Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Preassessment Report

MSC Pre-Assessment Reporting Template v2.1 (9th October 2017) MEC V1.2 (7th November 2017)

Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) Preassessment Report

Bumble Bee and FCF Mauritius, Madagascar and High

Seas albacore longline fishery

On behalf of

Bumble Bee and FCF

Prepared by

ME Certification Ltd

March 2018

Authors: Chrissie Sieben

Sophie des Clers Peter Trott

Client Bumble Bee Seafoods, LLC

Client Contact Name Kraft, Mike [email protected] McClain, Kevin [email protected]

Client Address 280 10th Avenue, San Diego, CA, 92101 United States

ME Certification Ltd 56 High Street, Lymington

Hampshire SO41 9AH United Kingdom

Tel: 01590 613007 Fax: 01590 671573

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.me-cert.com

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.me-cert.com/

3187R01B | ME Certification Ltd. 2


Contents

CONTENTS................................................................................................................................... 2

GLOSSARY................................................................................................................................... 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................. 5

1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 7

1.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment ................................................................................... 7

1.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery ....................................................... 7

1.3 The MSC programme .................................................................................................. 8

1.4 Unit(s) of certification ................................................................................................ 10

1.5 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data .......................................................... 12

2 DESCRIPTION OF THE FISHERY............................................................................................ 12

2.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme .......................................... 12

2.2 Overview of the fishery .............................................................................................. 13

2.2.1 The client group ............................................................................................................. 13 2.2.2 Data availability .............................................................................................................. 14 2.2.3 Fishing gear and operations .......................................................................................... 15

2.3 Principle One: Target species background ............................................................... 17

2.3.1 Abacore distribution and stock definition ....................................................................... 17 2.3.2 Biology and life history ................................................................................................... 17 2.3.3 Stock status.................................................................................................................... 17 2.3.4 Harvest strategy and control rules ................................................................................. 18 2.3.5 information and stock assessment ................................................................................ 19

2.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background ..................................................................... 20

2.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2 ...................................................................... 20 2.4.2 Primary species ............................................................................................................. 26 2.4.3 Secondary species ......................................................................................................... 31 2.4.4 Bait ................................................................................................................................. 32 2.4.5 Primary and Secondary species management .............................................................. 33 2.4.6 ETP species ................................................................................................................... 35 2.4.7 Habitats .......................................................................................................................... 46 2.4.8 Ecosystem...................................................................................................................... 47

2.5 Principle Three: Management system background .................................................. 50

2.5.1 Governance and Policy .................................................................................................. 50 2.5.2 Fishery-specific management system ........................................................................... 55 2.5.3 Decision-making processes ........................................................................................... 56 2.5.4 Compliance / enforcement ............................................................................................. 57 2.5.5 Evaluation of the management system.......................................................................... 59

3 EVALUATION PROCEDURE .................................................................................................. 60

3.1 Assessment methodologies used ............................................................................. 60

3.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment .......................... 60

3.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment ........................................... 61

3.3.1 Intergovernmental organizations: .................................................................................. 61



3.3.2 Non-governmental organizations ................................................................................... 61

3.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries ................................... 62

4 TRACEABILITY (ISSUES RELEVANT TO CHAIN OF CUSTODY CERTIFICATION) .......................... 63

4.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody ............................... 63

5 PRELIMINARY EVALUATION OF THE FISHERY ........................................................................ 64

5.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree (optional) ............................................. 64

5.2 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) .......................... 64

5.3 Evaluation of the fishery ............................................................................................ 64

5.3.1 Principle 1 ...................................................................................................................... 65 5.3.2 Principle 2 ...................................................................................................................... 65 5.3.3 Principle 3 ...................................................................................................................... 65

5.4 Summary of likely PI scoring levels .......................................................................... 66

5.4.1 Principle 1 ...................................................................................................................... 67 5.4.2 Principle 2 ...................................................................................................................... 68 5.4.3 Principle 3 ...................................................................................................................... 73

6 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................... 81

APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................. 85

APPENDIX 1 PRE-ASSESSMENT SCORING TABLES FOR P2 DATA DEFICIENT SPECIES ................... 86



Glossary

Acronym Definition

ATF Authorisation to fish in the Indian Ocean for foreign vessels outside their national jurisdiction

CMM IOTC Conservation Management Measures

CV Carrier Vessel

ERA Ecological Risk Assessment

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FCM Mauritian subsidiary of Taiwanese F.C.F. FISHERY CO. LTD.

IOTC Indian Ocean Tuna Commission

ISSF International Seafood Sustainability Foundation

IUU fishing Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated fishing

LSTV Large Scale Tuna Vessel (IOTC: eligible to tranship)

MCS Monitoring, Control and Surveillance

MEC ME Certification Ltd.

PRC People’s Republic of China

PRSP Programme sous-régionale de surveillance des pêche (IOC-based MCS)

PSM Port State Measures

RBF Risk-Based Framework

RCS Radio call sign

RFMO Regional Fisheries Management Organization

ROP Regional Observer programme

SADC Southern African Development Community

SFPA Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements - EU

TWN Taiwan (Republic of China)

VMS Vessel Monitoring System



Executive Summary

This report presents the results of a pre-assessment study for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Bumble Bee and FCF albacore longline fishery taking place in the Mauritius and Madagascar EEZ and on the High Seas. The pre-assessment was carried out by Dr Sophie des Clers and Peter Trott with Chrissie Sieben as Team Leader on behalf of ME Certification Ltd (MEC). A site visit took place in Port Louis, Mauritius and meetings were held with Client as well as Mauritian government representatives.

The albacore longline fishery is prosecuted on behalf of FCF and Bumble Bee who are the exclusive buyers of albacore tuna caught by the vessels in the Client fleet. The fishery takes place in the Mauritius and Madagascan Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) as well as on the High Seas. Fish kept on board are frozen individually and are stored in the freezer holds. They are landed in Mauritius at the beginning of the season (October-November) but may be transhipped onto reefers towards the end of the season when the vessels are fishing far south of Mauritius on the High Seas.

The vessels are registered in either Taiwan (Republic of China) or the People’s Republic of China and are owned by a number of different companies. Each company is represented by a vessel agent based in Mauritius, with FCF acting as a broker for the vessels, supplying bait and bunker, and purchasing all albacore from the vessels. The pre-assessment team defined six likely Units of Assessment (UoAs), structured around the P1 target species (Indian Ocean albacore), gear (pelagic longline), fishing areas (Mauritius EEZ, Madagascar EEZ, High Seas) and flag state (Taiwan, People’s Republic of China).

The pre-assessment was hampered by a lack of key data to enable an in-depth analysis of likely fishery impacts. The missing data included (but were not limited to) third-party verified catch data for target and bycatch species stemming from either logbooks or landing records and independent observer data pertaining to interactions with ETP. Despite the site visit in Mauritius, communication with the relevant authorities was difficult and this issue would need resolving prior to any full assessment commencing.

Although the Indian Ocean albacore stock is currently healthy, the main issues for Principle 1 centre around the harvest strategy and harvest control rules (HCR). Without an explicit HCR currently in place, a full assessment will rely on the MSC criteria to determine whether a HCR can be considered as ‘available’. With the stock assessment currently projecting B to fall below BMSY by 2024 with a 42% probability, the team considered it unlikely this would be the case, indicating a likely fail for PI 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rule). For the same reason, it is unlikely that the harvest strategy could be considered likely to work at SG60 level, implying a likely fail for PI 1.2.1 (Harvest Strategy).

Given the lack of fishery-specific data, the Principle 2 analysis was largely based on a general overview of albacore longline operations conducted within the IOTC region, including IOTC data, other individual longline operations conducted in the region as well as past confidential assessments. Both the Habitats and Ecosystem components are likely to perform well during full assessment. The main issue for Principle 2 was the lack of data on retained and discarded catch and ETP interactions. For the purposes of this pre-assessment some assumptions were made which indicate that if the required data can be provided, a conditional pass is possible for Primary, Secondary and ETP species. At this stage, however, it is difficult to be more specific about the likely conditions.

Based on the information provided, the main strength in the fishery lies with Principle 3 which is likely to score well. Cooperation between coastal and fishing nations for the sustainable management of target stocks and of the fishery’s effects on the ecosystem is organised between coastal states and distant fishing nations through the Indian Ocean tuna Commission



(IOTC). The regional management system is strong, and the national management systems of the flag and coastal states are sufficient not to cause a barrier to certification.



1 Introduction

1.1 Aims/scope of pre-assessment

This report presents the results of a pre-assessment study for Marine Stewardship Council (MSC) certification of the Bumble Bee and FCF albacore longline fishery taking place in the Mauritius and Madagascar EEZ and on the High Seas. The pre-assessment was carried out by Dr Sophie des Clers and Peter Trott with Chrissie Sieben as Team Leader on behalf of ME Certification Ltd (MEC). The client group consists of Bumble Bee and FCF; the latter representing the vessels that make up the Unit of Assessment. A description of the fishery is provided in Section 2.

The pre-assessment was conducted in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Standard version 2.0 and pre-assessment reporting template version 2.1.

The purpose of this report is threefold:

• To assess whether MSC certification of this fishery can be achieved under the present circumstances

• To identify any obstacles to MSC certification

• To assist both the Client and Conformity Assessment Body (CAB) in planning for an eventual full assessment

It should be noted that this report represents the views of the MEC pre-assessment team, not those of a Full MSC Assessment Team, which is subject to approval by the MSC and stakeholders. A Full MSC Assessment is a completely independent process, and involves a formal public and stakeholder consultation process. A pre-assessment provides a provisional assessment of a fishery based on a limited set of information provided by the client. Therefore, the outcome of a full assessment cannot be guaranteed to be the same as that foreseen in this report.

1.2 Constraints to the pre-assessment of the fishery

The vessels under pre-assessment are only a subset of the entire FCF/Bumble Bee Indian Ocean longline fleet that lands albacore in Mauritius, which in total includes approximately 70 boats. To what extent the remainder of the fleet will be included in the Unit of Certification or will be considered as ‘other eligible fishers’, should be explored prior to any full assessment commencing.

Despite numerous attempts to establish a line of communications with the Mauritian and Madagascan authorities, crucial data were mot provided to enable an in-depth pre-assessment. The pre-assessment team was unable to make contact with the Madagascan government. The assessment of fishing activities in the Madagascan EEZ was therefore based on publically available research papers and grey literature. A site visit did take place in Port Louis, Mauritius and meetings were held with Client as well as Mauritian government representatives. The information gained during these meetings has been incorporated into the pre-assessment. Nevertheless, key information could not be made available to the team. This includes the following:

• Lack of third-party verified catch data for target and bycatch species stemming from either logbooks or landing records (note: it will be up to a full assessment team to determine the verifiability of available data. Generally speaking however,



catch/landings data will be requested from independent sources such as the relevant authorities or research institutes as this provides for a higher level of verifiability)

• Lack of independent observer data pertaining to interactions with ETP: none of the client fleet carry independent observers onboard. Although the client indicated a trial with CCTV monitoring is currently underway, the results of this could not be made available for this report.

The pre-assessment team would like to emphasise that the responsibility for data provision during a full assessment will lie with the client or client group. Prior to commencing any full assessment, it is therefore advisable that an effective line of communication is opened with the relevant authorities (and other stakeholders), with a clear indication of what is expected of those parties.

Please note that prior to applying for full assessment for any of the UoAs within this assessment, the client should make its selected CAB aware of the following:

• Any actions undertaken following this pre-assessment to address the conclusion of this report.

• Report on any new issues that may be a barrier to certification.

• Report on any communications that may need to take place with management agencies, environment groups, post-harvest sectors, relevant commercial and non- commercial fishing groups to explain the MSC assessment process and the

implications (including costs and benefits) of certification.

• Complete the Client Document Checklist, identifying the type and extent of data and information that the client will make available for a full assessment.

• Whether the client would like to receive the optional MSC training material on the

fishery assessment process for clients.

1.3 The MSC programme

The three MSC Principles are further explained below:

Principle 1: A fishery must be conducted in a manner that does not lead to over-fishing or depletion of the exploited populations and, for those populations that are depleted, the fishery must be conducted in a manner that demonstrably leads to their recovery.

Principle 2: Fishing operations should allow for the maintenance of the structure, productivity, function and diversity of the ecosystem (including habitat and associated dependent and ecologically related species) on which the fishery depends.

Principle 3: The fishery is subject to an effective management system that respects local, national and international laws and standards and incorporates institutional and operational frameworks that require use of the resource to be responsible and sustainable.

Each Principle comprises a number of “Components” which are each divided into performance indicators (PIs), listed in Annex 1. Each PI is scored for every separate Unit of Certification along three scoring guideposts (SGs): SG60, SG80 and SG100. SG60 represents the minimum standard for certification in the short term, but with a requirement to improve to the 80 level. SG80 represents the minimum long-term acceptable level for certification, while SG100 represents the ideal.

A pre-assessment study does not attempt to predict scores at a high level of detail; it attempts instead to assign scores to a category associated with a traffic light system:



Information suggests fishery is not likely to reach SG60 and therefore would fail on this PI

<60

Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may need a condition for this PI 60-79

Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI ≥80

In order to pass an assessment, a fishery must:

• Have no single score below 60

• Have an average score of at least 80 for each of the three Principles.

Any score <60 identified during the pre-assessment would lead to a pre-condition, i.e. an issue that needs to be resolved before MSC certification can be attempted. Any score of 60-80 would lead to a condition, i.e. a successful certification but with requirements for the fishery to improve to the SG80 level within a specified timeframe. In practice, very few fisheries pass with no conditions.



1.4 Unit(s) of certification

Note on MSC vocabulary: Unit of Certification (UoC) vs. Unit of Assessment (UoA)

The UoA is defined as consisting of the target stock(s), fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) and/or practices, fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock, including any other eligible fishers that are outside the unit of certification.

The UoC is defined as consisting of the target stock(s), fishing method or gear type(s), vessel type(s) and/or practices, fishing fleets or groups of vessels, or individual fishing operators pursuing that stock including those client group members initially intended to be covered by the certificate.

In summary, the UoA = UoC + any other eligible fishers identified at the start of assessment.

For the purposes of this pre-assessment, no other eligible fishers were identified; the UoA is therefore the same as the UoC.

Based on the information available, the assessment team proposes the following UoCs as set out in Table 1.

Note, the 28 vessels under pre-assessment are only a subset of the FCF/Bumble Bee Indian Ocean dedicated longline fleet, which in total includes approximately 70 boats that land albacore in Mauritius. To what extent the remainder of the fleet will be included in the Unit of Certification or will be considered as ‘other eligible fishers’, should be explored prior to any full assessment commencing.



Table 1. UoAs as part of the Bumble Bee and FCF Mauritius, Madagascar and High Seas albacore longline fishery pre-assessment

UoA number 1 2 3 4 5 6

Species and stock Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), Indian Ocean stock

Gear type Pelagic longline

Geographical range of fishery

Mauritian EEZ Madagascan EEZ High Seas Mauritian EEZ Madagascan EEZ

High Seas

Flag state vessels People’s Republic of China Taiwan

Management systems

• IOTC

• Mauritian national management

• PRC flag state management

• IOTC

• Madagascan national management


• IOTC


• IOTC

• Mauritian national management

• Taiwan flag state management

• IOTC

• Madagascan national management


• IOTC


Client Group Bumblebee and FCF



1.5 Total Allowable Catch (TAC) and Catch Data

No aggregated catch statistics for the client fleet were provided for this assessment; the total green weight catch by UoC (Table 2) could therefore not be determined. The Indian Ocean albacore fishery is not managed through a TAC. In 2016, the albacore longline catch for the Chinese longline fleet (which represents part of the client fleet) was estimated at 1,920 tonnes, about 4.2% higher than in 2015 (1,843 tonnes) (Xu et al., 2017). This information could not be obtained for the Taiwanese fleet, as discussed in Section 2.2.2

Table 2. TAC and Catch data.

TAC Year N/a Amount N/a

UoA share of TAC Year N/a Amount N/a

UoCs share of TAC Year N/a Amount N/a

Total green weight catch by UoCs

Year (most recent) 2017 Amount Not known

Year (second most recent) 2016 Amount Not known

2 Description of the fishery

2.1 Scope of the fishery in relation to the MSC programme

MEC 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.



2.2 Overview of the fishery

2.2.1 The client group

The albacore longline fishery is prosecuted on behalf of FCF and Bumble Bee who are the exclusive buyers of albacore tuna caught by the vessels and companies listed in Table 3 and Table 4. The fishery takes place in the Mauritius and Madagascan EEZs as well as on the High Seas. Fish kept on board are frozen individually and are stored in the freezer holds. They are landed in Mauritius at the beginning of the season (October-November) but may be transhipped onto reefers towards the end of the season when the vessels are fishing far south of Mauritius on the High Seas. The vessels do not land or use ports in Madagascar.

The vessels are registered in either Taiwan (Table 3) or the People’s Republic of China (Table 4), and are owned by a number of different companies (Co.). Each company is represented by a vessel agent based in Mauritius, who is the interlocutor for the Fisheries Ministry and its agencies, notably for licensing and inspection purposes.

F.C.M. FISHERY CO., LTD, the Mauritian arm of the Taiwanese F.C.F. FISHERY CO. LTD1, acts as a ‘broker’ for its ‘associated vessels’, supplying bait and bunker, and purchasing all albacore from the vessels. The vessels are either registered in Taiwan (TWN, officially the Republic of China) or in the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

Once landed, the frozen albacore are graded and stored by Froid des Mascareignes (FDM) and processed as cooked loins by Princes Tuna, both based inside the Port free zone, before being exported to Bumble Bee’s canning facilities in California.

The non-albacore landings follow a different path. All non-albacore fish caught in the Mauritius EEZ has to be sold locally to the Cooperative through the Mauritius Marketing Board. For catches outside Mauritius waters, the vessels have different strategies that will need clarifying by the agents. All catch kept on board are recorded on the logbooks and declared prior to entry into port where landings are inspected. All catch transhipped is also checked by IOTC inspectors on board the reefers.

1 http://www.fcf.com.tw



Table 3. Taiwanese (TWN - Republic of China) vessel list and details

Owner Co.

Vessel Names Register company RCS LOA (m)

GRT

TMY TENN MING YANG 168 LIN Tan-Jin BJ4745 28.20 97

TMY TENN MING YANG 268 LIN YAN JIN BJ4839 28.20 99

TMY TENN MING YANG 368 LIN YAN JIN BJ4840 28.20 98

TMY TENN MING YANG 668 LING YAN JIN BJ5045 23.90 99

TMY TENN MING YANG 688 LIN, CHIH-YUNG BJ5053 23.90 99

TMY TENN MING YANG 888 HSU SHENG CHANG BJ4792 28.20 97

TMY TENN MING YANG 101 LIN JING CHUN BJ4894 29.88 99

TMY TENN MING YANG 889 LIN, CHIEH TE BJ4793 28.20 97

TMY TENN MING YANG 33 LI WEN-CHUNG BJ4387 22.45 54

TMY TENN MING YANG 20 LEE KUN HO BK7382 21.70 48

RIS RUEY I SHYANG 3 HUNG LIANG HUEI BJ4897 29.70 99

RIS RUEY I SHYANG 6 HUNG SHU MAY BJ4892 29.70 99

RIS RUEY I SHYANG 7 HUNG YI SHIANG BJ4887 29.70 99

RIS RUEY I SHYANG 8 HUNG JIN YU BJ4853 28.60 98

RIS RUEY I SHYANG 10 HORNG LIANG HUEI BJ4523 24.51 65

RIS RUEY I SHYANG 12 HOANG,JHENG-YAN BJ4625 27.90 80

Table 4.PR Chinese (PRC) vessel list and details

Owner Co.

Vessel Names Register company RCS LOA (m)

GRT

MA LU RONG YUAN YU 159 WEIHAI HENGYUAN FISHERIES CO.,LTD BBZS6 38.22 321




CHANG HONG YANG 89 RONGCHENG DEEP-SEA FISHERIES CO.,LTD. BBIO9 35.16 255

CHANG LU RONG YUAN YU 201 RONGCHENG DEEP-SEA FISHERIES CO.,LTD. BBIM1 37.56 276

CHANG LU RONG YUAN YU 202 RONGCHENG DEEP-SEA FISHERIES CO.,LTD. BBIM2 37.56 276

CHANG LU RONG YUAN YU 327 RONGCHENG Mashan Ocean Fishery Co. Ltd. BBKV7 37.56 276

WANG LU RU YUAN YU 188 WEIHAI CITY HENGYUAN FISHERY CO.,LTD BCFD9 40.04 345

WANG LU RU YUAN YU 158 WEIHAI CITY HENGYUAN FISHERY CO.,LTD BCFD8 40.04 345

SHAN JIN XIANG 8 HUANQIU TUNA FISHING (DALIAN) CO.,LTD BZYB8 33.90 271

SHAN JIN XIANG 9 HUANQIU TUNA FISHING (DALIAN) CO.,LTD BZYB9 33.90 271

2.2.2 Data availability

Electronic logbooks are not yet in place but all vessels complete logbooks and must submit them after landing. Total trip catches are submitted to the Mauritian and Flag State governments three days prior to landing in order to obtain an unloading permit, as part of the Port State Measures (e-PSM). In Mauritius, a deposit fee is issued with the license. Once the



logbook data have been received and verified with VMS and sales data, the deposit is returned. Vessel agents help with translation into English when necessary, ensuring smooth communication with the Mauritian authorities. Logbook data are checked both at sea and upon landings. They correspond to approximate equivalent round weight of retained catches (discards are not recorded) and are submitted to the Port State (e.g. Mauritius or Madagascar in the case of this fishery), the vessel Flag State (TWN, PRC) and to the IOTC.

One complication currently exists with the IOTC, which is a UN-FAO organisation and as such does not officially recognise Taiwan Republic of China as a country. Therefore, even though Republic of China information is submitted to IOTC and TWN scientists actively participate in scientific and other working groups, TWN vessel and catch information or national reports cannot be obtained from the IOTC website. This is discussed further in Section 1.1.

During the pre-assessment site visit, the Fisheries Assistant Director and his staff indicated that the Mauritian authorities could provide anonymised catch statistics and aggregated VMS data for a given list of vessels, subject to consent from the vessel owners (or the vessel agents in this case). The logbook information may also be available from TWN and PRC Fisheries authorities. Although several requests for information were made by the pre-assessment team (both via the client group and from the Ministry directly), no data were provided, other than a sample of logsheets from a number of vessels in the client fleet. The pre-assessment team would like to emphasise that the responsibility for data provision during a full assessment will lie with the client or client group. Prior to commencing any full assessment, it is therefore advisable that an effective line of communication is opened with the relevant authorities (and other stakeholders), with a clear indication of what is expected of those parties.

No scientific observer data are available for the fleet at this stage. Any UoA vessels that would carry the occasional observer are those taking part in the quota-managed bigeye and bluefin fisheries that catch only small proportions of albacore. As such, these data would be unlikely to be representative of the fishery under assessment. However, a CCTV trial did commence in October 2017, at the start of the Mauritius EEZ albacore season. The trial is to be implemented and managed by the Spanish company SatLink who will also analyse the footage and provide reports on ETP species interactions and discarding. The trial will concern trips for five vessels in the FCF/Bumble Bee fleet selected at random.

2.2.3 Fishing gear and operations

The longline fishing method involves deploying the main line from a large reel, with baited hooks on branch lines attached at regular intervals (Figure 1). One TW vessel captain was interviewed briefly while his vessel catch was unloaded. He showed the circle hooks on the branch lines ready to be baited, and the absence of wire traces. For his vessel, the line set is around 42-45 nautical miles long, with 2,400 hooks at an average depth of 10m. The vessels have been using circle hooks for the last two years, which corresponds to the ISSF best practice implemented by FCF representatives.



Figure 1. Illustration of set longline (Source: www.sanford.co.nz/operations).

The Taiwanese vessels are smallest, with a freezer hold capacity around 60 metric tonnes, which, assuming a production of 1t/day would give a maximum trip duration of 2 months. The Chinese vessels , are on average 10m longer with a gross tonnage three times that of the Taiwanese and will therefore have much larger frozen cargo holds (from GRT vs. LOA, Table 3 and Table 4). Depending on the time of the year, fishing may take place in multiple areas (Mauritius and Madagascar EEZ and the High Seas). The peak fishing for Albacore is between September and December.

http://www.sanford.co.nz/operations



2.3 Principle One: Target species background

2.3.1 Abacore distribution and stock definition

Albacore is a temperate species, and Atlantic and Pacific Oceans have a northern and a southern stock. There is, however, no northern gyre in the Indian Ocean, so there is only one stock, distributed south of the equator to ~40oS (IOTC, 2016g).

2.3.2 Biology and life history

According to IOTC, albacore biology in the Indian Ocean is ‘not well known’ (IOTC, 2016g). It is highly migratory, particularly when juvenile, and feeds in temperate waters while spawning closer to the equator. They are thought to live >10 years, with both males and females reaching maturity ~5-6 years. Age/growth is not well known and is problematic in albacore stock assessments.

2.3.3 Stock status

The most recent stock assessment for Indian Ocean albacore was in 2016 (WPTmT, 2016). Five models were run (Table 5), with the SS3 model being used for management advice. The conclusions of the SS3 model were that catches are approximately at the MSY level, while fishing mortality is likely below FMSY, but the probability of it being higher is non-trivial (>10%). Biomass, however, is above BMSY with high probability, and spawning stock is estimated to be at ~37% of unfished levels. The other models provide estimates in a similar ballpark, but are mainly too uncertain (confidence intervals too wide) to be of much use. For the SS3 model, the range of sensitivity runs (see below) gives point estimates SB/SBMSY in the range (1.35-2.99) and SB/SB0 in the range 0.28-0.61 (IOTC, 2016h; WPTmT, 2016).

Table 5. Stock status indicators from the 2016 stock assessment for Indian Ocean albacore (IOTC, 2016h; WPTmT, 2016) (Note: SBMSY/SB1950 was calculated by the authors rather than IOTC)

Indicator Estimated value (10% and 90% CIs)

Model used for mgmt advice

SS3

Catch2015/MSY 1.04

F2014/FMSY 0.85 (0.57-1.12)

SB2014/SBMSY 1.80 (1.38-2.23)

SB2014/SB1950 0.37(0.28-0.46)

SBMSY/SB1950 0.21

Indicator Estimated value (10% and 90% CIs)

Alternative models

BBDM BSPM ASPIC SCAA

Catch2015/MSY 0.91 0.83 0.98 0.68



F2014/FMSY 0.53 (0.38-0.66) 0.51 (0.22-1.85) 0.64 (0.45-1.26) 0.65

SB2014/SBMSY 1.74 (1.55-1.96)*

1.49 (0.85-2.01)* 1.53 (1.07-1.81)* 1.14

SB2014/SB1950 0.62* 0.26**

SBMSY/SB1950 0.41 0.23**

* B rather than SB ** 1952 rather than 1950

Resolution 15/10 sets interim target and limit reference points for albacore; i.e. targets are BMSY and FMSY and limits are 0.4BMSY and 1.4FMSY. This sets the biomass limit too low to conform to MSC default requirements on the definition of the ‘point of recruitment impairment’ (PRI); in fact, BMSY has been defined as such a low proportion of the unfished biomass (21%) that it is almost at the default MSC point for the PRI (20%B0). It is not clear how an MSC assessment would deal with this, but given the current good stock status, it is not a significant problem for the moment. The Kobe plot (Figure 2) shows the stock trajectory in relation to IOTC interim target and limit reference points – this is for the SS3 model; since the other models are not very informative, they have not been included.

Figure 2. Kobe plot for the SS3 stock assessment for Indian Ocean albacore; purple circles show the trajectory of point estimates, while the grey cross is the current (2014) estimate with 10% and 90% CIs (WPTmT, 2016).

2.3.4 Harvest strategy and control rules

Resolution 14/02 applies to albacore, and calls on IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs) to improve the information base and use MSE (Management Strategy Evaluation) to put in place suitable reference points and a harvest control rule, no later than 2020. At time of writing, interim reference points have been agreed (as set out above) but the MSE process is still ongoing, with reporting to IOTC due in 2018.



Under version 2.0 of the MSC standard, MSC has put in place options for harvest control rules and tools to be considered ‘available’ rather than ‘in place’, based on the following conditions:

• Biomass has been above the MSY level for at least two generation times, and is not

predicted to drop below BMSY within the next 5 years;

• An effective HCR is in use by the same management body for another similar stock, OR

there is an agreement in place for the management body to develop and implement a

HCR before the stock decline below BMSY.

The biomass trajectory for albacore has been in the ‘green’ for the whole time series (according to the SS3 model), and a harvest strategy is under development for albacore as described above. However, constant catch projections (setting catch at 2014 levels) suggest a 14% probability that B will drop below BMSY in 2017, and a 42% probability by 2024 (IOTC, 2016h). This may therefore not meet the first point (‘not predicted to drop below BMSY within the next 5 years’). However, MSC note that (SA2.5.4): where quantitative simulation testing is available, “most of the time” should be interpreted as the stock being maintained at or above MSY or some ecologically more relevant target point at least 70% of the time; this value could be applied here to suggest that a probability of 30% or less of dropping below BMSY is acceptable.

Overall, the situation is somewhat ambiguous and a full assessment team may either consider HCRs to be ‘available’ or not.

2.3.5 information and stock assessment

The key datasets used in the SS3 stock assess are catch data, longline CPUE indices (from the southern Indian Ocean; others were evaluated but eventually excluded from the reference model), length-frequency data from the longline and purse seine fisheries, and a historical catch/effort dataset for driftnet fisheries from the mid-19080s to the early 1990s, as well as biological data (Langley and Hoyle, 2016).

The stock assessment defines fisheries by area, but is not spatially structured, unlike the other main assessments. Sensitivity was evaluated in relation to natural mortality (reference case 0.3, low 0.221 and hybrid), stock-recruit steepness (reference case 0.8, alternatives 0.7 and 0.9), increasing longline catchability (effort creep), the inclusion of the equatorial longline CPUE indices) and the exclusion of either the SW or SE CPUE indices. The model was particularly sensitive to the inclusion of the northern region longline data, which were not considered good indicators of stock status. The sensitivity analyses did not, however, result in different qualitative conclusions as to the stock status.



2.4 Principle Two: Ecosystem background

2.4.1 Designation of species under Principle 2

2.4.1.1 MSC requirements

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).

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.



2.4.1.2 The client fishery

Pelagic longlines, consisting of a main line suspended by floats and with baited hooks hanging below, are used to fish for tuna and billfish worldwide. Although the general design is simple, differences in how and where the gear is fished (such as fishing depth, baits and hooks used, setting time, and locations) affect catch rates of target and bycatch species (Carruthers, 2009).

The client did provide examples of logbook sheets taken form the Tawainese longline vessels under the UoA. However, these sheets only record retained species (i.e., main tuna species and some shark species) with no information on discarded bycatch or interactions with ETP species such as turtles, seabirds and mammals. Furthermore, there is no validation or verification of the logbook data by any independent source and there is currently no observer coverage of these vessels – this is discussed further in Section 1.2. Therefore, there is a low level of confidence in the robustness and accuracy of data provided in these sheets. The data extracted from the example logbook sheet is presented in Table 6. Highlighted species will be assessed as ETP in accordance with the designation criteria shown in Section 2.4.1.

Table 6. Species catch recorded in example logbook sheet

IOTC Species

Code

Species name (Common)

Species name (scientific)

Weight (t)

Percentage of catch (%)

ALB Albacore Tuna Thunnus alalunga 7,758 44.6

YFT Yellowfin Tuna Thunnus albacares 7,743 44.5

OTH Other NA 817 4.7

BET Bigeye Tuna Thunnus obesus 392 2.3

BUM Blue Marlin Makaira mazara 246 1.4

SWO Swordfish Xiphias gladius 168 1

BSH Blue shark Prionace glauca 152 0.9

DOR Mahi Mahi Coryphaena hippurus 29 0.2

BIL2 Other Billfish NA 23 0.1

SMA Shortfin Mako Shark Isurus oxyrinchus 21 0.1

SKJ Skipjack Tuna Katsuwonus pelamis 20 0.1

BLM Black Marlin Istiompax indica 19 0.1

FAL Silky Shark Carcharhinus falciformis 7.3 0.04

SFA Sailfish Istiophorus 5 0.03

MLS Striped Marlin Kajikia audax 4.5 0.03

OSP Other Species NA 3.4 0.02

SSP Short-billed spearfish Tetrapturus angustirostris

1.9 0.01

OS Other Shark retained NA 1.4* 0.008

SPF Longbill spearfish Tetrapturus pfluegeri 0.4 0.002

SPZ Smooth Hammerhead Shark

Sphyrna zygaena 0.174 0.001



IOTC Species

Code

Species name (Common)

Species name (scientific)

Weight (t)

Percentage of catch (%)

EUB Great Hammerhead Shark

Eusphyra blochii 0.06 0.0003

*recorded as number, not by weight.

According to the data in Table 6, only yellowfin tuna would be considered as Primary ‘main’. Furthermore, the data indicate that there are only five shark species taken by the fishery, which would be considered as ETP and be assessed as such under Principle 2. No information or data were provided on any interactions with marine sea turtles, seabirds or mammals. This is considered to be unlikely given the available data from other albacore longline fisheries in the same area. Given the above and that there was very little fishery-specific catch data, information or analyses available for the purposes of this pre-assessment, the assessment has taken on a more precautionary approach and focused on a more general overview of albacore longline operations conducted within the IOTC region. This is based on several avenues of information including but not limited to IOTC data, other individual longline operations conducted in the region as well as past confidential assessments.

Currently albacore tuna are predominantly being taken from South of 10S in the Indian Ocean, but it must be noted that these longline fleets can access albacore across the entire Indian Ocean and have done so in previous years. Therefore, bycatch species such as sharks have been included in this assessment that may have been caught elsewhere in the Indian Ocean historically as a precautionary measure.

Darumas et al. (2013) and Chumchuen and Naimee (2012) reported that the main species taken in the albacore longline fishery include yellowfin tuna, bigeye tuna, swordfish and a variety of shark species. Darumas et al. (2013) found that catch composition data varied considerably from year to year and were highly dependent on fishing grounds. As an example, in 2011 shark bycatch and albacore catch was 0.55% and 28% respectively of the entire catch, while in 2012 the shark bycatch and albacore catch had significantly shifted to 3.94% and 0.58% respectively of the entire catch. Notably fishing effort had concentrated to the central area of the Indian Ocean in 2012 compared to a more spread-out effort distribution ranging west in 2011.

In their analysis of the Indian Ocean albacore fishery by Thai longliners, Chumchuen and Naimee (2012) also found that catch composition differed between zones fished and that shark catch overall was around 2.2% of the entire catch (see Figure 3 for details on the zones) However, upon further analysis, catch composition varied in different zones of the Indian Ocean. For example, in the southern zones (zones 3 and 4), where 88% of the albacore longline catch is taken, tuna species composition fluctuated and no sharks were taken. Whilst in zone 2 and 5 albacore was not a dominant species, and shark catch was 1.2% (zone 5) (Figure 4).



Figure 3. Zones used for the Thai albacore longline catch compostion analysis by Chumchuen and Naimee (2012) (Source: Chumchuen and Naimee, 2012)

Figure 4. Species catch composition from Albacore longline operations in the Indian Ocean across multiple zones (Chumchuen and Naimee, 2012).



In contrast to the above information, Mauritius only had three local longline vessels operating in its waters in 2014. These vessels caught 42 tonnes of tuna and tuna-like species with the catch consisting of swordfish (32.9%), yellowfin tuna (26.4%), bigeye tuna (18.7%), albacore (15.1%) and billfishes (2.5%). These vessels only recorded a retained catch of 0.2% of mako sharks and no seabirds and or turtles were recorded (Mootoosamy et al., 2015). The local operations have been consistent with regard to its catch compositions over time (Table 7, Figure 5).

Table 7. Annual catch (kg) of surface longline chilled fish fishery (vessels <24 m) (Mootoosamy et al., 2015).

Species 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Yellowfin 7621 16476 5715 11265 11265

Bigeye 460 10826 2960 17185 7955

Albacore 4998 8415 5555 6215 6451

Swordfish 17070 43999 17065 28320 14015

Other billfishes 260 3531 1810 2053 1055

Sharks Nil 740 455 680 90

NEI 1925 5407 2561 2255 1789

Effort (hooks) 58 500 252 480 182 300 150 560 105120

Total 32334 89394 36121 67973 42620

Figure 5. Historical annual catch for the Mauritian longline fleet and primary species, for the IOTC area of competence for the entire history of the fishery/fleet source: (Mootoosamy et al., 2015).



Another dataset which may help in determining the likely catch composition data for the client fleet consists of observer records for the largest albacore fleet in the Indian Ocean, the Taiwan-Republic of China fleet. Data were collected from 77 trips on board the Taiwan-Republic of China large-scale longline fleet over a four-year period (2004–2008). These 77 trips were across the fleet’s operations in the Indian Ocean and included 7 trips within the albacore longline fishery. The data indicate that from the 7 trips observed, over 60% of the catch (by number of species) corresponded to albacore (Hsiang-Wen Huang, 2010). Table 8 presents the % catch composition observed from the seven trips on the albacore fleet. It is important to note that during the observer trips on this fleet, no ETP species (turtles or seabirds) were caught or interactions of any kind recorded.

Table 8. % Catch composition (by number) of observed trips on board Taiwan-Republic of China vessels targeting albacore tuna in the Indian Ocean in 2004–2008 (Hsiang-Wen Huang, 2010).

Species % of catch

Albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga) 60.3

Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) 4.9

Dolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) 4.9

King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) 4.5

Skipjack tuna (Katsuwonus pelamis) 4.2

Bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) 2.9

Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) 2.7

Spotted opah (Lampris gattatus) 2.4

Blue shark (Prionace glauca) 2.3

Based on the above information, the following species were considered for Principle 2 (Table 9). Note that all shark species listed above are listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and are therefore likely to be assessed as ETP species (see Section 2.4.6).

Table 9. Species likely to be considered under Principle 2, with their respective designations

Species Designation

Yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) Main Primary

Swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Minor Primary

Skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) Minor Primary

Bigeye (Thunnus obesus) Minor Primary

Dophinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) Main Secondary

Escolar (Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) Minor Secondary

Spotted Opah (Lampris gattatus) Minor Secondary

King mackerel (Scomberomorus cavalla) Minor Secondary

Sharks (various species) ETP

Seabirds (various species) ETP

Sea turtles (various species) ETP



2.4.2 Primary species

At the pre-assessment stage there is normally no need to identify minor bycatch species (primary and secondary) since they intervene in scoring only at SG100. However, for the purpose of this pre-assessment, the team took the precautionary view to consider both the main and minor primary species listed in Table 9 above.

2.4.2.1 Yellowfin

There have been several recent stock assessments conducted for Indian Ocean yellowfin, with the latest being in 2016.

Langley (2015): For the base model, adult biomass was estimated to be at 66% of the SBMSY level (i.e. overfished) and current fishing mortality rates are 34% higher than FMSY level (i.e. overfishing is occurring). The other model options also estimated that the stock is in an overfished state (SB/SBMSY < 1.0) and that overfishing is occurring (F/FMSY > 1.0), although the extent of the stock depletion varies considerably amongst the model options (Langley, 2015).

Guan et al. (2015): The median of MSY was calculated to be 344,200 tonnes, and the medians of B2014/BMSY and F2014/FMSY were 0.74 and 1.87 respectively. Thus, the stock is considered

to be overfished and subject to overfishing. The 2014 catch level (430,331 tonnes) was higher than MSY and this level could result in a higher risk for the stock to be overfished and subject to overfishing. Reducing catch to 67% of the current catch level will lead to a 60% probability that the biomass is slightly above BMSY by 2024 (Guan, 2015).

Nishada & Kitakado (2015): This assessment used Statistical Catch at Age (SCAA) analysis using data from 1950–2014, and the MSY was estimated as 433,000 tonnes with fishing mortality F2014/FMSY = 1.34, suggesting the stock is subject to overfishing. Spawning biomass

estimates for 2014 suggest the stock is in an overfished state: SSB2014/ SSB MSY was 0.66

and SSB2014/ SSB 1950 was 0.23 (Nishida and Kitakado, 2015).

The 2016 assessment used two separate models; a Biomass Dynamic Model (BDM) and Stock Synthesis III (SS3) model, to analysis the status of yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean. Both models returned very similar results, Spawning stock biomass in 2015 was estimated to be 28.9% of the unfished levels and 89% (79–99%) of the level which can support MSY. The updated assessment estimates SB2015/SBMSY at 0.89 (0.79-0.99) and F2015/FMSY at 1.11 (0.86-

1.36), which indicates that the species is in an overfished state and that overfishing is occurring2 (Figure 6). This new stock assessment was discussed and accepted at the 19th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas, Seychelles October 2017 (IOTC 2017).

The IOTC has developed and implemented Resolution 17/01 On an interim plan for rebuilding the Indian Ocean yellowfin tuna stock in the IOTC Area of Competence. This resolution was first implemented after the 2015 stock assessment and its impact and effectiveness will not be able to be assessed until estimates of abundance in 2018 become available at the 2019 stock assessment.

Note that the biomass is still estimated to be greater than PRI (point of recruitment impairment). The MSC Fisheries Standard and Guidelines uses a default index for PRI=20%B0 = 1/2BMSY (i.e. 50% of BMSY); the yellowfin tuna assessments suggest the 2016 biomass levels

2 http://www.iotc.org/science/status-summary-species-tuna-and-tuna-species-under-iotc-mandate-well-other-species-impacted-iotc



to be 89% of BMSY. The total catch of Yellowfin tuna in 2016 was 412,679 tonnes, which is higher than the average catch for the period of 2012 -2016 of 405,741 tonnes.

Figure 6. Kobe plot of the Yellowfin Tuna stock status in the Indian Ocean.

2.4.2.2 Skipjack

The Indian Ocean skipjack tuna stock is not overfished nor subject to overfishing (IOTC-SC17, 2014). The 2014 stock assessment model results did not differ substantively from the previous (2012 and 2011) assessments; however, the final overall estimates of stock status differ somewhat due to the revision of the input parameters and updated standardised CPUE indices. All the model runs carried out in 2014 indicate the stock is above a biomass level that would produce MSY in the long term (i.e. SB2013/SBMSY > 1) and in all runs the current proxy for fishing mortality is below the MSY-based reference level (i.e. Ccurrent/CMSY < 1). The median value of MSY from the model runs investigated was 684,000 tonnes with a range between 550,000 and 849,000 tonnes. Current spawning stock biomass was estimated to be 57% of the unfished levels. Recent catches are lower than FMSY from the 2014 stock assessments; the five-year average catch is also below.

The Kobe strategy matrix (Figure 7) illustrates the levels of risk associated with varying catch levels over time and could be used to inform management actions. The skipjack assessment has significant uncertainty associated with it, and the range of runs analysed illustrate a range of stock status between 0.73–4.31 of SB2013/SBMSY based on all runs examined. Based on the model assessment conducted in 2013, there is a low risk of exceeding MSY-based reference points by 2016 and 2023 if catches are maintained at the current levels of around 425,000 tonnes (< 1 % risk that B2016 < BMSY and 1 % risk that C2023>MSY as proxy of F > FMSY).

Note that less than 1% of the total Indian Ocean Skipjack catch is taken using longlines.



Figure 7. Skipjack tuna Indian Ocean assessment Kobe plot (contours are the 50, 70 and 90 percentiles of the 2013 estimate) (Sharma and Herrera, 2014).

2.4.2.3 Bigeye

The bigeye tuna stock is not overfished and is not subject to overfishing3. The most recent assessment (2016) used six models to carry out the assessment for bigeye tuna in the IOTC. The results of the models indicate that the stock is above a biomass level that would produce MSY in the long term and current fishing mortality is below the MSY-based reference level.

The assessment also concluded that the current spawning stock biomass was estimated to be 38% of the unfished levels.




Figure 8. Bigeye tuna Indian Ocean assessment Kobe plot.

2.4.2.4 Swordfish

Whilst there is currently no evidence that there are two separate swordfish stocks in the Indian Ocean from genetic research and tagging studies, the IOTC Scientific Committee treats swordfish as two separate stocks for the purposes of stock assessments and advice on the Commission’s request. If there are two stocks, then the main stock that the UoA would be interacting with would be the south-west stock. This pre-assessment therefore considered both the Indian Ocean-wide stock and the south-west stock.

The assessment that considers swordfish as a single Indian Ocean-wide stock was most recently conducted in 2014 and found the swordfish stock was not overfished and not subject to overfishing. Fishing mortality was well below MSY levels and the spawning stock biomass was well above the MSY levels, including for the interim target reference points (Figure 9). The spawning stock biomass in 2013 was estimated to be 58–89% of the unfished levels (IOTC, 2015a).



Figure 9. Stock status trend for Indian Ocean wide swordfish stock (IOTC, 2015a)

With regard to the south-west stock, the most recent stock assessment for this proposed population was also completed in 2014. The stock assessment found that this stock was not overfished but was subject to overfishing (Figure 10). The stock has been exposed to localised depletion for some time and biomass is now believed to be below the level that would support MSY. Furthermore, the catch in 2013 was slightly higher than the set limit. If catches are maintained at these levels, then there is an 81% for FMSY and 40% for BMSY probability of exceeding target reference points in 2016 (IOTC, 2015a).

Figure 10. Stock status trend for South-west Indian Ocean swordfish stock (IOTC 2015a)



2.4.3 Secondary species

Based on Table 9 (Section 2.4.1.2), the following species are likely to appear as Secondary species during a full assessment:

Secondary main

• Dolphinfish

Secondary minor

• Escolar

• Spotted opah

Due to the absence of stock assessments or reference points for these species, it is highly likely the Risk-Based Framework (RBF) would be used during a full assessment. Note that for the purposes of this pre assessment, an RBF was run for just the “main” species only, in accordance with MSC guidance.

2.4.3.1 Dolphinfish

Dolphinfish are fast growers, short-lived (4 years of age) and reach sexual maturity early (aged between 4-5 months and spawning can start at just 20cm in length). Spawning occurs multiple times throughout the year and is year-round in the tropical waters 4. The life history traits and biological characteristics (fast growth rates, short lived, high reproductive capability, low age at maturity, high natural mortality) of this species suggest that this species should be able to sustain high levels of fishing mortality.

Dolphinfish are listed by the IUCN as “least concern”5.

The current albacore fishery operates on the southernmost fringes of the dolphinfish distribution and with doplphinfish making up approximately 4.9% of the total catch composition by number of animals (Hsiang-Wen Huang, 2010).

This species is currently not being addressed by the IOTC or its Scientific Committee and data on this species are not available. An RBF was therefore conducted, as shown in Appendix 1.

The results of the RBF indicated a 2.2.1 PSA derived score of 99, which corresponds to an SG 80 level and unconditional pass.

2.4.3.2 Escolar

Escolar can reach up to 2 m in length and weigh 45 kg, although it is most commonly found at 1.5 meters in length. This species is found across the majority of the world’s oceans; in the Indian Ocean they are predominantly found in the central and southern zones where the albacore fishery operates6. Little is known about this species’ age and size at sexual maturity or its stock status. This species is currently not being addressed by the IOTC or its Scientific Committee and data on this species are not available. The IUCN has not assessed this species to date.

4 http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descript/dolphin/dolphin.html

5 http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/154712/0

6 http://www.fishbase.org/summary/1042

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/gallery/descript/dolphin/dolphin.html

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/154712/0

http://www.fishbase.org/summary/1042



2.4.3.3 Spotted opah

This species is currently not being addressed by the IOTC or its Scientific Committee and data on this species are not available. Spotted opah are caught in pelagic longline fisheries world-wide. The population status of opah in the Indian Ocean has not been defined. There are no data on the post-harvest survival of this species.

2.4.3.4 King mackerel

This species has in the past been identified in other IOTC albacore longline fisheries at a small % and would require further discussion with client and stakeholders to firstly identify whether it is actually caught by the client group vessels, and if so, confirm that it is in fact Scomberomorus cavalla. Once that has been ascertained, an RBF would be required.

2.4.4 Bait

Longline fleets are dependent on bait, and significant quantities are used throughout the Indian Ocean. Typically, during a full assessment of a longline tuna fishery, bait will be either designated as a ‘main’ primary or secondary species.

One study has estimated that the Indian Ocean longline fleets (which includes all longline operations and not just this UoA), use approximately 45,000 tonnes of bait annually. This equates to around half of the actual target tuna catch (Ardill et al., 2013). While data regarding the exact origin of the bait are not published, baite use was recorded during several observer trips on the largest fleet (Taiwanese) between 2004- 2008. The main bait used for albacore consisted of sardines and squid, squid being the most typical longline bait used in association with albacore fisheries (Hsiang-Wen Huang, 2010).

During the site visit, the client provided a snapshot of what some vessels are using as bait; i.e. sardines, presumably Sardinops sagax7, from South Africa taken in FAO area 47 for which a stock assessment was conducted in 2014, describing the stock status as 'Abundant' and fishing pressure as 'light' (DAFF, 2014). The stock has been exploited by purse seine fisheries in the Benguela system off Namibia and South Africa (Lluch-Belda et al., 1989) for several decades. Catches of S. sagax have fluctuated between 15,000 tonnes and 400,000 tonnes per annum with periods of high catches followed by rapid declines. In 2012, the S. sagax catch was about 98,000 tonnes which was the highest catch since 2007. There was a reduction of the total allowable catch (TAC) in 2013 to 90,000 tonnes which is the minimum allowed catch under the current operational management procedure (OMP) used to manage this resource (DAFF, 2014).

In South Africa, the fishery for S. sagax has been initially managed assuming a single stock using an operational management procedure (OMP) to set total allowable catch levels (TACs). Recently, there has been evidence for the occurrence of three sardine stocks (Coetzee et al., 2008; van der Lingen et al., 2015; Weston et al., 2015) which has management implications. The current fishing pressure and stock status of sardine is assessed as being optimal (DAFF, 2014); meaning that current rates of fishing are sustainable. It is therefore highly unlikely that the UoA has any impact on this bait species; however, without data regarding exact bait usage and tonnage being used by all the UoA vessels, it is impossible to determine this with a high degree of certainty. Note that in accordance with the guidance provided in Section 2.4.1, this species is likely to be considered as a Primary ‘main’ species.

7 7 Previously Sardinops ocellata



2.4.5 Primary and Secondary species management

2.4.5.1 General management

The following management measures are implemented by IOTC and are non-species specific; they therefore affect all bycatch species in this fishery:

• Resolution 12/01 on the implementation of the precautionary approach

• Resolution 13/03 and 15/01: on the recording of catch and effort by fishing vessels in the IOTC area of competence.

• Resolution 13/07 and 14/05 concerning a record of licensed foreign vessels fishing for IOTC species in the IOTC area of competence and access agreement

information.

• Resolution 12/11 and 15/11 on the implementation of a limitation of fishing capacity of Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties.

• Resolution 11/04 on a regional observer scheme.

• Resolution 10/02 and 15/02 mandatory statistical reporting requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties (CPC’s).

• Resolution 10/08 concerning a record of active vessels fishing for tunas and swordfish in the IOTC area.

2.4.5.2 Tuna management

In 2011, the IOTC endorsed a plan to pursue Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE), and a plan has been developed for skipjack (IOTC, 2015). An update was provided on the implementation of similar MSEs for yellowfin and bigeye (Kolody et al., 2015).

At the 19th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Tropical Tunas, Seychelles October 2017 (IOTC, 2017), an update of the MSE for yellowfin and bigeye tunas was presented and discussed. It should be noted that this MSE has not received any financial support for the coming year but has secured some parties (ABNJ/FAO and CSIRO) to support the work from Oct 2017 to Dec 2018. The discussion primarily dealt with the implementation of yellowfin tuna reference points and OM robustnessrequests made in 2016, but no progress has yet been made on bigeye tuna. The results thus far indicate that further development is required, as many of the scenarios suggested implausibly high productivity. The robustness scenarios proposed (temporal variability in longline selectivity, and over- weighting the tagging data) did not appear to add a challenge for the Management Plans that was substantially outside of the current reference set.

For yellowfin tuna, the IOTC had adopted and implemented Resolution 17/01 On interim plan for rebuilding the Indian Ocean yellowfin tuna stock in the IOTC area of competence. This measure aims to reduce and maintain catches of yellowfin tuna in the IO to 2014/2015 catch levels.

The IOTC have in place effective tools that ensure effective implementation of any decision taken as part of a strategy whether catch or effort limits, closed areas, technical conservation measures etc.

Currently the tools provided in respect of the tunas such as yellowfin, bigeye and skipjack include:



• Resolution 17/01 (17/02) On interim plan for rebuilding the Indian Ocean yellowfin tuna stock in the IOTC area of competence.

• Resolution 15/10 On interim target and limit reference points and a decision framework

• Resolution 15/06 on the requirement for all purse seine vessels to retain on board and then land all bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, and yellowfin tuna caught, except fish considered unfit for human consumption

• Resolution 13/11 On a ban on discards of bigeye tuna, skipjack tuna, yellowfin tuna and a recommendation for non-targeted species caught by purse seine vessels in the IOTC area of competence

• Resolution 12/13 for the conservation and management of tropical tunas’ stocks in the IOTC area of competence.

• Resolution 16/01 On an interim plan for rebuilding the Indian Ocean yellowfin tuna

stock in the IOTC Area of Competence

• Resolution 14/02 for the conservation and management of tropical tunas’ stocks in the

IOTC area of competence.

At present, only skipjack tuna in the IO is subject to an official HCR. However, an argument could be made that HCRs are implied rather than explicitly specified through the interim framework (as outlined in Resolution 15/10 and 17/02) and its general management aims and measures. Although the IOTC does have the intent to progress towards the use of HCRs, the current situation is that adequate measures are not yet in place. Therefore, with the exception of skipjack, no argument or evidence can be madeto support that HCRs are in existence in the IOTC tuna stocks.

The IOTC also have committed to a process to develop a catch allocation scheme based on already developed allocation principles. This is further emphasised by Res. 12/13 that explicitly links the need to limit tropical tuna catches to estimated MSY levels by implementing spatial/temporal controls on fishing by all vessels over 24 m and vessels under 24 m fishing outside of their own EEZ.

Spatial-temporal closures

In 2010, the IOTC implemented an annual 1-month spatial-temporal closure for purse-seine (November) and longline (February) fishing for a large zone east of Somalia (Res. 12-13). The closure extended from the Somali coast to 60°E and covered a large part of the productive northwest fishing grounds typically fished by the fleet during August-November (Davies, 2014). Whilst piracy in Somalia was probably important for determining the closure's size and location (Kaplan, 2014), the closure was initially modelled on a Atlantic 3-month spatio-temporal closure in the 1990s that appears to have been briefly successful in reducing juvenile bigeye tuna catch before succumbing to poor enforcement (Torres-Irineo, 2011).

2.4.5.3 Swordfish

Swordfish are only currently subject to one direct CMM, this is Resolution 12/01 On The implementation of a limitation of fishing capacity of Contracting Parties and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties. The measure acts as a vessel capacity limitation, which aims to cap the number of vessels accessing the fishery to that of 2007 levels. However, the measure also allows members to alter/vary the number of vessels that target swordfish, as long it is within the members’ national fleet development plan and does not increase effective effort in the fishery.



2.4.6 ETP species

Longline fisheries are renowned for interactions with ETP species, particularly sea turtles and seabirds, with occasional reports of marine mammal interaction (often due to depredation). However, in the absence of client information or observer data on ETP interactions, it is not possible to provide a clear indication of what interactions occur, what impact those interactions have and where the interactions are taking place, if at all.

It is understood that the Mauritius Ministry has stated that within the country’s EEZ there are no seabird interactions, but no data or evidence was provided for this. Furthermore, it is noted that Mauritius has an NPOA for sharks, is a member to IOSEA for turtles as well as having a list of protected species under its fisheries act. For the Madagascan EEZ, no response was received from the authorities.

Given the lack of specific data provided for this assessment, following the same approach taken for primary and secondary species above, the team drew on wider data and information sources of albacore fisheries operating within the IO region in the general sense.

The type and severity of ETP interactions are highly dependent on region, operations (depth of sets, bait used, mitigation techniques, time of setting and hauling, etc.) and species of tuna targeted. Kiszka et al. (2010) provided a review of the bycatch (including ETP species) of longline operations around Mayotte in the south-west Indian Ocean. In this area, 20% of the catch was sharks, while four sea turtles and one false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) was caught. Whilst this provides some indication of the likely interactions between longline fishing and ETP species, the area around Mayotte is not a significant albacore fishing area (swordfish is predominant species) and is therefore not representative of this fishery.

Clarke et al. (2014) provided a comprehensive overview of all longline fishery interactions. The authors reported that most reported ETP interactions with longline operations in the Indian Ocean were with seabirds or seaturtles. As no marine mammals appeared in the data, this group was not considered further in this pre-assessment.

2.4.6.1 Sharks

During the site visit, the team was informed that no sharks are landed by the client fleet. However, the example logsheet data provided in Section 2.4.1.2 clearly indicates that sharks were caught and probably landed by the vessels concerned. It should be noted that longline operations in the Indian Ocean take 16% of all shark catch in the IOTC area. Furthermore, albacore operations take very few shark species, with sharks generally making up around 2–4% of the entire albacore longline catch; this equates to just over 0.15% of the entire longline catch for 2014 for all species including tunas.

The IOTC have adopted controls on shark-finning (Res. 05-05) that encourage the live release of sharks, and reporting of all shark landings and retention of shark carcasses and fins to the point of landing (fins are not required to be intact, but a 5% fin-carcass weight ratio is used).

Mauritius has developed and is implementing an NPOA-sharks. A copy of the NPOA was requested from the ministry during and after the site visit; however this was not received. The team did find that to date there have been several workshops concerning the identification of demersal and pelagic shark species and shark fins. These workshops included practical and theoretical sessions that focused on the identification of shark species using identification keys and a shark fin identification manual devised by the NPOA (Mootoosamy et al., 2015). With regard to the Client fleet, however, it is unclear what requirements the listed vessels must abide by and whether or not they are subject to and bound by the rules and regulations of the



Mauritius government and its local longliners. No information was forthcoming from the Madagascan authorities.

It is expected that majority of shark species stocks are in a declining trend, although the paucity of data makes this extremely difficult to measure. From other well monitored albacore longline fisheries in other ocean basins (e.g. Western Central and Eastern Pacific) it is understood that these fisheries operate differently to other longline operations and are not subject to significant shark bycatch issues. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the Client fleet is not likely to be hindering any of these species’ recovery.

Nevertheless, adopting the more precautionary approach as per Primary and Secondary species, the team attempted to narrow down the list of shark species that are likely to interact with this fishery. The breakdown of key shark species in the longline catch for albacore operations at an ocean-wide level is problematic. However, the IOTC have carried out an Ecological Risk Assessment and a detailed productivity and susceptibility analysis (Murua et al., 2012). The ERA investigated 17 different shark species with the most vulnerable species (highest risk scoring) listed below. Note that all of the shark species present in the sample client logsheet data (Table 6) appear on this list:

• Shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrichus);

• Bigeye thresher (Alopias supercilliosus);

• Pelagic thresher sharks (A. pelagicus);

• Silky shark (Carcharhinus falciformis);

• Smooth hammerhead (Sphyrna zygaena);

• Porbeagle (Lamna nasus);

• Longfin mako (I. paucus);

• Great hammerhead Sphyrna mokarran); and

• Blue shark (Prionace glauca).

As a result of the ERA and analysis, IOTC have developed a list of the key shark species for the Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch to focus on. These include blue shark, oceanic whitetip, scalloped hammerhead, shortfin mako, silky shark, bigeye thresher and pelagic thresher.

The most vulnerable species as identified by the ERA are discussed further below.

Blue shark

In 2015, three stock assessment models were applied to blue shark. Two models (SS3 and SRA) produced similar results suggesting the stock is currently subject to overfishing, but not yet overfished, while a third model (BSSPM) suggested the stock was close to MSY levels, but not yet subject to overfishing. A best case model could not be selected8.

This species is listed by IUCN as “near threatened” and listed on Appendix II of the CMS. The 2012 ERA scored this species as a medium risk from longline (receiving rank No. 10) based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). Therefore, the current stock status of this species can be considered “uncertain”. It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below the PRI; however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species. Nevertheless, they are commonly found in temperate waters where the albacore fishery mainly operates.




Shortfin mako:

There is currently no stock assessment for this species in the Indian Ocean due to the poor quality of data available. The global status has been rated as “vulnerable” by IUCN and the species is currently listed on Appendix II under the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS)9. An ERA was conducted on this species which consisted of a semi-quantitative risk assessment analysis to evaluate the resilience to the impact of a given fishery, by combining the biological productivity of the species and its susceptibility to each fishing gear type. Shortfin mako sharks received the highest vulnerability ranking (No. 1) in the ERA rank for longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). The current stock status of this species is listed as “uncertain” (IOTC, 2015). It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI; however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA, it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species. Nevertheless, they are commonly found in temperate waters where the albacore fishery mainly operates.

Bigeye and pelagic thresher

There is currently no stock assessment for this species in the Indian Ocean due to the poor quality of data available. However, the species is currently listed by the IUCN as “Vulnerable” and as an Appendix II species on the CMS10. Despite lack of data for longline catches, the 2012 ERA scored this species as a high risk from longline (receiving rank No.2) based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). The lack of data is not expected to be resolved in the medium term. Therefore, the current stock status of this species is listed as “uncertain” (IOTC, 2015b). It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI; however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA), it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species.

Silky shark

There is currently no stock assessment for this species in the Indian Ocean due to the poor quality of data available. However, the species is currently listed by the IUCN as globally “near threatened” and carries the same IUCN rank for the Western and Eastern Indian Ocean. This species is also listed as an Appendix II species under CMS11. Despite lack of data for longline catches, the 2012 ERA scored this species as a high risk to longline (receiving rank No. 4) based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). The lack of data is not expected to be resolved in the medium term. Therefore, the current stock status of this species is listed as “uncertain” (IOTC, 2015b). It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI; however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA, it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species, given that it is typically found in tropical waters away from the albacore fleets.

Smooth hammerhead

9http://www.cms.int/en/species?field_species_class_tid=1857&field_species_order_tid=All&field_species_family_tid=All&field_species_appendix_1_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=&field_species_appendix_2_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=&field_instrument_target_id_entityreference_filter=All&appendix_filter=0



http://www.cms.int/en/species?field_species_class_tid=1857&field_species_order_tid=All&field_species_family_tid=All&field_species_appendix_1_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=&field_species_appendix_2_date_value%5Bvalue%5D%5Bdate%5D=&field_instrument_target_id_entityreference_filter=All&appendix_filter=0











There is currently no stock assessment for this species in the Indian Ocean due to the poor quality of data available. However, the species is currently listed by the IUCN as globally “vulnerable”. Despite lack of data for longline catches, the 2012 ERA scored this species as a high risk to longline (receiving rank No. 6) based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua, R. Coelho, M. N. Santos, & H. Arrizabalaga, 2012). Therefore, the current stock status of this species can be considered “uncertain”. It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI, however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA, it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species.

Porbeagle

There is currently no stock assessment for this species. This species is listed by IUCN as “vulnerable” and also listed as an Appendix II species under CMS12. The 2012 ERA scored this species as a high risk to longline (receiving rank No. 7) based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). Therefore, the current stock status of this species can be considered “uncertain”. It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI; however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA, it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species. Nevertheless, they are commonly found in temperate waters where the albacore fishery mainly operates.

Longfin mako

There is currently no stock assessment for this species. This species is listed by IUCN as “vulnerable” and also listed as an Appendix II species under CMS13. The 2012 ERA scored this species as a high risk to longline (receiving rank No.8) based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). Therefore, the current stock status of this species can be considered “uncertain”. It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI, however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA, it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species. Nevertheless, they are commonly found in temperate waters where the Albacore fishery mainly operates.

Great hammerhead

There is currently no stock assessment for this species. This species is listed by IUCN as “endangered” and also listed as an Appendix II species under CMS14. The 2012 ERA scored this species as a high risk to longline (receiving rank No.9) based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). Therefore, the current stock status of this species can be considered “uncertain”. It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI, however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA, it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species.

Oceanic whitetip shark















Oceanic Whitetip Sharks are listed on Appendix II of CITES15. There is currently no stock assessment for this species in the Indian Ocean due to the poor quality of data available. Despite lack of data for longline catches, the 2012 ERA scored this species as a high risk to longline based on the low productivity of the species and potential vulnerability to longline gear (Murua et al., 2012). The lack of data is not expected to be resolved in the medium term. Therefore, the current stock status of this species is listed as “uncertain” (IOTC, 2015). It is unknown whether or not this species is above or below PRI, however, given the very low (if any) take of this species by the UoA, it is extremely unlikely that the UoA is having any impact on this species, given that it is typically found in tropical waters away from the albacore fleets.

Shark management

As previously mentioned, the IOTC are starting to develop and focus attention on specific shark species taken by its fisheries and which were identified as high risk in the 2012 ERA. As such there are various CMMs implanted through Resolutions and Recommendations now in place. These include:

• Resolution 13/03: Recording of catch and effort by fishing vessels in the IOTC area of competence. This sets out the minimum logbook requirements for purse seine, longline, gillnet, pole and line, handline and trolling fishing vessels over 24 m length overall and those under 24 m if they fish outside the EEZs of their flag States within the IOTC area of competence. As per this Resolution, catch of all sharks must be

recorded (retained and discarded).

• Resolution 13/06. Scientific and management framework on the conservation of shark species caught in association with IOTC managed fisheries. This prohibits, as an interim pilot measure, the retention on board, transhipment, landing or storing any part or whole carcass of Oceanic Whitetip sharks (Carcharhinus longimanus) (and requests for all other species) by all vessels on the IOTC record of authorised vessels or authorised to fish for tuna or tuna-like species, with the exception of observers who are permitted to collect biological samples (vertebrae, tissues, reproductive tracts, stomachs) from Oceanic Whitetip sharks that are dead at haul back and artisanal fisheries for the purpose of local consumption, and will conduct a review and an

evaluation of the interim measure in 2016.

• Resolution 11/04: Regional Observer Scheme. This measure requires data on all shark species interactions to be recorded by observers and reported to the IOTC

within 150 days.

• Resolution 05/05: Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by IOTC. Includes minimum reporting requirements for sharks, calls for full utilisation of sharks and includes a ratio of fin-to-body weight for shark fins retained on board a vessel.

• Resolution 10/02: Mandatory statistical requirements for IOTC Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties (CPC’s). Indicated that the provisions,

applicable to tuna and tuna like species, are applicable to shark species.

• Resolution 12/09: On the conservation of Thresher Sharks (Family Alopiidae) caught in association with fisheries in the IOTC area of competence prohibits fishing vessels flying the flag of IOTC Members and Cooperating non-Contracting Parties (CPCs)

15 http://speciesplus.net/#/taxon_concepts/3712/legal

http://speciesplus.net/#/taxon_concepts/3712/legal



from retaining on board, transhipping, landing, storing, selling or offering for sale any

part or whole carcass of thresher sharks of all the species of the family Alopiidae.

• Resolution 05/05: Concerning the conservation of sharks caught in association with fisheries managed by IOTC includes minimum reporting requirements for sharks, calls for full utilisation of sharks and includes a ratio of fin-to-body weight for shark fins

retained on board a vessel.

Finally, Taiwan has in place a shark NPOA as of 2004. In the NPOA, shark-finning by the far sea fishery is not encouraged and fishermen are requested to completely utilize the shark resources and implement the 5% fin to carcass ratio as implemented by most RFMOs. However the pre-assessment team was unable to verify whether this is effectively and consistently implemented by the Client fleet.

The People’s Republic of China does not currently have a shark NPOA.

2.4.6.2 Seabirds

Document IOTC-2013-SC16-ES25[E] outlines the status of seabirds in the Indian Ocean. The southern Indian Ocean is of global importance in relation to albatross distribution: seven of the 18 species of southern hemisphere albatrosses have breeding colonies on Indian Ocean islands. In addition, all but one of the 18 southern hemisphere albatrosses forage in the Indian Ocean at some stage in their life cycle. In the absence of data from observer programs reporting seabird bycatch, risk of bycatch has been identified through analysis of the overlap between albatross and petrel distribution and IOTC longline fishing effort, based on data from the Global Procellariform Tracking Database (ACAP, 2007). A summary map indicating distribution and the overlap between seabird distribution and IOTC longline fishing effort is presented in Figure 11. Albacore operations (catches) presented in Figure 12 clearly overlap with the known area of seabird distribution.

Figure 11. Distribution of breeding albatrosses, petrels and shearwaters in the Indian Ocean and overlap with IOTC longline fishing effort for all gear types and fleets (average annual number of hooks set per 5° grid square from 2002 to 2005) (IOTC, 2013).



Whilst the level of past observer coverage is inadequate to ascertain the direct impact to sea-birds, Table 10 provides a good summary of known (reported) interactions.

Clarke et al. (2014) stated: " The area is particularly important for the endemic Amsterdam albatross and Indian yellow-nosed albatross (T. carteri), as well as wandering albatross (74 percent of global breeding pairs), sooty albatross (P. fusca, 39 percent of global breeding pairs), light-mantled albatross (32 percent of global breeding pairs), grey-headed albatross (20 percent of global breeding pairs), and the non-breeding distribution of shy albatross, which breeds in Tasmania and forages in the area of overlap between the areas managed by the IOTC and WCPFC. The Indian Ocean is also important for northern and southern giant petrel (26 percent and 30 percent of global breeding pairs, respectively) (IOTC, 2012c). Analysis of albatross remote-tracking data has identified that albatrosses breeding on Southern Indian Ocean islands spent 70–100 percent of their foraging time in areas overlapping with IOTC longline fishing effort, and confirmed that Amsterdam, Indian yellow-nosed, wandering, shy, grey-headed and sooty albatrosses and white-chinned petrels had a high overlap with pelagic longline fishing. However, data on distribution during the non-breeding season were lacking for many species, including black-browed albatrosses and white-capped albatrosses (known to be among the species most frequently caught by longline fisheries) (ACAP, 2007; IOTC, 2012c)."

Figure 12. Catch of Albacore tuna by gear type and area in 2013. Red line separates North and South. LL – Longline, LF, Fresh Longline, PS – Purse Seine, DN – Driftnets, OT- other fleets (IOTC, 2015b)

"Seabird catches by longline fisheries in the Indian Ocean have been identified as being linked to decreased adult survival, juvenile recruitment and population declines (Weimerskirch, Brothers and Jouventin, 1997; Barbraud et al., 2008; Delord and Weimerskirch, 2011). Nel et al. (2003) found that annual survival rates of breeding wandering albatross at Marion Island



were negatively correlated with Japanese pelagic longline fishing effort in the southern Indian Ocean for the period 1984–2000."

"In 2007, data provided in Xu, Dia and Song (2007) indicate that China’s fishing effort in the IOTC was concentrated north of 25°S. However, in 2006–2010, China deployed an average of 2.3 million hooks per year south of 25°S (IOTC, 2012d). There are no seabird catch data reported for this fleet. In addition, no seabird catch data are available from the fleet of the Republic of Korea in the IOTC region. However, Anderson et al. (2011) estimated that if the fleet had a similar seabird catch rate to the Taiwan Province of China fleet, then it would be catching about 97 seabirds per year. This estimate was considered very provisional given that no direct data are available."

Table 10. Members and Cooperating Non-Contracting Parties reporting of seabird interactions for the years 2008– 2011 to the IOTC (Source: IOTC, 2013).



The IOTC have acknowledged that the impact on seabird populations from fishing for tuna and tuna-like species, particularly using longline gear may increase if fishing pressure increases. Any fishing in areas with high abundance of procellariform seabirds is likely to cause incidental capture and mortality of these seabirds unless measures that have been proven to be effective against Southern Ocean seabird assemblages are employed. IOTC-2013-SC16-ES25[E] noted the following:

• The available evidence indicates considerable risk to the status of seabirds in the Indian Ocean.

• The primary source of data that drive the ability of the WPEB to determination a status for the Indian Ocean, total interactions by fishing vessels, is highly uncertain and should be addressed as a matter of priority.

• Current reported interactions are known to be a severe underestimate.

• That more research is conducted on the identification of hot spots of interactions between seabirds and fishing vessels.

• Maintaining or increasing effort in the Indian Ocean without refining and implementing appropriate mitigation measures, will likely result in further declines in biomass.

• That appropriate mechanisms are developed by the Compliance Commission to

ensure CPCs comply with their data collection and reporting requirements for

seabirds.

Given the above, the risk of interaction between longline fisheries in the Indian Ocean and seabirds is significantly large. Despite this, there is an overall lack of data on the interaction with the longline vessels that target albacore. During the observer trips on the Taiwanese fleets in the albacore fishery (Hsiang-Wen Huang, 2010), no interactions with seabirds were recorded.

During a full assessment, it may be possible to make some inferences from the findings discussed above. Nevertheless, the lack of fishery-specific data is a concern and this is likely to be highlighted during a full assessment.

Seabird management

Resolution 12/06 On Reducing the Incidental Bycatch of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries stipulates that fishers must use at least two of three mitigation measures: night setting with

minimum decklighting, streamer lines (bird-scaring/tori lines)and line weighting in the area

south of 25 ̊S with the minimum technical standards. Furthermore, recording of data on seabird bycatch by species is required and must be reported annually. The effectiveness of the new evaluation requirement is difficult to gauge due to the lack of reporting on seabird interactions by CPCs to date. Unless IOTC CPCs become compliant with the data collection and reporting requirements for seabirds, the WPEB will continue to be unable to address this issue.

The Commission also requires operators to take photographs of seabirds caught for confirmation of identification and the Scientific Committee will analyse the impact of the Resolution 12/06 through the data collected. However, data quality still remains a significant issue generally across the fleets.

The Working Party for Ecosystems and Bycatch meet regularly and discuss alternative measures for minimising ETP interactions, including seabirds, with IOTC fisheries. At the 2015 meeting of the IOTC Working Party for Ecosystem and Bycatch {IOTC–2015–WPEB11–33Rev_1] the WP highlighted a need for improved reporting on seabird bycatch in the longline

fishery, including the following abstract provided by the authors: “The National Reports



produced by CPCs between 2011 and 2014 were reviewed to determine if the reporting requirements by CPCs reflect the objectives of relevant resolutions. Resolution 10/06 is the relevant resolution against which CPCs reported; this was superseded in 2012 by Resolution 12/06, but mandatory implementation of 12/06 only came into force on 1 July 2014. Specifically, we tested if National Reports allow the assessment of seabird bycatch levels. CPCs were generally compliant, with compliance in reporting improving between 2011 and 2014, with the exception of three CPCs that had very poor reporting for seabird interactions. The lack of a structured reporting format resulted in information provided by CPCs being non- standardised, the effect of which is that the objectives of Resolution 12/06 are met inadequately. We propose an approach based on that currently used within the CCSBT, where CPCs are required to report on fishing effort, observer coverage, and seabird bycatch and interactions south of 25°S in their national reports.”

Document IOTC-2013-SC16-ES25[E] outlines the current state of the knowledge regarding seabird interaction with IOTC fisheries. The most feasible approaches to monitor the effect of tuna RFMO seabird conservation measures on seabird by-catch rates/levels/impacts are:

• Measuring seabird by-catch rates (birds per 1000 hooks), tracked over time, with information on spatial and temporal distribution of data, and a measure of robustness of the estimates.

• Estimating the total number of birds killed per tuna RFMO per year, tracked over time, and including measures of error.

The Commission has adopted measures to address these matters and is assisting in various research projects tracking seabirds, overlap with fishery and breeding colonies within the Indian Ocean. The CMMs that have been adopted are binding for all parties to the Commission; however, there still remains some paucity in the data on seabirds from some operations.

Note that Taiwan has in place a Seabird NPOA since 2006. To what extent this has an impact on operator practices in the Client fleet is at present unclear. The People’s Republic of China does not currently have a seabird NPOA.

2.4.6.3 Sea turtles

Nel et al. (2013) produced an ERA on sea turtles and their interaction with IOTC fisheries. Sea turtles are at risk to longline fisheries by two mechanisms; they are either hooked and drown when preying on baited hooks, or they are entangled and/or foul-hooked when swimming across monofilament branch lines, which are typically 15-40 m long. Efforts to minimise these risks have focused almost exclusively on reducing hooking from ingestion of baited hooks. Nel et al. (2013) found no data on entanglement rates with fishing gear for the ERA.

Whilst only three nations provided catch data for the ERA, Nel et al. (2013) stated: "In total, 24 cumulative years of observed data were received, representing 45 million hooks deployed, with 2,675 sea turtles captured. Of these, only eight (0.3%) were reported as dead, and the rest were reported as released alive. Of the total catch, ~10% (286 individuals) were leatherback turtles with a reported mortality of 38% (thus three of the eight dead turtles). No details were given with regards to hooking, foul-hooking or entanglement rates/numbers. Leatherback turtle mortality was higher than for other turtles. Considering all catch data (i.e. including released alive or discarded dead), leatherback turtle catch rates ranged 4 - 7 turtles/million hooks (n=3 datasets reporting leatherback turtle captures). Capture rates for other species combined were more variable, ranging from 3.5-26.9 turtles/million hooks, at a mean catch rate of 12.7 turtles/million hooks. Extrapolating (with caution) across the region



suggest that 1,000 – 2,500 hard-shelled turtles, and < 1,000 leatherback turtles are caught per annum in the IOTC region (using reported fishing effort levels)."

In 2014, the FAO completed a study that investigated the bycatch of tuna longline fisheries. The study focused on ETP interactions and found that a large percentage (45%) of the world’s threatened sea turtles are actually found in the northern Indian Ocean, and the highest interaction rate recorded for the IO was 0.04 interactions per 1000 hooks set and this was for the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in the southwest Indian Ocean. While the interaction rate is low compared to other oceans, the Indian Ocean has the highest mortality rate globally (Clarke et al., 2014). Table 11 lists the interaction and mortality rates by sea turtle species and area for the Indian Ocean longline fleets. The Taiwanese fleet reported zero per 1000 hooks whilst fishing in the south, presumably whilst fishing for albacore.

Considering the aforementioned studies, there is already a significant amount of information available on the potential rates of interaction between the UoA and sea turtles. During a full assessment, it may therefore be possible to base part of the assessment on these studies. Nevertheless, the lack of fishery-specific data is a concern and this is likely to be highlighted during a full assessment.

Table 11. Interaction and mortality rate by sea turtle species and area (Ardill, 2013).

A global review of on board measures to reduce turtle bycatch in tuna longline fishing found two key options to reduce impacts (Gillman et al., 2006). (i) use of large (18/0) circle hooks instead of “J” or Japanese tuna hooks. This measure reduces the total incidence of hooking and the incidence of deep-hooking (i.e. when the entire hook is swallowed); (ii) use of finfish



bait (e.g. mackerel, scad etc.) instead of squid (Gillman et al., 2006; Watson et al., 2005). Squid bait leads to turtles swallowing the hook more often.

Sea turtle management

The FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations (FAO 2009) outlines the international requirements for the protection of sea turtles.

The Working Party for Ecosystems and Bycatch meet regularly and discuss alternative measures for minimising ETP interactions, including sea turtles, with IOTC fisheries. The Commission has adopted several measures to enable better collection of data, mitigation and conservation of sea turtles within the Indian Ocean: Resolution 12/04, on the conservation of sea turtles implements the FAO Guidelines; requires reporting of turtle interactions and mortalities annually; carry and use safe handling equipment; identification cards for fishers; encourage use of finfish bait; reporting all interactions in logbooks; and continue bycatch mitigation research.

With regard to the key mitigation measures outlined by Gillman et al. (2006) previously, Resolution 12/04 requests all CPCs to: :

a. Where appropriate undertake research trials of circle hooks, use of whole finfish for bait, alternative FAD designs, alternative handling techniques, gillnet design and fishing practices and other mitigation methods which may improve the mitigation of adverse effects on marine turtles;

b. Report the results of these trials to the IOTC Scientific Committee, at least 30 days in advance of the annual meetings of the Scientific Committee. "

Furthermore, the IOTC have committed to undertaking sea turtle assessments before considering what further mitigation measures may be required. The resolution’s objectives will be achieved in conjunction with the Indian Ocean – South-East Asian Martine Turtle Memorandum of Understanding (IOSEA), including implementation of FAO Guidelines to reduce sea turtle bycatch in fishing operations (FAO, 2005). In particular, the resolution urges CPCs to collect data on sea turtle bycatch in fishing operations. However, with few exceptions, data have not been collected or reported systematically (IOTC document IOTC-2012-WPEB08-09), and an analysis of available data is missing.

Note that Taiwan, through its Fisheries Management Regulation on Far Sea Fisheries, requests all fishing vessels to carry line cutters ,de-hookers and dip nets in order to facilitate the appropriate handling and prompt release of marine turtles caught or entangled. To what extent this is implemented consistently by the Client fleet is at present unclear. The People’s Republic of China does not currently have a sea turtle NPOA.

2.4.7 Habitats

Longline vessels targeting tuna use pelagic longlines; as such, the only habitat the UoA impacts with is the water column; the pelagic ecosystem is not considered a Vulnerable Marine Ecosystem (VME). The impact of pelagic longline fisheries on marine habitats are negligible, except in cases where the gear is lost. If lost pelagic longline gear drifts to the seafloor, it may degrade habitat through direct impacts such as smothering of organisms on the benthos and also via entanglement of bottom-dwelling species (Macfadyen et al., 2009). In summary, the operation of the UoA is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of the habitat to a point where there would be serious or irreversible harm.



2.4.8 Ecosystem

In the Indian Ocean, exploited tuna populations have declined steadily to levels near the equilibrium biomass that is likely to produce the MSY for each stock, although at present yellowfin tuna populations are over-exploited. The impacts of the fishery on retained species, bycatch, ETP species as well as habitats have all been considered and described in previous sections. Other risks however exist, and further impacts of the fishery may still arise at a higher ecosystem level, most notably those risks to ecosystem structure and function; these impacts are considered here.

Perhaps the most serious risk to ecosystem structure and function that can result from the operation of industrial scale fisheries are potential large changes in food web dynamics related to the removal of significant proportions of key predator species. There are a myriad of general papers that outline the declines of predatory fish species, and the potential/likely impacts to the ecosystem through disturbance of trophic dynamics (e.g., Myers & Worm, 2003; Polovina et al. 2009).

Preliminary results of an analysis of abundance trends of several elasmobranch and teleost fish in the Indian Ocean pelagic ecosystem were presented to IOTC’s WPEB meeting in October 2009, based on data from research longline cruises. A widespread decline in the abundance of top predators such as large pelagic sharks and tunas was demonstrated, as was the emergence of several mid-sized, lower-trophic-level species such as crocodile shark (Pseudocarcharias kamoharai) and lancetfish. The relative abundances of lancetfish and tuna showed a dramatic shift between 1960–90 and 2000–08, with tuna being replaced by lancetfish. During 1960–1990 the ratio was, 5 tunas to 1 lancetfish, and in 2000–08 there is 1 tuna to 5 lancetfish.

Some changes in fish community structure within the pelagic ecosystem are considered unavoidable as a consequence of the fishing down of tuna stocks in the early period of industrial fishery development, and significant levels of removal of large tunas is directly attributable to the operation of the FAD set purse seine tuna fishery. The longline fisheries under this UoA take dramatically less fish than that of FAD operations and therefore are considered unlikely to be impacting the ecosystem.

As such, a clear change in community structure has been witnessed in the Indian Ocean, and these changes have been attributed to industrial scale fishing for tuna and other top predators. Given the limited data for this specific UoA, it is not possible to quantify the level of impact; however MSC precedent would indicate that this type of fisheries is considered highly unlikely to disrupt the key elements underlying ecosystem structure and function.

Article 119 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) obliges member states to implement certain aspects of the ecosystem based approach when establishing measures to conserve marine living resources in the high seas. Article 5 of the 1995 United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement also details certain features of the ecosystem approach (EA), including the need to preserve marine biodiversity and to maintain the integrity of marine ecosystems.

The pelagic ecosystem is generally characterised by the vast spatial scale, mobility of species and limited knowledge of ecosystem functioning and diversity; each creating increased challenges for effective management. There is no overarching ecosystem management plan for the Indian Ocean marine ecosystem. However, within the fisheries, there is a range of measures in place in order to ensure that in combination with other fisheries, is unlikely to cause serious or irreversible harm to ecosystem structure and function.

A review of the four t-RFMO’s (including the IOTC) ability to apply EBFM has been conducted (IOTC–2015–WPEB11–40; (Juan Jordá, 2015)). Measures that contribute to ensuring that serious or irreversible harm is avoided include:



• Creation of a single body (e.g., RFMO - IOTC) in order to co-ordinate and provide a unified approach to management of Indian Ocean fisheries amongst contracting parties and co-operating non-contracting parties;

• Capacity limitation of fleets;

• Spatial and temporal closures;

• Implementation of full catch reporting and elimination of IUU fisheries;

• Development of Resolutions to ensure that efforts are made to reduce the bycatch of vulnerable species such as pelagic sharks, turtles, cetaceans and whale sharks;

• Collection of data and statistics on tuna catches, bycatch, ecosystem component interactions and a range of other fishery specific criteria through mandatory reporting requirements as well as the operation of independent observer schemes; and

• Ongoing research and investigations into impacts of tuna fisheries on the Indian Ocean ecosystem amongst IOTC members.

The IOTC Science Committee is responsible for developing advice on data collection, on the status of the stocks and on management issues to the Commission. The Scientific Committee relies on the scientific input and research conducted by six Working Parties (WP), including:

• Data Collection and Statistics;

• Methods;

• Temperate Tunas;

• Tropical Tunas;

• Neritic Tunas; Billfish; and

• Ecosystems and Bycatch.

The purpose of the Working Party on Ecosystem and Bycatch (WPEB) is:

"To review and analyse matters relevant to bycatch, by-product and non-target species which are affected by IOTC fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species (i.e. sharks, marine turtles, seabirds, marine mammals and other fishes), as well as the ecosystems in which they operate; and to develop mechanisms which can be used to better integrate ecosystem considerations into the scientific advice provided by the Scientific Committee to the Commission."

The WPEB meets every year to discuss and respond to ecosystem and bycatch related research and associated activities as required by the Scientific Committee to fulfil its advisory role to the Commission. The work conducted depends on the priorities set by the Commission. The current work plan for WPEB has prioritised data collection and analysis and mitigation of interactions with sharks and ETP species, as noted in earlier sections.

Although not specifically designed to manage impacts on the ecosystem, the range of measures discussed above in earlier sections regarding Conservation and Management Measures through Resolutions and Recommendations, that are used by the IOTC represents a 'partial strategy' that works to achieve the proposed outcome. The measures are also likely to indicate a need for change/greater levels of management effort due to ineffectiveness of the partial strategy. There is some evidence that the measures (partial strategy) are being implemented successfully. Most tuna stocks are likely to be within biologically based limits reference points (exception being Yellowfin tuna).

Additional evidence that the 'partial strategy' is working is also available, including the substantial reduction of IUU within the IOTC area of competence, updating of stock



assessments, increased sharing of information (including the ObServe database (Cauquil et al. 2015)) and co-operation amongst CCP's, the increased levels of research undertaken by IOTC members in the Indian Ocean fisheries, agreement over new and expanded management initiatives through the adoption of IOTC Resolutions.

Impacts of the fishery on key ecosystem elements (biological, abiotic) can be inferred from existing information. Impacts of the fishery on some biological elements have been investigated in detail, or can be inferred, including status of some tuna stocks, levels of bycatch, impacts on habitats and ETP species, as addressed in previous sections.

The IOTC Science Committee has access to a myriad of research outcomes, including, but not limited to, stock assessments, bycatch analysis, ETP observations and mitigation measures. The WP on Ecosystems and Bycatch provides the SC with relevant and up-to-data information16. The summary of the recent data added by the WPEB is available online.

Juan-Jorda et al. (2015) provided an overview and assessment of how each t-RFMO is delivering Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management. There are also a number of general texts and useful sources if information on the Indian Ocean ecosystem. The conditions of marine resources of the large marine ecosystems of the Indian Ocean has been described and reviewed their assessment, management and sustainability (Sherman, 1998). Good and informative reviews concerning the structure of the Indian Ocean ecosystem as well as the underlying biotic and abiotic elements and oceanography of the region have been provided (Tomczak and Godfrey 2003; Longhurst 2007).

The IOTC has a significant amount of comprehensive and high quality information and monitoring available to it regarding all areas of information such data as stock structure, stock productivity, fleet composition, spatial and temporal data, environmental information, economics, catch, CPUE, bycatch species, etc. allowing IOTC to assess stock status including; tagging data for stock identification, catch reporting and size-frequency sampling by each fleet and catch-per-unit-effort data from these fleets.

16 http://www.iotc.org/documents/nominal-catches-fleet-year-gear-iotc-area-and-species-7



2.5 Principle Three: Management system background

The fishery operates in the offshore waters of Madagascar, Mauritius and the High Seas. It targets albacore tuna, and in the process catches a variety of other primary, secondary and ETP species. Cooperation between coastal and fishing nations for the sustainable management of these stocks and of the fishery’s effects on the ecosystem is organised between coastal states and distant fishing nations through the Indian Ocean tuna Commission (IOTC).

2.5.1 Governance and Policy

2.5.1.1 Legal and customary framework

A number of national systems are involved in the management of the fishery and vessels’ fishing activities, but with this and other tuna fisheries in the Indian Ocean (Table 12), the IOTC has an overarching prerogative.

In order to fish for, retain on board, tranship or land tuna and tuna-like species from the IOTC Area (including the High Seas part of FAO Areas 51 and 57), all Client vessels need a specific IOTC authorisation ( ‘authorized fishing vessels’, or AFVs under resolution 15/04).

In addition to the High Seas, the fishery’s vessels fish in the Madagascar EEZ and the Mauritius EEZ, for which they need specific and separate licences. Finally, all Bumble Bee supplying vessels in this fishery land in Port-Louis, Mauritius, which has a number of specific reporting requirements.

Actions towards mitigation of longline fisheries impacts have been taken within the framework of IOTC through a number of conservation and management measures (CMM) developed with other inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations such as BirdLife International, the Agreement for the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP) and the Indian Ocean Memorandum of Understanding on Sea Turtles (IOSEA).

Table 12. Jurisdictions involved in the fishery’s management system

Jurisdiction Legal instruments

World International Conventions CITES, ACAP

IOTC t-RFMO CMM for the protection of tuna, tuna-like and associated species

Regional SWIO Nairobi Convention, IOSEA MoU, IOC-PRSP, SADC-MCS

Coastal states Madagascar, Mauritius: fishing licence obligations and

Port state Mauritius: Port State Measures (PSM)

Flag states Taiwan (Republic of China) and PRC: Distant Water fishing permits and conditions



2.5.1.2 IOTC Management measures

The conservation and management measures (CMMs) aimed at the sustainable management of the target species (Principle 1) and at reducing the albacore longline fisheries’ impact on the ecosystem (Principle 2) are detailed in previous sections. Others aimed at ensuring data collection, timely communication and the monitoring of compliance with CMMs are the same for all flag states but may vary according to the vessel size and fishing gear type.

Most relevant to this fishery targeting albacore, the following obligations apply to both TWN and PRC vessels:

• Vessels have to submit a distant water fishing permit in the form of an authorisation to fish (ATF) which specifies the Indian Ocean, in order to obtain an IOTC registration number, figure on the positive list of vessels be permitted to fish in the Convention area;

• For albacore tuna specifically, fishing vessel capacity must be limited by country to the amount that existed in 2007;

• For shark bycatch: No more than 5% of total shark weight may be shark fins; the release of live sharks is encouraged; retention of all species of thresher sharks and oceanic whitetip sharks is prohibited; Shark catches must be reported;

• Longline vessels fishing south of 25°S to use two seabird bycatch mitigation measures

from a choice of bird-scaring lines, night setting, and line weighting;

• Obligation to mitigate sea turtle mortality and to provide data on turtle bycatch to the

IOTC;

• Obligation for 5% on-board observer coverage of total lines sets by vessel size category (+- 24m LOA) and flag-state for all longliners (Res. 11/04), although ISSF is lobbying for this to be enforced and increased 20% (ISSF IOTC position statement 2017);

• Obligations of 100% observer coverage of all transhipment at sea (Resolution 17/06) for the vessels in the fishery (LSTV: >= 24m and foreign vessels).

The IOTC framework provides for an organised and effective co-operation among parties. The operating procedures (IOTC rules of procedures) are fully transparent and are posted on the IOTC website.

Much of the purpose of IOTC is to regularly seek data, particularly the data monitoring fishing activity and catches. IOTC holds annual plenary meetings, and specialist working groups of IOTC (comprising scientists from the contracting parties) convene technical meetings on an annual basis. Information derived from the CPCs and the inputs from the specialist working groups is considered and such consideration forms the basis of the management advice provided by IOTC. “Local knowledge” at the international level is assumed to refer to national information and experience. The performance of IOTC Secretariat is sound and considered to be efficient and effective. The IOTC performance as an RFMO was first reviewed in 2009, and again in 2015. An ad-hoc Technical Committee has been created to follow-up on the review recommendations (Resolution 16/03) and report annually.

The abilities of IOTC members and cooperating noncontracting parties (CPCs) vary but roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined at national level for key areas such as catch and effort information sharing and making decisions, meeting the requirements for conservation and other recommendations. IOTC has had problems with flag states not submitting timely data or not applying appropriate controls to their vessels, which undermine



its overall effectiveness and increase risks for fishery sustainability. In addition, it is important to note that under the UN system, the IOTC Agreement currently inhibits the full involvement of Republic of China in the Commission. As a result, Taiwan (Republic of China) a major distant water fishing entity in the region, attends IOTC as ‘invited experts’, not as a contracting party. Although scientists from Republic of China cooperatively participate in IOTC meetings and submit information in a timely manner, these are not apparent in the official statistics.

IOTC has no formal dispute resolution procedure within the convention, but the meetings provide an opportunity to resolve disputes informally. Clear processes to collect and verify information are in place for key measures, such as placing or removing a vessel from the IOTC IUU list. There is no history of wilful ignoring of management measures.

IOTC has accepted methods and objectives for allowing access to the resources under its purview that are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. In 2017, it has also initiated negotiations on access rights and common allocation principles such as historical participation, the rights of Coastal States and the rights of developing States (PRIOTC02.09 (para. 129), IOTC 2017a).

Finally, the IOTC established a Technical Committee of Management Procedures (TCMP) that met for the first time in 2016 as a formal communication channel between science and management to enhance decision-making response of the commission in relation to Management Procedures (MPs). At tits 2017 meeting, the TCPMP recommended that the Commission considers establishing a procedure for implementing the results of application of the HCR contained in Resolution 16/02 as soon as the catch limit is estimated by the Scientific Committee (SC). It also recommended that more science-related capacity building activities are conducted to progress the use of Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE).

2.5.1.3 Coastal state management measures

For the coastal states to issue fishing licenses, each vessel must have a distant water fishing permit in the form of an authorisation to fish (ATF) issued by their flag state. In addition to the High Seas, the fishery’s vessels fish in the Madagascar EEZ and the Mauritius EEZ, for which they need specific and separate licences. There is no limit on the number of foreign licenses for albacore that are issued in Mauritius, and this is most likely the same for Madagascar.

Mauritius: The fisheries legislation currently in force in Mauritius is the Fisheries and Marine Resources Act. The Act provides for the management of fisheries, and the conservation and protection of marine resources. The new Fisheries and Marine Resources Act No. 27 of 2007 took effect on 8 May 2008, and a new version is currently going through Parliament, that will incorporate numerous IOTC CMMs. This reform follows a reorganisation of government departments into the Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources , Fisheries and Shipping in 2015. The ministry also has an anti-corruption policy. Longlining licences are issued for a maximum of 90 days, with the possibility of one extension (of one month or 2). The Seafood Hub in Port Louis is a one-stop shop for all formalities and checks. All necessary details, including licence fees are clearly indicated on the Ministry’s website.

IOTC resolutions have direct effect in Mauritian Law. In addition, implementation o fthe Mauritius IUU NPOA means prior checking of vessel details and gear, species caught and authorisations, from the IOTC and CCAMLR.

All vessels must have VMS and the service provider must confirm that VMS will be active over the license period to the Mauritian authorities before a license is issued. Foreign vessels have an obligation to land all bycatch species and to sell them through the government controlled marketing board, to supply local markets.



Madagascar passed a new Fisheries Law (Code de la pêche et de l’aquaculture Loi n°2015-053) in 2015, which incorporates all necessary provisions to comply with international fisheries instruments, in particular with IOTC resolutions. Recent reviews however, show that international fisheries instruments on the whole have been ratified and incorporated into national fisheries legislation, but that their level of execution in many East African countries, such as Madagascar, remains very low (Humber et al., 2015 and AU-IBAR, 2016). This is partly the case for this fishery in the Madagascar EEZ, because the vessels do not land or use ports in Madagascar.

Some controls take place in Madagascar waters through regional MCS programmes (see below) and the IOTC ROP of transhipments. The fishing positions of national and foreign vessels are also verified by the IOTC (for the High Seas) and Mauritius (for their EEZ), and coordination through the regional IUU action plan. Madagascar ratified the Port State Measures Agreement in December 2016 (Loi n°2016-043) and is also developing a National tuna fishery Strategy (Cofrepêche et al., 2014).

2.5.1.4 Flag state measures

Both Taiwan (Republic of China) and China PRC deliver an ATF or Distant Water Fishing Permit (DWFP) to each vessel that indicates the Indian Ocean as a permitted Fishing area.

The Taiwanese Fisheries Agency published its IUU NPOA in 2013, which clearly indicates its Port State responsibilities and its active cooperation with IOTC despite its unrecognized status by UN institutions (IOTC and ICCAT). The Council of Agriculture , Executive Yuan, is the competent authority for delivering DWFP. Timely response is evident from the feedback of the Fisheries Agency in response to the summary report of possible infractions detected by Regional Observers during inspections of transhipment at sea. Taiwan has also pledged to abide by the rule limiting capacity at its 2007 level in the albacore fishery as apparent in some of IOTC’s reports. From 20 January 2017, the Act for Distant Water Fisheries (2016, https://www.fa.gov.tw/en/), also regulates the employment of foreign crew, including minimum wage and insurance. The Regulations for Tuna Longline Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Indian Ocean for Fishing Operation published in January 2017 limits the number of Albacore

tuna group fishing vessels to 37 and incorporates the IOTC Resolutions provisions.

Taiwan has in place a shark NPOA as of 2004 and a Seabird NPOA since 2006. In addition, its Wildlife Conservation Act of 2013 protects all species of marine mammals and its Fisheries Management Regulation on Far Sea Fisheries (2017 Regulations for Tuna Longline Fishing Vessels Proceeding to the Indian Ocean for Fishing Operation, art. 21) requests all fishing vessels to carry line cutters ,de-hookers and dip nets in order to facilitate the appropriate handling and prompt release of marine turtles caught or entangled.

As a full IOTC CPC, the PR China submits annual reports to the Scientific Committee (SC). The Fisheries Law of the PR China was last amended in 2004. The Division of Distant Water Fishing, Bureau of Fisheries, Ministry of Agriculture, People's Republic of China is the competent authority for MCS matters. Scientific information is compiled and analysed by the Tuna technical working Group, a team from the Shanghai Ocean University (SHOU) . The report gives catches, effort and a map of observer coverage for longlining operations (5% of hooks set in 2016). The report notes that the data quality of some logbook needs to be further improved especially those for bycatch and low-value species in particular. The report also shows PRC progress towards SC recommendations (Liuxiong Xu et al., 2016). China PR does not currently have a shark (http://www.iucnssg.org/ipoa-sharks.html), seabird or seaturtle NPOA (IOTC-SC20, 2017 Appendix V)

http://www.iucnssg.org/ipoa-sharks.html



2.5.1.5 Port state measures

The IOTC keeps a positive list of vessels registered to fish in the region while also keeping a black list of vessels involved in IUU fishing. The registers are used by all coastal states in the region, to filter fishing licence applications, but also to manage access to port facilities. For vessels landing in Mauritius, there is a deposit scheme in place where vessels can only retrieve the deposit when logbooks can be verified on return in Port Louis against the Mauritius VMS recorded positions, and against the landings verified by the MMA (Maritime Authorities). Loading permits are also delivered by Mauritian authorities, in charge of fisheries and food safety and landings information is directly shared and checked by Mauritius Customs, whose system is linked to Fisheries.

2.5.1.6 Trade requirements for imports into USA

In Port-Louis, the FCM representative also checks that the vessels have a number of documents needed for the final product export to the USA. These include i) a Captain’s Statement to confirm the vessel registration details, ii) a “Dolphin-free” certificate and iii) a NOAA Fisheries Certificate of Origin Form 370. For each vessel landing, these documents are given by FCM to the local representative of Bumble Bee Foods LLC, the ultimate fish buyer in Mauritius and exporter of the albacore fish products for import into the US.

2.5.1.1 Industry-led best practice

Bumble Bee Seafoods is a founding member of the International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). It actively participates in the ISSF and is therefore vigilant regarding best practice. IOTC Identification guides for the target, associated and ETP species can be downloaded from ISSF website, together with a Guidebook for longline skippers also available in Chinese. However, the fishery’s vessels from PRC or Taiwan could not be found on the ISSF proactive vessel register (PVR), which includes no longliners from the IOTC area, and therefore the vessels’ best practice remains to be assessed.

FCF and FCM also has its own sustainability policies, which pledges to buy fish only from vessels including carrier vessels, that are in full compliance with RFMOs CMM (http://www.fcf.com.tw/our-policies/).

2.5.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

At the IOTC Taiwan and China PRC are represented in practice, even though this is not always apparent officially for Taiwan, which is likely to lead to a condition. In particular, the information on vessels, catches and annual national reports submitted by Taiwan are not available directly from the IOTC website, but may be found in tables of some key reports.

Overall, there are opportunities for all interested and affected to be involved. A non-governmental organization representing the fishing interests of Taiwan Republic of China has been invited to participate in IOTC meetings, and the delegations of scientists are invited as ‘experts’, which affords an opportunity and encouragement for Republic of China to be involved as an affected party. The functions, roles and responsibilities within IOTC are explicit and appear to be well understood for key areas.

Much of the purpose of IOTC is to regularly seek data, particularly on fishing activity and catches. IOTC holds annual plenary meetings, and specialist working groups of IOTC (comprising scientists from the contracting parties) convene technical meetings on an annual basis. Information derived from the CPCs and the inputs from the specialist working groups is considered and such consideration forms the basis of the management advice provided by

http://www.fcf.com.tw/our-policies/



IOTC. “Local knowledge” at the international level is assumed to refer to national information and experience.

The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The scientific reports state exactly what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information which is rejected, which corresponds to best practice. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. Although much of this information can be inferred from various sources, it is not necessarily clear how different sources of information are weighted. This includes information on compliance, economics and social issues. Thus, the management system cannot demonstrate in all cases consideration of all the information or explain how it uses information in decisions. IOTC facilitates effective engagement of its stakeholders. IOTC also provides training and support to States lacking the capacity in areas of data management and fisheries science, which facilitates effective and full involvement in its activities.

Consultation occurs at several levels within the management system. Consultation at the international level is formalized, and there are well-developed mechanisms for the seeking of and consideration of appropriate information. At the flag state level, whether there is an opportunity for interested parties to be involved in management may vary and will need to be taken into account in each case.

Relationships also appear explicit enough and well understood for key areas regarding the relationships between the vessels and coastal states (Madagascar and Mauritius), where timely reporting and regular communication relies greatly on the vessel agents and FCF representatives. It has however not been evaluated for Madagascar and a condition may be raised if it was found that communication from the vessels to the government Agency was not regular.

Consultation with in the management systems has not been evaluated at flag state level.

2.5.1.3 Long-term objectives

The overarching objectives are those of the IOTC as per its establishment Agreement: “The Commission shall promote cooperation among its Members with a view to ensuring, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilization of stocks covered by this agreement and encouraging sustainable development of fisheries based on such stocks”.

More specifically, Resolution 12/01 specifies that the precautionary approach has to be used, in accordance with relevant internationally agreed standards, in particular with the UNFSA guidelines and to ensure the sustainable utilization of fisheries resources (Article V of the agreement). Resolution 13/10 and Recommendation 12/14 establish limit reference points as part of a precautionary approach.

In addition, long-term objectives are included in the IOTC Conservation and Management Measures. However, the implementation of the precautionary approach is not evident in practice for albacore and yellowfin. Management has not taken precautionary action despite these stocks being at risk and adopted provisional limits and targets do not appear to account for uncertainties. For albacore iin particular, “in its current form, there is significant doubt that the harvest strategy will be fully effective in the longer term” (Medley and Gascoigne, 2017), which is scored under Principle 1.

2.5.2 Fishery-specific management system

The IOTC basic texts offer guidance and principles on which to base a management plan with the objective to achieve MSY. The foundation for specific objectives exists (cf. PI 3.1.3). BMSY



is defined as an interim target reference point for the albacore stock (Resolution 15/10 On interim target and limit reference points and a decision framework).

For the albacore stock, IOTC most recent Scientific Report notes that:

• The provisional limit reference point for fishing mortality is 1.4*FMSY , and that the current fishing mortality is considered to be below the provisional target reference point of FMSY

• The limit for the Spawning Biomass reference point is 0.4*SBMSY and the current spawning biomass is considered to be above the target reference point of SBMSY.

Therefore, for Principle 1, long and short-term objectives are explicit in the management system.

Regarding Principle 2, the precautionary approach has been included in the CMM. As a result of the Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management (EBFM) joint meeting of tRFMOs in 2016, the IOTC Working party on Ecosystem and bycatch, the Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch (WPEB) noted the need for training and capacity building as the first step to moving forward with developing goals and strategies for the implementation of EBFM and

implementation of EBFM in the IOTC Area of Competence can be developed by 2019(IOTC–

WPEB13, 2017).

The allocation negotiations are designed to proportion access and catches such that MSY and FMSY are not exceeded. As per Resolution 15/11 on the limitation of fishing capacity of CPCs

in swordfish and albacore fisheries to the capacity active in 2007, the two flag states involved in this fishery, who are currently the two largest fleet of longliners targeting albacore, have submitted detailed descriptions of their reference capacity and a fleet development plan. Both Taiwan and China report on their fishing capacity annually showing no increase.

2.5.3 Decision-making processes

Decision-making processes are established, responsive and largely transparent. However, there are some weaknesses, which were highlighted by the performance reviews.

Members can vote, but cooperating non-members and Taiwan Republic of China, as an ‘invited expert’ are not entitled to take part in voting. Most decisions are obtained from consensus rather than majority voting. IOTC allows its parties to opt out of decisions. Decision-making processes are in place, and they do generally result in measures and strategies to achieve objectives (e.g. reference points, harvest control rules), which meets SG80.

The Rules of Procedure set mechanisms for dealing with resolutions, which should be made on the basis of scientific evidence and be designed to maintain tuna populations at levels that will permit optimum utilization. Resolutions may be made at the initiative of the CPC to the Commission.

If a CPC persists in objecting to a conservation measure, the recommendation will not be binding on that contracting party. The contracting party is not required to justify its objection and there are no limits placed upon when an objection might be acceptable or not. Under best practice, permissible reasons would be limited to any alleged incompatibility with the UNCLOS Convention, UNFSA or the RFMO’s constitutive texts, or alleged discrimination against the member concerned that cannot be justified. It is therefore currently possible that an objection in IOTC could be incompatible with the MSC Principles and Criteria. A unilateral claim to increase or create a quota, for example, is incompatible with the object and purpose of IOTC and could undermine a conservation measure. Solutions such as the CPC seeking a review



by an independent panel of the recommendation it is objecting to, as used by CCAMLR and WCPFC for example, are not available.

The decision-making is transparent. IOTC resolves most disputes at its annual meetings by consensus. While the outcome of such decisions is transparent and, we presume, initial positions and the information used for the basis of the decision is available, exactly how a decision is reached is not necessarily obvious. However, this degree of transparency is adequate to show a gross mismatch between the information being provided and the decision being made. The system makes sure that all members are fully informed of the issues under consideration and are able to participate in informed decision-making. The annual calendar of meetings is crowded, with inter- sessional meetings of various scientific, compliance and technical sub-committees, so decision- making could become unclear. Overall the decision-making is adequate for the stocks being considered. It can be shown that it deals with serious and important issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner meeting SG80.

It cannot be claimed that the decision-making deals with all issues. The objections process probably stops contentious issues from being raised wherever possible and therefore these may not be resolved. Therefore, the fishery does not meet SG100.

Decision-making processes clearly attempt to use the best available information. A large number of meetings are conducted, and reports written for the Commission which provide analyses and advice based on all the available information. Although the precautionary approach is implicit rather than explicit in decision making processes, it is difficult to determine whether it is properly used in all decisions. This weakness is recognized and is being addressed. Overall, IOTC decision-making processes meet SG80. They are based on the best available information, and in most cases can be shown to be based on the precautionary approach. Importantly, there is now a clear intention to include the precautionary approach explicitly in its basic texts, which should clarify its use and ensure reference to it in giving explanations for decisions.

Recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation and performance reviews are published formally. Likewise, reports of the plenary sessions of meetings are published formally and are publicly available. This formal reporting represents best practice. Even where doubt is expressed as to how a decision is reached, all information available for the decision making is published, allowing any stakeholder to draw their own conclusions, and there is frequent feedback from NGOs, scientists and other stakeholders. With detailed formal public reporting of decisions and all information on which those decisions are based, the IOTC fisheries meet SG100.

There are no current outstanding judicial disputes, and so far, CPCs have avoided resorting to using international law to settle disputes. However, since the process is relatively new the management system has not demonstrated it will act proactively. This meets SG80, but not SG100. The same conclusion applies to the coastal states national levels, where national legislations make it possible to appeal decisions against the refusal, suspension, cancellation, or variation of the fishing vessels license conditions in specific cases, without being proactive.

2.5.4 Compliance / enforcement

There are several key levels to the compliance system:

• The regional level is coordinated through with IOTC and various projects including the EU-funded Smartfish based at the IOC in Mauritius, and the most recent World Bank funded regional component of the SWIOFISH2 project, for a duration of six years, with a total budget of approximately USD3 million, to assist eligible CPCs to strengthen



their compliance with IOTC Resolutions and build MCS capacity (IOTC Circular 2016-093);

• The fishery’s fishing vessels individual compliance is monitored by their national agencies, and by the coastal states in which EEZ they are licensed to fish (Madagascar and Mauritius). Although MCS monitoring and enforcement capacity is currently much higher in Mauritius, the 100% coverage of transhipments and regional collaboration in the fight against IUU through the catch documentation scheme (CDC) and Port State Control Measures (PCM) that tally VMS, e-logbooks, reported catch and landings is found to be effective for the two fleets in this fishery.

The IOTC publishes a detailed analysis of CPCs national compliance every year for each of the fleet, which covers all obligations, including mandatory reporting and data submissions (see17 for example IOTC 2016b, 2017a and 2017b).

IOTC’s strategy to improve compliance started with the formation of a Compliance Committee which monitors the actions of the CPCs and has made resolutions for technical improvements. Resolution 16/12 establishes a permanent Working Party on the Implementation of Conservation and Management Measures (WPICMM) which shall act as an advisory body to the Commission via the Compliance Committee, in particular to help improve compliance of catch reporting, which continues to be a problem.

Presently, a compliance “system” that can demonstrate an ability to enforce relevant management measures is not in place yet. It will be especially important once allocations are made in that compliance monitoring is closely linked to perceived fairness. A number of recommendations from the 2009 performance review relevant to compliance are being acted upon. This includes recommendation 51 “IOTC should develop a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system through the implementation of the measures already in force, and through the adoption of new measures and tools such a possible on–board regional observers’ scheme, a possible catch documentation scheme as well as a possible system on boarding and inspection”. This is reported as “on-going” and is also included among the recommendations arising from the second IOTC performance review panel (Res 16/03), with some actions such as the regional observer programme having been implemented and others, such as the regional high-seas boarding, under development.

At the international level, monitoring control and surveillance mechanisms that can follow from the regional system are not fully connected yet, although some measures exists already. During the 17th Session of the Commission (IOTC 2013), three Conservation and Management Measures were adopted to strengthen Compliance by Fishing Vessels in the IOTC Area, including for Flag States and Coastal States to send to the IOTC Secretariat samples and templates of the following official documents: Flag State Authorization to Fish (ATF or DWFT), Fishing Logbooks and Coastal State Fishing Licence. There is also now a correspondence between the IOTC and Flag state MCS competent authorities to discuss non-conformities noted by observers during transhipment.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. This is a function of the Compliance Committee, but actions have been limited. This is seen as primarily the duty of Contracting and Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs), among which sanctions are not likely to be consistently applied, for example for the two fleets in the fishery. There is no scheme of penalties and incentives for CPCs. The WPICMM established by Res 16/12 includes in its mandate to develop recommendations and guidelines for a schedule of sanctions for non-compliance with IOTC CMMs for consideration by the CPCs and the Commission. This needs to be addressed for each specific unit of certification. There are

17 http://www.iotc.org/compliance/monitoring



numerous issues with non-compliance, although it is not always clear why they occur or who is responsible. One such example is the presence of an off switch on the vessel VMS transmitter, picked up during transhipment controls on the High Seas in 2016, which is accepted as a non-conformity by Taiwan but not by China PRC. The Performance Review found that some countries have consistently failed to provide timely and accurate data. Issues have been raised by CPCs in response to the Compliance Committee. One of the WPICMM objectives is to enhance the technical capacity of CPCs to understand and implement IOTC Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs). IOTC monitors compliance with recommendations. It publishes annual compliance reports for each CPC based on information received and publishes them on the IOTC website, http://iotc.org/compliance/monitoring.

Compliance of fishers appears adequate in the fishery considered here, although it would not meet SG80 if some basic obligations are not met, such as the provision of information and the required % of scientific observation, which would need to be checked for each fleet. There is no evidence of major systematic non-compliance, but this will also need to be checked with Madagascar and Mauritius competent authorities to ensure SG80 is met.

In Mauritius, MCS is the responsibility of the Fisheries Planning and Management Division. All licensed boats and vessels are required to be Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) compliant. Mauritius is building its patrol vessel capacity, which has so far relied on regional cooperation. The Indian Ocean Commission (IOC) members signed a ministerial declaration on 21st July 2017 in support of a Regional Fisheries Monitoring Plan to eradicate IUU fishing, notably in the tuna fisheries. The EU and other projects (Fish-I Africa, AU-IBAR, WB-SWIOFish) provide financial support, including to the IOTC. Training was recently organised into the use of a risk-based approach to MCS activities programming by the European Fisheries Control Agency (EFCA), as part of a set of measures in support of Europe’s Sustainable Fisheries Partnership Agreements (SFPAs) to access tuna fisheries in the region (also with Madagascar, Comoros and Seychelles). The Mauritius Fisheries Monitoring Centre has taken part or coordinated joint patrols (Cofrepêche et al., 2016). Similarly, Madagascar has several fisheries patrol vessels that can be used for regional patrols (Cofrepêche et al., 2014).

2.5.5 Evaluation of the management system

The IOTC has had two formal independent performance evaluations, in 2009 and 2014. Since then, the Commission and its subsidiary bodies review progress made in implementing each of the recommendations arising from the Performance Review, and the latest updates are included as an appendix to each Commission annual report.

In addition, the IOTC results, in terms of stock health are closely monitored and analyses are published in peer-reviewed scientific papers, discussed in WP meetings and commented upon throughout the year by eNGOs with observer status18.

Areas of particular importance for this fishery concern the lack of functional harvest strategy for all species, and in particular Harvest Control Rules (cf. WWF, 2017). This was also picked up by a recent paper (Juan-Jorda et al., 2016) on the use of the Ecosystem-based fisheries management by tuna RFMOs (tRFMOs), and a meeting on the subject was held at FAO headquarters in December 2016, where the IOTC pledged detailed measures to develop its EBFM (FAO, 2017). These aspects are currently being addressed.

Because the fishery does not have a full management plan yet, its management is evaluated for some but not all key parts of the management system.

18 see http://iotc.org/about-iotc/observers-iotc-meetings

http://iotc.org/compliance/monitoring



3 Evaluation Procedure

3.1 Assessment methodologies used

The pre-assessment was conducted in accordance with the MSC Fisheries Standard v2.0 and pre-assessment reporting template version 2.0.

3.2 Summary of site visits and meetings held during pre-assessment

The site visit was held in Port Louis, on the 8 – 9th November 2017. The individuals met during the site visit and their roles in the fishery are listed in

Table 13. The site visit included several meetings with Bumble Bee and FCF representatives as well as one meeting with government officials. The pre-assessment team also had the opportunity to observe one of the client vessels unloading its catch and to follow the process from unloading through to grading and cold storage taken on by sub-contractor Froid des Mascareignes.

Table 13. List of attendees at the on-site meetings.

Name Position

Solomon Antwi Representative Bumble Bee Seafoods Mauritius

Bob Chen FCF representative Mauritius

Patrick Wan Ops Manager Froid des Mascareignes

D. Norungee Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping – Assistant Director of Fisheries

Mootoosamy Lindsay

Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping - Divisional Scientific Officer

Sheik Mamode Anzwar

Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping – Scientific Officer

Subhas Chandra Bauljeewon

Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping - Divisional Scientific Officer

Meera Koonjul Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries and Shipping - Divisional Scientific Officer

Sophie des Clers MEC – Principle 3 expert

Chrissie Sieben MEC – Team Leader



Figure 13. Client vessel unloading in Port Louis, 9th November 2018 (Source: MEC)

3.3 Stakeholders to be consulted during a full assessment

The following stakeholders have observer status at the IOTC and should be consulted with during a full assessment:

3.3.1 Intergovernmental organizations:

• Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACAP)

• Bay of Bengal Large Marine Ecosystem project (BOBLME)

• Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR)

• Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT)

• Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of wild fauna and flora (CITES)

• Fisheries Forum Agency (FFA)

• Indian Ocean Commission (IOC)

• International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (IATTC)

• Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC)

• Southwest Indian Ocean Fisheries Commission (SWIOFC)

• Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC)

3.3.2 Non-governmental organizations

• African Union – InterAfrican Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR)

• Birdlife International (BI)

• Conservation International (CI)

• Earth Island Institute



• Federation of artisanal Fishermen of the Indian Ocean (FPAOI)

• Greenpeace International (GI)

• Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations (ISDIR)

• International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

• International Game Fish Association (IGFA)

• International Pole-and-line Foundation (IPNLF)

• Indian Ocean – South East Asian Marine Turtle MOU (IOSEA)

• International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF)

• Island Conservation Society (ICS)

• Organisation for the Promotion of Responsible Tuna Fisheries (OPRT)

• Marine Stewardship Council (MSC)

• PEW Charitable Trusts (PEW)

• Rain Forest Rescue International, Sri Lanka (RFRI)

• Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center (SEAFDEC)

• Shark Advocates International (SAI)

• Shark Alliance (SA)

• Stop Illegal Fishing (SIF)

• Sustainable Fisheries Partnership (SFP)

• US–Japan Research Institute – New

• World Wide Fund for Nature (a.k.a World Wildlife Fund, WWF)

In addition, NGOs based in Mauritius, such as the Mauritius Export Association (MEXA – IBL Group – Princes Tuna is a member) and the Mauritius Marine Conservation Society, are regularly involved by the Fisheries Division during their consultations.

3.4 Harmonisation with any overlapping MSC certified fisheries

There are currently no certified albacore fisheries in the Indian Ocean. Other Indian Ocean tuna fisheries in the MSC programme at the time of writing (March 2018) are:

- Maldives pole & line tuna (skipjack only) - Echebastar Indian Ocean purse seine skipjack tuna

In the absence of overlapping Principle 1 stocks, harmonisation during a full assessment would be expected to involve Principle 3 (i.e. the IOTC management system) only.



4 Traceability (issues relevant to chain of custody certification)

4.1 Eligibility of fishery products to enter further chains of custody

Individual fish are blast-frozen whole fin-trimmed and stored in the hold. Species are not necessarily stored separately (this depends on the captain), with sorting and grading happening after unloading in Port Louis. If a vessel fishes in different areas or EEZs on the same trip, the catch is also not separated by area. No processing takes place on board the vessels.

Three days prior to landing, the Elog detailing retained catch is submitted to the Taiwanese government. Landing takes place exclusively in Mauritius (Port Louis) where all vessels must go through customs clearance before unloading can commence. Customs clearance consists of inspections by both Mauritian and Taiwanese officials. The latter do not inspect all vessels but instead follow a risk-based approach for Taiwanese flagged boats only. After inspection, a landing permit is issued by the Mauritian port authorities.

From the point of landing onwards, ownership is transferred from FCF to Bumble Bee and the fish are unloaded by species into metal bins. The fish are then taken on by subcontractor Froid des Mascareignes (FDM) for grading and storage. From there, the fish are transported by truck to subcontractor Princes Tuna Mauritius Ltd. (PTM) where processing takes place according to FDA guidelines. Both facilities are within walking distance of the landing quays inside the Port free zone. Processing at this stage consists of cooking and loining the fish only – further processing (canning) takes place at the Bumble Bee plant in California.

To enable export to the US, all vessels must sign a captain statement upon unloading. This statement includes confirmation that the catch is dolphin-safe even for longliners and abide by core ISSF principles, even though the vessels are not ISSF-registered. Other required documentation includes a Captain’s Statement to confirm the vessel registration details and a NOAA Fisheries Certificate of Origin Form 370.

Some at-sea transhipping may take place on the High Seas if catches originate outside the Mauritius EEZ, and some took place in the Madagascar EEZ during 2016 (IOTC, 2017b), which was not the case before. A freezer vessel (reefer) usually has a cargo of 1 000t, servicing about 20 vessels at sea. All transhipment activities must be supervised by an IOTC observer (Resolution 17/06). After transhipment, the reefer unloads at Port Louis where it is subject to the routine inspections described previously and where unloading is linked to each vessel to ensure traceability.

All Bumble Bee tuna cans are issued with a code which enables customers to trace the product back to the vessel, gear, fishing area and processing facility via a website19.

All vessels in this fishery supply Bumble Bee and land albacore catches in Port Louis. Vessels with a Mauritian fishing license catches and from inside the Mauritian EEZ must also land all other species caught.

Presently (February 2018) Madagascar and Mauritius are party to the Port Sate Measures (PSM) Agreement, but Taiwan and China not yet, which could bring meaningful change and improve overall traceability for the fish that are not landed in Port Louis (not part of the fishery examined in this report).

19 http://www.bumblebee.com/tracemycatch/



5 Preliminary evaluation of the fishery

5.1 Applicability of the default assessment tree (optional)

No amendments to the default assessment tree are foreseen. The RBF is likely to be required for some Performance Indicators under Principle 2.

5.2 Expectations regarding use of the Risk-Based Framework (RBF)

The risk-based framework (RBF), (Annexes PF and GPF of the MSC FCRv2.0), is an alternative evaluation system for some Performance Indicators (PI), based on an acknowledgement by the MSC that in some cases quantitative data and formal stock assessments may not be available. In this case, the use of the default assessment tree becomes difficult and the RBF is triggered.

The RBF can be used for outcome PIs, which are as follows:

• 1.1.1 (target species outcome)

• 2.1.1 (primary species outcome)

• 2.2.1 (secondary species outcome)

• 2.3.1 (endangered, threatened and protected (ETP) species outcome)

• 2.4.1 (habitats outcome)

• 2.5.1 (ecosystem outcome)

In the case of Principle 1, the RBF would not be required as albacore has a formal data collection and stock assessment process.

For Principle 2, the RBF may be triggered for 2.1.1, 2.2.1 and 2.3.1 depending on the following criteria:

• Whether sufficient information is made available to determine the likely Primary species. Note that if this information is provided, it is highly unlikely that the RBF would be required for Primary species owing to their very nature (i.e. species that are managed through stock assessments and reference points; see Section 2.4.1.1)

• Whether sufficient information is made available to determine the likely Secondary species.

• If data on Secondary species are provided, whether stock assessments and reference points exist for these species.

• Whether sufficient information is made available to determine the likely ETP species.

• If data on ETP interactions are provided, whether the impact on the ETP species can be analytically determined.

5.3 Evaluation of the fishery

The likely scores for each performance indicator are shown in Section 5.4.The main points have been summarised in the following sections.



5.3.1 Principle 1

Although the Indian Ocean albacore stock is currently healthy (Section 2.3.3), the main issues for Principle 1 centre around the harvest strategy and harvest control rules. Without an explicit HCR currently in place, a full assessment will rely on the criteria outlined in Section 2.3.4 to determine whether a HCR can be considered as ‘available’. With the stock assessment currently projecting B to fall below BMSY by 2024 with a 42% probability, the team considered it unlikely this would be the case, indicating a likely fail for PI 1.2.2 (Harvest Control Rule). For the same reason, it is unlikely that the harvest strategy could be considered likely to work at SG60 level, implying a likely fail for PI 1.2.1 (Harvest Strategy).

5.3.2 Principle 2

No issues are foreseen with either the Habitats or Ecosystem components. The main issue for Principle 2 was the lack of data on retained and discarded catch (through logbooks and/or observer data) and independent data on ETP interactions. For the purposes of this pre-assessment some assumptions were made which indicate that if the required data can be provided, a conditional pass is possible for Primary, Secondary and ETP species. At this stage, however, it is difficult to carry out a more in-depth analysis. Note that in order to pass P2, the Principle should reach an average aggregate score of 80. Even with the required data, it is unclear if this is feasible.

5.3.3 Principle 3

Overall, Principle 3 scored well. The regional management system is strong, and the national management systems of the flag and coastal states are sufficient not to cause a barrier to certification.

Some conditions are likely to be raised for PI 3.1.2 (transparency of all information submitted by Taiwan), PI 3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement, depending on an analysis of detailed logbook information and observer reports that could not be obtained.



5.4 Summary of likely PI scoring levels

Key to likely scoring level

Information suggests fishery is not likely to reach SG60 and therefore would fail on this PI

Fail

(<60)

Information suggests fishery will reach SG60 but may need a condition for this PI

Pass with Condition

(60-79)

Information suggests fishery is likely to exceed SG80 resulting in an unconditional pass for this PI

Pass

(≥80)



5.4.1 Principle 1

Component PI Performance Indicator RBF

required? (y/n)

Likely scoring

level Rationale/ Key points

Outcome

1.1.1 Stock status N ≥80 SBMSY is estimated at MSC’s default level for the PRI, but since the stock is well above this level this does not pose a problem for the moment (Section 2.3.3).

1.1.2 Stock rebuilding N Not

scored Not applicable

Management

1.2.1 Harvest Strategy N <60

It depends on whether the harvest strategy (Scoring issue b) is likely to work based on prior experience or plausible argument, taking into account the 42% probability that B<BMSY by 2024. Taking the precautionary view, this PI is unlikely to meet SG60 (Section 2.3.4).

1.2.2 Harvest control rules and tools N <60

HCRs may be interpreted as ‘available’; however considering the high probability of B falling below BMSY by 2024, there is a likelihood that a full assessment team will not consider the criteria for ‘available HCRs’ to be met. On that basis, the team considered this PI is unlikely to achieve SG60 (Section 2.3.4).

1.2.3 Information and monitoring N 60-79

Some catch data remain uncertain, but the stock assessment uses mainly southern data, where reporting is better. The stock assessment is not badly impacted by these uncertainties; there are sufficient data for management purposes (Section 2.3.5).

1.2.4 Assessment of stock status N ≥80 The stock assessment makes best use of the data available, considers uncertainties, is probabilistic and peer reviewed (Section 2.3.5).

Conclusion for Principle 1

2 PIs are likely to score less than 60. This Principle is likely to fail during full assessment. Note: this scoring affects all UoAs.



5.4.2 Principle 2

Component PI Performance

Indicator

RBF required? (y/n)

Likely scoring


Primary Species

2.1.1 Outcome Potentially

60-79

Currently no RBF would be required based on the species identified in this pre assessment with limited data available. However, should this fishery proceed to full assessment without better data, the RBF will be required to determine which are the likely primary species. With the exception of yellowfin, the majority of species discussed in Section 2.4.2 (Primary species) and Section 2.4.4 (bait) are currently not overfished nor is overfishing occurring. On that basis, it would be considered highly likely that the species/stocks are above the Point of Recruitment Impairment (PRI), meeting SG80. Yellowfin tuna, however, is currently considered as both overfished with overfishing occurring and is only likely to be above PRI. This means that SG60 would be met but not SG80.

2.1.2 Management No 60-79

Of all the likely primary species, only skipjack and Sardinops sagax have a HCR and management plan associated with it. It is therefore difficult to see how this PI could score above SG80. However, there are some measures in place that could be constituted as either measures and/or partial strategy that would be likely to work IF implemented by IOTC. This would need further consideration in full assessment when data has improved, and the exact primary species have been identified for the UoA. It is likely however that there would need to be a condition placed on this PI.

2.1.3 Information No <60

There is currently a significant paucity of catch and effort data and information on retained and discarded species composition for the Client fleet. The information available is not sufficient to determine the risk posed by the UoAs and the effectiveness of any measures or strategies to manage primary species. Based on the information provided during this pre-assessment, this PI is likely to fail.




Indicator

RBF required? (y/n)

Likely scoring


Secondary species

2.2.1 Outcome Yes 60-79

It is likely that the Client fleet is not having an impact on secondary species and the main secondary species taken by the UoA are likely to be above biologically based limits. However, without better data records from the Client fleet, it is not possible to justify that secondary species are highly likely to be above biological based limits and therefore it is highly likely that this PI would require several conditions. Should this fishery proceed to full assessment without better data, the RBF will be required to determine which the likely secondary species are. Note however that even with detailed client data, the RBF is likely to be required for this PI as most secondary species do not have stock assessments or references points associated with them.


The majority of secondary species taken by the Client fleet are currently not being addressed by the IOTC or its Scientific Committee and catch and effort trends on most of these species are not available. However, the IOTC does have some CMMs regarding monitoring and reporting that would provide data to develop at least a partial management strategy for secondary species if catches were thought to be unsustainable. Furthermore, CMMs directed at tuna and shark species (ETP) are likely to unintentionally afford secondary species further protection. Nevertheless, based on the management in place (or lack thereof) for the secondary species identified in this pre-assessment, this PI is unlikely to achieve a score of 80.

2.2.3 Information No <60

There is currently a significant paucity of catch and effort data and information on retained and discarded species composition for the Client fleet. The information available is not sufficient to determine the risk posed by the UoAs and the effectiveness of any measures or strategies to manage secondary species. Based on the information provided during this pre-assessment, this PI is likely to fail.




Indicator

RBF required? (y/n)

Likely scoring


ETP species 2.3.1 Outcome Potentially

?

The potential scoring for the Client fleet is here also let down by the lack of independent data in order to determine the interaction level with ETP species. Indian Ocean albacore longline fisheries may have a significant impact on seabirds through capture and mortality leading to a decreased adult survival and juvenile recruitment and population declines, even at relatively low levels of interaction.

Although it is expected that majority of shark stocks are in a declining trend, precedent from other well monitored albacore longline fisheries in other ocean basins (e.g. Western Central and Eastern Pacific) indicates that this type of fishery may not be subject to significant shark bycatch issues. It is therefore reasonable to expect that the Client fleet is not likely to be hindering any of these shark species’ recovery although in the absence of data this cannot be said for certain. Although a 5% fin to carcass ratio is required by IOTC to address shark-finning, the pre-assessment team was unable to verify whether this is effectively and consistently implemented by the Client fleet.

Finally, sea turtles are also of particular concern for this fishery, and ongoing fishery-specific information is crucial.

Overall there are significant CMMs and NPOAs in place to minimize fatal interactions with seabirds, sea turtles and sharks, although further data are required from the Client fleet to ascertain if they are effective, and if the fishery is impeding the recovery of relevant species.

Based on the general information on albacore longline operations from the IOTC region, it is likely that the fishery is not hindering recovery of any ETP species (meeting SG60), but this cannot be said with any confidence without having access to fishery-specific data. Should the client wish to proceed to full assessment without fishery-specific information on ETP interactions, the RBF will be required.




Indicator

RBF required? (y/n)

Likely scoring



Generally speaking, the IOTC and its members have in place the required strategies designed to manage and mitigate any interactions and impacts on ETP species. The measures in place should be sufficient for this PI to reach a 60 score. However, without more fishery-specific information and without more information on the national management measures in place in Mauritius and Madagascar as well as at flag state level (Taiwan and PRC), a precautionary score of less than 80 has been awarded.

2.3.3 Information No <60 Currently with the paucity of data from the Client fleet, it is not possible to determine the level of ETP interactions. There is not enough information to enable a qualitative assessment of the fishery’s impact on ETP species.

Habitats

2.4.1 Outcome No >80

No VMEs are encountered by the fishery and gear does not come into contact with any benthic habitat and only operates within the pelagic waters of the IO. Therefore, the Client fleet is highly unlikely to reduce the structure and function of the commonly encountered habitats.

2.4.2 Management No >80 The term “if necessary” is applicable here. No management is likely to be required.

2.4.3 Information No >80 There is a great amount of information concerning the distribution and vulnerability of the main habitats in the UOA area of operation which is relevant to the scale and intensity of operations.

Ecosystem

2.5.1 Outcome No >80 The Client fleet is highly unlikely to disrupt key elements of the ecosystem structure and function to a point where there could be a serious or irreversible harm.

2.5.2 Management No >80 The term “if necessary” is applicable here.

2.5.3 Information No >80 There is adequate knowledge of the impacts of the UoA on the ecosystem.




Indicator

RBF required? (y/n)

Likely scoring


Conclusion for Principle 1

3 PIs are likely to score less than 60. The outcome for one PI (2.3.1) is unknown due to insufficient information. This Principle is likely to fail during full assessment. Note: this scoring affects all UoAs.



5.4.3 Principle 3

Note: please refer to Table 1 for details on likely UoA structure. Where relevant, the below analysis has separated out regional issues (IOTC) from those at flag state (Taiwan, People’s Republic of China) and coastal state (Mauritius, Madagascar) level.

Component PI Performance Indicator

Likely scoring

level

Rationale/ Key points

Governance & policy

3.1.1 Legal and customary framework

>80

IOTC: The IOTC framework provides for an organised and effective co-operation among parties. The operating procedures (IOTC rules of procedures) are fully transparent and are posted on the IOTC website. Current restrictions on the membership of Taiwan (Republic of China) official membership do not appear to affect the ability of IOTC to take effective conservation and management measures, but seriously limits the visibility of co-operation. Evidence exist to shows that Republic of China ‘unofficially’ takes part and co-operates fully with international procedures, including the scientific observer programme. This level of co-operation is sufficient to meet SG80, but because it is not binding, SG100 cannot be met.

IOTC has no formal dispute resolution procedure within the convention, but meetings and due process provide opportunities to resolve disputes informally. There is no history of wilful ignoring of management measures.

IOTC has accepted methods and objectives for allowing access to the resources under its purview that are consistent with MSC Principles 1 and 2. Therefore the international management system meets the requirement for SG60 and SG80.

Vessels in the fishery are from Taiwan (Republic of China) and China (PRC) and both flag states have legal orders that ensure that compliance with IOTC CMMs can be met. Mechanisms for IOTC to check compliance of the flag nations are transparent and considered effective for both. Vessels are fishing in the EEZ of Mauritius and Madagascar under licence, which may include additional landing (Mauritius) or other conditions that are considered to be effective. SG80 is likely to be met.




Likely scoring

level


Governance & policy

3.1.2 Consultation, roles and responsibilities

60-79

IOTC: The performance of the Secretariat is sound and considered to be efficient and effective by CPCs. The CPCs abilities vary but roles and responsibilities are explicitly defined at the national level for key areas. However, the IOTC Agreement currently inhibits the official involvement of Taiwan (Republic of China) in the Commission, which does not meet SG80.

Much of the purpose of IOTC is to regularly seek data, particularly the data monitoring fishing activity and catches. IOTC holds annual plenary meetings, and specialist working groups of IOTC (comprising scientists from the contracting parties) convene technical meetings on an annual basis. Information derived from the CPCs and the inputs from the specialist working groups is considered and such consideration forms the basis of the management advice provided by IOTC. “Local knowledge” at the international level is assumed to refer to national information and experience. The management system demonstrates consideration of the information obtained. The scientific reports state exactly what information is being used, how it is used, and justification is provided for all information which is rejected. This is best practice and meets SG100. However, information used by management other than the scientific information is not so clearly reported. Although much of this information can be inferred from various sources, it is not necessarily clear how different sources of information are weighted. This includes information on compliance, economics and social issues. Therefore, this does not meet SG100 because the management system cannot demonstrate in all cases consideration of all the information or explain how it uses information in decisions.

IOTC facilitates effective engagement of its stakeholders. IOTC also provides training and support to States lacking the capacity in areas of data management and fisheries science, which facilitates effective and full involvement in its activities. Therefore, there is sufficient evidence that, at the international level, IOTC meets SG80 and SG100.

Consultation occurs at several levels within the management system. Consultation at the international level is formalized, and there are well-developed mechanisms for the seeking of and consideration of appropriate information.




Likely scoring

level


Governance & policy

3.1.3 Long term objectives

>80

The objective of the IOTC is “to promote cooperation among its Members with a view to ensuring, through appropriate management, the conservation and optimum utilisation of stocks covered by this Agreement and encouraging sustainable development of fisheries based on such stocks.” In addition, Resolution 12/01 states that IOTC shall “... apply the precautionary approach, in accordance with relevant internationally agreed standards, in particular with the guidelines set forth in the UNFSA, and to ensure the sustainable utilisation of fisheries resources as set forth in Article V of the IOTC Agreement.” and “In applying the precautionary approach, the Commission shall adopt, after due consideration of the advice supplied by the IOTC Scientific Committee, stock-specific reference points ... and associated harvest control rules ...”. As this resolution, which is consistent with the MSC standard, makes these general objectives explicit and required by management, SG80 and, ostensibly SG100, are met. However, despite this, there is less evidence for the implementation of the precautionary approach in practice for some stocks, notably albacore. This prevents SG100 being met but will need to be re-evaluated during full assessment.

Fishery specific management system

3.2.1 Fishery specific objectives

>80

The IOTC basic texts offers guidance and principles on which management plans might be based. The management objective is to achieve MSY. The foundation for specific objectives is established (see PI 3.1.3). BMSY is defined as an interim target reference point for albacore (Res 15/10).

Probability statements and “Kobe” plots are used to communicate risk, but apart from MSY management objectives are not well defined and therefore not measurable. There are no explicit objectives or constraints on risk for ecosystem-based management. The scientific advice is based on MSC Principles 1 and 2, because these objectives are implicit in the management of each stock, meeting SG60. Additionally, with the adoption of Resolutions 15/10 and 16/02, SG80 is likely to be met.




Likely scoring

level



3.2.2 Decision making processes

>80

Decision-making processes are in place, which are established, responsive and largely transparent. Some weaknesses have been highlighted by the performance reviews. Most if not all decisions are obtained from consensus rather than majority voting. Members (e.g. China PRC) can vote, but cooperating non-members and “invited experts” hence Taiwan Republic of China, cannot take part in voting. IOTC allows its parties to opt out of decisions. The 2006 UNFSA Review Conference recommended that States through RFMOs should ensure that post opt-out behaviour is constrained by rules to prevent opting-out parties from undermining conservation, clear processes for dispute resolution, and a description of alternative measures that will be implemented in the interim (UN, 2006, paragraph 32(f ) of the Annex). IOTC has not implemented these yet, but it has yet to be an issue. There has been a recent opt-out of resolutions, which may lead to improvements.

Despite this, decision-making processes are in place, and they do generally result in measures and strategies to achieve objectives (e.g. reference points, harvest control rules), which is likely to meet SG80.

The decision-making is transparent. IOTC resolves most disputes at its annual meetings by consensus. The current system makes sure that all members are fully informed of the issues under consideration and are able to participate in informed decision-making.

Overall the decision-making is adequate for the stocks being considered. It can be shown that it deals with serious and important issues in a transparent, timely and adaptive manner likely meeting SG80.

It cannot be claimed that the decision-making deals with all issues. The objections process probably stops contentious issues from being raised wherever possible and therefore these may not be resolved. The fishery does not meet SG100.

Decision-making processes clearly attempt to use the best available information. A large number of meetings are conducted, and reports written for the Commission which provide analyses and advice based on all the available information.

Although the precautionary approach is implicit rather than explicit in decision making processes, it can be demonstrated that it is used in practice under most circumstances.

Overall, IOTC decision-making processes meet SG80. They are based on the best available information, and in most cases can be shown to be based on the precautionary approach. Importantly, there is now a clear intention to include the precautionary approach explicitly in its



basic texts, which should clarify its use and ensure reference to it in giving explanations for decisions.

Recommendations from research, monitoring, evaluation and performance reviews are published formally. Likewise, reports of the plenary sessions of meetings are published formally and are publicly available. This formal reporting represents best practice. While some groups may believe that how all information used in the decision making is reported, it is difficult to see how the current system could be improved in this respect. Even where doubt is expressed as to how a decision is reached, all information available for the decision making is published, allowing any stakeholder to draw their own conclusions, and there is frequent feedback from NGOs, scientists and other stakeholders.

With detailed formal public reporting of decisions and all information on which those decisions are based, the IOTC fisheries are likely to meet SG100.

There are no current outstanding judicial disputes and CPCs have avoided resorting to using international law to settle disputes until now. However, since the process is relatively new the management system has not demonstrated it will act proactively. This is likely to meet SG80, but not SG100.




Likely scoring

level



3.2.3 Compliance and enforcement

60-79

IOTC’s strategy to improve compliance started with the formation of a Compliance Committee which monitors the actions of the CPCs and has made resolutions for technical improvements. Resolution 16/12 establishes a permanent Working Party on the Implementation of Conservation and Management Measures (WPICMM) which shall act as an advisory body to the Commission via the Compliance Committee, in particular to help improve compliance of catch reporting, which continues to be a problem.

However, this cannot be termed a compliance “system” as of yet. Such a system would demonstrate an ability to enforce relevant management measures. This will be especially important once allocations are made in that compliance monitoring is closely linked to perceived fairness. A number of recommendations from the 2009 performance review relevant to compliance are being acted upon. This includes recommendation 51 “IOTC should develop a comprehensive monitoring, control and surveillance (MCS) system through the implementation of the measures already in force, and through the adoption of new measures and tools such a possible on–board regional observers’ scheme, a possible catch documentation scheme as well as a possible system on boarding and inspection.”. This is reported as “on-going” and is also included among the recommendations arising from the second

IOTC performance review panel

(Res 16/03), with some actions such as the regional observer programme having been implemented and others, such as the regional high-seas boarding, under development.

At the international level, monitoring control and surveillance mechanisms that can follow from the regional system are not fully connected yet, although some measures are being rolled out. During the 17th Session of the Commission (IOTC 2013), three Conservation and Management Measures were adopted to strengthen Compliance by Fishing Vessels in the IOTC Area. These CMMs make it mandatory for Flag States and Coastal States to send to the IOTC Secretariat samples and templates of the following official documents: Flag State Authorization to Fish (ATF or DWFT), Fishing Logbooks and Coastal State Fishing Licence. This meets SG60 but not SG80.

Sanctions to deal with non-compliance exist and there is some evidence that they are applied. This is a function of the Compliance Committee. But as discussed by the PRP the actions have been limited. This is seen as primarily the duty of Contacting and Non-Contracting Parties (CPCs), among which sanctions are unlikely to be consistently applied, for example for the two fleet in the fishery. There is no scheme of penalties and incentives for CPCs. The WPICMM established by Res 16/12 includes in its mandate to develop recommendations and guidelines for a schedule of sanctions for non-compliance with IOTC CMMs for consideration by the CPCs



and the Commission. This meets SG60 but not SG80. This performance indicator applies to each fleet and therefore needs to be addressed in more detail for each unit of certification. There are numerous issues with non-compliance, although it is not always clear where or why they occur or who is responsible. The Performance Review found that some countries have consistently failed to provide timely and accurate data. Issues have been raised by CPCs in response to the Compliance Committee. One of the WPICMM objectives is to enhance the technical capacity of CPCs to understand and implement IOTC Conservation and Management Measures (CMMs).

IOTC has a that monitors compliance with recommendations. The 2009 It publishes annual compliance reports for each CPC based on information received and publishes them on the IOTC website, http://iotc.org/compliance/monitoring

Compliance of fishers typically appears adequate in the fishery considered here, it would not meet SG80 if some basic obligations are not met, such as the provision of information and the required % of scientific observation.

There is no evidence of major systematic non-compliance, but this will need to be also checked Madagascar and Mauritius competent authorities to ensure SG80 is met.



Principle Component PI Performance Indicator

Likely scoring

level


3.2.4 Management performance evaluation

>80

IOTC has in place mechanisms to evaluate all parts of the management system. This is demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. As noted, the 2016 PRP has also evaluated all parts of the management system. These evaluations are likely to meet SG100.

IOTC is subject to regular internal review. This is demonstrated by the various committees and working groups that meet regularly and report their findings to the Commission. As noted, the 2009 and 2015 PRP was a formal external performance review that was conducted, and it has evaluated all parts of the management system. There is a clear monitored response to the reviews, where progress against recommendations is being reported. Through Resolution 16/03, the Commission endorses that a Performance Review of the IOTC shall be carried out every five (5) years in line with the recommendations of the Kobe process

The reviews do meet SG100 requirement that all parts of the management system are evaluated. In addition, with the initiation of a new performance review within 5 years of the first review, current reviews appear to be undertaken regularly (although there is no requirement to do this). Based on the current level of external review, the IOTC is likely to meet SG100.

Number of PIs less than 60: 0



6 References

ACAP (2007) Analysis of albatross and petrel distribution and overlap with longline fishing effort within the IOTC area: results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Database. Paper submitted to the Third Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch, Victoria, Seychelles, 11–13 July 2007

Ardill, D., Itano, D. and Gillett, R. 2013. Implementation of a regional Fisheries Strategy for the Eastern-Southern Africa and Indian Ocean Region. A review of bycatch and discards in Indian Ocean tuna fisheries. Smart Fish/Indian Ocean Commission. SF/2013/32

Carruthers, E.H: Schneider, D.C: Neilson, J.D. (2009) Estimating the odds of survival and identifying mitigation opportunities for common bycatch in pelagic longline fisheries. Biol. Cons., 142: 2620–2630.

Cauquil P, Rabearisoa N, Sabarros PS, Chavance P & Bach P (2015) ObServe: Database and operational software for longline and purse seine fishery data. IOTC WPEB. [IOTC–2015–WPEB11–16]. Available at https://www.iotc.org/sites/default/files/documents/2015/09/IOTC-2015-WPEB11-16_-_ObServe.pdf

Chumchuen, W. and P. Naimee. (2012) Albacore Tuna Fishery in the Indian Ocean by Thai Longliners during 2007–2011.

Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y. & Ochi, D. (2014). Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-like species: a global review of status and mitigation measures. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper No. 588. Rome, FAO. 199 pp.

Darumas, Narupon. Wongkeaw, Aekkarat. Chumchuen, Watcharapong. (2013). Tuna Longline Fishery in the Indian Ocean by Thai Fleet during 2010-2012 IOTC–2013–WPTT15–43.” 2013.

Davies, T.K., C. C. Mees, E.J. Milner-Gulland (2014) The past, present and future use of drifting fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the Indian Ocean, Marine Policy. 45:163-170.

FAO. (2009) Guidelines to reduce sea turtle mortality in fishing operations. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome.

FAO. 2017. Report of the Fourth Project Steering Committee: Sustainable Management of Tuna Fisheries and Biodiversity Conservation in the ABNJ, Rome, Italy, 11th - 13th July 2017. Rome. 42 pp.

Guan Wenjiang, Jiangfeng Zhu, Liuxiong Xu, Xuefang Wang, Chunxia Gao (2015) Preliminary stock assessment of Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the Indian Ocean by using Bayesian biomass production model. IOTC–2015–WPTT17–27

Huang, Hsiang-Wen and Kwang-Ming Liu. (2010). Bycatch and discards by Taiwanese large-scale tuna longline fleets in the Indian Ocean. Fisheries Research 106: 261-270.

IOTC (2013). Draft: Executive Summary: Seabirds. Status of seabirds in the Indian Ocean. IOTC–2013–SC16–ES25[E]

IOTC (2015a). Report of the 19Ocean Tuna Commission. Busan, Rep. of Korea, 27 April –

1 May 2015. IOTC–2015–S19–R[E]: 155 pp.

IOTC (2015b). Review Of The Statistical Data And Fishery Trends For Tropical Tunas. IOTC–2014–WPTT16–07. October 2015.



IOTC (2015c) Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (10 September 2015).

IOTC-SC17. (2014). Report of the Seventeenth Session of the IOTC Scientific Committee. Seychelles, 8–12 December 2014. IOTC–2014–SC17–R[E]: 357 pp.

IOTC 2015. Report of the 2nd IOTC Performance Review. Mahé, Seychelles, 2–6 February & 14–18 December 2015. IOTC–2016–PRIOTC02–R[E]

IOTC 2016. Compendium of Active Conservation and Management Measures for the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission. Last updated: 27 September 2016

IOTC 2016b. Report of the 13th Session of the Compliance Committee. La Reunion, France, 16–18 May, 2016. IOTC–2016–CoC13–R[E]

IOTC, 2017. Albacore executive summary., 3 p. See http://www.iotc.org/documents/albacore,

IOTC 2017a. Report of the 14th Session of the Compliance Committee. Yogyakarta, Indonesia, 15–17 May 2017. IOTC–2017–CoC14–R[E], 56 pp

IOTC, 2017b. A Summary of the IOTC Regional Observer Programme During 2016, Annual Contractors’ Report, 17 p. IOTC-2017-CoC14-04b [E]

IOTC–WPEB13, 2017. Report of the 13th Session of the IOTC Working Party on Ecosystems

and Bycatch.San Sebastian, Spain 4 – 8 September 2017 IOTC–2017–WPEB13–

R[E]: 125pp.

Juan Jordá, M.J., Haritz Arrizabalaga Nicholas K. Dulvy Andrew B. Cooper and Hilario Murua (2015) Preliminary review of ICCAT and IATTC progress in applying an ecosystem approach to fisheries management SCRS/2014/126 Collect. Vol. Sci. Pap. ICCAT, 71(6): 2958–2976 (2015) Available at: https://www.iccat.int/Documents/CVSP/CV071_2015/n_6/CV071062958.pdf

Kaplan, D. M., Chassot, E., Amandé, J. M., Dueri, S., Demarcq, H., Dagorn, L., and Fonteneau, A. (2014) Spatial management of Indian Ocean tropical tuna fisheries: potential and perspectives. – ICES Journal of Marine Science, doi.10.1093/icesjms/fst233.

Kiszka J, Muir C, Amir A.A, Cox T.M, Bourjea J, Poonian C, Razafindrakoto Y, Wambiji N, Bristol N (2008) Marine mammal bycatch in the South West Indian Ocean: review and need for a comprehensive status assessment. 4th Session of the Working Party on Ecosystems and Bycatch, Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, IOTC-2008-WPEB-06 18 p.

Kolody, D., P. Grewe, C. Davies and C. Proctor (2013) Are Indian Ocean tuna populations assessed and managed at the appropriate spatial scale? A brief review of the evidence and implications. IOTC Working Paper. IOTC-2013-WPTT15-13.

Kolody, D. P. Jumppanen, T. Carruthers, and A. Langley (2015). Indian Ocean Yellowfin and Bigeye Tuna Management Strategy Evaluation Development Framework – Draft Progress Update: Oct 2015. http://www.iotc.org/documents/iotc-Bigeye-and-Yellowfin-tuna-management-strategy-evaluation-mse-software-development

Langley A, Herrera M, Million J. (2012). DRAFT Stock assessment of Yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean using MULTIFAN-CL. IOTC-2012-WPTT-14-38.

Langley, A.; Herrera, M.; Sharma, R. (2013). Stock assessment of Bigeye tuna in the Indian Ocean for 2012. IOTC-2013-WPTT15-30.

Langley, A. (2015) IOTC–2015–WPTT17–30, Stock assessment of Yellowfin tuna in the Indian Ocean using Stock Synthesis. September 2015



Macfayden, G. T. Huntington and R. Cappell (2009). Abandoned. lost or otherwise discarded fishing gear. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 523. Available at http://www.unep.org/regionalseas/marinelitter/publications/docs/marine_litter_abandoned_lost_fishing_gear.pdf

Mootoosamy, L., Shiek Mamode, A., Sooklall, T., Curpen Mahadoo, M. (2015). [Mauritius] National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, 2015. Ministry of Ocean Economy, Marine Resources, Fisheries, Shipping and Outer Islands. IOTC–2015–SC18–NR18.

Moreno G, Dagorn L, Sancho G, et al. (2007a). Using local ecological knowledge (LEK) to provide insight on the tuna purse seine fleets of the Indian Ocean useful for management. Aquat Living Resour 20: 367–76.

Moreno G, Dagorn L, Sancho G, et al. (2007b). Fish behaviour from fishers’ knowledge: the case study of tropical tuna around drifting fish aggregating devices (DFADs). Can J Fish Aquat Sci 64: 1517–28.

Murua, H. R. Coelho, M. N. Santos, H. Arrizabalaga, K. Yokawa, E. Romanov, J. F. Zhu, Z. G. Kim, P. Bach, P. Chavance, A. Delgado de Molina, and J. Ruiz. (2012). Preliminary Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) for shark species caught in fisheries managed by the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission (IOTC).

Myers, R.A., Worm, B. (2003) Rapid worldwide depletion of predatory fish communities. Nature 423, 280-283.

Nel, R. R.M. Wanless, A. Angel, B. Mellet and L. Harris (2013) Ecological Risk Assessment and Productivity-Susceptibility Analysis of sea-turtles overlapping with fisheries in the IOTC region. IOTC-2013-WPEB09-23.

Nishida T, Rademeyer R, Ijima H, et al. (2012). Stock and risk assessment on Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) in the Indian Ocean by AD Model Builder implemented Age-Structured Production Model (ASPM) and Kobe I + II software – Preliminary results on the base case. IOTC-2012-WPTT14-40 Rev_1, 1-19.

Nishida, T. and Kitakado, T. (2015). Draft: Stock assessment of Yellowfin tuna (Thunnus

albacares)in the Indian Ocean by SCAA (Statistical-Catch-At-Age) (1950-2014).

Submitted to the IOTC 17th WPTT meeting. IOTC–2015–WPTT17–28.

Polovina, J.J., Abecassis, M., Howell, E.A. & Woodworth, P. (2009). Increases in the relative abundance of mid-trophic level fishes concurrent with declines in apex predators in the subtropical North Pacific, 1996-2006. Fish. Bull., 107: 523–531.

Rabearisoa N, Bach P, Tixier P, Guinet C (2012) Pelagic longline fishing trials to shape a mitigation device of the depredation by toothed whales. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology. 432-3:55¬–63.

Sharma, R. and M. Herrera (2014). Indian Ocean Skipjack Tuna Stock Assessment 1950- 2013 (Stock Synthesis). IOTC–2014–WPTT16–43 Rev_3.

Sherman, K. ed. (1998) Large marine ecosystems of the Indian Ocean: Assessment, Sustainability and Management. Blackwell Science Inc. Victoria, Australia.

Tomczak, Matthias & J Stuart Godfrey (2003). Regional Oceanography: an Introduction 2nd edn.

Torres-Irineo E., Gaertner D., de Molina A. D., Ariz J. (2011) Effects of time-area closure on tropical tuna purse-seine fleet dynamics through some fishery indicators. Aquatic Living Resources. 24:337-350.



AU-IBAR, 2016. Implementation of International Fisheries Instruments in Africa - A Case Study for East Africa, Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources report, 57p. from http://www.au-ibar.org/general-publications?showall=&start=1

COFREPECHE, MRAG, NFDS et POSEIDON, 2014. Évaluation rétrospective et prospective du protocole de l'accord de partenariat dans le secteur de la pêche entre l'Union européenne et la République de Madagascar. Contrat cadre MARE/2011/01 - Lot 3, contrat spécifique n° 10. Bruxelles, 175 p

COFREPECHE, NFDS, MRAG and POSEIDON, 2015. Ex post and ex ante evaluation of the protocol to the Fisheries Partnership Agreement between the EU and the Republic of Mauritius (Framework contract MARE/2011/01 – Lot 3, specific contract 16). Brussels, 141 p.

Ewell, C., S. Cullis-Suzuki, M. Ediger, J. Hocevar, D. Miller, and J. Jacquet. 2017. Potential ecological and social benefits of a moratorium on transhipment on the high seas. Marine Policy 81:293–300.

Fontenau, A. 2015. Indian Ocean albacore stock: review of its fishery, biological data and results of its 2014 stock assessment, IOTC–2016–WPTmT06–09, 32p.

Humber, F., M. Andriamahefazafy, B. J. Godley, and A. C. Broderick. 2015. Endangered, essential and exploited: How extant laws are not enough to protect marine megafauna in Madagascar. Marine Policy 60:70–83.

Liuxiong Xu, Jiangfeng Zhu, Xiaojie Dai, Feng Wu, Xiaoming Yang. 2016. [China] National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, 2016. IOTC-2016-SC19-NR03.

Medley P.A.H. and J. Gascoigne. 2017. An Evaluation of the Sustainability of Global Tuna Stocks Relative to Marine Stewardship Council Criteria (Version 5). ISSF Technical Report 2017-09. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA

Republic of China (Taiwan), 2013. National Action Plan of the Republic of China (Taiwan) to prevent, deter and eliminate illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing. Fisheries Agency, Council of Agriculture, March 2013, 50p. from https://www.fa.gov.tw/upload/456/2016040714524636661.pdf.

Ting, K. H., C. H. Ou, W. L. M. Policy, 2012. The management of the distant water tuna fishery in Taiwan. Elsevier 36(6):1234–1241.

Xu L., Xuefang Wang, Yong Chen, Feng Wu, Jiangfeng Zhu, Xiaoming Yang, 2017. [China] National Report to the Scientific Committee of the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission, 2016. IOTC-2017-SC20-NR02.



Appendices



Appendix 1 Pre-assessment scoring tables for P2 data deficient species

PSA for Dolphinfish taken by albacore longline fishery in the Indian Ocean as a Secondary Main Species at 2.2.1.