)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 169 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.2 – Habitats management strategy

PI 2.4.2 There is a strategy in place that is designed to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to the habitats. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There are measures in place, if necessary, There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy in place for managing the that are expected to achieve the Habitat necessary, that is expected to achieve the impact of all MSC UoAs/non-MSC fisheries Outcome 80 level of performance. Habitat Outcome 80 level of performance or on habitats. above.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Since the fishing operation for the target species takes place in the upper part of the water column, the fishery does not have any direct impact on seafloor habitat. The term ‘if necessary’ applies here and management measures should not be required. SGs 60 and 80 are therefore met by default. Given the scale and intensity of the fishery with no gear loss, indirect impacts are also considered to be negligible. The fishery has the additional voluntary measures (including retrieval of all lost lines) and oversight not to impact the seafloor, however the fishery has no comprehensive management plan to ensure that all fishing activities do not cause serious or irreversible harm. SG80 is met but SG100 is not met.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g. general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on experience, theory or comparison with based on information directly about the information directly about the UoA and/or similar UoAs/habitats). UoA and/or habitats involved. habitats involved.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification The ‘partial strategy’ is the nature of the fishery (pelagic only); there is therefore high confidence that it works, based on information directly about the gear type and deployment. SG100 is met.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 170 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

c Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some quantitative evidence that There is clear quantitative evidence that the the measures/partial strategy is being partial strategy/strategy is being implemented successfully. implemented successfully and is achieving its objective, as outlined in scoring issue (a).

Met? Y Y

Justification Quantitative evidence such as VMS tracks (witnessed by team during on-site visit) associated research papers detailing fleet movements (Kimoto & Itoh 2017) and that the UoA is limited to international waters beyond EEZs clearly demonstrate the fishery operating in deep pelagic oceanic waters with no impact on benthic habitats. SG100 is met.

d Compliance with management requirements and other MSC UoAs’/non-MSC fisheries’ measures to protect VMEs

Guidepost There is some quantitative evidence that There is clear quantitative evidence that the There is qualitative evidence that the UoA the UoA complies with both its management UoA complies with both its management complies with its management requirements requirements and with protection measures requirements and with protection measures to protect VMEs. afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- afforded to VMEs by other MSC UoAs/non- MSC fisheries, where relevant. MSC fisheries, where relevant. Met? Y Y Y

Justification In the absence of interactions with VMEs (see PI 2.4.1), this issue is met by default. SG100 is met.

References Site visit examination of vessel VMS track 2015-17 and logbook records 2013-2017, also ICES (2018) and Seawatch (2016b)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 171 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.4.3 – Habitats information

Information is adequate to determine the risk posed to the habitat by the UoA and the effectiveness of the strategy to manage impacts PI 2.4.3 on the habitat. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Information quality

Guidepost The types and distribution of the main The nature, distribution and vulnerability of The distribution of all habitats is known over habitats are broadly understood. the main habitats in the UoA area are known their range, with particular attention to the at a level of detail relevant to the scale and occurrence of vulnerable habitats. OR intensity of the UoA. If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: OR Qualitative information is adequate to If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the types and distribution of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Knowledge of demersal habitats is not relevant to this fishery (UoA) as the fishery does not contact the seafloor, so SG80 is met by default. Furthermore, extensive seabed mapping using multibeam acoustics (Durán Muñoz et al. 2009), as well as video and photographic surveys of the seafloor revealed features including extensive ridges, rock outcrops, pinnacles, channels, and hollows for the area of operation are known (FAO 2019a; NEAFC 2014)(ICES 2018). ICES Special Request Advice is issued for North Atlantic Ecoregion on locations and likely locations of VMEs in EU waters of the NE Atlantic, and the fishing footprint based on 2009 to 2011 survey. The nature, distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UoA area are known, with particular attention to the occurrence of vulnerable habitats (ICES 2018). SG100 is met

b Information adequacy for assessment of impacts

Guidepost Information is adequate to broadly Information is adequate to allow for The physical impacts of the gear on all understand the nature of the main impacts identification of the main impacts of the habitats have been quantified fully.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 172 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

of gear use on the main habitats, including UoA on the main habitats, and there is spatial overlap of habitat with fishing gear. reliable information on the spatial extent of OR interaction and on the timing and location of If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: use of the fishing gear. OR Qualitative information is adequate to If CSA is used to score PI 2.4.1 for the UoA: estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats. Some quantitative information is available and is adequate to estimate the consequence and spatial attributes of the main habitats.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification There is no impact assessment of the UoA on habitats because the nature and location of the fishery provide reliable information that there are no impacts. There are number of studies conducted worldwide on the impact of longline tuna fisheries. Without physical contact longline fishery it is considered to have minimal impact to habitat (Seawatch 2016b). Assessment information is considered adequate for the scale and intensity of the UoA. SG100 is met.

c Monitoring

Guidepost Adequate information continues to be Changes in habitat distributions over time collected to detect any increase in risk to the are measured. main habitats.

Met? Y Y

Justification VMS data continues to be collected for the UoA. ICCAT continues to maintain database for bycatch and conducts research on ecosystem- based management of the Atlantic fishery grounds, however given that the tuna fisheries’ habitat impact is minimal, it is not the focus of the monitoring of the Committee. However for the northeast Atlantic, NEAFC and ICES continues to monitor impact of fisheries on seafloor including all types of fisheries, mainly bottom fisheries (ICES 2018). SG100 is met

References ICES (2018) and Seawatch (2016b)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 173 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 174 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.1 – Ecosystem outcome

PI 2.5.1 The UoA does not cause serious or irreversible harm to the key elements of ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Ecosystem status

Guidepost The UoA is unlikely to disrupt the key The UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key There is evidence that the UoA is highly elements underlying ecosystem structure elements underlying ecosystem structure unlikely to disrupt the key elements and function to a point where there would and function to a point where there would underlying ecosystem structure and function be a serious or irreversible harm. be a serious or irreversible harm. to a point where there would be a serious or irreversible harm.

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Key ecosystem elements are the predator prey relationships and predator depletion. The fishery exclusively targets BFT-e with blue shark the principle bycatch species at times there are low rates of bycatch of other species. The longline gear interaction is minimal with other ecosystem components (ETP and habitats), thus, the fishery is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure. If there would be an impact on ecosystem, the largest one would be from the depletion of the target species which are apex predators that feeds on variety of fish such as anchovies, sardines, mackerel, herring and others, keeping their populations in balance. The scale of the UoA (one vessel) and the annual catch of target species (BFT-e) and bycatch (Table 9), is low compared to the scale of the overall populations of these species. The stock assessment indicates that the population is under recovery. Therefore, the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function, thus SG 80 is met. The low rates of bycatch as evidenced by observer report, and the quantitative stock assessment outcome for target species and bycatch species (blue shark) are some of the evidence that the UoA is highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements of ecosystem structure and function, and it meets SG100.

References logbook records 2013-2017, Observer data, also ICES (2018) and (ICCAT, 2015).

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 100 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 175 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 2.5.2 – Ecosystem management strategy

PI 2.5.2 There are measures in place to ensure the UoA does not pose a risk of serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function. Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Management strategy in place

Guidepost There are measures in place, if necessary There is a partial strategy in place, if There is a strategy that consists of a plan, in which take into account the potential necessary, which takes into account place which contains measures to address impacts of the fishery on key elements of available information and is expected to all main impacts of the UoA on the the ecosystem. restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem, and at least some of these ecosystem so as to achieve the Ecosystem measures are in place. Outcome 80 level of performance.

Met? Y Y N

Justification The fishery is evidenced to have low rates of bycatch (including ETP) and minimal interaction with seafloor habitat, using the longline with bycatch mitigation measures. The UoA observers the regulation to comply with stock management measures of FAJ and ICCAT which is also part of a partial strategy that fishery can undertake to restrain impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem. Therefore it meets SG80, but the fishery does not have comprehensive documented management plan to all main impacts on the ecosystem, thus not meeting SG100.

b Management strategy evaluation

Guidepost The measures are considered likely to work, There is some objective basis for confidence Testing supports high confidence that the based on plausible argument (e.g., general that the measures/partial strategy will work, partial strategy/strategy will work, based on experience, theory or comparison with based on some information directly about information directly about the UoA and/or similar fisheries/ ecosystems). the UoA and/or the ecosystem involved ecosystem involved

Met? Y Y Y

Justification Effect of longline fisheries on ecosystems are widely reviewed by many NGOs, with recommendations mostly focused on bycatch mitigation measures which the fishery is already practicing (section 3.4.9 – Circle hooks, tori lines, deep set hooks, night setting, relevant I.D guides, unhooking equipment etc). “The best practices for reduction of bycatch in longline tuna fisheries” recently published and distributed jointly

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 176 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

by 4 major environmental NGOs (Anon 2018) indicates the risks posed to ecosystem from longline fisheries from bycatch and its mitigation practices recommended. In the ICCAT subcommittee on ecosystems focus also on mitigation of various categories of bycatch. Therefore the largest threat on ecosystem posed by the fishery is considered to be from bycatch. These measures already taken as throughout this report. There are evidence of low rates of bycatch in this fishery therefore SG100 is met.

c Management strategy implementation

Guidepost There is some evidence that the There is clear evidence that the partial measures/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 Y

Justification Bycatch interaction is low (by species and number) and ETP interaction is reported as minimal, with information available from consolidated observer data supporting this. The gear specification and bycatch mitigation measures and management of gears were confirmed at the site visit by the assessment team, therefore it is clear that this strategy is implemented successfully. SG100 is met.

References See (Anon 2018) and section 3.4.9, logbook records 2013-2017, Observer data, also ICES (2018) OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 95 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 177 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Guidepost Information is adequate to identify the key Information is adequate to broadly elements of the ecosystem. understand the key elements of the ecosystem.

Met? Y Y

Justification Available information suggests that key elements of the ecosystem for the UoA are known from literature and from information gathered on the fishery itself.

b Investigation of UoA impacts

Guidepost Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main impacts of the UoA on these key Main interactions between the UoA and ecosystem elements can be inferred from ecosystem elements can be inferred from these ecosystem elements can be inferred existing information, but have not been existing information, and some have been from existing information, and have been investigated in detail. investigated in detail. investigated in detail.

Met? Y Y N

Justification Main impacts of the longline fisheries on key ecosystem elements are known from published information and the main impacts identified as impacts on bycatch species have been investigated. SG80 is met Some regional studies are available in detail (Forrestal et al. 2012) but these are not directly transferrable to the mid-Atlantic where the UoA operates. There is little ecosystem modeling information (eg Ecosim) for North Atlantic BFT food webs and fishery impacts. SG100 is not met

c Understanding of component functions

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 178 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guidepost The main functions of the components (i.e., The impacts of the UoA on P1 target species, P1 target species, primary, secondary and primary, secondary and ETP species and ETP species and Habitats) in the ecosystem Habitats are identified and the main are known. functions of these components in the ecosystem are understood.

Met? Y N

Justification Main functions of target species, primary, secondary and ETP species in the ecosystem are widely and historically studied and known. The catch, bycatch rates and ETP species interactions from the fishery have been reported and mainly known, however released/ discard species mortality and how it affects ecosystem as a fishery itself has not been studies in detail. Therefore SG100 is not met.

d Information relevance

Guidepost Adequate information is available on the Adequate information is available on the impacts of the UoA on these components to impacts of the UoA on the components and allow some of the main consequences for elements to allow the main consequences the ecosystem to be inferred. for the ecosystem to be inferred.

Met? Y N

Justification Adequate information on the UoA impacts (bycatch and ETP) is discussed at length under Components 2.1, 2.2. and 2.3. From these the main consequences can be inferred; that the scale of the UoA to the overall populations of the impacts species is minimal. SG80 is met. Some impact study of sea turtles, seabirds, bycatch species are assessed by SCRS subcommittee and other institutes to be available to forming fisheries management recommendation. Integrated ecosystem elements analysis focused on habitat and food web and water column dynamics to understand the impacts of the UoA is not available at this point. SG100 is not met

e Monitoring

Guidepost Adequate data continue to be collected to Information is adequate to support the detect any increase in risk level. development of strategies to manage ecosystem impacts.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 179 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y Y

Justification ICCAT SCRS sub-committee on ecosystems meeting gathered at Madrid in 2018 and discuss new indicators for all ecological components of ICCAT’s EBFM framework (i.e. target species, bycatch, habitat and trophic relationships) and this is underway. Data collection efforts are maintained to detect any risk from the fishing impact. Although not perfect, and the quality of data submitted varies among CPCs, and harmonization efforts are a must However, information is considered adequate to support the development of strategies in continuing the effort to manage ecosystem impacts.

References See (Anon 2018) and section 3.4.9, logbook records 2013-2017, Observer data, also ICES (2018)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85 CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 180 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 1.3 Principle 3

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.1 – Legal and/or customary framework

The management system exists within an appropriate legal and/or customary framework which ensures that it: • Is capable of delivering sustainability in the UoA(s); and PI 3.1.1 • Observes the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood; and • Incorporates an appropriate dispute resolution framework.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Compatibility of laws or standards with effective management

Guidep There is an effective national legal system and a There is an effective national legal system There is an effective national legal system and ost framework for cooperation with other parties, and organised and effective cooperation binding procedures governing cooperation with where necessary, to deliver management with other parties, where necessary, to other parties which delivers management outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and deliver management outcomes consistent outcomes consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. 2 with MSC Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y N There are three jurisdiction categories of importance to this fishery: the tuna RFMO ICCAT, Japan as flag state, port state and end-market state, Justific and EU/Spain as port state mainly, also possibly Cape Verde. ation

ICCAT provides the overarching framework to deliver cooperation with all parties to deliver management outcomes for Principle 1 and 2 for the BFT-E. The International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT 2007) is the formal document that establishes the international legal and administrative structure for the management of tuna and tuna-like stocks. Japan has been a contracting party from the start (1967) and is an active member of its four Panels including Panel 2-Northern temperate tunas and 4-Other species. Japanese delegates also contribute actively to all Committees and Working Groups related to Principle 1 and Principle 2 indicators relating to the BFT-e fishery. In 2016, an independent review panel noted that since 2008 “ICCAT has redressed the situation, both in terms of the status of the stock and the conduct of the (BFT-e) fishery” (ICCAT, 2016a), and therefore that ICCAT now provides an effective framework for organised and active cooperation for this fishery.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 181 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Japan: The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) in Japan is in charge of overall fisheries management in Japan, administered by the Fisheries Agency (FA). In December 2018 Japan made a major amendment to fisheries-related laws first time in about 70 years, to modernize the fisheries management system, while their promulgation is planned in 2020. The Fisheries Act No. 267 (1949), the Law for Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996), both of which were amended partly this time, and the fisheries basic law (2001) sets an overarching legal framework and functional roles and responsibilities for the management of fisheries in Japan. These law amendments have strengthened the utilization of scientific base fisheries objectives for sustainable fisheries and legal management obligation of the government. The Fisheries Act (1949) requires vessels and fishers who plan to operate in offshore fisheries to be licensed by MAFF. The number of licensed vessels by tonnage and by fishing area is reviewed every five years and publicised in the Official Gazette. Wherever the vessels are fishing, the vessels must be registered, obtain permission from the authority and abide by all the legislative requirements. There are detailed regulations that prescribe the permission and control of licenced fisheries, stipulated in Article 52 of the Fisheries Act – Ministerial Ordinance on the Permission, regulation etc. of designated fisheries. Japan has signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the UN Fish Stock Agreement, the FAO Code of conduct for responsible Fisheries. It supports four International Plans of Action (IPOA) on management of sea birds, sharks, fishing capacity and IUU fishing. Up to date ICCAT vessel registry and report information show that reports (including scientific observer reports for Principle 2) for the Japanese Longlining (LL) fleet, including the UoA-vessel, operating in the North East Atlantic are submitted on time and regularly, also indicating effective cooperation. SG80 is met for both ICCAT and Japan. Some important features of the management system (use of precautionary approach Res 15-12, and Res 15- 09 penalties in case of non-fulfilment of reporting obligations) are still non-binding ICCAT Resolutions, SG100 is not met.

b Resolution of disputes

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

Met? Y Y N ICCAT has a tradition of making decisions by consensus and resolving disputes informally, e.g. ICCAT members discuss issues in species panels, Justific approving panel reports and raising relevant issues at Commission sessions providing a full airing of concerns in an effort to avoid disputes. ation However, in cases where disputes cannot be settled, the ICCAT Convention provides a process of objection allowing individual Contracting Parties (CPCs) to withdraw from endorsing and implementing an ICCAT recommendation (ICCAT Convention Article VIII (2,3). The procedure has been used infrequently (12 times between 1969 and 2015), with 7 objections raised by two member states with respect to their bluefin tuna allocation (Spencer et al. 2016).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 182 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

ICCAT’s Conservation and Management Measures Compliance Committee (CMM-CC) monitors compliance with the Convention and ICCAT recommendations, which are binding insofar as the Contracting Party agree to implement them domestically. The CC has the potential to address disputes over implementation of ICCAT recommendations, but was found to be generally ineffective by ICCAT’s Independent Review Panel (Spencer et al. 2016). ICCAT recognised the need for a more formal dispute settlement procedure, and the matter has been progressing slowly according to the Working Group on Convention Amendment (CWG). The latest report of the Working Group on Convention Amendment has agreed on proposals, which would need to be officially incorporated into the ICCAT’s Convention to be final before they can be tested and proven effective as the need arises (ICCAT 2018g).

At national level, the Fisheries Basic Act has set up the Fisheries Policy Discussion Committee within MAFF, which deals with issues related to all fisheries-related laws in Japan (Chapter 4, Article 35-39). This approach allows the resolution of issues by discussion before they develop into a dispute, therefore development of legal disputes is rare. The Committee can advise the Minister or related administration’s chief or request cooperation for information and clarification. The scheduled committee meetings and minutes are open and available online. It is considered that this is generally effective, as legal disputes are minimal in the fisheries management in Japan although internal discussions are frequent. As most fisheries infractions are settled within the Fisheries Policy Discussion Committee within MAFF, it rarely develops into legal issues. Therefore, the resolution of legal disputes has not been fully tested and proven to be effective. Japan’s Policy Discussion Committee members are appointed by the chief of the committee, but their selection mechanism is not explained clearly with transparency. Although appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms exist at both levels of management, they are not fully tested and proven. Therefore SG80 is considered to be met, but SG100 is not.

c Respect for rights

Guidep The management system has a mechanism to The management system has a mechanism The management system has a mechanism to ost generally respect the legal rights created to observe the legal rights created explicitly formally commit to the legal rights created explicitly or established by custom of people or established by custom of people explicitly or established by custom of people dependent on fishing for food or livelihood in a dependent on fishing for food or livelihood dependent on fishing for food and livelihood in a manner consistent with the objectives of MSC in a manner consistent with the objectives of manner consistent with the objectives of MSC Principles 1 and 2. MSC Principles 1 and 2. Principles 1 and 2.

Met? Y Y N ICCAT (2015e) Resolution 15-13 deals specifically with “Criteria for Allocation of Fishing Possibilities” to CPCs and recognises priority interests of Justific artisanal, subsistence, small-scale coastal fishers, coastal fishing communities, coastal states and regions dependent on fishing for the stocks, and ation fisheries on the High Seas, together with the economic and/or social importance of the fishery for qualifying participants whose fishing vessels have habitually participated in the fishery in the Convention area. For ICCAT contracting parties, a Resolution is not binding, therefore there is no commitment at that level. Only SG80 is met.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 183 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

In Japan, the provision for Common Fishery Rights with the 1949 Fisheries Law (amended 2018) demonstrates clear commitment to traditional fisheries. Japan’s Fisheries Act chapter II (article 6 to 51) observes and protects rights of coastal fishermen that are dependent on fishing for food or livelihood. The systematic co-management system protected by the Fisheries Cooperative Law (1948, amended 2018) allows fishermen’s discretion in the management of local resources within the legal framework. SG100 would be met at this level, but overall only SG80 can be satisfied based on the ICCAT resolution being not binding for contracting parties.

ICCAT, 2016a, ICCAT (2015e) Resolution 15-13, ICCAT 2018g, ICCAT (2007), Spencer et al. (2016) The Fisheries Act No. 267 (1949) and amendment 2018, References The Law for Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996) Fisheries Basic Law (2001)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 184 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Guidep Organisations and individuals involved in the Organisations and individuals involved in Organisations and individuals involved in the ost management process have been identified. the management process have been management process have been identified. Functions, roles and responsibilities are identified. Functions, roles and Functions, roles and responsibilities are explicitly generally understood. responsibilities are explicitly defined and defined and well understood for all areas of well understood for key areas of responsibility and interaction. responsibility and interaction.

Met? Y Y Y

Justific The ICCAT Convention defines the roles and responsibilities of the Commission, of the Secretariat and the Contracting Parties. The ICCAT Manual ation (ICCAT 2016d) provides an organigram and explicitly describes the functions, roles and responsibilities of the various ICCAT subsidiary bodies (see section 3.5.3.1). ICCAT meetings are advertised in advance and the preparatory and final reports are accessible to all. They explain clearly the role and areas of responsibilities. Contributions from stakeholders including environmental NGOs submitted to ICCAT and reports from the press demonstrate how all parties interact and roles are well understood. The roles of the Japanese government are well defined and understood and elaborated in the Fisheries Act. The Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF) is responsible for management of marine biological resources and fishery production activities, administered by the Fisheries Agency (FAJ). All distant-water fisheries are managed directly by the ministry and the fisheries are operated with minister-issued licenses. The FA requires that all vessels operating in the Atlantic targeting BFT-e submit daily catch records. Measures to comply with minimum sizes, time area closures and so on have been incorporated into Japanese legislation by Ministerial Order, as per ICCATs recommendations. Implementation of these recommendations is discussed and coordinated in detail within Fisheries Cooperative members to determine how to effectively meet the obligations. Japan maintains several research institutes under FA’s guidance, such as the National Research Institute of Far Seas fisheries (NRIFSF, see (ICCAT 2017c)). Research institutes and fisheries cooperatives cooperate with each other for effective research implementation.

b Consultation processes

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 185 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guidep The management system includes consultation The management system includes The management system includes consultation ost processes that obtain relevant information consultation processes that regularly seek processes that regularly seek and accept relevant from the main affected parties, including local and accept relevant information, including information, including local knowledge. The knowledge, to inform the management system. local knowledge. The management system management system demonstrates consideration of demonstrates consideration of the the information and explains how it is used or not information obtained. used.

Met? Y Y N

Justific ICCAT has an extensive programme of data collection through vessel and port registration, electronic catch reporting and scientific observations and ation inspections agreed through recommendations, that has been agreed by all stakeholders in the fishery. Consideration of the information obtained is demonstrated in the Japanese and other CPCs annual reports and discussions the ICCAT Panel 2, WG and biennial Commission reports, which also explain how the information is used or not for stock assessment. At the national level, the Japanese Fisheries Policy Council plays a key role in consultation processes that regularly seek and accept relevant information including local knowledge to incorporate into management measures. The council meeting is open for all interested parties but only invitees are able to comment. The FAJ regularly undertakes both formal and informal consultation with fishing industry stakeholders and other groups. The government interacts throughout the year with industry stakeholders that provide the parties opportunities to inform the management system. Within the Japan Skipjack and Tuna Fisheries Cooperative Association (JSTFCA or Nikkatsu), fishermen regularly gather to discuss resources management and countermeasures for resource and regulatory issues. Through these, fishermen have opportunities to meet and directly ask FA officials to express their opinion. The engagement on coordination among fishermen, government, and research institutes is strong, and considered that at least informally, the management system demonstrates consideration of the information and explains how it is used or not used, although the resultant process may not become publicly available. SG80 is therefore met however it is not clear whether explanation of how given information is used and not used is demonstrated, therefore SG100 is not met in Japan.

c Participation

Guidep The consultation process provides The consultation process provides opportunity and ost opportunity for all interested and affected encouragement for all interested and affected parties parties to be involved. to be involved, and facilitates their effective engagement.

Met? Y N The ICCAT Convention (Article 11) states that the Commission may invite any appropriate international organization and any non-member Justific Government that is a member of the UN or of any Specialized Agency to send observers to meetings of the Commission and its subsidiary bodies. ation

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 186 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

There is a Meeting Participation Fund (ICCAT Recommendation 11-26) to facilitate participation of developing ICCAT CPC countries in all ICCAT activities (training, inspections, meetings). The need to further support participation of stakeholders from developing countries was noted in the second Performance Evaluation (Spencer et al. 2016). The participation of independent expert and academic researchers is also explicitly encouraged in SCRS and for the Peer Review mechanisms (ICCAT Resolution on the best available science (ICCAT 2011b). ICCAT meetings dates are advertised on the ICCAT website from year to year, providing an opportunity for all interested and affected parties to be involved, including in the Scientific process. Various stakeholders also participate to Commission meetings as part of the national delegations. All meetings are opened to Observers who have to register on the website 50 days ahead of time and cover their costs and a fee to cover ICCAT’s additional expenses. The Guidelines and Criteria for Granting Observer Status at ICCAT Meetings (ICCAT 2005)clearly state that “All non- governmental organizations (NGOs) which support the objectives of ICCAT and with a demonstrated interest in the species under the purview of ICCAT should be eligible to participate as an observer in all meetings of the organization and its subsidiary bodies, except extraordinary meetings held in executive sessions or meetings of Heads of Delegations.” Applications are accepted unless one-third of the CPCs object. Observers are not allowed to vote, but they can, upon invitation by the chair, make an oral statement during the meeting and distribute documents at meetings through the Secretariat. SG100 is met.

At the Japanese national level, the Fisheries Policy Council plays a key role in consultation processes that seeks and accepts relevant information. The council normally consists of government staff, science researchers, representatives from fisheries industry and cooperatives, appointed experts from academia. Interested parties can request attendance as observers, however they do not have opportunity to comment in the meeting. In 2017, WWF Japan was involved and included in the Japanese government tuna management discussions. As a basis, the Council discussion and minutes are open to public, with 30 days public comment period, although there were some irregular closed meetings and usually shorter public comment period for Pacific bluefin council meetings. In the past few years there is a tendency to improve the opportunity for participation for all interested and affected parties to be involved. SG 80 is met however SG100 is not met.

ICCAT (2017c; 2017m; 2005; 2016b; 2011b; 2011a), ICCAT (2016b) The Fisheries Act No. 267 (1949) and amendment 2018, References The Law for Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996) Fisheries Basic Law (2001)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 85

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 187 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.1.3 – Long term objectives

The management policy has clear long-term objectives to guide decision-making that are consistent with MSC fisheries standard, and incorporates PI 3.1.3 the precautionary approach.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guidep Long-term objectives to guide decision-making, Clear long-term objectives that guide Clear long-term objectives that guide decision- ost consistent with the MSC fisheries standard and decision-making, consistent with MSC making, consistent with MSC fisheries standard the precautionary approach, are implicit within fisheries standard and the precautionary and the precautionary approach, are explicit management policy. approach are explicit within management within and required by management policy. policy.

Met? Y Y N ICCAT: Justific The long-term objective set out in Article VIII of the ICCAT Convention (2007) is to maintain the populations of tuna and tuna-like fishes that may ation be taken in the Convention area at levels which will permit the maximum sustainable catch. There is no mention of the precautionary approach in the Convention but Resolution 15-11 states that the “Commission should apply an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management” and Resolution 15-12 states that “when making recommendations pursuant to Article VIII of the Convention, the Commission should apply a precautionary approach, in accordance with relevant international standards.” (ICCAT, 2019). For BFT-e specifically, Recommendation 17-07 the BFT-e Recovery Plan sets explicitly the objective of “managing fishing activities by maintaining catches at or below the MSY estimate shall also be supported by a Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) maintained over or at a level of the corresponding SSBMSY, referring to the SCRS most precautionary MSY estimate.” The management objective of 17-07 and previous iterations of the rebuilding plan was to achieve BMSY with at least 60 % probability. [Rec. 17-07]- will be replaced by [Rec. 18-02] in 2019, with a slightly different management objective: to achieve B0.1 (proxy for BMSY) by fishing ‘at or below’ F0.1; i.e. a slightly lower objective (ICCAT 2018d), but one that still that can be considered precautionary. Although resolutions are not binding, the recommendations relating to the current management of BFT-E are presently binding to all CPCs exploiting the resource, and therefore one could conclude that the precautionary approach is required by ICCAT management policy for BFT-e.

Japan: At national level, the Fisheries Basic Act (2001) and amended Fisheries Act (1949) requires conservation and management of fisheries resources to ensure its sustainable use as a component of marine ecosystem, in accordance with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which Japan ratified in 1996.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 188 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The amended fisheries Act has integrated to include the Law of Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996) (“TAC law”), which legally enshrines the use of MSY and measurable science-based objectives for fisheries management and implementation of precautionary approach starting from prioritized commercial fisheries. The law also guides to protect the surrounding ecosystem and habitat. Japan formally accepted the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. This formally commits Japan to the precautionary principle. A National Fisheries Master Plan of 2018 shows the commitment to full utilization of fishery resources with sustainable management to provide stable supply of products and contribute to development of fishing communities. It is generally in accordance with MSC Principles 1 and 2, however promulgation of the laws is expected in 2020 thus it is not fully required by management policy yet. Therefore SG100 is not met and SG80 is given.

ICCAT (2017a; 2018d; 2007; 2015d; 2015b) References Fisheries Basic Act (2001), Fisheries Act (1949), National Fisheries Master Plan of 2018 (2019), Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 189 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.1 Fishery-specific objectives

PI 3.2.1 The fishery-specific management system has clear, specific objectives designed to achieve the outcomes expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Objectives

Guidep Objectives, which are broadly consistent with Short and long-term objectives, which are Well defined and measurable short and long- ost achieving the outcomes expressed by MSC’s consistent with achieving the outcomes term objectives, which are demonstrably Principles 1 and 2, are implicit within the expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are consistent with achieving the outcomes fishery-specific management system. explicit within the fishery-specific management expressed by MSC’s Principles 1 and 2, are system. explicit within the fishery-specific management system.

Met? Y Y N

Justific The overarching objective of ICCAT is to maintain catches of species in their purview at maximum sustainable catch levels (ICCAT 2007). ation As a member of ICCAT, Japan applies decisions of ICCAT and apply its CMMs in management. Japan must adjust its fishing capacity to ensure that it is commensurate with its allocated BFT-e quota. To this effect, Japan established an annual fishing management plan for discussion and approval by the Commission in 2017 (see ICCAT (2017m; 2017l)) For BFT-e specifically, Recommendation 17-07 (ICCAT 2017a) follows on from a number of binding previous recommendations for CPCs with vessels have actively fishing for bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean to “implement a 15 year Recovery Plan for bluefin tuna in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean starting in 2007 and continuing through 2022, with the goal of achieving BMSY with at least 60 % probability.” Rec. 17-07 regarding the Recovery Plan (and previously Rec. 14-04) sets TAC increase over 3 years as part of the Recovery Plan, that reviewed every year, with a Management Plan due for 2018. In Rec 17-07 that came into effect in August 2018 the objective is explicit: “managing fishing activities by maintaining catches at or below the MSY estimate shall also be supported by a Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) maintained over or at a level of the corresponding SSBMSY, referring to the SCRS most precautionary MSY estimate and noting that annual increases of 20% of the TAC over three years would correspond to a moderate and gradual increase of the catch level to the most precautionary MSY estimate of the SCRS. [Rec. 17-07]- will be replaced by [Rec. 18-02] in 2019, with a slightly different management objective: to achieve B0.1 (proxy for BMSY) by fishing ‘at or below’ F0.1; i.e. a slightly lower objective (ICCAT 2018d), but one that still that can be considered precautionary. Regarding Principle 2, the Commission adopted the Resolution by ICCAT on Atlantic Sharks [Res. 01-11], the Recommendation by ICCAT Concerning the Conservation of Sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT [Rec. 04-10] (ICCAT 2004a), the Supplemental Recommendation

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 190 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

by ICCAT concerning Sharks [Rec. 07- 06], including the obligation of CPCs to annually report Task I & II data for sharks in accordance with ICCAT data reporting procedures and the Recommendation by ICCAT on the Development of Harvest Control Rules and of Management Strategy Evaluation (Rec. 15-07) for commercially exploited species and catch avoidance and survival estimation for released sharks. Catch limits have been set for Blue shark (Prionace glauca) (Rec 16-12) (ICCAT 2016a). Similarly, for ETP species, ICCAT has developed explicit policy objectives to avoid catches and data collection binding recommendations to that effect e.g. REC 10-09 regarding sea turtles (ICCAT 2010a); 11-09 regarding seabirds (ICCAT 2011a); there are also two (non-binding) resolutions regarding Co-operation with CITES: 93-08 and 93-09 (ICCAT 1993a; ICCAT 1993b), but it cannot be said that objectives are well defined and measurable for P2 species. Only SG80 is met.

References ICCAT (2013; 2010b; 2017a; 2017i; 2017k; 2007; 2016a; 2004a; 2010a; 2011a; 1993b; 2015a; 2018b)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 191 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.2 – Decision-making processes

The fishery-specific management system includes effective decision-making processes that result in measures and strategies to achieve the PI 3.2.2 objectives, and has an appropriate approach to actual disputes in the fishery.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a Decision-making processes

Guidep There are some decision-making processes in There are established decision-making ost place that result in measures and strategies to processes that result in measures and strategies achieve the fishery-specific objectives. to achieve the fishery-specific objectives.

Met? Y Y ICCAT’s principle objective is to maintain fish stocks at levels that will permit the maximum sustainable catch. The ICCAT Convention (art.3) Justific requires decisions to be taken by a majority of Contracting Parties (CPCs), each with one vote. Two thirds of the CPCs constitute a quorum, but ation ICCAT mostly seeks consensus. The Commission receives advice from its Panels and Committees, e.g. scientific advice on issues such as stock status and catch limits comes from the SCRS. Its regular meetings are biennial, with Special meetings the other years as needed. Its main subsidiary bodies, such as the SCRS involved the scientific management advice of BFT-e have met every year, or more often for specialized Working Groups. The last Performance Review (Spencer et al. 2016) noted that “The desire to manage on a consensus basis is laudable, but approaches may have to change bearing in mind there are 55 CPCs now in ICCAT. In the view of the Panel, the pursuit of the consensus objective has often led to either the postponement of decisions, the change in proposals from a legally binding recommendation to a non-legally binding resolution, or continued deferral of decision-making on the adoption of measures.” As reported by the Work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Follow up of the Second ICCAT Performance Review (ICCAT 2017l) work is on-going to improve this and other points of governance. Nevertheless, decision-making processes are well-established and, for the BFT-e fishery, have shown in recent years that they can result in measures and strategies to achieve the fishery-specific objectives. When ICCAT conservation and management measures (CMM) are agreed upon, member states’ performance requirements are determined. As a member state, Japan has an obligation to implement them in accordance with the Fisheries Act (1949), the Law for Conservation and Management of Marine Living Resources (1996), both of which were amended this time (the Act to amend a part of the fisheries Laws, 2018), and the fisheries basic law (2001). If the implementation of the new CMMs requires related domestic law amendment, the FAJ consults with the Fishery Policy Council (FPC). Within the FPC, which consists of government, academic and industry representatives, the possible actions for implementation and law modification are discussed. Ministerial orders may be issued to implement a change in fishery management system. Once the law amendment or management reform is made, FAJ announces them through the national government’s official gazette, as well as in letters sent directly to the Japan Tuna and Skipjack Fishery Cooperative (JTSFC), which would then issue guidance to each member fishing company, which

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 192 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

includes Usufuku Honten. Any change of regulation after RFMO meetings or guidance issued by FAJ to guide compliance measures with fishermen are disseminated through the JTSFC to its members. SG80 is met.

b Responsiveness of decision-making processes

Guidep Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to serious Decision-making processes respond to all ost issues identified in relevant research, and other important issues identified in issues identified in relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and monitoring, evaluation and consultation, in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner and consultation, in a transparent, timely and transparent, timely and adaptive manner and take some account of the wider implications of adaptive manner and take account of the wider take account of the wider implications of decisions. implications of decisions. decisions.

Met? Y Y N

Justific Since 2013, the BFT-e Recovery Plan (and Multi-Annual Management plan from 2019) has been monitored and complemented as needed, through ation the decision-making processes that responded to serious and other important issues identified in relevant research, monitoring. The 2016 ICCAT Performance Review has shown that progress is still needed generally regarding timeliness and transparency, this does not apply to the BFT-e, for which “major efforts were made by ICCAT and its CPCs to bring this fishery under control and that has been achieved. The stock appears to be in a significantly improved status on the basis of SCRS evaluations. The ICCAT experience on bluefin tuna in the last 10 years is an example that, with the correct synergy between CPCs and with the ICCAT secretariat, such challenges can be addressed and overcome. As such, it is an example to other RFMOs faced with major conservation challenges.” (ICCAT, 2016e). For the Atlantic BFT fishery serious and important issues are presently being addressed. SG80 is met. ICCAT is increasingly focusing on the fisheries impacts on other species, but some issues are still pending. SG100 is not met. Japanese tuna fisheries cooperatives, government, scientific body, meets regularly to discuss and exchange opinions on management policy, scientific research, international relation and domestic organization coordination, etc. but the management decision is made at RFMO level. SG80 is met

c Use of precautionary approach

Guidep Decision-making processes use the ost precautionary approach and are based on best available information.

Met? Y

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 193 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Justific ICCAT's decisions are based on the best available scientific information and science (ICCAT 2011b), and for BFT and this fishery, the precautionary ation approach is used by SCRS, Panel 2 and other WG, and their advice is followed by the Commission as clearly stated in the recommendations and management measures (see Rec. 17-07 and 18-02) (ICCAT 2017a; ICCAT 2018d). SG80 is met. At national level, Japan adopts ICCAT decisions and implements the allocation quota and CMMs. Fisheries Cooperatives which is mainly responsible for implementation of regulations among members frequently coordinates with FA and gather Fishermen’s meeting who operates in the Atlantic Oceans specifically, to determine operation details and necessary rules to be able to follow requirements. Any local conditions, fisher’s special requests or opinions are heard to precautionary ensure implementation of each particular requirement. As a result fishers are well informed to achieve good reporting requirements, participation to observer program, and bycatch mitigation measures in general. SG80 is met.

d Accountability and transparency of management system and decision-making process

Guidep Some information on the fishery’s performance Information on the fishery’s performance and Formal reporting to all interested stakeholders ost and management action is generally available management action is available on request, provides comprehensive information on the on request to stakeholders. and explanations are provided for any actions or fishery’s performance and management lack of action associated with findings and actions and describes how the management relevant recommendations emerging from system responded to findings and relevant research, monitoring, evaluation and review recommendations emerging from research, activity. monitoring, evaluation and review activity.

Met? Y Y N For ICCAT, the ICCAT website provides an easy and full access to the comprehensive set of documents produced by the Commission and its Justific subsidiary bodies in three languages (Spanish English and French). The preamble to ICCAT Recommendations generally describes the mandate ation within which ICCAT is acting, the reason(s) why management measures are necessary and elements of research or other information that provide reasons for why action is or is not being taken (see Rec 18-02 (ICCAT 2018d)). ICCAT also reports the decisions taken by the Commission in its biennial reports including copies of the CPCs annual reports also posted on the ICCAT website. SG100 is met. In Japan, formal reporting with comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions are not available for all interested stakeholders, and availability tends to be limited for internal use. For this assessment observer data summary was provided by FA upon request and the explanations were provided for non-availability of raw report. Although requested, review and evaluation documents of Atlantic bluefin tuna longline program to see any recommendation on the fishery’s performance were not available. Instead, a TOR of the program to perform evaluation was provided. The minutes of the Fishery Policy Council are available for review online.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 194 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

As it does not provide comprehensive information on the fishery’s performance and management actions, which describes how the management system responded to findings and recommendations emerging from research, monitoring, evaluation and review activity, SG 80 is met but SG100 is not met.

e Approach to disputes

Guidep Although the management authority or fishery The management system or fishery is The management system or fishery acts ost may be subject to continuing court challenges, attempting to comply in a timely fashion with proactively to avoid legal disputes or rapidly it is not indicating a disrespect or defiance of the judicial decisions arising from any legal implements judicial decisions arising from law by repeatedly violating the same law or challenges. legal challenges. regulation necessary for the sustainability for the fishery.

Met? Y Y N

Justific ICCAT’s bodies (Commission, SCRS, Species Panels, WG) regularly meet and providing opportunities for discussion and airing of any possible concerns ation (see Compliance Committee – COC reports). These and the consensus favoured decision-making process effectively avoid the risk of legal challenges. None could be found. In cases when disputes cannot be settled, the ICCAT Convention provides a process for Contracting Parties to object and withdraw from endorsing and implementing an ICCAT Recommendation (ICCAT Convention art. VIII). However, Recommendations are not always adopted rapidly as a result. Therefore, only SG80 is met. However, following the last performance Review (Spencer et al. 2016) Art. VIII of the Convention is currently redrafted to clarify dispute resolution procedures. The Japanese management system has well-established decision-making mechanisms for administrative and legal appeals and has in place legal and other frameworks to respond to judicial decisions in a timely fashion. The Fishery Policy Council is held to discuss issues in a timely fashion to comply with RFMO decisions or judicial decisions arising from any legal challenges, thus avoiding disputes by consulting with industry and cooperatives.

ICCAT Convention art. VIII, Fisheries Basic Act (2001), Fisheries Act (1949), National Fisheries Master Plan of 2018 (2019), Conservation and References Management of Marine Living Resources (1996). Fromentin & Kell (2008), ICCAT (2016e; 2018h; 2017a; 2018d; 2017m; 2011a), Spencer et al. (2016), (ICCAT 2017l)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 195 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 196 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Evaluation Table for PI 3.2.3 – Compliance and enforcement

PI 3.2.3 Monitoring, control and surveillance mechanisms ensure the management measures in the fishery are enforced and complied with.

Scoring Issue SG 60 SG 80 SG 100

a MCS implementation

Guidep Monitoring, control and surveillance A monitoring, control and surveillance system has been A comprehensive monitoring, control and ost mechanisms exist, and are implemented in implemented in the fishery and has demonstrated an surveillance system has been implemented the fishery and there is a reasonable ability to enforce relevant management measures, in the fishery and has demonstrated a expectation that they are effective. strategies and/or rules. consistent ability to enforce relevant management measures, strategies and/or rules.

Met? Y Y N The 2nd Performance Review found that “ICCAT does not possess sufficient mechanisms for effective at-sea monitoring of fishing operations for most Justific stocks, with the exception of eastern bluefin tuna, and that a modern high seas boarding and inspection (HSBI) Scheme needs to be adopted” (ICCAT ation 2017l). For BFT-e overall, the system has been comprehensive for some years, but as the stock recovers, some CPCs, such as the EU may have relaxed some rules, such as increasing the number of small ports as designated ports, that have stretched their inspection capacity and increased the risk for over-quota or un-tagged BFT-e fish being landed. This has happened in the past two years in Spain and France as revealed by the recent Interpol investigations involving Malta-based tuna farms (see main report section 3.5.7.3). Therefore, the MCS system cannot be seen as comprehensive at present. Only SG80 is met. At the Japanese level, FA maintains license and registration of fishery operators and vessels, in cooperation with fisheries cooperatives. Monitoring through VMS, Port monitoring, observer program, along with logbook report requirements, transhipment reporting, and FA’s surveillance vessel dispatch under ICCAT obligation are implemented and no major non-compliance is reported so far. The eBCD is in place and reported directly to FA and ICCAT. However, there is no comprehensive system description of MCS within Japan or review of effectiveness to demonstrate consistent ability on enforcement. Therefore, SG100 is not met.

b Sanctions

Guidep Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, are Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist, ost and there is some evidence that they are consistently applied and thought to provide effective are consistently applied and demonstrably applied. deterrence. provide effective deterrence.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 197 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Met? Y Y N

Justific ICCAT relies on its Contracting Parties to implement effective sanctions over their flagged vessels. ICCAT can impose trade sanctions and remove, ation suspend or reduce quota allocated to non-compliant CPCs. This happened with several EU countries with purse seiner fleets and tuna-farms in the past. Even though recent instances of non-compliance do not concern this UoA, existing sanctions applied by EU member states no not appear to have had a lasting deterrent effect on the tuna-farming and associated vessels as demonstrated by the ongoing EUROPOL investigation. Japanese, sanctions are issued through the ministerial order on designated fisheries permit and control, based on the Fisheries law and the law on marine resources protection, for violation on fishery permits and relevant conditions, vessel capacity, catch reporting, surveillance compliance, VMS, transshipment and landing of fish, etc. The sanctions are either imprisonment, fines, permit removals or suspensions, confiscation of catch, boat or gear, etc. or combination of these. However, for this fishery there is no past record that any illegal activity has been reported therefore no record on the sanction either. Only SG80 is met.

c Compliance

Guidep Fishers are generally thought to comply Some evidence exists to demonstrate fishers comply There is a high degree of confidence that ost with the management system for the fishery with the management system under assessment, fishers comply with the management system under assessment, including, when including, when required, providing information of under assessment, including, providing required, providing information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. information of importance to the effective importance to the effective management of management of the fishery. the fishery.

Met? Y Y N ICCAT - Not applicable Justific Japan fleet / UoA vessel - The client vessel demonstrated a high level of compliance through logbook and landing report, licensing, participation to ation cooperatives and government meetings and is considered to provide information of importance to the effective management of the fishery. The only minor non-compliance found can be the practice of not filling “zero” as instructed in the logbook format in the bycatch reporting sheet, however this appears to have been corrected in 2018. The fishery under assessment demonstrate that the fishery is compliant with existing rules and regulations. The client company also engages in voluntary measures on bycatch mitigation, and in land-based activities on fisheries education to local schools. SG80 is met.

d Systematic non-compliance

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 198 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Guidep There is no evidence of systematic non-compliance. ost

Met? Y

Justific From the ICCAT: perspective, there is no evidence of systematic non-compliance, and no amount of unreported catches have been included in the ation models used by SCRS. A large number of Monitoring, Control and Surveillance (MCS) components and partners come together including a widespread application of the Port State Measures Agreement (PSMA) in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean, also the electronic catch reporting for BFT-E (eBCD), the EU Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA) Joint Deployment plan and coordination with NEAFC and ICCAT. The EFCA has clearly identified elevated IUU fishing risks on the stock (EFCA 2017). Even though, some risks of systematic non-compliance exist, as detailed in the report above. A score of SG80 is met in the fishery and can be assumed to hold for the BFT-e resource as a whole at present and until the non-compliance detected by the ongoing EUROPOL investigation or other MCS operations suggest otherwise. There are series of monitoring activities conducted by the Japanese government. There is no reported systematic non-compliance in the Japanese longline fishery for BFT-e. The team agrees SG 80 is met.

References (ICCAT 2017l), (EFCA 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 80

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): Na

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 199 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

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

Guidep There are mechanisms in place to evaluate There are mechanisms in place to evaluate key There are mechanisms in place to evaluate all ost some parts of the fishery-specific parts of the fishery-specific management system parts of the fishery-specific management management system. system.

Met? Y Y N ICCAT has mechanisms to evaluate and review all parts of the fishery specific management system through various committees, e.g. the SCRS Justific evaluates scientific research, the COC monitors and evaluates compliance with the Convention and ICCAT Recommendations. ICCAT also conducts ation independent periodic reviews of its own performance by using external experts (Spencer et al. 2016).

In Japanese management system, some project-specific reviews and evaluation of the fishery-specific management system are in place, such as peer review of stock assessments by external scientists, evaluation of observer programs including that of ICCAT, under the Comprehensive International Resources Management Systems Construction Program. The fishery white paper published annually provides an overall performance review of Japanese fisheries including distant-water longline fisheries. However, for the fishery-specific management system for BFT longline fisheries in particular, holistic evaluation of whether the management meets its objective such as internal or external audits of components of the fishery or review of implementation of management regulations by government agency or NGO, or resultant updated strategy document may not be available. Only SG80 is met.

b Internal and/or external review

Guidep The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is The fishery-specific management system is ost subject to occasional internal review. subject to regular internal and occasional subject to regular internal and external review. external review.

Met? Y Y Y

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 200 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Justific ICCAT regularly reviews the fishery specific management system through different committees. Its Conservation and Management Measures ation Compliance Committee (COC) monitors and evaluates compliance with the Convention and ICCAT’s Recommendations. Following the last external independent “Performance Review” (Spencer et al. 2016), an ad hoc Working Group (ICCAT Doc. No. GEN-001C/ 2017). Reports annually on progress achieved by all components of the ICCAT structure. The fisheries cooperative’s management plan of the fishery is regularly reviewed by members and updated, and this is reviewed by the Fisheries Agency. There are feed-back mechanisms within the management system that the performance of the management is subject to on-going review and refinement. The fishery policy council is also a vehicle for external review of the fisheries management. SG100 is met

References (Spencer et al. 2016), (ICCAT Doc. No. GEN-001C/ 2017)

OVERALL PERFORMANCE INDICATOR SCORE: 90

CONDITION NUMBER (if relevant): No

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 201 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 2 Conditions

Table 28. Condition 1.

Performance 1.2.2.b – The HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties Indicator Score 75

Rationale As noted above, some of the main uncertainties have been incorporated into the HCR (i.e. via applying it to F rather than B) but some have not (e.g. choice of stock assessment model, future recruitment). SCRS have so far proposed (and ICCAT have agreed) to apply the HCR with circumspection; i.e. maintaining in 2018-02 the agreed TACs from 2017-07 rather than setting TACs based on F0.1 as implied by the HCR. This suggests that they are not confident that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties. Indeed, if at the next stock assessment the Stock Synthesis model can be developed to a point where it is equally as suitable as the VPA for providing management advice (as is the case for the western stock), conclusions as to F and TACs may be somewhat different. On this basis, it is hard to argue that the HCR is robust to the main uncertainties; in our view, ICCAT are wise to use it with caution. SG80 is not met. Condition By Year 4 the client should be able to show that the HCRs are likely to be robust to the main uncertainties. Milestones Milestone Year 1: The client should support the MSE process to improve the harvest strategy. Score 75 Milestone Year 2: The client should support the MSE process, and work to ensure that any recommendations as to changes in the management plan arising from that process, which would make the harvest strategy more robust to uncertainty, are incorporated into management. Score 75 Milestone Year 3: The client should support the MSE process, and work to ensure that any recommendations as to changes in the management plan arising from that process, which would make the harvest strategy more robust to uncertainty, are incorporated into management. Score 75 Milestone Year 4: The harvest strategy, as revised by the MSE process and based on updated stock assessments, is robust to the main uncertainties. Score 80 Client action plan Year 1. Hold meetings with MAFF (FAJ) to discuss and promote improvement of harvest strategy by supporting the MSE process. Year 2. Monitor ICCAT’s MSE process and work to ensure that any recommendations as to changes in the management plan arising from that process are incorporated into management and make more robust harvest strategy through working with FA, FRA and if necessary with other fishers. Year 3. Monitor ICCAT’s MSE process and work to ensure that any recommendations as to changes in the management plan arising from that process are incorporated into management and make more robust harvest strategy through working with FA, FRA and if necessary with other fishers. Year 4. As a result of the work the harvest strategy, as revised by the MSE process and based on updated stock assessments, is robust to the main uncertainties. Consultation on A letter of agreed co-operation from FAJ is provided in Appendix 9 FAJ letter of support condition to the fishery. This specifies the agreement of the FAJ to work with ICCAT to seek resolution on the uncertainties of the HCRs through the MSE process

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 202 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Table 29. Condition 2.

Performance 1.2.3c - There is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Indicator Score 75

Rationale The ICCAT requirements for recording catch information (catch documentation

scheme) are summarised in Section 3.3.9.1. These apply to all fisheries targeting bluefin tuna or which have bluefin quota. There is therefore good information on these removals. There are two areas of potential concern: IUU removals and the recreational fishery. WWF-Mediterranean have been compiling information on seizures of illegal bluefin tuna in the Mediterranean (which has been the key area for IUU on BFT-e for several decades) since 2015. They record IUU landings over the last 4 years (2015-2018) ranging from 35-117 tonnes per year, from four countries – Spain, Italy, Tunisia and Algeria. 117 t of bluefin represents 0.4% of the TAC for 2018. It is of course likely (in the nature of IUU) that the real quantity of IUU landings is much higher than the quantity seized. If we make the assumption that 10% of IUU landings are seized and recorded by WWF, this means that Mediterranean IUU would account for ~4% of the TAC. (This is, however, just an order of magnitude estimate.) The recreational fishery is likewise mainly from the Mediterranean, and mainly from EU countries. The stock assessment data preparation workshop (ICCAT 2017j) indicates that recreational catches are quantified in the catch data, at least in the more recent parts of the time series (since 1990), although they may not be that accurate. Overall, there is no evidence that unquantified removals are a major concern for the stock assessment; they are one of a range of uncertainties, and most likely not the most serious. However, it is not possible to say at this point that there is ‘good’ information on all removals from the stock – not met. Condition By Year 4 the client should be able to show evidence that there is good information on all other fishery removals from the stock. Milestones Milestone Year 1: The client should consider how to best support projects that aim to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock. Score 75 Milestone Year 2: Working with other fisheries or organisation as relevant, the client should support projects that aim to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock. Score 75 Milestone Year 3: Working with other fisheries or organisation as relevant, the client should support projects that aim to quantify IUU and recreational removals from the stock. Score 75 Milestone Year 4: All significant sources of removals from the stock should be quantified. Score 80 Client action plan Year 1 - 3. Hold discussions with FAJ and seek support with FAJ and relevant ICCAT organizations to support a project that would promote better understanding of IUU and recreational catch in quantitative data. Provide annual updates to the CAB on the development of measures to understand IUU quantities and progress towards its inclusion in the stock assessments.

Year 4. Quantitative information on IUU and recreational catch of BFT are improved and considered in the ICCAT stock assessment.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 203 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Consultation on A letter of agreed co-operation from FAJ is provided in Appendix 9 FAJ letter of support condition to the fishery. This specifies the agreement of the FAJ to work with ICCAT to seek resolution on IUU through supply chain document verification.

Table 30. Condition 3.

Performance 2.1.2b - There is some objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy Indicator will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. 2.1.2e - There is a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted catch of main primary species and they are implemented as appropriate. Score 75

Rationale SIb - Monitoring and reporting along with measures not to increase bycatch are recommended and measures are in place in several layers of management (ICCAT and CFC management body including MAFF in Japan). The UoA strategy includes releasing blue shark upon capture and using circle hooks. Blue shark survival rates indicate that quick release and use of circle hooks reduce post-release fishing mortality (Musyl & Gilman 2019). Therefore SG60 is considered to be met. However, ICES (2017) reports that overall catch data for Atlantic blue shark is incomplete, and the extent of finning in high seas fisheries is unclear (however see description of this for the UoA under SI d). The historical use of generic shark categories is also problematic, although European countries now report more species- specific data. Generally, the overall data for blue shark (and sharks in general) reported to ICCAT has improved over time (more complete series by species, lesser quantities of unclassified sharks, less weight of unclassified gears in the shark series, etc.) (Anon., 2015). Japanese catches (landings and discards) from tuna longliners in the North Atlantic are estimated to have fluctuated between 1,400 t - 2,400 t in 2006-2014, but a large increase to about 8,200 t was observed in 2015. These are higher than reported landings of the target species (bluefin tuna) from Japanese longliners in this period (ICCAT, 2008). Another study of Japanese bluefin tuna longline fisheries showed that the ratio of blue shark to the target species was about 1:1 (Boyd, 2008). There appears a need to improve data accuracy between fishery reporting and estimation of bycatch by observers to provide an objective basis for confidence. Within MAFF, and noted in SI a., the cross-checking of data to support compliance seems to be not fully implemented between observer data and logbook data. Until the discrepancy is clarified and there is improved exchange of information between the management body and the vessel this situation will remain uncertain. It was unclear if an evaluation is conducted within MAFF to trigger the improvement in the data quality if necessary. This may be implemented, however there is no evidence to verify this. The observer data mostly shows a lower catch number than those reported officially by the fishery, however there was also at site visit some inconsistencies in responses of crews in released blue shark count and reporting measures. Therefore, the protocols of reporting of release shark number is not so clear and evaluation at UoA level is not available. The UoA strategy includes not keeping blue shark and using circle hooks. SG60 is met but SG80 is not met .

SIe - There are number of studies on shark bycatch mitigation measures effectiveness, in tuna longline fisheries to reduce incidental catch of shark species (IOTC, 2017). These include using circle hooks, night setting and hook depth all of which the UoA applies (Section 3.4.9). ICAAT through recommendation 16-12 ensure that conservation measures for blue shark will be reviewed if average catches from period

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 204 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

2011 -2015 are exceeded (ICCAT 2016a), this is to be done at the 2021 stock assessment or earlier if the limits are exceeded. Within MAFF, as pointed in SI b. the cross-checking of data to support impact and compliance seem to be not fully implemented through exchange of information between management body and the vessel. It was unclear if any review or evaluation is conducted within MAFF to trigger the improvement in the data quality of blue shark bycatch reporting and if it is necessary alternative measures. The current ICCAT recommendations appear likely to work with time, as seen in the recent general improvement in the overall data, but cross-check analysis, testing, and implementation of accurate reporting is not evident. SG80 is not met

Condition By Year 4 the client should be able to show that there is an objective basis for confidence that the measures/partial strategy will work, based on some information directly about the fishery and/or species involved. Furthermore, there should be a regular review of the potential effectiveness and practicality of alternative measures to minimise UoA-related mortality of unwanted blue shark catch. Milestones Milestone Year 1: The client should consider how to best support information transfer between JFA (MAFF) and the UoA with respect to blue shark. Score 75 Milestone Year 2: Working with MAFF as relevant, the client should support information transfer between the UoA and MAFF and assist in identification of discrepancies and a work plan to address these and look at measures to reduce blue shark catch. Score 75 Milestone Year 3: The client should be able to show evidence of evaluation of observer and logbook data and identification of discrepancies and a work plan to address these. Score 75 Milestone Year 4: All data recording and reporting process on blue shark from fishing vessel to ICCAT report from Japan has been clearly understood and evidence of implementation is provided. There should be evidence of review of measures to reduced unwanted blue shark catch. SG80 met. Client action plan Year 1. Hold meeting with MAFF (FAJ) to check and exchange information on blue shark release reporting process. Year 2. Reconfirm the process of reporting release of Blue Shark to improve accuracy of data reporting. Regarding the discrepancy of data, hold meeting with MAFF to track the process, and make effort to plan bycatch mitigation improvement plan if necessary. Year 3. Analyze (if necessary) catch reporting document and observer data to check discrepancy with MAFF, and if improvement is necessary make an improvement plan.

Year 4. Show clear process from data collection to reporting to ICCAT as Japan for blue shark release. Also, show evidence that cross-check between catch reporting document and observer data is conducted appropriately within relevant organization and suitable evaluation is being made regarding the effect of bycatch mitigation and alternative measures. Consultation on A letter of agreed co-operation from FAJ is provided in Appendix 9 FAJ letter of support condition to the fishery. This specifies the agreement of the FAJ to work with the UoA to seek resolution on the uncertainties in the blue shark reporting process.

Table 31. Condition 4

Performance 2.1.3.c – Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main Primary Indicator species. Score 75

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 205 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Rationale The information presented by the FAJ from the observer program on stock mixing is

utilized by ICCAT in testing and develop stock assessment models for stock mixing. There is continued development of the reliability data on stock mixing, evidenced by Arrizabalanga et al. (2019) and plans for the data’s inclusion in the new MSE (ICCAT 2019d). SG60 is met. However, the issue of IPI remains apparent and the UoA is currently unable to show explicitly its impact on the BFT-w stock. Rather it is reliant on the Japanese longline fleet data as a proxy (a good proxy) as the primary information source to manage the strategy. SG80 is not met

Condition By Year 4 the client should be able to show that the information available for BFT-w is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage main Primary species. Milestones Milestone Year 1: The client should investigate a program to evaluate BFT-w in the UoA catch. Score 75 Milestone Year 2: The client should instigate a program to evaluate BFT-w in the UoA catch. Score 75 Milestone Year 3: The client should continue program to evaluate BFT-w in the UoA catch. Score 75 Milestone Year 4: The client should present results of program showing BFT-w in the UoA catch. Score 80 Client action plan Year 1. Company will make efforts to carry observers and will obtain the necessary vessel-based result data from FAJ (MAFF) and FRA. If there are periods where observer cannot be on board, company will investigate the means and costs involved to plan implementing DNA analysis on its own. Year 2 & 3 Company will make efforts to carry observers and will obtain the necessary vessel-based result data from FAJ and FRA. If there are periods where observer cannot be on board, company will investigate the means and costs involved, and plan and implement the DNA analysis on its own. Year 4 Company will make efforts to carry observers and will obtain the necessary vessel-based result data from FAJ and FRA. The result of DNA analysis to identify bluefin stock origin will be shown as evidence.

Consultation on A letter of agreed co-operation from FAJ is provided in Appendix 9 FAJ letter of support condition to the fishery. This specifies the agreement of the FAJ to work with the UoA to assist in defining BFT-w catches through the observer program.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 206 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 3 Peer Review Reports

Peer Reviewer 1

General Comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments

Is the scoring of the fishery Yes This is a very comprehensive report that summarizes the extensive Thank you consistent with the MSC knowledge base for eBFT. I find that that the evidence is presented standard, and clearly based on clearly, and the scoring seems consistent with the standard. the evidence presented in the assessment report?

Are the condition(s) raised Yes The conditions are logical and promote an improved basis for Thank you. The PR statement regarding the specified appropriately written to fisheries management. They do however sometimes depend on timeframe is appropriate and the progression of the achieve the SG80 outcome actions by the RFMO, and while the client may promote and support timeline will of course be verified at each surveillance within the specified such actions, whether or not the desired changes occur in the audit provided the fishery is certified. timeframe? specified time frame is not under the direct control of the client (see Conditions 1&2)

Is the client action plan clear No Please refer to my comments regarding the Client Action Plan for Extracted from the PI representing condition 4 the PR and sufficient to close the Condition 4. wrote: The wording of the CAP is not strong enough, in conditions raised? my view. The client is asked to "make efforts to" in the current version. Knowledge of stock origin is, of course, important and the wording should be less vague and make a commitment. I suggest replacing "make efforts to" with "will". It is the fishery cooperative’s rule to determine which vessels carry observers each year and is decided by a lottery system for objectivity. This is a strict self-

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 207 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments

governed cooperative rule and even MAFF cannot influence the outcome. Therefore commitment in any one year to carry observers cannot be given at this point. With this in mind the Client included in the CAP an alternative in the event of not being allocated observers that the client will investigate taking their own samples with cooperation of MAFF. Enhanced fisheries only: Does N/A N/A N/A the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Optional: General Comments N/A This was an excellent overview of a well-studied fishery. As a small Thank you. The balance between too much / repetition on the Peer Review Draft quibble, I found that too much information was presented in the and too little is a fine balance for the various needs of an Report (including comments scoring, particularly for Principal One. The information repeated assessment (readability, External auditors, meeting the on the adequacy of the what was in the main body of the report, and was unnecessary. standard, meeting stakeholders requests). In CU Pesca background information if experience we err on the side of caution and include as necessary) much relevant information as possible.

Performance Indicators Comments

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Code

1.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 208 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Code

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

1.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

1.2.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. I would note that the schedule for None required Accepted (no milestones for Condition 1 is somewhat provisional, score change) as it is the responsibility of the RFMO to conduct the MSE and assessments according to its own needs.

1.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. The Action Plan for Condition 2 lists None required Accepted (no activities which are the purview of the RFMO, not score change) the client, and involve better monitoring of the rec fishery and IUU activities in the Med. Since the client doesn't operate in the Med, I am assuming that this condition means just supporting the RFMO's efforts in those regards rather than direct actions.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 209 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Code

1.2.4 No (no Yes NA Scoring issue e speaks to internal and external The team understand the ICCAT stock Accepted (score score review, and the assessment team notes they found assessment process works as follows: the increased) change no evidence for external review. It is the intent of working group comprises scientists from relevant expected) ICCAT to provide external review as part of their CPCs (who are, in a sense, 'external'). Individual initiative to provide best available science (see participants present stock assessment models, Resolution 2011/017). In reading the Detailed Report which are discussed and adjusted in turn, and for the 2017 assessment and Appendix 2, I could not also compared by the group - and in some sense determine who among the participants were 'compete' to be considered the most appropriate designated external reviewers, but many had to provide scientific advice. In a way, therefore, university affiliations and could have been acting in all the group participants except those that regard. I suggest contacting the SCRS Chair to presenting a given model are 'external reviewers' clarify, although this is not going to affect the of that model – each making suggestions as to assigned scoring. how it could be improved, and eventually deciding whether or not it is adequate. The second peer reviewer of this report provided further clarity and information on the review process (see PI 1.2.4 under peer reviewer 2 comments) and on review the assessment team have revised the rationale and increased the score to SG100 based on the evidence cited by both PRs.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 210 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Code

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA While I agree with the scoring, I am troubled that the It’s the teams understanding that the Rodriguez Accepted (no basis for the assignment of stock (Rodriguez et al. et al. report is not available publicly due to score change) 2017) is not publicly available on the RFMO website. primary publication as the PR suggests but as per I imagine that it has been withdrawn for primary MSC requirements is available on request from publication and is not yet available. I also note that the CAB. during the Data Preparatory Workshop in advance of The analysis of trends (spatially and temporally) the 2017 assessment, participants identified some have continued into 2019 and are discussed at concerns with the approach, including "The Group length (in relation to the MSE) in ICCAT (2019c). requested that the assignment scores be viewed in See sections 6.2 6.10 and Section 9 of that relation to characteristics of the fish in order to report. The information base remains similar to determine if there were trends related to season, that reported in (Rodríguez et al. 2017) with the year class or fish size that could affect the added details of genetic data being more application of mixing rates in the stock assessment. representative of origin than otolith data as The authors clarified that these analyses are discussed under section 5.4 in this report. Should ongoing, and that the bulk of the analysis was based the fishery be certified the development of the on large fish (>100 kg)". Are these concerns no MSE and how it characterises stock origin and longer relevant for some reason? the uncertainties on mixing will be reviewed annually in relation to this scoring element at surveillance audits. 2.1.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed. Condition 3 should result in a score None required Accepted (no of 80. score change)

2.1.3 Yes Yes No The wording of the CAP is not strong enough, in my The CAP wording is tied to the clients Not Accepted view. The client is asked to "make efforts to" in the membership of their fishery co-operative. It is (no score current version. Knowledge of stock origin is, of the fishery cooperative’s rule to determine which change) course, important and the wording should be less vessels carry observers each year and is decided vague and make a commitment. I suggest replacing by a lottery system for objectivity. This is a strict "make efforts to" with "will". self-governed cooperative rule that the client and MAFF (JFA) cannot influence. Therefore commitment in any one year to carry observers

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 211 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Code

cannot be given at this point and included in the CAP. Hence the wording constraint. With this in mind the Client included in the CAP an alternative in the event of not being allocated observers in that the client will investigate taking their own samples with cooperation of MAFF to fulfil the need of the condition.

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 212 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Code

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed. None required Accepted (no score change)

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 213 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Response Information Scoring Condition Code

3.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 214 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Peer Reviewer 2

General Comments

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments

Is the scoring of the fishery Yes The scoring was consistent with the MSC standard with the possible Thank you please see individual responses in the PI table consistent with the MSC exceptions noted in the PI comments for the different elements. below standard, and clearly based on the evidence presented in the assessment report?

Are the condition(s) raised Yes Conditions were raised in regards to 1.2.2. b, the HCRs robustness, No response required appropriately written to 1.2.3.c good information on fishery removals; 2.1.2.b and e on achieve the SG80 outcome strategies and effectiveness for primary species; and 2.1.3.c – within the specified Information is adequate to support a partial strategy to manage timeframe? main Primary species. The conditions are relevant to the process by which SG 80 could be achieved within a certification period.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 215 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Question Yes/No Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments

Is the client action plan clear Yes In the case of the 1.2.2 Condition, the client Action Plan basically In regard to other fisheries there is a second fishery in and sufficient to close the says that the client will try to get the JAF to work within ICCAT to get assessment for MSC as detailed in the harmonisation conditions raised? ICCAT to implement a more rigorous HCR. Much of this is outside the section of this report which as the PR notes will help client's direct control. Additionally, if this fishery were to be certified, leverage. there are no other certified Atl BFT fisheries with which the client could form coalitions to increase leverage. The success or failure lies with the implementation of an HCR, MSE in 2020. This is ICCAT's schedule, I believe.

The other Conditions are similar in that they require implementation at the JAF level or with data collection by Japan and ICCAT. Again it is achieveable, but is difficult for the client to directly affect.

Enhanced fisheries only: Does N/A N/A N/A the report clearly evaluate any additional impacts that might arise from enhancement activities?

Optional: General Comments N/A No general comments on the Draft Report. The Draft was organized No response required. on the Peer Review Draft and understandable. It allowed issues associated with justifications Report (including comments and scores to be easily discerned. on the adequacy of the background information if necessary)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 216 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Performance Indicator Comments

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

1.1.1 Yes No (scoring NA 1.1.1a Despite large uncertainties in data and Interviews with ICCAT assessment scientists Not implications estimates, the trend in recruitment is sufficient have provided the assessment team with accepted (no unknown) argument that recruitment is not impaired. Scoring insight into assessment selectivity. For BFT-e score Agreed reference points (e.g. F0.1) are calculated using change) 1.1.1.b The justification refers to "F2.5" in Fig 12 of Pro2Box which calculates the reference points the report. In the original SCRS report this is referring using an apical F, i.e. the F of the age where to F on ages 2-5. The "F2.5" notation confuses it with selectivity at age is maximum. So the age at "F0.1" which is the F where the Y/R slope is 1/10th of which F is calculated varies depending on the that at the origin. The notation "F.05" is also used certainty of the year classes. Recruiting year which presumably is the F where the Y/R slope is class considered to be uncertain can be 1/20th of that at the origin. The relevant sentences in removed from the projections and reference the justification are "Under the VPA base model F2.5 point calculations and replaced with a recent has been below F0.1 since 2007 and below F0.05 average (L.Kell pers comm.). since 2008 (Figure 12). For F for the age plus group, F In light of the PR comments the assessment has been below F0.1 since 2009 and below F0.05 team evaluated output data files from the VPA since 2010 (Figure 12)." The argument in the model provided by ICCAT. In each of the justification needs to be revamped because I believe scenario runs a ‘median F’ , ‘mean F’, and 95% F0.1 is an F-multiplier based on a given selectivity of CI for F was available. The assessment team all ages and comparing it to F's on specific ages 2-5 took the maximum value of each of these and the plus group is not a good argument. values as the most precautionary and plotted it by year. This clearly shows that the mean F has been below F0.1 since 2008 with all upper 95% confidence levels at or below F0.1 since then also (except 2015 = 0.11) and maintains the original view of the assessment team that SG80 is met for this PI. The additional plot and analysis noted here by the team has been added to the rationale to support the evidence.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 217 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

1.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

1.2.1a Yes Yes NA 1.2.1.a; Harvest strategy design. Scoring is agreed. None required Accepted (no The ICCAT recommendation (binding to member score states) provides an HS, thus "The harvest strategy is change) responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives reflected in PI 1.1.1 SG80." However, how responsive ICCAT will be remains to be seen.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 218 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

1.2.1b Yes No NA 1.2.1.b. Harvest strategy evaluation: The CAB Report It’s important to note here that the MSC Not accepted (material notes "ICCAT have recently moved from a rebuilding definition of ‘Harvest Strategy’ (HS) goes (no score score plan to a multi-annual management plan, which beyond the definition of ‘management plan’ change) reduction came into force in 2019 (Rec. 2018-02). The stated as noted in the PR justification. According to expected to goal of Rec. 2018-02 is to maintain the biomass the MSC a HS is the combination of <80) around B0.1, to be achieved by fishing at F0.1 (since monitoring, stock assessment, harvest control B0.1 cannot be measured directly). B0.1 is rules and management actions and this is considered to be a reasonable proxy for BMSY." SG80 defined in the rationale by the team in SI criteria is: "The harvest strategy may not have been 1.2.1a. With this definition in mind as fully tested but evidence exists that it is achieving its described in PI 1.2.1a the HS contains a series objectives." In principle an F0.1 strategy would be of technical measures; notably minimum size sufficient in that TACs set based on that would provisions and a series of seasons by gear, as respond to variations in recruitment. And the recent well as a large quantity of provisions for stock assessment shows F

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 219 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

opposed to SG100 which requires that the HS is 'clearly able to maintain the stock at target levels' (which is not met).

Regarding the future projections yes they have some uncertainty but the HS has a partial strategy in place to pick up on any likely decline in stock and act on it.

In terms of achieving its objectives down the line: The increases in TACs in the management plan are based on projections which are acknowledged by all concerned to be uncertain, and we agree with the reviewer that it is not guaranteed that this management plan will allow the stock to continue to meet objectives. However, in this Scoring Issue it is not trying to foresee the outcome of future management - this is the purpose of ongoing audit, with the annual possibility of re-scoring through expedited audits, with new conditions or suspension if this cannot continue to be met. Should this fishery be certified, the outcome of the next stock assessment in 2021 will clearly be a critical moment."

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 220 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

1.2.1d Yes No (non- NA 1.2.1.d. Harvest Strategy Review: CAB notes "More This SI is asking ‘The harvest strategy (HS) is Not accepted material generally, ICCAT’s approach could be summarised as periodically reviewed and improved as (no score score subjecting the stock to incremental increases in necessary.’ The rationale provides clear change) reduction fishing pressure with monitoring to evaluate the evidence of the reviews which have taken expected) outcome." There hasn't been a lot of evidence of place. There is no requirement to evaluate ICCAT subjecting the stock to marginal decreases in marginal decreases as the PR suggests, rather fishing pressure to evaluate the outcome. Decreases that upon review the HS is improved. The have historically arisen due to large external uncertainty in the past review has led to pressures (CITES) rather than a measured HS development of the MSE programme (due to approach. I believe SG100 not met for this at this be completed 2020 along with the next time. review) and these provide evidence that the process is striving for improvement meeting the SG100.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 221 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

1.2.2 Yes No Yes 1.2.2.a HCRs design and application: SG 80 says "Well The principle HCR is focused on maintaining F Not accepted (material defined HCRs are in place that ensure that the below F0.1. F0.1 gets smaller as B falls below B0.1 (no score score exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached, so the rate of fishing mortality on the stock is change) reduction are expected to keep the stock fluctuating around a reduced as the PRI is approached. This is expected to target level consistent with (or above) MSY, or for appropriate to meet SG80. The point is taken <80) key LTL species a level consistent with ecosystem about uncertainties, but give that there is a needs." While a constant F0.1 strategy should keep stock assessment every three years, and given the stock fluctuating around B0.1 over the long term, the thorough process (comparing multiple by definition, the exploitation rate (F0.1) is not different models), as well as the amount of reduced as the PRI is approached. Given the research effort on the stock (CPUE monitoring, uncertainties in the assessment, the uncertainties of tagging, larval surveys ...) we don't agree that IUU catches, it is quite possible that the stock could it is likely that the stock could collapse be decreased without knowing about it until some towards the PRI without anyone realising for years after the fact. A faithfully implemented F0.1 several years. Furthermore, as we note in the strategy would allow a stock to recover from such a rationale, the approach of ICCAT has been circumstance, but the time horizon could be long. somewhat cautious in relation to the agreed The lack of reduction in F if the PRI is approached HCR (increasing the TAC in steps rather than in means that SG 80 is not met. one go). We discussed whether this 1.2.2.b HCRs robustness to uncertainty: Scoring undermined the argument for 'well-defined' Agreed but concluded that the HCR was clearly 1.2.2.c HCRs evaluation: Scoring agreed defined, and it made no sense to penalise There already is a Condition required based on the decision-makers for some caution in the early CABs original scoring. I argue that the score should stages of implementation. MSC provide a be somewhat lower and the Condition should be definition of ‘well-defined’ in an interpretation modified accordingly. the agreed HCR for this fishery meet these requirements. 1.2.2.b – No comment required 1.2.2.c – scoring agreed, rationale has been expanded to show the suite of tools available and their effectiveness.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 222 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

1.2.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring Agreed Agreed the HCR and MSE developments will Accepted (no While I agree that 1.2.3.b fulfills SG 80 ("Stock require monitoring and this will undertaken in score abundance and UoA removals are regularly each of the surveillance audits should the change) monitored at a level of accuracy and coverage fishery be certified. There is in some sense a consistent with the harvest control rule, and one or strange contrast between the enormous more indicators are available and monitored with research effort on the stock and the data sufficient frequency to support the harvest control problems which constrain the stock rule"), to some extent this is because the HCR, assessment. As reliable time series get longer, constant F0.1, is not very demanding. As the SCRS more sophisticated methods of both develops an HCR and MSE, I would expect some assessment and management will be possible. additional needs for monitoring might come up.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 223 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

1.2.4 Yes No (score NA 1.2.4.e Peer review of assessment: I would give a Yes The assessment team have reviewed the PR 2 Accepted increase to SG 100 ("The assessment has been internally and comments for this fishery (and those of PR 1 (score expected) externally peer reviewed"). I guess it depends on which described further information being increased) what is meant by "external". The assessments are required). The result for 1.2.4e is a revised conducted by a group of 30-40 scientists of many rationale and improved score to SG100. different nationalities and representing many different countries (the two are not the same), as Regarding SS3, the assessment team and well as formal observers (fisherman groups, NGOs). other stakeholders have also questioned why Qualified scientists representing different interest the SS3 model was not used, as it was for the groups are often included within a member state's western stock. As noted in the report we were scientific delegation, as are scientists hired as informed by stock assessment participants external reviewers by the member state. that it was not ready in time. We suppose (by Additionally, ICCAT-SCRS has a system of bringing on extrapolation from the process with the external reviewers for key issues on the SCRS agenda western stock) that the intent is to switch over including BFT, although I didn't see one in the list of to SS3 for the next assessment, and it will be participants for the 2017 assessment. Also, Atl BFT interesting to see whether that has a status has been reviewed through CITES criteria with qualitative impact on the perception of stock FAO expert working groups) relating to Appendix 2. status, and if so what is the management Finally, BFT assessments have had a history of response. journal-peer review articles addressing aspects of the assessment. The degree of "peer" review of Atl BFT surpasses most assessments.

I agree with scores for 1.2.4 other than 1.2.4.e above. But, as noted in the report, weaknesses in the stock assessment include poor size sampling until more recently. indices of abundance that are uncertain, IUU catches historically. To some extent this has retarded the evolution from VPA to SS3. It has taken some time to understand the interaction of the data with the SS3 system and what are the appropriate model structures to use. Nevertheless, the SS3 results are indicative of a more stable estimation platform that is less likely to result in later changes from assessment to assessment, as appears to have happened with recent VPA's.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 224 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

2.1.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.1.2 Yes Yes Yes Scoring agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.1.3 Yes Yes Yes Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.2.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 225 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

2.2.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.3.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.3.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.3.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.4.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 226 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

2.4.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.4.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.5.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.5.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

2.5.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 227 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

3.1.1 Yes No (scoring NA 3.1.1.a Compatibility of laws or standards with On review the team have added justification Not accepted implications effective management: The CAB report notes: "SG80 on which resolutions are not binding within (no score unknown) is met for both ICCAT and Japan, however ICCAT the management plan to SIa but have change) recommendations are not all binding, SG100 is not maintained the score. The text for SIb. is met." In the ICCAT vernacular Recommendations are revised as “As most fisheries infractions are binding in that if a nation agrees to it, it must be settled within the Fisheries Policy Discussion adhered to. As for all international agreements, a Committee within MAFF, it rarely develops sovereign nation can opt out, but it is required to into legal issues. Therefore, the resolution of inform ICCAT (as noted in CAB report under b legal disputes has not been fully tested and Resolution of disputes). This issue needs to be proven to be effective. justified a bit more. Japan’s Policy Discussion Committee members are appointed by the chief of the committee, but their selection mechanism is not explained clearly with transparency. Although appropriate dispute settlement mechanisms exist at both levels of management, they are not fully tested and proven. Therefore SG80 is considered to be met, but SG100 is not. 3.1.1 Yes No (scoring NA 3.1.1.c Respect for rights; The CAB report notes the Agreed, this aspect has been clarified in the Accepted implications existence of Resolution 15-13 by ICCAT on Criteria for rationale and the score reduced to SG80 for SI (non-material unknown) the allocation of fishing possibilities, 3 pp., ICCAT. c score This is a Resolution which in ICCAT vernacular is not reduction) binding (something they'll endeavour to do). It basically lays out the kind of arguments that are acceptable as one goes through quota negotiations. It has no real teeth. I'm not sure SG 100 is met.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 228 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

3.1.2 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.1.3 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.2.1 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed None required Accepted (no score change)

3.2.2 Yes No (scoring NA b Responsiveness of decision-making processes: it is Although responsiveness could be questioned Not implications questionable how timely responses are to changes in until recently, small edits and a quote from accepted (no unknown) information/status at the SG 80 level the last ICCAT independent review report has score been added to the rationale to clarify the change) point made about the present level of timeliness which the team feels justifies the score. In addition, text has been added at the Japan level that Japanese tuna fisheries cooperatives, government, scientific body, meets regularly to discuss and exchange opinions on management policy, scientific research, international relation and domestic organization coordination, etc.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 229 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

3.2.2 Yes No (scoring NA c Use of precautionary approach: SG 80 says The report text section 3.5.4.1 and the Not Accepted implications "Decision-making processes use the precautionary rationale for SIc have been clarified to refer to (no score unknown) approach and are based on best available the choice of BFT-e TAC that correspond to change) information." Best available information, yes. But "the most precautionary MSY estimate" (Rec what is the evidence for the use of the precautionary 17-07). approach

3.2.3 Yes No (scoring NA 3.2.3.d: Systematic non-compliance: The justification We agree that, although this is a fishery- Not implications says "From the ICCAT: perspective, there is no specific PI, for which there is evidence of good accepted (no unknown) evidence of systematic non-compliance, and no compliance throughout the Japanese longline score amount of unreported catches have been included in fleet, we do need to consider to a degree, all change) the models used by SCRS." The SCRS reports notes other possibilities of systematic non- very large catches (inflated estimates, NEI) that were compliance within the fishery. Historically, not reported in the early 2000's. Those catches have ICCAT BFT-e management has shown levels of been included in various sensitivity scenarios in the systematic non-compliance. There remains a assessments over time. Largely that signal has passed risk of systematic non-compliance, especially through the population and is not as significant in from Mediterranean farms, as evidenced by determining current status. However, it does change the recent ongoing IUU catches investigations, the perception of the trends over time. Additionally, but as a whole the fishery is now "one of the one of the stakeholder comments to the CAB most heavily monitored fisheries throughout mentions unverified information about large IUU world fisheries, notably with a joint catches passing through Malta. The point is that international inspection scheme in operation; given prior history and these unverified reports, a regional observer programme; the catch there needs to be more justification of "no evidence document and the range of controls" (ICCAT, of systematic compliance". Perhaps, now there isn't, 2016e). Therefore, unless evidence is available but not historically. to the contrary, the team agrees that presently, SG80 is met.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 230 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

PI PI PI PI Peer Reviewer Justification CAB Response to Peer Reviewer's comments CAB Information Scoring Condition Response Code

3.2.4 Yes Yes NA Scoring Agreed No response required Accepted (no score change)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 231 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 4 Stakeholder submissions

Responses to stakeholder submissions are found in Section 4.4.4 - stakeholder engagement

Submission 1

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 232 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

(REQUIRED FOR FR AND PCR)

Submission 2

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 233 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Assessment Stage Fishery Date Name of Individual/Organisation Providing Comments

Fishery announcement and stakeholder Usufuku Honten Northeast 14th October, 2018 World Wide Fund for Nature 15 identification Atlantic longline bluefin tuna fishery (WWF) Opportunity to indicate that you are a stakeholder and identify other stakeholders.

Nature of Comment Additional Information/Detail (select all that apply) Please attach additional pages if necessary.

e.g. I wish to indicate that I am a stakeholder in this fishery. Please keep me informed about each stage of the assessment process.

15 MSC Fisheries Certification Requirements, v2.0 section 7.8

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 234 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

I wish to suggest information or WWF has been very active on the Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation for more than 15 years, and closely engaged documents important for the with relevant stakeholders such as ICCAT, fishery industries and seafood market to achieve robust recovery of assessment of this fishery (you may the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean stock. WWF could provide critical comments as well as share relevant either attach documents or provide information for this MSC full- assessment. In addition, WWF still has strong concerns regarding Atlantic bluefin references). tuna eastern stock status as well as its current management system, which limit/ target reference points and HCRs are not yet defined. Moreover WWF is engaging with bluefin tuna fisheries in the Mediterranean and North East Atlantic with MSC pre assessments that showed low scores on P1, suggesting not to go for full assessment.

EXTRACT OF THE PRE-ASSESSMENT:

Evaluation of the fishery The current pre-assessment identified obstacles to be addressed before proceeding to a MSC full assessment.

Principle 1 There are 4 PIs, 1.1.1 Stock status, 1.2.2 HCRs, 1.2.3 Information and monitoring and 1.2.4 Assessment of stock status, where the 80 level is not likely to be met, which may likely lead the overall Principle 1 score to be less than 80, therefore meaning the fishery may fail to meet the MSC Standard. The Eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean bluefin tuna stock is not at or fluctuating around a level consistent with MSY. A multi-annual recovery plan was implemented in 2006 by ICCAT. There is evidence that the rebuilding strategies are rebuilding the stock. The recovery plan has been effective to end overfishing and led to a substantial increase of the SSB. The harvest strategy is responsive to the state of the stock and is designed to achieve stock management objectives. Measures are in place to minimize the mortality of unwanted catches.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 235 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Generally understood HCR are available that are expected to reduce exploitation rate and there is some evidence that tools available to implement HCR are appropriate and effective in controlling exploitation. However it cannot be said that well-defined HCR are in place that ensure that the exploitation rate is reduced as the PRI is approached. Sufficient relevant information related to the stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, stock abundance and catches are available to support the harvest strategy. There is considerable uncertainty on its level of abundance. It cannot be considered that there is good information on all removals from the stock. Eastern Atlantic bluefin catches have been subject to a high degree of misreporting between the mid-1990s and the recent past, although for the most recent few years, such misreported catch levels are thought to have diminished considerably. Bluefin tuna stock assessments are conducted by the ICCAT, various sources of uncertainties that have not yet been fully quantified. Estimates of biomass base reference points are unreliable given the uncertainties about future recruitment.

Report of the 2017 ICCAT BFT stock assessment meeting: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2017_BFT_ASS_REP_ENG.pdf

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 236 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Submission 3

Contact Information Make sure you submit your full contact details at the first phase you participate in within a specific assessment process. Subsequent participation will only require your name unless these details change.

Contact Name Grantly Galland

Title Officer, Global Tuna Conservation

On behalf of (organisation, company, government agency, etc.) – if applicable

Organisation The Pew Charitable Trusts

Department

Position I work on conservation and management of Atlantic tunas.

Description Pew is an international non-profit organization, headquartered in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, that works on environmental, economic, and health policy at national, sub-national, and international levels.

Mailing Address, Country 901 E St. NW, Washington, DC, USA 20004

Phone Tel + 1-202-540-6953 Mob +

Email [email protected] Web Pewtrusts.org/tuna

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 237 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Assessment Stage Fishery Date Name of Individual/Organisation Providing Comments

X Fishery announcement and Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic 20-September-2018 Grantly Galland/The PEW Charitable Trusts stakeholder identification16 longline bluefin tuna fishery Opportunity to indicate that you are a stakeholder and identify other stakeholders.

Nature of Comment Additional Information/Detail (select all that apply) Please attach additional pages if necessary.

e.g. I wish to indicate that I am a PEW has been a stakeholder in Atlantic bluefin tuna conservation and management since 2008, through our work on stakeholder in this fishery. Please domestic processes in the USA and EU, as well as our involvement at the international level via ICCAT. We wish to be keep me informed about each kept informed of the progress of this assessment, and we intend to provide constructive input to the CAB throughout stage of the assessment process. the process. Attached, we provide several scientific resources that will be valuable for the CAB to review as you begin to produce the draft assessment report. In Section 3 of this document, below, we highlight some specific points to X draw to your attention some of the most relevant recent Atlantic bluefin science.

X I wish to suggest information or documents important for the assessment of this fishery (you may either attach documents or provide references).

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 238 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Assessment Stage Fishery Date Name of Individual/Organisation Providing Comments

X Information gathering and Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic 20-September-2018 Grantly Galland/The PEW Charitable Trusts stakeholder meetings17 longline bluefin tuna fishery Opportunity to engage with and provide information to the CAB about the specific details and impacts of the fishery.

Nature of Comment Additional Information/Detail (select all that apply) Please attach additional pages if necessary.

I wish to request an in-person As a result of the site visit being scheduled during the same week that scientists are meeting in Madrid for two Atlantic meeting with the site team during bluefin science meetings, I will not be able to attend. That said, I welcome the CAB’s willingness to come meet with their assessment visit (meetings me and other stakeholders on the margins of the science meetings. PEW hopes that there will be another opportunity without the fishery client present to meet with the fishery client via another site visit in the future. We will gladly attend. In order to inform the CAB’s may be requested at this phase of preparation of the draft assessment report, we also provide comments in the attached document. the process if desired).

Usufuku Honten Northeast Atlantic longline bluefin tuna fishery – comments from Grantly Galland/The PEW Charitable Trusts

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 239 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Comment 1: As a result of the current state of Atlantic bluefin science (i.e., the inability to determine the stock status with a high level of certainty) and management (e.g., an agreement in place that sets quotas at levels which scientists agree will lead to population decline), PEW would like to ensure that the CAB considers the following, when preparing the draft assessment report: The 2017 assessment did not determine the overfished status of the eastern stock due to failure to agree to a reference point. “Given the uncertainty in estimated biomass, the Group considered it was not advisable to use the biomass-related results to evaluate the current status of the stock and recommended not to include a Kobe plot in the Executive Summary.” (Assessment report, which provides many other statements about the uncertainty about the “rate and amplitude” of the population growth estimated in the assessment.) “However given the uncertainties about future recruitment, estimates of biomass base reference points were unreliable.” (2017 SCRS report) A letter published in Science points out some of the uncertainties in the eastern assessment (Collette 2018). “For example, adding just one year of data increased the model’s recommended quotas by 70% (2). Adding data from a single fishery (i.e., one abundance index) increased the estimated sustainable quotas by 126%.” (PDF attached) An effort to validate the 2017 assessment results has uncovered numerous problems, and these findings will be released in the near future (Kell and Sharma, unpublished data).

When the assessment used the approach applied by the SCRS since 2010 of three different estimates of SSB0.1 based on high/medium/low recruitment, the stock was still overfished under the high recruitment scenario (SSB2016=87%SSB0.1). As mentioned above, there is considerable uncertainty about future recruitment levels, so the high, medium and recruitment levels have been treated by the SCRS as equally likely.

A very similar status (89% SSBMSY) was found using Stock Synthesis, a model that is more advanced and now widely used for tunas globally (including WBFT). ICCAT’s current eastern bluefin measure, Recommendation 17-07, sets the eastern quota at 28,200 mt for 2018, 32,240 mt for 2019, and 36,000 mt for 2020. Projections show this management regime will lead to population decline (2017 SCRS report and following figure):

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 240 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Comment 2: Continued IUU fishing in the eastern Atlantic and Mediterranean Sea (10-15K mt per year, according to EU government scientists) There are recent allegations that up to 5000 kgs of bluefin are being smuggled into Malta each week. [http://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2017-12- 03/local-news/5-000-kilos-of-tuna-allegedly-smuggled-to-Malta-each-week-and-exported-to-EU-states-6736182205] Comment 3: Mixing with the severely depleted western stock is a concern, especially for a high seas longline fishery operating in the N. Atlantic.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 241 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

The 2017 assessment results for bluefin in the western Atlantic found the stock is still just 45% or 69% of the already depleted 1974 level (for SS3 and the VPA, respectively) and 18% of the 1950 level. The current quota (2350 mt under Recommendation 17-06) is projected to lead to a further 8% stock decline by 2020 (2017 SCRS report). There is no way to determine whether an individual fish is eastern or western, unless you kill the fish, remove the otolith, and process it in a qualified laboratory (and even that has error). Genetics technologies have confirmed that eastern and western bluefin are genetically distinct but have yet to successfully develop an accurate population ID test for individual fish, despite significant effort in this area (e.g., Rodríguez-Ezpeleta et al. 2017, Brophy et al. 2017). Otolith studies show that during 2014-16, western fish accounted for 6.0-16.7% of fish caught in the Northeast Atlantic and 16-40% in the Southeast Atlantic (Arrizabalaga et al., unpublished data) Other published papers with confirmation of significant stock mixing using otoliths or electronic tagging (Links below or PDFs attached) Block, B.A., Teo, S., Walli, A., Boustany, A., Farwell, C., Dewar, H., Weng, K. and T. Williams. 2005. Electronic tagging and population structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Nature 434: 1121-1127. M. Morse, S. Cadrin, L. Kerr, D. Secor, M. Siskey, H. Arrizabalaga, A. Hanke, and C. Porch. 2018. An updated analysis of bluefin tuna stock mixing. Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 74(6): 3486-3509. Rooker, Jay R., Haritz Arrizabalaga, Igaratza Fraile, David H. Secor, David L. Dettman, Noureddine Abid, Piero Addis, Simeon Deguara, F. Saadet Karakulak, Ai Kimoto, Osamu Sakai, David Macías, Miguel Neves Santos. 2014. Crossing the line: migratory and homing behaviors of Atlantic bluefin tuna. Marine Ecology Progress Series 504: 265–276. Rooker JR, Alvarado Bremer JR, Block BA, Dewar H, De Metrio G, Kraus RT, Prince ED, Rodriquez-Marin E, Secor DH (2007). Life history and stock structure of Atlantic bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus). Reviews in Fisheries Science 15(4): 265-310. Taylor, Nathan G., Murdoch K. McAllister, Gareth L. Lawson, Tom Carruthers, Barbara A. Block. 2011. Atlantic Bluefin Tuna: A Novel Multistock Spatial Model for Assessing Population Biomass. PLOS one 6:e27693. Walli, A., Teo, S.L., Boustany, A., Farwell, C., Williams, T., Dewar, D., Prince, E. D. and B. A. Block. 2009. Seasonal movements, aggregations and diving behavior of Atlantic bluefin revealed with archival tags. PLOS one 4:1-18.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 242 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Submission 4

From: William Connor Sent: 28 September 2018 15:19 To: Hugh Jones Subject: peer review of MSC assessment Hugh I look forward to supporting your efforts of assessment of Bluefin Tuna And hope to do sampling of Bluefin Tuna Larvae next May/June in the slope sea from our motor yacht strategically located in North Myrtle Beach. Thanks Bill William Connor Executive Director WorldAquaculture.org a not-for-profit 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization Re growing the Worlds Resources Advancing Nutrition, Medicine, Protein fighting World Hunger, Malnutrition-PEM 401-440-9943

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 243 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Submission 5

Sam Stone – Marine Conservation Society (MCS) 16 October 2018 – conversation with Hugh Jones (team leader) via telephone. MCS requested a phone call for clarity on the assessment process and the timeline of the assessment. Specifically they raised concerns on the certainty in the biomass assessment from the ICCAT stock assessment and how this fed into the MSC process. They noted the importance of IUU considerations in the Mediterranean and how this was taken into account in the assessment. As team leader for the project Hugh Jones provided details on the Performance Indiicators where biomass and IUU would be considered by the team and gave an update on the information gained from the site visit and meeting with ICAT scientists in Madrid. MCS noted that they wished to remain informed as to the progress of the project and HJ confirmed that they will receive stakeholder emails.

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 244 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 5 Surveillance Frequency

1. The report shall include a rationale for any reduction from the default surveillance level following FCR 7.23.4 in Table 4.1. 2. The report shall include a rationale for any deviations from carrying out the surveillance audit before or after the anniversary date of certification in Table 4.2 3. The report shall include a completed fishery surveillance program in Table 4.3.

Table 32. Surveillance level rationale

Year Surveillance activity Number of auditors Rationale e.g.3 e.g.On-site audit e.g. 1 auditor on-site e.g. From client action plan it can be deduced that with remote support information needed to verify progress towards from 1 auditor conditions 1.2.1, 2.2.3 and 3.2.3 can be provided remotely in year 3. Considering that milestones indicate that most conditions will be closed out in year 3, the CAB proposes to have an on-site audit with 1 auditor on-site with remote support – this is to ensure that all information is collected and because the information can be provided remotely.

Table 33 Timing of surveillance audit

Year Anniversary date Proposed date of Rationale of certificate surveillance audit e.g. 1 e.g. May 2014 e.g. July 2014 e.g. Scientific advice to be released in June 2014, proposal to postpone audit to include findings of scientific advice

Table 34. Fishery Surveillance Program

Surveillance Level Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 e.g. Level 5 e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site e.g. On-site surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit surveillance audit & re-certification site visit

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 245 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 6 Objections Process

(REQUIRED FOR THE PCR IN ASSESSMENTS WHERE AN OBJECTION WAS RAISED AND ACCEPTED BY AN INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATOR)

The report shall include all written decisions arising from an objection.

(Reference: FCR 7.19.1)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 246 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 7 ICCAT Bluefin Tuna Catch Document (BCD)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 247 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 248 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 8 Bait Sourcing Policy

Translation below:

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 249 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

We as a company set out below the following policy regarding feed procurement and document retention policy Record

(Procurement conditions) 1) Regarding the procurement of Argentine short-fin squid, we will endeavour to not obtain from fishing vessels within appropriate fishing permission/licences

2) Regarding procurement of argentine short-fin squid, The policy is to check in advance the catch certificate of the feed purchaser (with or without traceability). For those without a catch certificate, every effort must be made to obtain alternative documents as proof of catch as a minimum requirement.

3) For procurement of argentine short-fin squid, there is a condition to photograph the feed and the feed box.

(Documentation Retention)

1) Any information obtained under the procurement conditions above must be retained for 5 years

2) When transporting feed with a carrier, requires the bill of landing and tax documents be stored for 5 years.

3) Feed that has landed abroad, the tax documents and proof of landing will be stored for 5 years.

(That is all)

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 250 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

Appendix 9 FAJ letter of support to the fishery.

田村様 Dear Ms. Tamura ご無沙汰しております。 Hope you are all well. I’d like to convey the intention and position of the Fisheries Agency regarding the MSC certification of Shofuku Maru No.1 as follows: 第一昭福丸のMSC認定のため、臼福本店が作成している改善計画に関連し、水産庁の考えと 立場を以下のとおりお伝えいたします。 ○ As it was stated in the opening statement of ICCAT annual meeting in 2018, Japan is in the position to support the MSE process as an important aspect of Atlantic bluefin tuna management, and consider that it should be discussed with high priority. We expect that the existing uncertainties in the management should be dealt through the MSE process. ○ 昨年のICCAT年次会合のOpening Statementでも述べたとおり、日本は大西洋くろまぐろのMSEプロセスが重要であり、高い 優先度をもって対応すべきとの立場です。不確実要素については、MSEプロセスの中で考慮 していくべきと考えています。 ○ We will work within the ICCAT compliance committee for promoting member countries’ improvements to prevent IUU catch of Atlantic bluefin tuna, requiring necessary control measures. Also, as a major market country, we will request appropriate catch documentations submission and promote accurate reporting through submitted data analysis and direct communications if improvements are necessary, to tuna exporting countries. ○ 大西洋くろまぐろのIUU漁獲を防止するために、ICCATの遵守委員会の場で関係国に改善を求 めていくとともに、必要な規制措置を求めていきます。また、主要な市場国として、適正な 漁獲証明書の提出を求めつつ、データの分析と輸出国への指摘を通じて、正確な漁獲報告が なされるよう働きかけて行きます。 ○ As for blue shark catch and release reporting requirements and implementation, we will continue to hold information exchange meetings with Usufuku Honten. Co., to promote accurate reporting implementation through logbook and observer data collections. ○ ヨシキリザメの漁獲・放流報告については、臼福本店と個別の意見交換を行う機会を設け、 ログブックの情報及びオブザーバーデータを活用し、正確な報告の実施を促して行きます。 ○ Mainly through sampling data collection through the observer program and collaboration with ICCAT scientists, we will work to make the catch composition of ABFT West stock more clearly. We will respond to the discussion needs of Usufuku Honten. Co., if they wish to obtain West stock data from vessels carrying observers. For the duration where Shofuku Maru No.1 may not able to carry observers, we will search for pathways to gain West stock information required for the assessment in discussion with the Usufuku Honten Co. as well. ○ 主にオブザーバープログラムによるサンプル取得とICCAT関係科学者との協力を通じ、西資

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 251 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)

源の割合がより明確になるよう取り組んで行きます。オブザーバーが乗船した際に得た西資 源のデータに関して臼福本店より要望があれば、適宜協議に応じることとします。また、オ ブザーバーが乗船しない期間の西資源のデータについては臼福本店と協議し、他の方法で可 能性を検討します。 We hope above information is useful for your assessment. ご参考になれば幸いです。 <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< 水産庁資源管理部国際課 課長補佐（海洋漁業資源管理班 担当） 晝間信児 Fisheries Agency Resource Management Department, International Section Assistant Section Manager (Marine Fisheries Resources Management Group) Shinji HIRUMA Fisheries Agency of Japan Tel: +81-(0)3-3502-8204

3259R04I Control Union Pesca Ltd 252 MSC Full Assessment Reporting Template FCR v2.0 (8th October 2014) Pesca V1.2 (2nd October 2017)