+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin ·...

Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin ·...

Date post: 12-Mar-2020
Category:
Upload: others
View: 16 times
Download: 4 times
Share this document with a friend
108
Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin Makaira indica, Makaira nigricans, Prionace glauca, Lampris guttatus, Isurus oxyrinchus, Kaijkia audax ©Diane Rome Peebles North, South and Western Central Pacific Ocean Drifting longline July 12, 2016 Alexia Morgan, Consulting Researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF2 ® ® ® 1
Transcript
Page 1: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah,

Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlinMakaira indica, Makaira nigricans, Prionace glauca, Lampris guttatus, Isurus oxyrinchus, Kaijkia audax

©Diane Rome Peebles

North, South and Western Central Pacific Ocean

Drifting longline

July 12, 2016

Alexia Morgan, Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports rev iewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology,fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific rev iew, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or itsrecommendations on the part of the rev iewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF2

®®

®

1

Page 2: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .53. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .83

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

2

Page 3: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

About Seafood WatchMonterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainableseafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase productionin the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makesits science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconservation issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommendation on the regional pocket guides is supported by a Seafood Report. Eachreport synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, thenevaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “BestChoices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. Inproducing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewedjournals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fisherymanagement plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. SeafoodWatch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, andmembers of industry and conservation organizations when evaluating fisheries and aquaculture practices.Capture fisheries and aquaculture practices are highly dynamic; as the scientific information on each specieschanges, Seafood Watch ’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updatedto reflect these changes.

Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems arewelcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch andSeafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

3

Page 4: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Guiding PrinciplesSeafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished or farmed, that canmaintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affectedecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wildcatchfisheries for consumers and businesses. These criteria are:

How does fishing affect the species under assessment?How does the fishing affect other, target and non-target species?How effective is the fishery’s management?How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and scoreGuidelines for integrating these factors to produce a numerical score and rating

Once a rating has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommendation. Criteria ratings andthe overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocketguide and online guide:

Best Choice/Green: Are well managed and caught in ways that cause little harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alternative/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how they’re caught.

Avoid/Red Take a pass on these for now. These items are overfished or caught in ways that harm othermarine life or the environment.

“Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates

1

1

4

Page 5: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SummaryBlack marlin (Makaira indica), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), striped marlin (Kaijkia audax), blue shark(Prionace glauca), shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and opah (Lampris guttatus) are caught by a varietyof pelagic longline fisheries operating in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), including the North andSouth Pacific regions.

There are several broadly defined categories of longline fisheries covered in this report. These fisheries maynot all directly target the species included in this report but may retain them upon capture. These fisheriesinclude: 1. South Pacific albacore fishery, which comprises domestic vessels from Pacific Island countries thatoperate in subtropical waters targeting albacore, and distant water vessels from Chinese-Taipei, China, andVanuatu that fish south of 20° S. 2. South Pacific distant water swordfish fishery, which mostly comprisesvessels from Spain. 3. Tropical offshore and distant water tuna fisheries; the offshore fishery includes vesselsfrom Chinese-Taipei and China that are based in the Pacific Island countries, and the distant water fleetcomprises vessels from Japan, Korean, Chinese-Taipei, China, and Vanuatu. 4. North Pacific distant wateralbacore and swordfish fisheries, made up of vessels from Japan, Chinese-Taipei, and Vanuatu. In addition tothese fisheries, there are a number of domestic longline fisheries operating in the sub-tropical and temperateareas of the WCPO (SPC 2014). We have included in this report the North and South Pacific pelagic longlinefisheries along with more tropical (WCPO in this report) pelagic longline fisheries.

Populations of striped marlin in the North Pacific Ocean are overfished and undergoing overfishing, but arehealthy in the Southwest Pacific region. Blue marlin populations are healthy throughout their range in the PacificOcean. Blue shark populations in the North Pacific are healthy but their status in the South Pacific is unknown.The statuses of striped and black marlin, opah, and shortfin mako shark are unknown. These fisheries interactwith a number of bycatch species including other sharks, sea turtles, and seabirds. These species are typicallyhighly susceptible to fishing pressure, and many have been negatively affected by this fishing pressure and arelisted as Endangered or Near Threatened by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN).

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) manages tuna and tuna-like species, includingbillfish and sharks, in the WCPO. There are few management measures in place for target species included inthis report, and no formally adopted reference points or harvest control rules are currently in place.

Management of bycatch species is also of concern because best-practice bycatch mitigation techniques are notalways required.

Pelagic longline gears typically have little to no contact with bottom habitats but do interact with ecologicallyimportant species, which could cause negative effects to the ecosystem.

5

Page 6: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Final Seafood Recommendations

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION 1:IMPACTS ONTHE SPECIES

CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Black marlinSouth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.788)

Blue marlinSouth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Green (3.831) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.962)

OpahSouth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Yellow (2.644) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.788)

Shortfin makosharkSouth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Red (1.414) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.529)

Black marlinNorth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Yellow (2.644) Crit ical (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

Blue marlinNorth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Green (3.831) Crit ical (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

OpahNorth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Yellow (2.644) Crit ical (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

Shortfin makosharkNorth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Red (1.414) Crit ical (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

Striped marlinNorth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Red (1.414) Crit ical (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

Striped marlinSouth Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Green (3.318) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (1.893)

Striped marlinWestern andCentral Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Red (1.410) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.870) Avoid (1.528)

6

Page 7: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Summary

Large pelagic species caught in the Western and Central Pacific longline fishery (blue marlin, black marlin,striped marlin, shortfin mako shark, and opah) have an overall recommendation of “Avoid.”

Scoring Guide

Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingoperations have no significant impact.

Final Score = geometric mean of the four Scores (Criterion 1, Criterion 2, Criterion 3, Criterion 4).

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch

Shortfin makosharkWestern andCentral Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Red (1.410) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.870) Avoid (1.528)

Blueshark:SouthernstockWestern andCentral Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Red (1.410) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.870) Avoid (1.528)

Blueshark:NorthernstockWestern andCentral Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Green (3.830) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.870) Avoid (1.962)

OpahWestern andCentral Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Yellow (2.640) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.870) Avoid (1.787)

Black marlinWestern andCentral Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Yellow (2.640) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.870) Avoid (1.787)

Blue marlinWestern andCentral Pacific,Drift ing longlines

Green (3.830) Red (1.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.870) Avoid (1.962)

2

7

Page 8: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern , and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

Because effect ive management is an essent ial component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoidrecommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

2

2

8

Page 9: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

Black marlin (Makaira indica), blue marlin (Makaira nigricans), striped marlin (Kaijkia audax), blue shark(Prionace glauca), shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and opah (Lampris guttatus) are caught by a varietyof pelagic longline fisheries operating in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), including the North andSouth Pacific regions.

Species Overview

Black marlin is found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. It is found in surfacewaters and often close to land. Black marlin is highly migratory and an apex predator, feeding on fish, squid,octopods, and other prey (Froese and Pauly 2013).

Blue marlin is a circumglobal species found in tropical and semitropical waters. It is a highly migratory speciesand apex predator that feeds on small tuna and squids, among other prey. There is believed to be a singlepopulation of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean (BWG 2013).

Striped marlin is the most abundant and widely distributed Istiophorid billfish species. It is an epipelagic speciesfound across the 85° latitude in the Pacific Ocean, with the largest abundance found in the Eastern and NorthCentral Pacific Ocean. Striped marlin is an apex predator, feeding on fish, squid, and other prey (Davies et al.2012) (ISCBWG 2015).

Blue sharks is a highly migratory species of shark found throughout the world’s oceans in epipelagic andmesopelagic waters. It is considered the most widely distributed shark species and most abundant, withabundance increasing with latitude. Blue shark is an apex predator, consuming a variety of fish and squidspecies (Rice et al. 2013).

Shortfin mako shark is a highly migratory species of shark found in coastal and oceanic epipelagic watersworldwide. Shortfin mako shark is found from 20° S to 40° N in the Pacific Ocean. This species is an apexpredator, feeding on fish and cephalopods, among other prey (Froese and Pauly 2015).

Opah is found worldwide in bathypelagic tropical and temperate waters. It is most commonly found in watersfrom 100 m to 500 m in depth. Opah is a top predator, feeding on fish and squid among other prey (Froese andPauly 2015).

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is in charge of management of these species.

Production Statistics

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission reported that during 2014, 15,756 t of blue marlin, 1,872t of black marlin, and 3,165 t of striped marlin were caught by longline vessels operating in the Western andCentral Pacific Ocean (WCPO). Blue marlin longline catches have declined since peaks during the early to mid-2000s. Black marlin longline catches have been variable over time, and in recent years have been lower thanpeak catches attained during the early to mid-2000s (peaks also occurred during the 1970s).

Striped marlin longline catches have also been variable over time. Peak catches occurred during the 1960s andagain during 1993. In recent years, catches have been low compared to catches from the 1990s and 2000s(WCPFC 2015).

9

Page 10: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

The WCPFC collects catch data on some shark species, including blue and mako sharks. There is underreportingof shark catches, so the values reported may not be accurate. In the North Pacific, catches of blue sharkspeaked between 1976 and 1989 (113,000 t in 1981). Catches have since declined but remained fairly steady forthe past 10 years, averaging about 46,000 t annually. The majority of blue sharks are caught by longlines(ISCSWG 2014). Information on shortfin mako catches is more limited in the region.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 191 t of shortfin mako shark were caught in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean during 2013, 451 t during 2012, and 1,460 t during 2011 (FAO 2015).Member countries of the WCPFC reported around 3,700 t of shortfin mako sharks caught during 2013, but thesedata are considered very uncertain (WCPFC 2014c).

Importance to the US/North American market.

Species-specific information on import and exports of sharks is not available through the National MarineFisheries Service (NMFS). During 2014, imports of fresh shark primarily came from Mexico, with smalleramounts imported from Canada, China, Costa Rica, and Spain. Shark fins were imported from New Zealand andChina (NMFS 2015). Information on import and exports of other species included in this report is not availablethrough the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Common and market names.

Blue, black, and striped marlin are also known as “marlin.” Opah has no other common names associated withit. Blue shark is also known as “shark” and shortfin mako shark as “mako.”

Primary product forms

Black, blue and striped marlin, blue and shortfin mako sharks, and opah are sold in fresh and frozen forms.

10

Page 11: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

AssessmentThis section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessmentThis criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherentvulnerability to fishing rating influences how abundance is scored, when abundance is unknown.

The final Criterion 1 score is determined by taking the geometric mean of the abundance and fishing mortalityscores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical

Criterion 1 Summary

BLACK MARLIN

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

South Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow (2.64)

North Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow (2.64)

Western and CentralPacific Drifting longlines

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow (2.64)

BLUE MARLIN

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

South Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83)

North Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83)

Western and CentralPacific Drifting longlines

2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83)

11

Page 12: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BLUE SHARK / NORTHERN STOCK

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Western and CentralPacific Drifting longlines

1.00: High 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.83)

BLUE SHARK / SOUTHERN STOCK

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Western and CentralPacific Drifting longlines

1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.41)

OPAH

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

South Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow (2.64)

North Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow (2.64)

Western and CentralPacific Drifting longlines

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow (2.64)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

South Pacific Driftinglonglines

1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.41)

North Pacific Driftinglonglines

1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.41)

Western and CentralPacific Drifting longlines

1.00: High 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.41)

STRIPED MARLIN

Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

North Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.41)

South Pacific Driftinglonglines

2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

3.67: Low Concern Green (3.32)

12

Page 13: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

The populations of blue marlin and blue sharks are healthy and fishing mortality rates are sustainable in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean. The statuses of opah and black marlin are unknown. Although noassessment has been conducted on shortfin mako shark in the Pacific, there is concern over its status due to itshigh susceptibility to fishing pressure. Striped marlin in the North Pacific is overfished and undergoingoverfishing; however, in the South Pacific, fishing pressure appears to be much less.

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics thatmake it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life historycharacteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age atsexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middleof food chain).High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristicsthat make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), lowreproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator). Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index ofthe inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, ageat first maturity, longevity, growth rate, natural mortality rate, fecundity, spatial behaviors (e.g., schooling,aggregating for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduction) andgeographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern)—Strong evidence exists that the population is above target abundance level (e.g.,biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.4 (Low Concern)—Population may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherentvulnerability to fishing.2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknownand the species has a high inherent vulnerability to fishing.1 (Very High Concern)—Population is listed as threatened or endangered.

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishingmortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to themortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, butsome uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its

Western and CentralPacific Drifting longlines

2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern 1.00: High Concern Red (1.41)

13

Page 14: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy andthe species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted,reasonable management is in place.1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishingmortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

BLACK MARLIN

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 44 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Black marlinreaches a maximum length of 465 cm but its maximum age is unknown. Black marlin reaches sexual maturityat 140 cm for males and 230 cm for females. Information on the age at sexual maturity is unknown. It is abroadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015) (Collette et al. 2011a). These lifehistory characteristics also suggest a moderate vulnerability to fishing.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

No assessment for black marlin has been conducted in the Pacific Ocean. The International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified this species as Data Deficient with an unknown population trend(Collette et al. 2011). We have awarded a “moderate” score because it has an unknown stock status and isnot considered to have high inherent vulnerability.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

Although no stock assessment has been conducted for black marlin in the Pacific Ocean, there is informationon catches and discard rates from observer programs operating in some regions. The International Union forConservation of Nature (IUCN) notes that this species could be threatened by capture in longline fisheries, butfishing mortality rates in the Pacific are not available (Collette et al. 2011a). Reported catches of black marlin in longline fisheries operating in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) ranged from 1,296 t to 2,289t between 2000 and 2011 (OFP 2012). These catches of black marlin represented between 4% and 7% of the

14

Page 15: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BLUE MARLIN

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

total catch in the WCPO longline fisheries during this period (OFP 2012). In the South Pacific albacore fishery,45% of black marlin were discarded between 1992 and 2009, and of these, 60% were dead. Discard rates ofblack marlin in the tropical longline fishery, which targets tropical tuna species (bigeye, skipjack, andyellowfin) ranged from 0% to 6%, with a mortality rate of 35%–73% (OFP 2010). We have awarded a“moderate” concern score because fishing mortality rates are unknown and the species su�ers high discardmortality rates.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate to high score of 52 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Blue marlin reachessexual maturity between 179 cm and 234 cm and around 5 years of age. Blue marlin reaches a maximum sizeof 400 cm and lives up to 15 years. Blue marlin is a broadcast spawner and top predator (BWG 2013). Theselife history characteristics suggest a moderate vulnerability to fishing according to the Seafood Watchproductivity and susceptibility table (PSA = 1.83).

Justification:

Life history characteristic Paramater Score

Age at maturity <5 years 3Average size at maturity >200 cm 1Average maximum size >300 cm 1Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

There is one population of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean and the most recent population assessment wascompleted in 2013. Despite long-term declines in the total biomass of the population, the population has beenincreasing from the maximum sustainable levels (MSY) since the mid-2000s and the spawning stock biomassis estimated to be 29% above maximum sustainable yield levels. The population is not considered overfished(BWG 2013). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score to account for the long-termdeclines and uncertainty associated with the assessment.

15

Page 16: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BLUE SHARK / NORTHERN STOCK

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

The last assessment for blue marlin in the Pacific, a single population, was conducted in 2013. Fishingmortality rates (F = 0.26) estimated in this assessment are currently below the levels needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield (F = 0.32). Based on these results, blue marlin is currently not subject tooverfishing (BWG 2013). There is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these results, so we haveawarded a “low” concern instead of very low concern score.

MSY

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Blue sharkreaches sexual maturity between 4 and 7 years and between 170 cm and 190 cm in size. Blue shark lives upto 16 years and can attain a maximum size of about 380 cm. Blue shark is a top predator and gives birth tolive young (ISCSWG 2014). These life history characteristics also suggest a high inherent vulnerability tofishing pressure.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

There are two populations of blue shark in the Pacific: North and South Pacific. An updated assessment ofblue sharks in the North Pacific (a single population) was completed during 2014. Two di�erent models wereused in the assessment. The base case results of the two models indicated that the population (biomass (B)and spawning stock biomass (SSB)) is not overfished (B /B = 1.65 and SSB /SSB = 1.621), andthat the population will remain above the level necessary to maintain the maximum sustainable yield (B ) inthe future (ISCSWG 2014). But evidence including declines in median size and catch rates suggest declines inabundance of blue shark in recent years (Clarke 2011), and there is uncertainty in the assessment of blueshark. We have therefore awarded a “low” concern rather than very low concern score.

2011 MSY 2011 MSY

MSY

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

Blue shark is widely distributed throughout the North Pacific (a single population) and it dominates sharkcatches in that region. According to the 2014 updated assessment, the fishing mortality rate estimated in 2011(F ) was around 34% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F ) (ISCSWG 2014).Therefore overfishing is not occurring. But there is uncertainty surrounding these results, and previousassessments have indicated some issues with the data (e.g., unreported and underreported catch and e�ortdata along with size information). We have therefore awarded a “low” concern instead of very low concern

2011 MSY

16

Page 17: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BLUE SHARK / SOUTHERN STOCK

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

OPAH

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Blue sharkreaches sexual maturity between 4 and 7 years and between 170 cm and 190 cm in size. Blue shark lives upto 16 years and can attain a maximum size of about 380 cm. Blue shark is a top predator and gives birth tolive young (ISCSWG 2014). These life history characteristics also suggest a high inherent vulnerability tofishing pressure.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

No assessment for blue shark has been conducted in the South Pacific region of the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO) (WCPFC 2013h). Based on tagging data, di�erences in abundance, and evidence ofpregnant females in high latitudes in both the North and South Pacific Ocean, this is likely a separatepopulation from that in the North Pacific (Kleiber et al. 2009). Some trends in catch rates for various fisherieshave been analyzed. In the South Pacific, catch rates declined until 2003 and have since increased to mid-1990s levels. There has been no trend in the size or sex of blue shark in any part of the WCPO over time(Walsh and Clarke 2011) (Clarke 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)considers blue shark to be Near Threatened globally (Stevens 2009). We have awarded a “high” concernscore because no assessment has been conducted, combined with the fact they have a high vulnerabilityscore.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

Blue shark is widely distributed throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including in the SouthPacific region. No stock assessments have been conducted on this species in the South Pacific region (Kleiberet al. 2009). Some information on catch levels is available. The estimated average annual longline catchbetween 1992 and 2009 was 1,611 t (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011), and from 1992 to 2009, blue shark madeup 10% of the total bycatch in the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery (OFP 2010). During this period,30% of blue sharks were observed discarded in this fishery, and of those, only 7% were dead (OFP 2010). Wehave awarded a “high” concern score because it is highly susceptible to longline capture and there are nomanagement measures in place.

17

Page 18: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

Recent research suggests that two species of opah may be present in the Pacific: Lineages 3 and 5 (Hyde etal. 2014). Around 90% of the Hawaiian catch is made up of Lineage 3 (Hyde et al. 2014). FishBase assigned avery high vulnerability of 82 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Opah reaches a maximum length of 200 cmand lives at least 11 years (Froese and Kesner-Reyes 2002). There is no information on its age at maturity. Itis a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015). These life history characteristics suggest amoderate level of vulnerability (PSA score = 2). Based on the PSA score, widespread distribution of thisspecies, and because it is not targeted in many fisheries, we have adjusted the score to a “moderate”concern.

Justification:

Life history trait Paramater Score

/verage Maximum size 100-300 years 2Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

The status of opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. We have awarded a “moderate”score because of this and its moderate inherent vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opah caught by longliners in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean, primarily around Australia and New Zealand, representing 9.3% of the “other fish” catch.“Other fish” represented 7.6% of the total catch (Lawson 2001). From 1992 to 2009, 23% of opah caught inthe South Pacific longline fishery were discarded, and of these, 25% were dead (OFP 2010). We haveawarded a “moderate” concern score due to a lack of information.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Some

18

Page 19: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

information on catches and discards is available through observer programs. For example, from 1992 to 2009,3% of opah caught in longline fisheries operating north of 10° N were discarded, and of these, 35% weredead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because the status of the population isunknown.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opah caught by longliners in this region, representing9.3% of the “other fish” catch (Lawson 2001). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because thestatus of the population is unknown.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Shortfin mako sharkreaches sexual maturity between 180 cm and 300 cm in size and reproduces every 2 to 3 years. Themaximum size attained by shortfin mako shark is around 325–375 cm in size and 25–40 years of age. Shortfinmako shark is a top predator and gives birth to live young (Froese and Pauly 2015).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

No population assessment of shortfin mako shark in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central PacificOcean has been conducted. The center of abundance for this species appears to be northwest of New Zealand(Lawson 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has assessed this species globally asVulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). We have awarded a “high” concern score because the population status isunknown and because of its high vulnerability score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

There has been some question about the stock structure of shortfin mako shark in the Pacific Ocean.Currently, the consensus is that there is a single population in the North Pacific (PIFSC 2014). A stock-wideassessment was attempted in 2015; previously, an assessment of shortfin mako shark was conducted in theNorthwest Pacific in 2009. The 2015 assessment used four indicators (proportion of positive sets, abundance,sex ratio, and size components) to determine the status of shortfin mako shark. Trends for the proportion ofpositive sets varied by fishery, as did the abundance indices. The Japanese abundance indices, which wereconsidered the best, showed a flat trend through 2004, followed by a sharp increase through 2013. The

19

Page 20: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

Hawaii shallow-set and deep-set abundance indices showed contrasting trends. No trends in sex ratio wereevident, but the size composition appeared to remain stable across fleets. Stock status could not bedetermined due to an overall lack of data (ISC 2015). The International Union for the Conservation of Naturehas assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). We have awarded a “high” concernscore because the status is unknown and shortfin mako shark has a high inherent vulnerability score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

There has been some question about the stock structure of shortfin mako shark in the Pacific Ocean.Currently, the consensus is that there is a single population in the North Pacific (PIFSC 2014). A stock-wideassessment was attempted in 2015; previously, an assessment of shortfin mako shark was conducted in theNorthwest Pacific in 2009. The 2015 assessment used four indicators (proportion of positive sets, abundance,sex ratio, and size components) to determine the status of shortfin mako shark. Trends for the proportion ofpositive sets varied by fishery, as did the abundance indices. The Japanese abundance indices, which wereconsidered the best, showed a flat trend through 2004, followed by a sharp increase through 2013. TheHawaii shallow-set and deep-set abundance indices showed contrasting trends. No trends in sex ratio wereevident, but the size composition appeared to remain stable across fleets. Stock status could not bedetermined due to an overall lack of data (ISC 2015). The International Union for the Conservation of Naturehas assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). No population assessment for shortfinmako shark in the South Pacific has been conducted. We have awarded a “high” concern score because thestock status of North Pacific shortfin mako shark is unknown and the South Pacific population is not assessed.In addition, shortfin mako shark has a high vulnerability score and is listed as vulnerable by the IUCN.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

No assessment of shortfin mako shark has been conducted in the South Pacific region; however, someinformation on catch and discard rates is available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of makoshark were observed caught in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean longline fisheries, representing 2.2% ofthe total catch. During this period, 26% of shortfin mako sharks were discarded, and of these, 24% were dead(OFP 2010). We have awarded a “high” concern score because information on fishing mortality rates in theSouth Pacific is not available, the population is depleted and susceptible to longline gear, and no managementis in place to protect the species.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The 2015 assessment was unable to calculate fishing mortality rates due to a lack of data (ISC 2015). Theprevious 2009 assessment of shortfin mako shark conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishingmortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Estimated average annual longline catchesbetween 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch estimates have declined by 50% over the past decade. Aseparate analysis, not an assessment, indicated no evidence for the impact of fishing on shortfin mako sharkin the North Pacific (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011). There is some indication that shortfin mako shark has highpost-release survivorship rates (French et al. 2015). There are no management measures in place and fishingmortality rates are unknown, so we have awarded a “high” concern score.

20

Page 21: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

STRIPED MARLIN

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The 2009 assessment of shortfin mako shark conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishingmortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Estimated average annual longline catchesbetween 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch estimates have declined by 50% over the past decade. Aseparate analysis, not a stock assessment, indicated that there is no evidence for the impact of fishing onshortfin mako shark in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011). No assessment of shortfin mako sharkhas been conducted in the South Pacific region; however, some information on catch and discard ratesis available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of mako sharks were observed caught in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean longline fisheries, representing 2.2% of the total catch. During this period,26% of shortfin mako sharks were discarded, and of these, 24% were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a“high” concern score because information on fishing mortality rates in the South Pacific is not available, thepopulation is depleted and susceptible to longline gear, and no management is in place to protect the species.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 56 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2015). Sexual maturity isreached between 140 cm and 180 cm and around 2 years of age. It can attain a maximum size of 300 cm andlive 10–12 years (ISC 2014). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2015). Stripedmarlin’s aggregation behavior in surface waters makes it susceptible to capture in some fisheries. But its lifehistory characteristics are more indicative of a moderate vulnerability to fishing, according to the SeafoodWatch productivity and susceptibility table (PSA = 2), so we have adjusted the score.

Justification:

Life history trait Paramater Score

Average size at sexual maturity 40-200 2Average Maximum size 100-300 years 2Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

Striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean was assessed in 2015. The results of this modelshow a long-term decline in biomass with the population in 2013 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass.There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to maximum sustainable yield (MSY)-basedreference points, the spawning biomass in 2013 was 61% below that needed to attain MSY. Therefore stripedmarlin is overfished (ISCBWG 2015), so we have awarded a “high” concern score.

21

Page 22: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

The most recent population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half of theirvirgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smallersince. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) after 1970, although biomasshas increased since 2004. There was a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the biomass estimates,primarily during the 1970s and 1980s. Two biomass-based reference points are used to determine the statusof the population: Bcurrent/B = 0.96 (0.37–1.96) and SB /SB = 1.09 (0.32–2.89). There is a 50%probability that SBcurrent is less than SB , and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ratio less than 1,suggesting that striped marlin is approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012). We have awarded a“moderate” concern score because of uncertainty in its population status.

MSY current MSY

MSY

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The most recent population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half of theirvirgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smallersince. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) after 1970, although biomasshas increased since 2004. There was a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the biomass estimates,primarily during the 1970s and 1980s. Two biomass-based reference points are used to determine the statusof the population: Bcurrent/BMSY = 0.96 (0.37–1.96) and SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.09 (0.32–2.89). There is a50% probability that SBcurrent is less than SBMSY, and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ratio less than 1,suggesting that striped marlin is approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012). Striped marlin in theWestern and Central North Pacific Ocean was assessed in 2011. The results of this assessment show a long-term decline in biomass, with the population in 2010 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass. There are notarget or limit reference points, but compared to maximum sustainable yield (MSY)-based reference points,the spawning biomass in 2010 was 65% below that needed to attain MSY. Therefore striped marlin isoverfished (ISCBWG 2015). We have awarded a “high” concern score due to the population status in the NorthPacific.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

There has been a long-term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North PacificOcean. Since the 1990s, longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in thisregion. Fishing mortality rates are high: F = 0.94 from 2010–2012, about 49% above the levels needed toproduce the maximum sustainable yield (F ). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than F for most ofthe time series (1975–2013). There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to MSY-basedreference points, overfishing is occurring (ISCBWG 2015). We have awarded a “high” concern score.

MSY MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

22

Page 23: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Low Concern

A population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The entirelongline fleet has substantially affected the population size of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean.Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 MT), but catchesappear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The fishing mortality-basedreference point F /F = 0.58 (0.08–2.53), so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012). We haveawarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score to account for uncertainties in the model.

current MSY

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

There has been a long-term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North PacificOcean. Since the 1990s, longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in thisregion. Fishing mortality rates are high: F = 0.76 from 2007–2009, about 24% above the levels needed toproduce the maximum sustainable yield (F ). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than F for most ofthe time series (1975–2010). There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to MSY-basedreference points, overfishing is occurring (ISCBWG 2015).

A population assessment of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The entirelongline fleet has substantially a�ected the population size of striped marlin in the Southwest Pacific Ocean.Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 MT), but catchesappear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The fishing mortality-basedreference point F /F = 0.58 (0.08–2.53), so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012).

We have awarded a “high” concern score based high fishing mortality rates in the North Pacific.

MSY MSY

current MSY

23

Page 24: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Criterion 2: Impacts on other speciesAll main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species underassessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality orinjury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened speciescatch, and ghost fishing.

To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multipliedby the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) andbait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Crtitical

Criterion 2 Summary

Only the lowest scoring main species is/are listed in the table and text in this Criterion 2 section; a full list andassessment of the main species can be found in Appendix A.

®

BLACK MARLIN - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

24

Page 25: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

BLACK MARLIN - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.526)

Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

25

Page 26: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

BLACK MARLIN - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

26

Page 27: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Blue shark / Southernstock

1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.530)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.160)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Blue shark / Northernstock

1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

BLUE MARLIN - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

27

Page 28: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

BLUE MARLIN - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

28

Page 29: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.526)

Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

BLUE MARLIN - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

29

Page 30: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Blue shark / Southernstock

1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.530)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.160)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Blue shark / Northernstock

1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

BLUE SHARK / NORTHERN STOCK - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

30

Page 31: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Blue shark / Southernstock

1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.530)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.160)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

BLUE SHARK / SOUTHERN STOCK - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

31

Page 32: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.530)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.160)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Blue shark / Northernstock

1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

OPAH - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

32

Page 33: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

OPAH - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

33

Page 34: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.526)

Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

34

Page 35: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

OPAH - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Blue shark / Southernstock

1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.530)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.160)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Blue shark / Northernstock

1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000

35

Page 36: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

36

Page 37: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.526)

Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

3.67:Low Concern Green(3.318)

37

Page 38: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Striped marlin 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Blue shark / Southernstock

1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.530)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.160)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Blue shark / Northernstock

1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

38

Page 39: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

STRIPED MARLIN - NORTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 0.95 C2 Rate: 0.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Pacific bluefin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

black-footed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

laysan albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

39

Page 40: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

STRIPED MARLIN - SOUTH PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.526)

Southern bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

grey petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Salvin's albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.159)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

40

Page 41: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

light-mantled albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

flesh-footed shearwater 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Swordfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(3.053)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

Albacore 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(4.472)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

STRIPED MARLIN - WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

Whitetip shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Silky shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Blue shark / Southernstock

1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Bigeye tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.410)

Green sea turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(1.530)

41

Page 42: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

In the North Pacific longline fishery that operates in the Western and Central Pacific region, information onbycatch is limited due to low observer coverage (0.1%) in most fisheries, although some fisheries havesubstantially higher coverage rates. Tunas, billfish, other fish, sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marinemammals have been reported (OFP 2010). According to observer records north of 10° N, the majority of tunaspecies are kept, although skipjack tuna had a discard rate of 35% between 1994 and 2009. Swordfish is themost commonly discarded billfish species (44%), while blue and black marlin are primarily retained. Discardrates for sharks in the North Pacific are very high for the majority of species (ODP 2010). Laysan and black-footed albatross are incidentally captured in the North Pacific region, where they have a high breeding and non-breeding overlap (Clarke et al. 2013) (ACP 2008). The area of most concern for seabird interactions in thisregion is between 20° and 40° N. Information on bycatch of sea turtles in the North Pacific longline fishery islimited (Work and Balazs 2002). The majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheriesoutside of the North Pacific region (Molony 2005). The worst scoring species in this fishery include Pacific bluefintuna, as well as leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) because of their low population sizes and highfishing mortality rates.

In the South Pacific, information on bycatch interactions is available through observer programs, primarily thoseof Australia and New Zealand, along with MSC assessments for several fisheries (e.g., Fiji and Cook Islands).Seabird interactions with pelagic longline gear are mostly recorded in Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) waters inthe South Pacific around New Zealand and Australia between 20° S and 50° S (Clarke et al. 2013) (Baker andWise 2005) (Baker and Finley 2008) (Anderson et al. 2011). It was noted that observers had a di�cult timeidentifying birds to the species level, so estimates may underreport interactions (Molony 2005). In the WCPO,the majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries that occur west of 180°, andinteraction rates are considered much less than in other ocean basins (Clarke et al. 2014). Marine mammalinteractions and associated mortality rates with the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery are reported tobe very low (Molony 2005). The worst scoring species in this fishery are loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles(1.00) due to their low population sizes and high mortality rates.

In the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) longline fishery, tunas, billfish, other fish, sharks, seabirds, sea

Olive ridley turtle 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red(2.160)

Opah 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Black marlin 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.640)

Blue shark / Northernstock

1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Blue marlin 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.830)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 5.00:Very LowConcern

5.00:Very LowConcern

Green(5.000)

42

Page 43: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

turtles, and marine mammals are caught as bycatch. Discard rates of these species vary from only 5% for tunasto 96% for sea turtles (OFP 2010) (OFP 2012a). Common shark species include blue, shortfin mako, silky, andoceanic whitetip sharks. Blue sharks represented 19.5%, silky shark 3.5%, mako shark 2.2%, and oceanicwhitetip shark 1.4% of the total observed catch between 1994 and 2009 (OFP 2010). Sharks in this region areprimarily affected by longline fisheries and are considered priority species (Rice and Harley 2012a). Some sharkspecies, such as blue and shortfin mako, may be retained and are therefore covered in this report. Anecological risk assessment of seabirds in the WCPO indicated that populations of 10 species (combined) of largeand small albatross and petrels were most likely to be affected by bycatch in this region, primarily in thenorthern and southern regions (separated in this report) (Waugh et al. 2012). The majority of sea turtles areobserved caught in the tropical longline fisheries that occur west of 180°, with the highest catch rates occurringin the tropical shallow longline fishery. The majority of these are released alive, compared to the tropical deep-water longline fishery, where most turtles are returned dead (Molony 2005). Overall, between 4,000 and 15,000turtles (all species) are estimated to have been caught annually by these longline fisheries. Mortality rates forsea turtles are low (less than 26% in all years), and total annual mortalities for all turtle species ranged from500 to 3,000 between 1980 and 2004 (Molony 2005). Marine mammal catch rates are very low, although ingeneral the tropical shallow longline fishery has the highest catch rates. Observer records from 1980 to 2004indicated many years where no marine mammal interactions with longline fisheries occurred. But whenobserver estimates were extrapolated out to the entire fishery (not just the proportion observed), up to 2,200marine mammal interactions were estimated to occur per year. Between 2000 and 2004, both catch andmortality rates of marine mammals declined. In general, less than 200 marine mammal mortalities wereestimated to occur between 2000 and 2004 (Molony 2005) (Molony 2007). The worst scoring species in thisfishery are hawksbill, leatherback, and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) due to their low population size and highfishing mortality rates.

North Pacific

Species Justification Source

Oceanic Whitetip shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b

Bigeye tuna Target species

Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a

Pacific bluefin tuna

Overfished ISCPBWG 2014

Swordfish Target species

Albacore Target species

Yellowfin tuna Target species

Leatherback sea turtle IUCN listing Critically Endangered; ESA listing, CITESAppendix I

Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012

Loggerhead sea turtle IUCN listing Endangered; ESA listing MTSG 2006; NMFS 2012

Black-footed albatross Longline fisheries may threaten population, IUCN statusrecently updated from Endangered to Vulnerable

Birdlife International 2012b

43

Page 44: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Laysan albatross IUCN listing Near Threatened Birdlife International 2012f

South Pacific

Species Justification Source

Oceanic whitetip shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b

Bigeye tuna Target

silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a

Swordfish Target

Albacore Target

Yellowfin Target

Swordfish Target

Leatherback sea turtle IUCN listing Critically Endangered; ESA listing,CITES Appendix I

Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012

Loggerhead sea turtle IUCN listing Endangered MTSG 2006

Black-browed albatross(only S pacific ocean)

IUCN Endangered and observed in fishery Birdlife International 2012a, Molony2005

Grey petrel IUCN listing Near Threatened Birdlife International 2012d

Flesh-footed shearwater High interaction rates and discard rates Mollony 2005; OFP 2010

Light manteled albatross IUCN listing Near Threatened Birdlife International 2012s

Salvin's albatross Common in New Zealand longline fisheries Birdlife International 2012h

Wandering albatross IUCN listing Vulnerable and decreasing; largeforaging range

Birdlife International 2012l

White-chinned petrel IUCN listing Vulnerable and decreaseing Birdlife International 2012o

44

Page 45: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Criterion 2 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.2 above)

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality(same as Factor 1.3 above)

LEATHERBACK TURTLE

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

WCPO

Species Justification Source

Oceanic whitetip shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b

Bigeye tuna Target

Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a

Swordfish Target

Yellowfin tuna Target

Green sea turtle IUCN listing Endangered; CITES Appendix I Semioff 2004

Hawksbill sea turtle IUCN listing Critically Endangered; CITES Appendix I Mortimer and Donnelly 2008

Leatherback sea turtle IUCN listing Critically Endangered; ESA listing, CITESAppendix I

Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012

Olive ridley sea turtle IUCN Vulnerabile; ESA listing Abreu-grobois and Plotkin 2008; NMFS 2012

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life historycharacteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a lowreproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

45

Page 46: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very High Concern

Leatherback sea turtle has been listed as Endangered by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970(NMFS 2012). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtle asCritically Endangered with a decreasing population trend in 2000 (Martinez 2000). Wallace et al. (2013)identified leatherback in the Western Pacific to be at a high risk. Leatherback turtle has been listed on theConvention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and is currently listed on CITESAppendix I, meaning that it is threatened with extinction and that international trade is prohibited. Over thepast 25 years, the population of leatherback in the Pacific Ocean has decreased significantly (Spotila et al.1996). Recent estimates from the Eastern and Western Central Pacific Ocean suggest a population size of294,068 turtles, and out of these, 6,199 are adults (Jones et al. 2012). We have awarded a “very high”concern score based on the ESA, IUCN, and CITES listings.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtles, especially for juveniles and adults thatcan be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migration routes (Martinez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996)(Roe et al. 2014). The available data in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean are spotty, due to low reportingby some nations and low observer coverage. In addition, due to this low reporting, there is a high amount ofuncertainty surrounding current estimates (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2013). Interactionswith leatherback are typically higher in sub-tropical and temperate areas (Williams et al. 2013). For example,a recent study indicated that nesting leatherback turtles have a high risk of bycatch in several areas within theNorth and Central Pacific Ocean (Roe et al. 2014). Other research has estimated that leatherback turtlessu�er a 12% annual mortality rate from pelagic longline fisheries in the WCPO, and based on theseestimates, bycatch mortality in longline fisheries (along with other factors such as coastal mortality) should bereduced to avoid extinction (Kaplan 2005). Other estimates suggest that 20,000 leatherback turtles werecaught in longlines throughout the entire Pacific Ocean during 2000, with 1,000 to 3,200 of these being killedas a result. These results also suggest that continued bycatch in longline fisheries will havemajor consequences for leatherback turtles in the Pacific Ocean and that the mortality threshold for thisspecies in the Pacific may have been exceeded (Lewison et al. 2004). Other analyses have suggested thatleatherback turtle has a high population risk but low bycatch threat throughout the Western Pacific Ocean(Wallace et al. 2013). Some fleets within the WCPO have adopted management measures to aid in reducingthe incidental capture of sea turtles, but others have not complied with mandated bycatch mitigation methods(Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a “high” concern score because the population is depleted, bycatchmortality appears to be a factor in this depletion, and management measures may not be currently e�ective.

46

Page 47: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

LOGGERHEAD TURTLE

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

47

Page 48: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life historycharacteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a lowreproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in 1996,although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Wallace et al. (2013) determinedthat loggerhead is at a high risk in the North and South Pacific Ocean. Loggerhead is listed on Appendix I ofthe Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In the North Pacific Ocean, loggerheadhas been listed as Endangered on the U.S. Endangered Species Act since 1978 (NMFS 2012). We havetherefore awarded a “very high” concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles is considered a primary threat to their populations (MTSG 2006).But data related to incidental captures are scarce, due to low reporting by some countries and low observercoverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some estimates from the entirePacific Ocean suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout the PacificOcean during 2000, and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture. Based on theseestimates, it is possible that its mortality threshold has been exceeded in this region (Lewison et al. 2004).Loggerhead catch rates tend to increase in sub-tropical regions (Williams et al. 2013).

A meta-data analysis ranked loggerhead turtle caught by longline in the South Pacific Ocean as a high risk andhigh bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). Other studies have also suggested that loggerhead populations inthe South Pacific are at the greatest risk to interactions with longline fisheries (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatchmitigation methods have been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but thee�ectiveness and use of these techniques is unknown. We have therefore awarded a “high” concern score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle has historically been considered a primary threat to its populations(MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are susceptible to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially byshallow-set longline fisheries targeting swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). But data related to incidentalcaptures are typically scarce, due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%)(Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some estimates, based on extrapolation from data sets

48

Page 49: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

from the entire Pacific Ocean, suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally capturedthroughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000, and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture.Based on these estimates, it is possible that its mortality threshold was exceeded in this region (Lewison et al.2004). Other studies from the North Pacific Ocean suggest that there is a low impact from bycatch but a highrisk to the population (Wallace et al. 2013) (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods are mandated bythe Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their e�ectiveness is unknown and there areissues with compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a “high”concern score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle has historically been considered a primary threat to its populations(MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are susceptible to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially byshallow-set longline fisheries targeting swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). But data related to incidentalcaptures are typically scarce, due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%)(Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some estimates, based on extrapolation from data setsfrom the entire Pacific Ocean, suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally capturedthroughout the Pacific Ocean during 2000, and of these, 2,600 to 6,000 were killed by this incidental capture.Based on these estimates, it is possible that its mortality threshold was exceeded in this region (Lewison et al.2004). Other studies from the Pacific Ocean suggest that there is a low impact from bycatch but a high risk tothe population (Wallace et al. 2013) (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods are mandated by theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their e�ectiveness is unknown and there are issueswith compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a “high” concernscore.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central

49

Page 50: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 60 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Pacific bluefin tunabegins reaching sexual maturity around 150 cm in size and reaches sexual maturity between 3 and 5 years ofage (PBTWG 2012). A maximum size and age of 300 cm and 15 years, respectively, have been reported.Pacific bluefin tuna is a broadcast spawner and has a high trophic level according to FishBase (Froese andPauly 2013). According to these life history characteristics, Pacific bluefin tuna has a moderate level ofvulnerability, so we have adjusted the score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The most recent stock assessment for Pacific bluefin tuna was conducted in 2014. There are no acceptedtarget or limit reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna, but the ratio of spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2012to virgin levels is low, indicating that the SSB is currently only 2%–5% of the unfished level. The population ofPacific bluefin tuna is therefore considered overfished (ISCPBWG 2014) and we have awarded a “high”concern score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Critical

50

Page 51: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

HAWKSBILL TURTLE

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

There are no target or limit reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna but the current F (2009–2011 average) ishigher than all target and biological reference points commonly used in other fisheries (F , F , and F ).It is currently thought that overfishing is occurring (ISCPBWG 2014). Additional management measures haverecently been agreed upon that will help reduce fishing mortality rates for this species; however, the agreedupon measures will not be enough, according to the scientific advice, to rebuild the population within 10 years(WCPFC 2014) (ISCPBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a “critical.”

max med 20%

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life historycharacteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a lowreproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified hawksbill turtleas Critically Endangered with a decreasing population trend (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). In the NorthCentral Pacific Ocean, hawksbill populations are considered at a high risk (Wallace et al. 2013). Hawksbillturtle has been listed on CITES since 1977 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it isthreatened with extinction and that international trade is prohibited. It has been estimated that populations inthe Pacific Ocean have declined by over 75% over three generations (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). In theWestern Pacific, 7 out of 10 nesting locations have depleted or declining populations (Mortimer and Donnelly2008). We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on the IUCN listing.

51

Page 52: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

Interactions between hawksbill turtles and pelagic longline gear in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean(WCPO) do occur but do not appear to be frequent in nature. Recorded interactions are more frequent intropical and subtropical waters compared to temperate (Williams et al. 2009). Between 1980 and 2004, only12 hawksbill turtles were observed incidentally caught in tuna longline fisheries in the WCPO (Molony 2005),although mortality rates associated with this capture are high (OFP 2010). A meta-data analysis indicated thatthis population had a high risk but low bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). There are bycatch mitigationmeasures being used by some fleets, but there are issues with compliance (Clarke et al. 2014). We haveawarded a “high” concern score because the population is depleted, the fishery impact is not fully known, andmitigation methods may not be e�ective.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

52

Page 53: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Criterion 3: Management EffectivenessManagement is separated into management of retained species (harvest strategy) and management of non-retained species (bycatch strategy).

The final score for this criterion is the geometric mean of the two scores. The Criterion 3 rating is determinedas follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is VeryHigh Concern = Red or High Concern

Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor3.2) ratings are Critical.

Criterion 3 Summary

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission havebeen moderately effective in implementing and enforcing management measures for swordfish, albacore,bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna in the Pacific Ocean.

Criterion 3 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1 - Harvest Strategy

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, ScientificResearch/Monitoring, Following of Scientific Advice, Enforcement of Regulations, Management Track Record,and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderately effective,’ or ‘highly effective.’

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all seven subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly effective’ and allother subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy andRecovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species ofConcern rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catchesthreatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, andunreported fishing occurring.

Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score

North Pacific / Drifting longlines 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

South Pacific / Drifting longlines 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

Western and Central Pacific / Drifting longlines 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

53

Page 54: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 3.1 Summary

The United Nations Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement (1995) indicated that themanagement of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional FisheriesManagement Organizations (RFMOs). RFMOs are the only legally mandated fishery management body on thehigh seas and within EEZ waters. There are currently 18 RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all of theworld’s waters. Member countries must abide by the management measures set forth by individual RFMOs inorder to fish in their waters {Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010}. Some RFMOs manage all marine living resourceswithin their authority (e.g., General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)), while others managea group of species such as tunas (e.g., Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)).

This reports focuses on billfish, shark, and fish species caught in pelagic longline fisheries managed under theWestern and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC), which manages tuna and tuna-like species in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO).

WCPFC members include the following countries: Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union,Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Republic of MarshallIslands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, ChineseTaipei, Tonga, Tuvalu, United States, and Vanuatu.

IATTC members: Belize, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, European Union, France,Guatemala, Japan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru, Chinese Taipei, United States,Vanuatu, and Venezuela.

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management measures are in place? Are there appropriate management goals,and is there evidence that management goals are being met? To achieve a highly effective rating, there must beappropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

FACTOR 3.1 - MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIESRegion / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion

North Pacific /Drifting longlines

Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

South Pacific /Drifting longlines

Ineffective N/A ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

Western andCentral Pacific /Drifting longlines

Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Ineffective

There are no management measures in place for opah, shortfin mako shark, blue shark, and blue and blackmarlins in the North Pacific. A phased-in reduction of catches of North Pacific striped marlin was initiated in2011. Countries were to reduce their catches by 10%, 15%, and 20% in 2011, 2012, and 2013 respectivelyfrom the highest catches recorded between 2000 and 2003 (WCPFC 2010d). There are no reference points in

54

Page 55: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

place for any of these species and no harvest control rule.

In terms of other retained species, there are few management measures in place for albacore tuna in theNorth Pacific Ocean. Measures were adopted in 2005 and have not been updated. Those managementmeasures included maintaining current catch levels (average e�ort between 2002 and 2004) in order tomaintain the long-term sustainability of the stock, and the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission(WCPFC) was to work with members of the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) to agree onconsistent management measures for the North Pacific population (IATTC 2005c) (WCPFC 2005). The IATTCimplemented a catch limit of 10,000 t between 2012 and 2013 (5,600 in 2012 and 4,400 in 2013) and 5,000 tfor 2014 for Pacific bluefin tuna caught in the Convention Area (IATTC 2012). In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has limited fishing e�ort for Pacificbluefin tuna. Vessels fishing north of 20° N must stay below 2002–2004 fishing e�ort levels during 2013(WCPFC 2012a). In addition, countries are to develop a Catch Documentation Scheme to monitor Pacificbluefin tuna (WCPFC 2013a). There is an interim reference point (fishing mortality) for North Pacific albacorebut no reference points for Pacific bluefin. Biomass-based limit reference points are used to determine thestatus of other tuna populations (bigeye and yellowfin). Target reference points are not yet in place for any ofthese species, and there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). But the WCPFC has a working group that iscurrently working on identifying potential target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). Incontrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proactive in using interim target and limit reference pointsand currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, the WCPFC has notype of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for all species. Thereare some management measures in place for tropical tuna species in the North Pacific region of Western andCentral Pacific Ocean longline fisheries. The measures that are in place include catch limits for bigeye tuna;catches of yellowfin tuna are not to be increased; and longline fishing e�ort cannot be increased (except forsmall island nations and Indonesia) (WCPFC 2013b) (WCPFC 2012a) (WCPFC 2005).

We have scored management of this fishery as “ine�ective” because there are no management measures inplace for most of the retained species covered in this report.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Ineffective

There are no management measures in place for blue or black marlins, blue or shortfin mako sharks, or opahin the South Pacific. Striped marlin is managed through effort restrictions (WCPFC 2006b). There are nobiomass-based reference points for these species and no harvest control rules in place.

Few management measures have been enacted for other retained species. In terms of albacore tuna in theSouth Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Western and Central Pacific FisheriesCommission (WCPFC) has limited the number of fishing vessels actively fishing for albacore to not exceed2005 levels or historical levels (2000–2004). In addition, member countries shall work to ensure the long-term sustainability of albacore tuna in this region, which includes collaborative research (WCPFC 2010c). In2009, the WCPFC limited the number of vessels targeting swordfish and catches to levels from any yearbetween 2000 and 2005, and required this information to be reported to the Commission (WCPFC 2009).

Management measures adopted by the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT),which is responsible for the management of southern bluefin tuna throughout its range, include a totalallowable catch (TAC) set on a 3-year cycle divided between eight countries and the European Community,and a Management Procedure (MP) that the CCSBT uses to aid in the setting of the TAC. The MP has been inplace since 2012. In addition, there is a meta-rule process that the CCSBT can use to deal with certainsituations, such as untested recruitment, abundance estimates, or “substantial” improvements with regard to

55

Page 56: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuildoverfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is theirlikelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood ofsuccess in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortalityfor any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

unknown or missing data (CCSBT 2010) (CCSBT 2014).

Biomass-based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for albacore and tropical tunas andare used to determine the status of tuna populations. Target reference points are not yet in place for any ofthese species. In addition, there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). But the WCPFC has a workinggroup that is currently working on identifying potential target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proactive in using interim target and limitreference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropical tunas and albacore, theWCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim target reference points for allspecies.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Ineffective

There are no management measures in place for blue or shortfin mako sharks, black or blue marlins, or opah.There are effort restrictions for striped marlin in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central PacificOcean and catch restrictions (phased in over time) for striped marlin in the North Pacific region (WCPFC2006b) (WCPFC 2010d). There are no reference points or harvest control rules for any of these species.

There are few management measures in place for retained tuna species in the Western and Central PacificOcean (WCPO) longline fisheries. The measures that are in place include catch limits for bigeye tuna; catchesof yellowfin tuna are not to be increased; and longline fishing effort cannot be increased (except for smallisland nations and Indonesia) (WCPFC 2013b) (WCPFC 2012a) (WCPFC 2005).

Biomass-based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for bigeye and yellowfin tuna and areused to determine the status of tuna populations. Target reference points are not yet in place for any of thesespecies, except in the short term for bigeye tuna, and there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). But theWCPFC has a working group that is currently working on identifying potential target reference points, and itlast met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). In contrast to the IATTC, which has been much more proactive in usinginterim target and limit reference points and currently has an interim harvest control rule in place for tropicaltunas and albacore, the WCPFC has no type of harvest control rule in place and does not have interim targetreference points for all species.

We have scored management of this fishery as “ineffective” because there are no management measures inplace for most of the retained species covered in this report.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Ineffective

Striped marlin is overfished and undergoing overfishing in the North Pacific. There are management measuresin place but no recovery plan, and there are no target or limit reference points. In addition, there is concern

56

Page 57: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the population and thefishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conductedregularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.

over the status of shortfin mako shark. Pacific bluefin tuna is overfished. Fishing e�ort and catch limits wereadopted after the 2012 assessment by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and the Westernand Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) (IATTC 2012) (ISCPBWG 2014) (WCPFC 2012a). Accordingto the 2014 updated assessment, these management measures were not su�cient to allow the population torecover. Measures recently agreed to by the WCPFC Northern Committee to reduce catches by 50% of 2002–2004 levels of Pacific bluefin tuna 35 kg in weight and under are not projected to be su�cient to allow thepopulation to recover (ISCPBWG 2014) (WCPFC 2014). We have awarded an “ine�ective” score due to thelack of proper recovery plans for these species in the North Pacific.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

N/A

Although no stock assessment has been conducted on shortfin mako or blue sharks in the South Pacific, thereis concern over their status. Albacore and swordfish populations are healthy in the South Pacific region(Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013). We have awarded an N/A score because the statuses of sharks areunknown and other species are healthy.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

Striped marlin in the North Pacific is overfished and undergoing overfishing, and there is no recovery plan inplace (Davies et al. 2012). There are concerns with the status of shortfin mako shark throughout the Pacificand for blue shark in the South Pacific, but there are no recovery plans in place. Bigeye tuna is consideredoverfished and undergoing overfishing. There is a recovery plan in place, but so far it has not provedsuccessful (WCPFC 2014). But bigeye tuna has only recently been classified as overfished and it is too early todetermine if the fishery will be able to recover the population in a timely manner. This results in a “moderatelye�ective” score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

Striped and blue marlin populations have been assessed (BWG 2013) (Davies et al. 2012) (ISCBWG 2015).Albacore, swordfish, and Pacific bluefin tuna stocks are monitored and assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG2014) (Davies et al. 2013) (ISCPBWG 2014), and assessments include information on catches, catch per unite�ort, length frequency, and tagging data. Assessments have not been conducted for species such as shortfinmako shark or opah, and tuna/billfish assessments have a great deal of uncertainty associated with them.This results in a “moderately e�ective” score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

57

Page 58: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientificrecommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

No stock assessment has been conducted for black marlin, opah, shortfin mako shark, and blue shark in theSouth Pacific. Striped and blue marlin populations have been assessed. These assessments containedinformation on catch and e�ort for a number of species in the South Pacific Ocean (BWG 2013) (Davies et al.2012) (ISCBWG 2015). Albacore, swordfish, and southern bluefin tuna populations are monitored andassessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014) (Davies et al. 2013) (IOTC 2013), and assessments includeinformation on catches, catch per unit e�ort, length frequency, and tagging data. Tuna/billfish assessmentshave a large amount of uncertainty surrounding them. This results in a “moderately e�ective” score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

Blue and striped marlin have been assessed in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, and blue shark hasbeen assessed in the North Pacific region (BWG 2013) (Davies et al. 2012) (ISCBWG 2015) (Rice et al. 2013).These assessments contain catch and e�ort information from a variety of fisheries that capture thesespecies. Bigeye, yellowfin, and skipjack tuna stocks are regularly monitored and assessed (Davies et al. 2011)(Hoyle et al. 2011) (Langley et al. 2011). A variety of information, including catch and e�ort data, size (forsome species), and biological information is included in these assessments. Several other main species havebeen assessed including swordfish. There are issues with data reporting for the tuna assessments, so thisresults in a “moderately e�ective” score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

No management advice was provided for shortfin mako shark, black marlin, or opah because no assessmentshave been conducted. Management advice for blue shark in the North Pacific included developing referencepoints, the development of management plans for all target shark fisheries that include catch limits (by the2016 meeting), and continued observer coverage is warranted (WCPFC 2014). To date, no reference pointshave been adopted. The Scientific Committee advised that blue marlin catches should not be increased from2009–2011 levels in the North Pacific, but no management measures have been adopted for this (WCPFC2013e).

The SC advised that fishing mortality for striped marlin in the North Pacific needs to be reduced but noadditional effort cuts have been made since 2010 (WCPFC 2011). Members of the albacore working groupsuggested after the last assessment that the current management measures should be maintained (ISCAWG2011). The latest Pacific bluefin stock assessment acknowledged that the recently implemented catch-and-effort controls put into place by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission and the Inter- AmericanTropical Tuna Commission, if properly implemented and enforced, could lead to an improved stock status. Butkeeping fishing levels at the status quo (2007–2009) is unlikely to improve the status of Pacific bluefin tuna(ISCPBWG 2012). The Scientific Committee suggested that fishing mortality of Pacific bluefin tuna should beimmediately reduced and that candidate limit and target reference points should be adopted (WCPFC 2013e).In 2013, a new resolution, which took into account scientific recommendations for the conservation of Pacificbluefin tuna, was adopted by the IATTC (IATTC 2013). Included in this resolution is the requirement that futureassessments include analysis to determine what the status of Pacific bluefin tuna would be with and without

58

Page 59: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

these measures in place. The WCPFC also adopted an interim measure in 2013 that aimed to reduce fishingmortality rates, and the Northern Committee has recently agreed upon additional management measures toreduce fishing mortality on juvenile fish (WCPFC 2013a) (WCPFC 2014). No new advice was provided by theScientific Committee in 2014 for swordfish in the North Pacific Ocean (ISCBWG 2014). We have awarded a“moderately effective” score because some but not all advice has been addressed.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

No management advice has been provided for shortfin mako and blue sharks, opah, and black marlin becauseno assessments have been conducted. No new advice was provided for striped marlin in the South Pacific andthe advice for blue marlin is to maintain catches at the 2009–2011 levels (WCPFC 2011). No new managementmeasures to curb fishing pressure for blue marlin have been enacted. The most recent assessment foralbacore tuna in the South Pacific did not provide any suggestions on the need for any specific managementmeasures. The Scientific Committee did suggest that longline fishing mortality needs to be reduced tomaintain the economic viability of the fishery, and this has not been adopted by the Commission (WCPFC2013e). The last assessment did not suggest any specific management measures for swordfish in theSouthwest Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Davies et al. 2013). No measures aimed atreducing longline fishing mortality rates have been adopted. The Commission for the Conservation of SouthernBluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has adhered to scientific advice and utilizes a Management Procedure in setting a totalallowable catch level that will ensure that the biomass reaches the current interim rebuilding target forsouthern bluefin tuna (CCSBT 2011). This results in a “moderately e�ective” score because advice has beenfollowed for some but not all species.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

No management advice was provided for shortfin mako shark or opah because no assessments have beenconducted. Management advice for blue sharks in the North Pacific included developing reference points, thedevelopment of management plans for all target shark fisheries that include catch limits (by the 2016meeting), and continued observer coverage is warranted (WCPFC 2014), but there is no advice for the SouthPacific population. To date, no reference points have been adopted. The Scientific Committee advised thatblue marlin catches should not be increased from 2009–2011 levels but no management measures have beenadopted for this (WCPFC 2013e). The Scientific Committee advised that fishing mortality for striped marlin inthe North Pacific needs to be reduced but no additional effort cuts have been made since 2010, and no newadvice for the South Pacific population has been given (WCPFC 2011). The last bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfintuna assessments made recommendations to improve the current statistical model used and identified needsfor data improvement, but did not identify specific management measures (Davies et al. 2014) (Davis et al.2011) (Rice et al. 2014) (Davies et al. 2014). Based on the assessment results, bigeye tuna fishing mortalitylevels need to be 36% less than the 2008–2011 level in order to be sustainable. The Scientific Committeenoted that spatial management could be utilized for yellowfin tuna and that catches should not be increasedfrom 2012 levels (WCPFC 2014b). In addition, reducing the fishing mortality on juveniles would increase theoverall yield (Harley et al. 2014). The Scientific Committee did recommend in 2009 that the Commissionconsider fishing limits for skipjack (Rice et al. 2014). The Commission does recognize that fishing mortalityneeds to be reduced to improve the status of bigeye and yellowfin tuna in this region (WCPFC 2012). TheCommission has recently prohibited discarding of these species but there are not catch limits for eitherspecies in this fishery. The 2014 Commission meeting had not occurred at the time of this report, so it isunknown if additional management measures are to be adopted based on the updated 2014 stockassessments. We have awarded a “moderately effective” score because management advice has been

59

Page 60: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levelsor a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measuresenacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.

followed for some but not all species.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has a compliance monitoring scheme in placethat assesses members’ compliance with obligations, identifies areas of conservation and management that may need refinement, responds to non-compliance, and monitors and resolves non-compliance issues. TheCommission evaluates compliance by members annually with respect to catch and effort limits and reportingfor target species, spatial and temporal closures, observer and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) coverage, and provision of scientific data (WCPFC 2012c).

Vessel Monitoring Systems are required on all vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western andCentral Pacific Ocean south of 20° N and east of 175° E. The area north of 20° N and west of 175° W had anactivation date for VMS of December 31, 2013 (WCPFC 2012d). There are measures in place allowing for theboarding and inspection of vessels in the Convention Area (WCPFC 2006b) and the WCPFC maintains a list ofillegal, unreported, and unregulated vessels (WCPFC 2010b).

A recent study, which developed a standard way of assessing transparency in RFMOs, found that the WCPFChad a lack of transparency with regard to the availability of compliance-related data, a lack of incentive forcountries to comply with management measures, and lacked the processes needed to respond to non-compliance (Gilman and Kingma 2013). Koehler (2013) also found the WCPFC to be ineffective with regard tocompliance transparency, specifically because the WCPFC's compliance assessment process (there is acompliance monitoring scheme in place) (WCPFC 2013d) is closed to the public and the WCPFC does not haveways of dealing with non-compliance. In 2013, the Commission finally started releasing some information onthe compliance of individual nations (WCPFC 2013g).

Assessing the e�ectiveness of these enforcement measures is di�cult because there is a general lack in thetransparency of information with regard to surveillance activities, infractions, and enforcement actions andoutcomes {Gilman et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a “moderately effective” score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission have shown mixedresults in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013).For example, in terms of striped marlin in the North Pacific, management has been unable to maintain healthy

60

Page 61: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the managementof the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the managementprocess is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

populations (ISCBWG 2015). In terms of Pacific bluefin tuna, the WCPFC and IATTC have been unable tomaintain a healthy population (ISCPBWG 2014). But albacore and swordfish populations have remainedhealthy (ISCAWG 2011) (ISCBWG 2014). We have therefore awarded a “moderately e�ective” score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) haveshown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal market species (Gilmanet al. 2013). For example, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has beenunable to maintain healthy populations of southern bluefin tuna (IOTC 2013), while yellowfin tuna and stripedmarlin populations have remained healthy (Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013). The statuses of manyspecies, including sharks and billfish, are unknown in this region. We have therefore awarded only a“moderately e�ective” score.

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Management Commission(WCPFC) have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal marketspecies (Gilman et al. 2013). For example, species such as striped marlin in the North Pacific are not healthybut blue marlin populations are. The statuses of many species, including sharks, billfish, and opah, areunknown, so we have awarded a “moderately e�ective” score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission allows for accredited observers to participate in mostmeetings. Historically, the WCPFC has lacked transparency (Gilman et. al. 2013) in some factors but this hasbeen improved in recent years. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission also allows for outsideaccredited observers, which can be made up of scientists, NGOs, or other interested parties, toattend meetings. We have therefore awarded a “moderately e�ective” score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission allows for accredited observers to participate in mostmeetings. Historically, the WCPFC has lacked transparency (Gilman et. al. 2013) in some factors but this hasbeen improved in recent years. We have therefore awarded a “moderately e�ective” score.

61

Page 62: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 3.2 - Bycatch Strategy

SCORING GUIDELINES

Four subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy and Implementation, Scientific Research and Monitoring,Record of Following Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations. Each is rated as ‘ineffective,’ ‘moderatelyeffective,’ or ‘highly effective.’ Unless reason exists to rate Scientific Research and Monitoring, Record ofFollowing Scientific Advice, and Enforcement of Regulations differently, these rating are the same as in 3.1.

5 (Very Low Concern)—Rated as ‘highly effective’ for all four subfactors considered4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy rated ‘highly effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least‘moderately effective.’3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy butsome other factors rated ‘ineffective.’1 (Very High Concern)—Management exists, but Management Strategy rated ‘ineffective.’0 (Critical)—No bycatch management even when overfished, depleted, endangered or threatened speciesare known to be regular components of bycatch and are substatntially impacted by the fishery

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has instituted management measures forseabirds and sea turtles in longline fisheries operating in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The success ofthese measures is not yet known. Observer programs do exist, but they observe only a fraction of the entirefishery.

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementation

Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fisheryon bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effective rating,the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place to minimizethe impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).

FACTOR 3.2 - BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce

North Pacific / Drifting longlines No No Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

South Pacific / Drifting longlines No No Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

Western and Central Pacific / Driftinglonglines

No No Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Ineffective

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has adopted several management measuresto protect vulnerable bycatch species. For example, WCPFC members are asked to implement the

62

Page 63: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch tomeasure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must beconducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch datacollection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific

International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Vessels fishingnorth of 23° N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) are required to use at least two mitigationmeasures including at least one of the following: side setting, night setting, tori line, or weighted branch line.Members must submit annual reports detailing the mitigation measures used and are encouraged toundertake additional mitigation research (WCPFC 2012e). Members of the WCPFC are also to implement theFAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations. Proper handling and release guidelinesshould be used when hard-shell turtles are incidentally captured, and longline vessels must carry line cuttersand de-hookers to allow for the safe handling and release of turtles. Longline fisheries are also urged toresearch mitigation techniques such as the use of circle hooks. Vessels conducting shallow-set fishingtargeting swordfish must also comply with mitigation measures (e.g., circle hooks, whole bait, or otherreviewed techniques) (WCPFC 2008b). In addition, fisheries observers record and report interactions withseabirds and turtles (WCPFC 2012e) (WCPFC 2008b).

Members of the WCPFC are prohibited from retaining, transshipping, storing, or landing oceanic whitetip andsilky sharks, and any incidentally caught sharks should be released and the incident recorded and reported(WCPFC 2012f) (WCPFC 2013f). Members are also to implement the FAO International Plan of Action for theConservation and Management of Sharks, and National Plans of Action should have policies in place to reducewaste and discarding of sharks. Information on catch and e�ort for key species is to be reported, and sharkfinning is banned (5% ratio) (WCPFC 2010a).

The WCPFC scored an average of 42% across five broad bycatch governance categories in a recent studyconducted by Gilman et al. (2013). We have awarded an “ine�ective” score because there are no bycatchlimits for non-target species, and it is unclear if these management measures are e�ective at maintainingpopulation levels of bycatch species or are being put in place. For example, Clarke (2013) identified thatcompliance with implementing WCPFC adopted management measures specific to sharks is at best 60%, andlower for some measures. In addition, the low level of observer coverage in the WCPO has hampered theability of assessing whether adopted management measures have been e�ective (Gilman 2011).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Ineffective

Vessels fishing for “fresh fish” north of 20° N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean must implement anobserver program and achieve 5% coverage by the end of 2014 (WCPFC 2012g). This monitoring level is verylow considering the number of potential bycatch species, it is often not attained by all nations, and the lowobserver coverage hinders the ability to accurately determine the e�ectiveness of management measures(Gilman 2011) (Clarke 2013). In addition, data collection protocols within the observer programs areconsidered deficient (Gilman et al. 2013). We have awarded an “ineffective” score.

63

Page 64: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating isgiven if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow managementregulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To achieve a Highly Effectiverating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

The Scientific Committee has recently (2014) recommended that several measures related to bycatch beadopted by the Commission. These include analyzing bycatch mitigation methods for sharks and evaluating thefin-to-carcass ratio currently in e�ect, implementing e-monitoring trials for seabirds, and additional collectionof seabird bycatch data. No additional scientific advice was provided in 2014 for sea turtles (WCPFC 2014).Historically, all scientific advice related to bycatch has not been adopted (WCPFC 2013e), so we have awardeda “moderately effective” score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderately Effective

See the Harvest Strategy section 3.1.5 for determination.

64

Page 65: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystemThis Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there aremeasures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and theuse of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based FisheriesManagement aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on theenvironment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gearimpacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined asfollows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low ConcernScore >2.2 and ≤3.2=Yellow or Moderate ConcernScore ≤2.2=Red or High Concern

Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Although pelagic longline gears do not typically come in contact with bottom habitats, they do affect a number ofecologically important species and the consequence of this varies by region. Mitigation measures to reduce theimpact of pelagic longlines on bottom habitats are not generally needed and there is no indication of a need inthese three fisheries.

Criterion 4 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline,trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater trawlthat is known to contact bottom occasionally (2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, orbottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobbleor boulder)

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation of GearImpacts EBFM Score

North Pacific / Drifting longlines 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

South Pacific / Drifting longlines 5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

Western and Central Pacific /Drifting longlines

5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.870)

65

Page 66: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

0 (Very High)—Dredge or trawl fished on biogenic habitat, (e.g., deep-sea corals, eelgrass and maerl)Note: When multiple habitat types are commonly encountered, and/or the habitat classification is uncertain,the score will be based on the most sensitive, plausible habitat type.

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) withgear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modificationsshown to be effective at reducing damage, or an effective combination of ‘moderate’ mitigation measures.+0.5 (Moderate Mitigation)—20% of habitat protected from fishing with gear or other measures in place tolimit fishing effort, fishing intensity, and spatial footprint of damage caused from fishing.+0.25 (Low Mitigation)—A few measures are in place (e.g., vulnerable habitats protected but other habitatsnot protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensurefishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protectedwith marine reserves, and abundance is maintained at sufficient levels to provide food to predators)4 (Low Concern)—Studies are underway to assess the ecological role of species and measures are in placeto protect the ecological role of any species that plays an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem.Measures are in place to minimize potentially negative ecological effect if hatchery supplementation or fishaggregating devices (FADs) are used.3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in theecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of thesespecies, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible andmanagement is not place to mitigate these impacts2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and noefforts are being made to incorporate their ecological role into management.1 (Very High Concern)—Use of hatchery supplementation or fish aggregating devices (FADs) in the fishery ishaving serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades orother detrimental impacts to the food web.

Factor 4.1 - Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

None

Although pelagic longlines are surface fisheries, contact with the seabed can occur in shallow-set fisheries,such as the Hawaiian shallow-set fishery (Passfield and Gilman 2010) (Gilman et al. 2012). These e�ects arestill considered to be a low risk to bottom habitats (Gilman et al. 2013) (Seafood Watch 2013), so we haveawarded a no impact score.

66

Page 67: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Not Applicable

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

The pelagic longline fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean catches a number of ecologicallyimportant species including other tunas, billfish, and sharks. In particular, sharks are considered top predatorsin many ecosystems and play a critical role in how these ecosystems are structured and function (Piraino et al.2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predators can cause many changes, such as to preyabundances, that can lead to a cascade of other e�ects (Myers et al. 2007) (Du�y 2003) (Ferretti et al.2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al. 2007). In the North Pacific Ocean, theremoval of blue shark and tunas by the longline fishery has been shown to lead to an increase in the numberof short-lived, fast growing species such as mahi mahi (Polovina et al. 2009).

The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has begun identifying key shark species affected byfisheries in the Convention Area and has to date completed stock assessments on two species (oceanic whitetip and silky sharks), and it has adopted several management measures to protect bycatch species (Rice andHarley 2013) (Rice and Harley 2012b). In addition, the WCPFC has initiated studies to monitor changes to thefood web and to examine predator-prey relationships (Allain 2010) (Allain et al. 2012).

We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because this fishery catches exceptional species but there aresome e�orts to incorporate their ecological roles into management.

67

Page 68: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

AcknowledgementsScientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program, or its seafoodrecommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for theconclusions reached in this report.

Seafood Watch would like to thank the consulting researcher and author of this report, Alexia Morgan, as wellas two anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.

®

®

68

Page 69: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

ReferencesAbreu-Grobois, A & Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

ACAP. 2008. Albatross and petrel distribution within the WCPFC area. The Fourth meeting of the WCPFCEcosystem and Bycatch Specialist Working Group, Port Moresby, August 14, 2008.

ACAP. 2014a. Light-mantled albatross Phoebetria palpebrata. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross andpetrels.

ACAP. 2014b. Wandering albatross Diomedea exulans. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.

ACAP. 2014d. White-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross andpetrels.

ACAP. 2014c. Salvin's albatross Thalassarche salvini. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.

Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels (ACP). 2010. Species assessments: Laysan albatross(Phoebastria immutabilis). Downloaded from http://www.acap.aq on April 29, 2013.

Akroyd, J., Huntington, T. and McLoughlin, K. 2012. MSC report for Fiji albacore tuna longline fishery version 4final report. Intertek Moody Marine.

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

Allain, V., S.P. Griffiths, J. Polovina, and S. Nicol1. 2012. WCPO ecosystem indicator trends and results fromECOPATH simulations. WCPFC-SC8-2012/EB-IP-11.

Amorim, A., Baum, J., Cailliet, G.M., Clò, S., Clarke, S.C., Fergusson, I., Gonzalez, M., Macias, D., Mancini, P.,Mancusi, C., Myers, R., Reardon, M., Trejo, T., Vacchi, M. & Valenti, S.V. 2009. Alopias superciliosus. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

Anderson, O.R.J., Small, C.J., Croxall, J.P., Dunn, E.K., Sullivan, B.J., Yates, O. & Black, A. 2011. Global seabirdbycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research 14: 91–106.

Baird, K., Dias, M., Small, C., Shaffer, S., Suryan, R., Anderson, D., Kappes, M. and Balgh, G.R. 2013. Overlapbetween WCPFC longline fishing effort and albatross distribution in the North Pacific. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-14.

Baker, G.B. and Finley, L.A. 2008. National Assessment Report for Reducing the Incidental Catch of Seabirds inLongline Fisheries - 2008 Assessment Report. Report to Australian Government Department of Agriculture,Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.

Baker, G.B. and Wise, B.S. 2005. The impact of pelagic longline fishing on the flesh-footed shearwater Puffinuscarneipes in Eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 126: 306–316.

Barlow, J. 2006. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters estimated from a summer/fall survey in 2002. MarineMammal Science 22:446-464.

69

Page 70: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. & Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2013.2.

Bell, E.A., Sim, J.L. and Scofield, P. 2009. Population parameters and distribution of the black petrel (Procellariaparkinsoni), 2005/2006. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

BirdLife International. 2012. Thalassarche melanophyrs. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2

BirdLife International. 2012d. Procellaria cinerea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2

BirdLife International. 2012f. Phoebetria palpebrata. In: IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

BirdLife International. 2012h. Thalassarche salvini. In: IUCN 2012 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2

BirdLife International. 2012i. Puffinus griseus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2.

BirdLife International. 2012l. Diomedea exulans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2.

BirdLife International. 2012o. Procellaria aequinoctialis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2

BirdLife International 2012s. Phoebastria immutabilis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

BirdLife International 2012e. Diomedea exulans. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2013.1.

BirdLife International 2012c. Thalassarche chrysostoma. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

BirdLife International 2014. Phoebastria nigripes. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.

BirdLife International 2014. Thalassarche melanophris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2014.2.

Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M.,Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.

Brodziak, J. and Ishimura, G. 2010. Stock assessment of North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in 2009.Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Administrative Report H-10-01. 43 p.

Brooke, M. 2004. Albatrosses and petrels across the world. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 499 p.

Brouwer, S. and I. Bertram. 2009. Setting bycatch limits for sea turtles in the Western and Central Pacificoceans shallow-set longline fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-04.

70

Page 71: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BWG. 2013. Stock assessment of blue marlin in the Pacific Ocean in 2013. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-09.Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.

Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A., Clo, S., Macias, D., Baum, J., Kohin, S.,Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J.A., Acuña, E., Amorim, A. & Domingo, A. 2009. Isurus oxyrinchus. In: IUCN 2012.IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

CCSBT. 2011. Report of the eighth meeting of the Commission. Commission for the Conservation of theSouthern Bluefin Tuna. 10-13 October 2011, Bali, Indonesia.

Chang J.H. and Liu, K.M. 2009. Stock assessment of the shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus) in the NorthwestPacific Ocean using per recruit and virtual population analyses. Fisheries Research 98:92-101.

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

Clarke, S. 2011. A status snapshot of key shark species in the Western and Central Pacific and potentialmanagement options. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, FederatedStates of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-EB-WP-04. 37 p.

Clarke, S. 2013. Towards and integrated shark conservation and management measure for the Western andCentral Pacific Ocean. Pacific Islands Regional Office and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-08.

Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H., and Nakano, H. 2011. Analysis of North Pacific shark data from Japanesecommercial longline and research/training vessel records. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02. 89 p.

Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H. and Nakano, H. 2011c. Analysis of North Pacific Shark Data from JapaneseCommercial Longline and Research/Training Vessel Records. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02.

Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y. and Ochi, D. 2014. Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna andtuna-like species: a global review of status and mitigation measures. WCPFC-SC10-2014/EB-IP-04.

Clarke, S., Harley, S., Hoyle, S. and Rice, J. 2011b. An Indicator-based Analysis of Key Shark Species based onData Held by SPC-OFP. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-01.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Carpenter, K.E., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R.,Nelson, R., Schaefer, K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011a. Istiompax indica. In: IUCN 2012. IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C.,et al. 2011b. Makaira nigricans. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., et al. 2011c. Coryphaena hippurus. In:IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Collette, B., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S.2011e. Thunnus maccoyii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2014.2.

71

Page 72: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., et al. 2011d.Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2

Cousins, K. and Cooper, J. 2000. The population biology of the black-footed albatross in relation to mortalitycaused by longline fishing. Western Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council.

Crowder, L. and R. Myers. 2001. A Comprehensive Study of the Ecological Impacts of the Worldwide PelagicLongline Industry. 2001 First Annual Report to the Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew Charitable Trusts: Philadelphia,PA, USA.

Cullis-Suzuki, S. and Pauly, D. 2010. Failing the high seas: a global evaluation of regional fisheries managementorganizations. Marine Policy 34:1036-1042

Davies, N., Hoyle, S., Harley, S., Langley, A., Kleiber, P., and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of bigeye tunain the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011,Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-02. 133 p.

Davies, N., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J. 2012. Stock assessment of striped marlin (Kajikia audax) in the southwestPacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission,7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-05. 84 p.

Davies, N., Pilling, G., Harley, S. and Hampton, J. 2013. Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in thesouthwest Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-05. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14August 2013, Federated States of Micronesia.

Duffy, J.E. 2003. Biodiversity loss, trophic skew and ecosystem functioning. Ecology Letters 6:680-687.

Dutton, P.H., Hitipeuw, C., Zein, M., Benson, S.R., Petro, G., Pita, J. et al. 2007. Status and genetic structure ofnesting populations of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the western Pacific. Chelonian Conservationand Bioloyg 6:47-53.

Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2012. Fishstat J database. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome,Itsly. Accessed April, 2013.

FAO. 2015. Fishery and Aquaculture Statistics. Global capture production 1950-2013. FishStatJ. In: FAOFisheries and Aquaculture Department. Rome.

Ferretti, F., B. Worm, G.L. Britten, M.R. Heithaus, H.K. and Lotze. 2010. Patterns and ecosystem consequences ofshark declines in the ocean. Ecology Letters, 13: 1055– 1071.

Fonteneau, A. 1991. Seamounts and tuna in the tropical eastern Atlantic. Aquatic and Living Resources 4:13-25.

Fonteneau, A., Ariz, J., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V. and Pallares, P. 2000a. Observed changes in the speciescomposition of tuna schools in the Gulf of Guinea between 1981 to 1999, in relation with the fish aggregatingdevice fishery. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:253-257.

Forney, K.A. 2009. Serious injury determinations for cetaceans caught in Hawaii longline fisheries during 1994-2008. Draft document PSRG-2009-09 presented to the Pacific Scientific Review Group, November 3-5, 2009, DelMar, Ca.

French, R.P., Lyle, J., Tracey, S., Currie, S. and Semmens, J.M. 2015. High survivorship after catch-release

72

Page 73: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

fishing suggests physiological resilience in the endothermic shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus).Conservation Physiology 3.

Fréon, P. and Dagorn, L. 2000. Review of fish associative behavior: Toward a generalization of the meeting pointhypothesis. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 10:183-207.

Froese, R. and Kesner-Reyes, K. 2002. Impact of fishing on the abundance of marine species. ICES CM2002/L:12. Available at: http://info.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2002/L/L1202.pdf

Froese, R. and D. Pauly. Editors. 2015. FishBase. World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org,version

Gascoigne, J., Kolody, D., Sieben, C., and Cartwright, I. 2014. The SZLC, HNSFC & Cook Islands EEZ southPacific albacore longline fishery. MSC Public Comment Draft report.

Gilman, E.L. 2001. Keeping Albatross off the Hook in the North Pacific Ocean. World Bird Watch. 23(2): 14-16.

Gilman, E. 2011. Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. MarinePolicy 35:590-609.

Gilman, E. and Kingma, E. 2013. Standard for assessing transparency in information on compliance withobligations of regional fisheries management organizations: validation through assessment of the Western andCentral Pacific Fisheries Commission. Ocean & Coastal Management 84:31-39.

Gilman, E., Pasfield, K. and Nakamura, K. 2013. Performance of regional fisheries management organizations:ecosystem-based governance of bycatch and discards. Fish and Fisheries DOI:10.1111/faf.12021

Gilman, E., Suuronen, P., Hall, M., Kennelly, S. In Press (2013). Causes and methods to estimate cryptic sourcesof fishing mortality. Journal of Fish Biology.

Harley, S.J., Davies, N., Tremblay-Boyer, L., Hampton, J. and McKechniw, S. 2015. Stock assessment for southPacific albacore tuna. WCPFC-SC11-2015/SA-WP-06

Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Dill, L.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. and Bejder, L2007. State-dependent risk taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in amarine ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:837-844.

Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Langley, A. and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in thewestern and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei,Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-04. 134 p.

Hoyle, S., Hampton, J. and Davies, N. 2012. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the South Pacific Ocean.Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-04-REV1. 123 p.

Huan, H. 2014. Seabirds and sea turtles bycatch of Taiwanese tuna longline fleets in the Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC10-2014/EB-SP-06 Rev 1.

Ianelli, J., M. Maunder, and A. E. Punt. 2012. Independent peer review of 2011 WCPFC bigeye tuna stockassessment. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-01. Available online http://www.wcpfc.int/node/4587.

73

Page 74: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2004. Resolution on the establishment of a vesselmonitoring system (VMS). Resolution c-04-06, 72nd Reunion, Lima Peru.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005b. Resolution on the conservation of sharks caught inassociation with fisheries in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-05-03. 73rd Meeting, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005c. Resolution on northern albacore tuna; C-02-02. 73rdMeeting, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2005a. Resolution to establish a list of vessels presumed tohave carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-05-07. 73rd Meeting, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2006. Consolidated resolution on bycatch. Resolution C-04-05 (Rev 2). 74th Meeting, Pusan, Korea. 26-30 June 2006.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011a. Resolution on the process for improved complianceof resolutions adopted by the Commission. Resolution C-11-07. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 July 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011b. Resolution to mitigate the impact on seabirds offishing for species covered by the IATTC. Resolution C-11-02. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011c. Resolution on scientific observers for longlinevessels. Resolution C-11-08. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011d. Resolution on the conservation of oceanic whitetipsharks caught in association with fisheries in the Antigua Convention Area. Resolution C-11-10. 82nd Meeting,La Jolla, Ca, 4-8 June 2011.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2012. Conservation and Management Measures for bluefintuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-12-09, 83rd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 25-29 June 2012.

IATTC. 2014. Tunas and billfishes in the eastern Pacific Ocean in 2013. Fishery status report No. 12. Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission.

Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2007. Resolution to mitigate the impacts of tuna fishingvessels on sea turtles. Resolution C-07-03. 75th Meeting, Cancun, Mexico, 25-29 June 2007.

IOTC. 2013e. Report on biology, stock status and management of southern bluefin tuna: 2013. IOTC-2013-SC16-ES05[E]. Available at:http://www.iotc.org/files/proceedings/2013/sc/IOTC-2013-SC16-ES05[E].pdf

ISC. 2015. Indicator-based analysis of the status of shortfin mako sharks in the north Pacific Ocean WCPFC-SC11-2015/SA-WP-08.

ISC Albacore Working Group. 2011. Stock assessment of albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean in 2011.Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 9-17, August 2011.WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-10

ISCBWG. 2014. North Pacific swordfish (Xiphias gladius) stock assessment in 2014. Report of the billfish workinggroup. International Scientific Committee for tuna and tuna-like species in the North Pacific Ocean.

74

Page 75: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

ISCBWG 2015. Stock assessment of striped marlin in the western and central North Pacific Ocean through 2013.WCPFC-SC-2015/SA-WP-10

International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean Pacific BluefinWorking Group. 2012. Pacific bluefin tuna stock assessment summary. Webinar, 19-21 December, 2012. 13 p.

ISCSWG. 2013. Report of the shark working group workshops May 2012, January and April 2013. SCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-11a. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States ofMicronesia.

ISCSWG. 2014. Stock assessment and future projections of blue shark in the North Pacific Ocean. Report of theShark Working Group, ISC.

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013a. ISSF stock assessment workshop: control rulesand reference points for tuna RFMOs. ISSF Technical Report 2013-03. International Seafood SustainabilityFoundation, Washington, DC. 34 p.

ISSF. 2014. ISSF Tuna Stock Status Update, 2014: Status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report2014-09. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C., USA.

International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013b. ISSF stock status ratings 2013 status of theworld fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2013-4, April 2013

Jones, T.T., Bostrom, B.L., Hastings, M.D., Van Houtan, K.S., Pauly, D. and Jones, D.R. 2012. Resourcerequirements of the Pacific leatherback turtle population. PLoS ONE7:e45447/dpi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045447.

Josse, E., Bertrand, A. and Dagorn, L. 1999. An acoustic approach to study tuna aggregated around fishaggregating devices in French Polynesia: methods and validation. Aquatic and Living Resources 12:303-313.

Josse, E., Dagorn, L. and Bertrand, A. 2000. Typology and behavior of tuna aggregations around fishaggregating devices from acoustic surveys in French Polynesia. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:183-192.

Kaplan, I.C. 2005. A risk assessment for Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal ofFisheries and Aquatic Sciences 62:1710-1719.

Kelleher, K. 2005. Discards in the world's marine fisheries. An update. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper No. 470.Rome, FAO. 131 p.

Kirby, D.S. 2006. Ecological risk assessment for species caught in WCPO tuna fisheries: inherent risk asdetermined by productivity-susceptibility analysis. Scientific Committee Second Regular Session, 7-18 August2006, Manila, Philippines. WCPFC-SC2-2006/EB WP-1. 25 p.

Kirby, D.S. and Hobday, A. 2007. Ecological risk assessment for the effects of fishing in the western and centralPacific Ocean: productivity and susceptibility analysis. Scientific Committee Third Regular Session, 13-24 2007,Honolulu, HI. WCPFC-SC3-SWG/WP-1. 20 p.

Kleiber, P., Hampton, J., Hinton, M.G and Uozumi, Y. 2003. Update on blue marlin stock assessment. 15th Meetingof the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish BBRG-10. SCTB15 Working Paper.

Kleiber, P., Clarke, S., Bigelow, K., Nakano, H., McAllister, M. and Takeuichi, Y. 2009. North Pacific blue shark stock

75

Page 76: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-17. 83 p.

Koehler, H.R., 2013. Promoting compliance in tuna RFMO's: a comprehensive baseline survey of the currentmechanics of reviewing, assessing and addressing compliance with RFMO obligations and measures. ISSFTechnical Report 2013-02.

Kolody, D., Campbell, R. and Davies, N. 2008. A Multifan-CL stock assessment of south-west Pacific swordfish1952-2007. Scientific Committee Fourth Regular Session, 11-22 August 2008, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea.WCPFC-SC4-2008-SA-WP-6 (REVISION 1*). 90PG.

Langley, A., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of yellowfin tuna in the Western and Centralpacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States ofMicronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-03. 135p.

Lawson, T. 2001. Observer data held by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme covering tuna fishery bycatches inthe western and central Pacific Ocean. 14th Meeting of the the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 9-16August 2001, Numea, New Caledonia. SWG-9. 42 p.

Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A. and Picault, J. El Nino Southern Oscillation and tuna in thewestern Pacific. Nature 389:715-718

Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2003. Estimating fishery bycatch and effects on a vulnerable seabird population.Ecological Applications 13:743-753.

Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2007. Putting longline bycatch of sea turtles into perspective. ConservationBiology 21:79-86

Lewison, R., Freeman, S.A. and Crowder, L.B. 2004. Quantifying the effects of fisheries on threatened species:the impact of pelagic longlines on loggerheard and leatherback sea turtles. Ecology Letters 7:221-231/

Maison, K.A., Kinan Kelly, I. and K.P. Frutchey. 2010. Green Turtle Nesting Sites and Sea Turtle Legislationthroughout Oceania. U.S. Dep. Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum. NMFS-F/SPO-110, 52 pp.

Marine Turtle Specialist Group 1996. Caretta caretta. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2012.2.

Martinez, A.L. 2000. Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2.

Menard, F., Stequert, B., Rubin, A., Herrera, M. and Marchal, E. 2000. Food consumption of tuna in theequatorial Atlantic Ocean: FAD associated versus unassociated schools. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:233-240.

Miyashita, T. 1993. Abundance of dolphin stocks in the western North Pacific taken by the Japanese drive fishery.Reports of the International Whaling Commission 43: 417-437.

Molony, B. 2005. Estimates of the mortality of non-target species with an initial focus on seabirds, turtles andsharks. First meeting of the Scientific Committee of the western and central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 9-19August 2005. WCPFC-SC1. 84 p.

Molony, B. 2006. Summary of the biology, ecology and stock status of billfishes in the WCPFC, with a review of

76

Page 77: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

major variables influencing longline fishery performance. 1st Meeting of the Scientific Committee of the Westernand Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia, 18-19, August 2006. WCPFC-EB-2.

Molony, B. 2007. Overview of purse-seine and longline bycatch issues in the western and central Pacific Ocean.Inaugural Meeting of the Asia and Pacific Islands Bycatch Consortium, 15-16 February 2007, Honolulu, HI. 42 p.

Mortimer, J.A & Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Myers, R.A., Baum, J.K., Shepherd, T.D., Powers, S.P. and Peterson, C.H. 2007. Cascading effects of the loss ofapex predatory sharks from a coastal. Science 315:1846-1850.

Naughton, M. B, M. D. Romano, T. S. Zimmerman. 2007. A Conservation Action Plan for Black-footed Albatross(Phoebastria nigripes) and Laysan Albatross (P. immutabilis), Ver. 1.0.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. U.S. National Bycatch Report. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo.NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation BiologicalOpinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources Division. 162 pg.

National Marine Fisheries Service. 2013. U.S. National Bycatch Report first edition update 1. (Eds. L.R. Benaka,C. Rilling, E.E. Seney, and H. Winarsoo). US Department of Commercie, 57 p.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2014. Us Foreign trade. NOAA Office of Science and Technology.

NZG. 2008. Fisheries (seabird sustainability measures-surface longlines) notice 2008 (No. F429). New ZealandGazette 21 February 2008, No. 31. New Zealand Government, Wellington.

Oceanic Fisheries Programme. 2010. Non-target species interactions with the tuna fisheries of the Western andCentral Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Sixth Regular Session, 10-19 August, 2010, Nuku'alofa, Tonga. 59 p.

Oceanic Fisheries Programme (OFP). 2012a. Estimates of annual catches in the WCPFC statistical area.Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012, Busan, Republic of Korea. WCPFC-SC8-2012/ST IP-1.

Oro, D. and A. Martinez-Abrain. 2000. Ecology and behavior of seabirds. Marine Ecology - Encyclopedia of LifeSupport Systems. Available at: http://www.eolss.net/sample-chapters/c09/E2-27-05-00.pdf

Passfield, K., Gilman, E. (2010) Effects of Pelagic Longline Fishing on Seamount Ecosystems based on Interviewswith Pacific Island Fishers. Technical Report produced under the Global Environment Facility Oceanic FisheriesManagement Project. International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Paxton, J.R. 2010. Alepisaurus ferox. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

PIFSC. 2014. International team launches research on pelagic sharks in the North Pacific Ocean. NOAA PacificIslands Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Research Bulletin, June 2011.

Piraino, S., Fanelli, G., Boero, F. 2002. Variability of species roles in marine communities: change of paradigmsfor conservation priorities. Marine Biology 140:1067-1074.

77

Page 78: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Polovina, J.J., Abecassis, M., Howell, E.A. and 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.Fisheries Bulletin 107:523-531.

Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J.,Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2008. Megaptera novaeangliae. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List ofThreatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Rice, J. 2012. Alternate catch estimates for silky and oceanic whitetip sharks in Western and Central PacificOcean. WCPFC-SC28-2012/SA-IP-12.

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2012b. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetop sharks in the western and central PacificOcean. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06 Rev 1. 53pg.

Rice, J. and Harley, S. 2013. Updates stock assessment of silky sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean.Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia.WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-03.

Rice, J., Harley, S., Maunder, M. and Aires Da-Silva, A. 213. Stock assessment of blue sharks in the north PacificOcean using stock synthesis. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-02. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session,Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013.

Roe, J.H., Morreale, S.J., Paladino, F.V., Shillinger, G.L. and Benson, S.R. et al. 2014. Predicting bycatch hotspotsfor endangered leatherback turtles on longlines in the Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal Society281:20132559

Schindler, D.E., Essington, T.E., Kitchell, J.F., Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R. 2002. Sharks and tunas: fisheries impactson predators with contrasting life histories. Ecological Applications 12:735-748.

Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch criteria for fisheries. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch VersionJanuary 18, 2013. 82 p.

Seminoff, J.A. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.) 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

SPC. 2014. Tuna fisheries longline. Secretariat for the Pacific Community, Oceanic Fisheries Programme.Available at: http://www.spc.int/oceanfish/en/tuna-fisheries/174-longline

Spotila, J.R., Dunham, A.E., Leslie, A.J., Steyermark, A.C., Plotkin, P.T. and Paladino, F.V. 1996. Worldwidepopulation decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation andBiology 2:209-222

Stevens, J. 2009. Prionace glauca. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.Available at: http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/39381/0

Stevens, J.D., Bonfil, R., Dulvy, N.K. and Walker, P.A. 2000. The effects of fishing on sharks, rays, and chimaeras(chondrichthuyans), and the implications for marine ecosystems. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:476-494.

Tapilatu, R.F., Dutton, P.H., Tiwari, M., Wibbels, T., Ferdinandus, H.V., Iwanggin, W.G. and Nugroho, B.H. 2013.Long-term decline of the western Pacific leatherback, Dermochelys coriacea: a globally important sea turtle

78

Page 79: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

population. Ecosphere 4:25.http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ES12-00348.1

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2008a. Pseudorca crassidens. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2008b. Peponocephala electra. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2008. Feresa attenuata. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2008. Physeter macrocephalus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2011. Globicephala macrorhynchus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2012.2

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2012. Grampus griseus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.

Tuck, G.N., Phillips, R.A., Small, C., Thomson, R.B., Klaer, N.L., Taylor, F., Wanless, R.M. and Arrizabalaga, H.2011. An assessment of seabird–fishery interactions in the Atlantic Ocean. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 68:1628–1637

Van Houtan, K.S. 2011. Assessing the impact of fishery actions to marine turtle populations in the North Pacificusing classical and climate-based models, Internal Report IR-II-024. NOAA Fisheries, Pacific Islands ScienceCenter. 25 p.

Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., MiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B. and Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of fisheriesbycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere4:40.http://dx.doi.org/10.1980/ES12-00388.1

Walsh, W.A., Bigelow, K.A. and Sender, K.L. 2009. Decreases in shark catches and mortality in the Hawaii-basedlongline fishery as documented by fishery observers. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management andEcosystem Science 1:270-282.

Waugh, S.M., Filippi, D.P., Kirby, D.S., Abraham E. & Walker N. 2012. Ecological Risk Assessment for seabirdinteractions in Western and Central Pacific longline fisheries. Marine Policy 36: 933–946.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2005. Conservation and management measure forNorth Pacific albacore. Conservation and Management Measure-2005-03. Second Session 12-16 December2005.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2006. Western and central Pacific fisheriescommission boarding and inspection procedures. Conservation and Management Measure 2006-08. ThirdRegular Session, Apia, Samoa, 11-15 December 2006.

WCPFC, 2006b. Conservation and management measure for striped marlin in the southwest Pacific.

79

Page 80: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Conservation and Management Measure 2006-04.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 200. Conservation and management measure forthe -regional observer programme. Conservation and Management Measure 200. Fourth Regular Session,Tumon, Guam, USA, 2-7 December 20007.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 2008a. Conservation and management measure for bigeyeand yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation Management Measure 2008-01.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2008b. Conservation and management of seaturtles. Conservation and Management Measure 2008-03. Fifth Regular Session, 8-12 December 2008, Busan,Korea.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2009. Conservation and management forswordfish. Conservation and Management Measure 2009-03, Sixth Regular Session, Papeete, Tahiti, FrenchPolynesia, 7-11 December 2009.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010c. Conservation and management measurefor South Pacific albacore. Conservation and Management Measure-2010-051. Seventh Regular Session,Honolulu, HI, December 6-10, 2010.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010a. Conservation and management measurefor sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-07. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-12December 2010.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010b. Conservation and management measure toestablish a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities inthe WCPO. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-06. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-10December 2010.

WCPFC. 2010d. Conservation and management measure for north Pacific striped marlin. Conservation andManagement Measure 2010-01.

WCPFC. 2011. Commission for the Conservation and management of highly migratory fish stocks in the westernand central Pacific ocean summary report. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session. Pohnpei, FederatedStates of Micronesia.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012A. Conservation and management measurefor bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and ManagementMeasure 2012-01. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012b. Conservation and management measurefor Pacific bluefin tuna. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-06. Commission Ninth Regular Session,Manila, Philippines 2-6 December 2012.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012e. Conservation and management measure tomitigate the impact of fishing for highly migratory fish stocks on seabirds. Conservation and ManagementMeasure 2012-07. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012f. Conservation and management measure foroceanic whitetip shark. Conservation and Management Measure 2011-04. Eighth Regular Session, Tumon,

80

Page 81: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Guam, 26-30 March 2011.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012g. Conservation and management measurefor implementing the regional observer programme by vessels fishing for fresh fish north of 20N. Conservationand Management Measure 2012-03. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December2012.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012c. Conservation and management measurefor compliance monitoring scheme. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-02. Commission NinthRegular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.

Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012d. Commission vessel monitoring system.Conservation and Management Measure 2011-02. Commission Eighth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, 26-30March 2012.

WCPFC. 2013a. Conservation and management measure for Pacific bluefin tuna. Conservation and ManagementMeasure 2013-09. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013d. Conservation and management measure for compliance monitoring scheme. Conservation andManagement Measure 2013-02. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013c. WCPFC management objectives workshop 2. 28-29 November, 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013b. Conservation and management measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the Westernand Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-01. Tenth regular session, December2-6, 2013, Cairns Australia.

WCPFC. 2013e. Commission for the Conservation and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean Summary Report. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August,2013, Federated States of Micronesia.

WCPFC. 2013f. Conservation and management measure for silky sharks. Conservation and ManagementMeasure 2013-08. Commission Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December, 2013, Cairns, Australia.

WCPFC. 2013g. Commission for the Conservation and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean. Tenth Regular Session, Cairns, Australia, 2-6 December 2013.

WCPFC. 2013h. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session summary report. Pohnpei, Federated States ofMicronesia, 6-14 August 2013.

WCPFC. 2014. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission,Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014.

WCPFC. 2014b. Estimates of annual catches in the WCPFC statistical area. WCPFC-S10-2014/ST IP.

WCPFC. 2014c. Tuna fishery yearbook 2013. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission.

WCPFC. 2015. Estimates of annual catches in the WCPFC statistical area. WCPFC-SC11-2015/ST IP-1

Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales.Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 295-304.

81

Page 82: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Williams, P. and Terewasi, P. 2014. Overview of tuna fisheries in the western and central Pacific Ocean,including economic considerations 2013. WCPFC-SC10-2014/GN WP-1

Williams, P, S.S. Kirby and S. Beverly. 2009. Encounter rates and life status for marine turtles in the WCPOlongline and purse seine fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-07.

Work, T.M. and Balazs, G.H. 2002. Necropsy findings in sea turtles taken as bycatch in the North Pacific longlinefishery. Fishery Bulletin 100:876-880.

Work, T.M. and Balazs, G.H. 2002. Necropsy findings in sea turtles taken as bycatch in the North Pacific longlinefishery. Fisheries Bulletin 100:876-880

Zug, G.R. and Parham, J.F. 1996. Age and growth in leatherback turtles, Dermochelys coriacea (Testudines:Dermochelyidae): A skeletochronological analysis. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 2(2): 244-249.

82

Page 83: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesALBACORE

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the life historycharacteristics of albacore suggest only a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacore reachessexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reaches a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2011). It isa broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life history characteristics,which score a 2 on the Seafood Watch productivity and susceptibility table, we have awarded a mediumscore.

Justification:

Life history characteristic Paramater Score

Age at maturity <5 years 3Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

Albacore tuna in the South Pacific was last assessed in 2015. According to the assessment, the spawningstock biomass of albacore tuna has been reduced to around 41% (33%–55%) of unfished levels. The currentspawning stock biomass is estimated to likely be above the levels needed to produce the maximumsustainable yield. The limit reference point for albacore is 20% of the spawning biomass with no fishing (20%SBF = 0) and the current spawning biomass is estimated to be 40% of values with no fishing (SBF = 0)(Harley et al. 2015). We have awarded a “low” concern score because the model suggests a healthy stock, butthere is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding these results and the biomass has been declining overtime.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

The most recent stock assessment for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2014.According to this assessment, the spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2012 (last year of data included in themodel) was 110,101 t, with stock depletion estimated to be 35.8% of the unfished SSB. No biomass-basedreference points are in place, but the assessment concluded that there was little indication that the SSB wasbelow any candidate biomass-based reference points. We have therefore awarded a “low” concern scorebecause it is likely that albacore tuna in the North Pacific is not overfished, but not a very low concern scorebecause no reference points are currently accepted (ISCAWG 2014).

83

Page 84: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very Low Concern

According to the most recent stock assessment (2015), the fishing mortality reference point for albacore tunain the South Pacific, F /F , had a median estimate of 0.39 (0.2–0.59) and there is a low risk thatoverfishing is occurring (Harley et al. 2015). We have therefore awarded a “very low” concern score.

current MSY

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

The current fishing mortality rate (F ) for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean is around 72% of theinterim reference point (F , the fishing mortality rate that would lead to future minimum SSB fallingbelow the SSB-ATHL threshold level at least once during a 25-year projection period). In addition, the currentfishing mortality rate (F ) is below other F-based reference points (F , F , and F (fishingmortality that gives 10%–40% reduction in the spawning potential ratio)) except F and F . Albacore tunain the North Pacific Ocean are therefore not currently undergoing overfishing. But increases in fishing mortalityrates will significantly reduce the spawning biomass (ISCAWG 2014). We have awarded a “low” concern andnot very low concern score.

2010–2012

SSB–ATHL50%

2010–2012 MSY 0.1 10%–40%

MED 50%

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

84

Page 85: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BIGEYE TUNA

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But bigeye tuna’slife history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reaches sexualmaturity around 100–125 cm, reaches a maximum size of 200 cm, and lives around 11 years (Davies et al.2014) (Froese et al. 2013). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on theSeafood Watch productivity analysis table, these life history characteristics suggest a medium levelof vulnerability. We acknowledge that other methods may suggest a di�erent vulnerability rating. But becausethe stock status of bigeye tuna is known, this inherent vulnerability score will not a�ect the overall outcome.We have therefore awarded a medium vulnerability based on the productivity table analysis.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

Bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was last assessed in 2014. According to thebase case model, the ratio of the current average (2008–2011) spawning biomass to that needed to producethe maximum sustainable yield (SB /SB ) was 0.94, and the ratio of the latest (2012) spawningbiomass (mature fish) to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SB /SB ) was 0.77,indicating that the population is overfished (Harley et al. 2014). We have therefore awarded a “high” concernscore.

current MSY

latest MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The ratios of current fishing mortality rates to those that produce the maximum sustainableyield (F /F ) for all model runs were much higher than 1, with the ratio from all runs estimated at1.57, indicating that overfishing is occurring. Based on this estimate, fishing mortality needs to be reduced bymore than 30% from 2008–2011 levels to become sustainable (Harley et al. 2014). We have awarded a “high”concern score based on the assessment results that overfishing is occurring and has been for some time.

current MSY

85

Page 86: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BLACK-BROWED ALBATROSS

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

86

Page 87: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

FLESH-FOOTED SHEARWATER

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for Conservation for Nature (IUCN) has classified black-browed albatross as NearThreatened with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2014b). The total population sizeworldwide is estimated to be 700,000 breeding birds or 2.1 million individual birds (Birdlife International2014b). The status in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. We have awarded a “high” concernscore based on the IUCN listing.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

Interactions between black-browed albatross and the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, although low innumber, have been reported. For example, from 1980 to 2004, 22 black-browed albatross interactions withpelagic longline gear were observed south of 31° S (Molony 2005), and between 1992 and 2009, 95% ofblack-browed albatross captured in the albacore South Pacific longline fishery were discarded, and of those,71% were dead. Management measures have been adopted by most fleets to mitigate the incidental captureof seabirds in longline fisheries operating in the South Pacific region of the western and central Pacific Ocean(Clarke et al. 2013). We have awarded a “low” concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

87

Page 88: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), flesh-footed shearwater is classifiedas Least Concern and the population is considered stable (BirdLife International 2012c). This classification wasdue to this species’ extremely large range, and the large population size. In 2004, the global population wasestimated to be more than 650,000 individuals (Brooke 2004). We have therefore awarded a “low” concernscore.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

Flesh-footed shearwater appears to be incidentally caught in pelagic longline fisheries operating in the SouthPacific. For example, between 1980 and 2004, 124 flesh-footed shearwater interactions with pelagic longlinegear were observed in waters south of 31° S (Molony 2005). From 1992 to 2009, 92% of flesh-footedshearwaters captured in the albacore South Pacific longline fishery were discarded, and of those, 85% weredead (OFP 2010). Flesh-footed shearwater has a large range and subsequently a large overlap with thisfishery. Since this species has a high susceptibility to the fishery and fishing mortality rates are unknown, butmitigation measures have been adopted by many fleets in the Southwest Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013),we have awarded a “moderate” concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from

88

Page 89: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

GREEN SEA TURTLE

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life historycharacteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a lowreproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified green sea turtle as Endangered witha decreasing population trend. Wallace et al. (2013) identified populations of green sea turtle in the NorthCentral Pacific Ocean to be at high risk. Green sea turtle has been listed on the Convention on InternationalTrade of Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and is currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that itis threatened with extinction and that international trade is prohibited. The mean annual number of nestingturtles worldwide has decreased 48% to 67% over the past 100 to 150 years (Semino� 2004). Out of 27known nesting sites in Oceania, 3 had an increasing trend, 2 had decreasing trends, and 2 had stable trends,while trends at the remaining sites were unknown (Maison et al. 2010). We have awarded a “very high”concern score because of the IUCN classification.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

The incidental capture of green sea turtle is considered a major threat to its populations worldwide (Semino�2004). Though green sea turtle is one of the more commonly caught turtle species in the South Pacific region(NMFS 2013) (Williams et al. 2009), the impact from bycatch to the population is low in the South CentralPacific and the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, and those populations are considered to be at low risk(Wallace et al. 2013). The American Samoa pelagic longline fishery reported the incidental capture of 42green sea turtles during 2010, four times higher than any other species (NMFS 2013). The Cook Island SouthPacific albacore fishery also reports green sea turtle as one of the most commonly caught bycatch species(Gascoigne et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods have been adopted by the Western and Central PacificFisheries Commission, but their use and e�ectiveness are unknown and there are issues with compliance(Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because bycatch in this fishery does not

89

Page 90: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

GREY PETREL

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

appear to be threatening the population, but impacts are not fully known.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

90

Page 91: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

LIGHT-MANTLED ALBATROSS

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies grey petrel as Near Threatened with adecreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2012d). The global population is estimated to be somewhatlow, around 400,000, with a low estimate of 160,000 and a high of 1,200,000 (Brooke 2004). We haveawarded a “high” concern score to account for the IUCN rating.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

Between 1980 and 2004, 126 grey petrel interactions with pelagic longline gear were observed, primarily south of 31° S (Molony 2005), and from 1992 to 2009, 100% of incidentally capture grey petrels in the SouthPacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded and all of them were dead (OFP 2010). In New Zealand waters ofthe South Pacific, it has historically been one of the most commonly killed bird species in the tuna longlinefishery, with estimates of 45,000 birds being caught during the 1980s and 1990s (BirdLIfe International2014d). But New Zealand has implemented the use of several bycatch mitigation measures in tuna fisheries(NZG 2008). Incidental mortality in fisheries o� the coast of Australia has also been reported (BirdLifeInternational 2012d). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because, although bycatch has beenreduced in New Zealand waters, information gaps in other areas suggest that this species should remain asmoderate concern.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).

91

Page 92: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

WHITETIP SHARK

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies light-mantled albatross as NearThreatened with a decreasing population trend. The total breeding population is estimated to be 19,000–24,000 pairs or about 58,000 individuals (BirdLife International 2012s). We have awarded a “high”concern score based on the IUCN listing.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

Specific longline fleets in the South Pacific that have reported this species as incidentally caught (in smallamounts) in tuna fisheries include New Zealand and Australia (BirdLife International 2012f) (ACAP 2014a).Between 1980 and 2004, 38 interactions between light-mantled albatross and pelagic longline gear (primarilysouth of 31° S) were observed (Molony 2005), and from 1992 to 2009, 100% of light-mantled albatross werediscarded dead in the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery (OFP 2010). Interactions are low, breeding areashave all adopted bycatch avoidance methods since 2000, and the majority of its foraging range is within theConvention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) region (ACAP 2014a), so wehave awarded a “low” concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

92

Page 93: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Oceanic whitetipshark reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can attain a maximum length of 400 cm andlive up to 22 years. Oceanic whitetip shark gives birth to live young and is a top predator (Froese and Pauly2015). These life history characteristics also suggest a “high” level of vulnerability to fishing.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers oceanic whitetip shark to beVulnerable globally (Baum et al. 2006). The first stock assessment of oceanic whitetip shark in theWestern and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted in 2012. Although results are reported in relationto maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points, reference points to manage this stock have not yetbeen identified by the scientific committee or Commission. According to the assessment, the spawningbiomass (mature fish) is estimated to be far below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainableyield (SB /SB = 0.153), indicating that the stock is overfished (Rice and Harley 2012b). We haveawarded a “high” concern score because of the stock status.

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

According to the first and only assessment conducted in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO),fishing mortality far exceeds levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F withF /F = 6.694) and therefore overfishing is occurring (Rice and Harley 2012b). It should be noted thatthe majority of oceanic whitetip sharks are caught in longline fisheries, compared to purse seine (Rice 2012).Recently, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission banned the capture and sale of oceanicwhitetip shark. We have therefore awarded a “high” concern and not critical concern score.

MSY

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to

93

Page 94: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

OLIVE RIDLEY TURTLE

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life historycharacteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a lowreproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).

94

Page 95: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers olive ridley sea turtle to be Vulnerablewith a decreasing population trend. Olive ridley turtle has been listed as Threatened on the U.S. EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) since 1978 (NMFS 2012a). Along several beaches in Thailand, current estimates of thenumber of nests/km/day are around 20, while in Indonesia this number is 230. It is estimated that the annualnesting subpopulation on these Thai beaches has decreased 97%–98% over time, while in Indonesia theyhave increased substantially. Overall, in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, there has been a decrease inannual nesting females of 92%, from 1,412 to 108 (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). We have awarded a“high” concern score because of the IUCN listing.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

The incidental capture of olive ridley turtle occurs worldwide, although other fisheries such as trawls andgillnets appear to have a larger negative impact compared to longlines (Wallace et al. 2013) (Abreu-Groboisand Plotkin 2008). Data related to incidental captures are scarce due to low reporting by some countries andlow observer coverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Bycatch of olive ridleyis reported to be especially high in some albacore fisheries operating in the South Pacific region (Huang 2014)but not others (Akroyd et al. 2012). Bycatch is thought to be a low threat to the population in the West Pacificregion and the population is at low risk (Wallace et al. 2013). Bycatch mitigation methods have been put intoplace by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but there are issues with compliance and thee�ectiveness of these measures is unknown (Clarke et al. 2014). We have awarded a “moderate” concernscore because the population is depleted, but this fishery is not a major contributor.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

95

Page 96: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SALVIN'S ALBATROSS

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Salvin’s albatross is consideredVulnerable and it is unknown whether its populations are increasing or decreasing. In 1998, it was estimatedthat 30,750 breeding individuals were present on the Bounty Islands and that this represented 99% of theglobal population. Based on this estimate, there are roughly 61,500 mature birds and 90,000 individuals(BirdLife International 2012h). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN listing.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

Salvin’s albatross is more commonly reported as incidentally caught by New Zealand tuna longliners than inother areas of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO). For example, between 1996 and 2005,observers reported 150 interactions with this species aboard New Zealand longliners (BirdLife International2012h). We have awarded a “moderate” concern and not high concern score because bycatch mitigationmeasures have been adopted by the New Zealand fleet (NZG 2008) and almost all of the breeding andforaging areas for this species occur in New Zealand waters (ACAP 2014c).

96

Page 97: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SILKY SHARK

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Fishbase assigned a high score of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers silky shark to be Near Threatenedglobally (Bonfil et al. 2009). The first assessment of silky shark in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean(WCPO) was conducted in 2012 and updated during 2013 (Rice and Harley 2013). According to this model, thespawning biomass (abundance of mature fish) levels consistently declined over the modeled period (1995–2009). The spawning biomass has declined by 67% since 1995. The spawning biomass in 2009 was far belowtarget levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SB /SB = 0.70 (95% C.I. 0.51– 1.23)and therefore the stock is overfished. We have awarded a “high” concern score because the SSB is belowMSY.

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

97

Page 98: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

High Concern

According to the 2013 updated silky shark assessment in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO),fishing mortality rates in 2009 (the last year of the modeled period) exceeded levels needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield (F /F = 4.48 (1.41–7.96)). This indicates that overfishing is occurring(Rice and Harley 2013). The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has recently banned the catch,landing, and sale of silky shark (WCPFC 2013f). The success of this measure is highly dependent on post-release survival of silky shark. We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the high fishing mortalityrates.

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%

98

Page 99: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Southernbluefin tuna reaches sexual maturity after at least 8 years of age and at a size of 155 cm in length, butperhaps not until 15 years of age. It reaches a total length of 2 m and can live up to 42 years (IOTC 2013e).Southern bluefin tuna is a top predator and is considered a broadcast spawner (Froese and Pauly 2013). Wehave awarded a “high” vulnerability based on the FishBase score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very High Concern

The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified southern bluefin tuna as CriticallyEndangered (Collette et al. 2011e). According to the latest stock assessment, the current spawning biomass ofsouthern bluefin tuna is a small fraction of virgin levels and well below the level needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield (SB /SB = 0.229 (0.146–0.320)). But at current catch levels, thepopulation is expected to increase. Catch rates from the Japanese longline fishery have been increasing since2007 for some age classes, and aerial surveys have indicated a recent increase in abundance in 2013, thesecond-highest in history (IOTC 2013e). We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on the currentlow biomass levels and IUCN status.

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

Fishing mortality rates have decreased for southern bluefin tuna and are now below those needed to producethe maximum sustainable yield (F /F = 0.76 (0.52–1.07)). In addition, reported catches are below themaximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels, and current exploitation rates are considered moderate (IOTC2013e). We have awarded a “low” concern instead of very low concern score because fishing mortality rateshave just decreased to sustainable levels and because current exploitation rates are considered moderate.

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in this

99

Page 100: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

SWORDFISH

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the lifehistory characteristics of swordfish indicate a lower vulnerability to fishing. For example, swordfish reachessexual maturity at around 180 cm in size and around 5 years of age, and it reaches a maximum length of 455cm and lives more than 10 years. Swordfish is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly2013). This is more indicative of a moderate vulnerability to fishing.

Justification:

Life history characteristic Paramater Score

Age at maturity <5 years 3Average size at maturity 100-300 cm 2Average maximum size >300 cm 1Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Low Concern

In 2013, an updated assessment of swordfish in the southern region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean(WCPO) was conducted. This updated stock assessment included both the South-West Pacific (SWP) as wellas the South-Central Pacific (SCP). Compared to the 2008 assessment, this updated one was able todetermine abundance estimates for both regions. Considerable uncertainty still surrounded the assumptionsmade with regard to growth, maturity, and mortality (age-specific). Standardized catch rates for the mainfleets declined drastically between 1997 and 2011, and the mean size also decreased in the main fisheries.The total and spawning biomass have declined since the late 1990s and the current levels are 44%–68% and27%–55% of virgin levels, respectively. The ratios of biomass and spawning biomass (mature fish) levels tothose needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) range from 1.15 to 1.85 and 1.15 to 3.53,respectively, indicating that the population is not overfished (Davies et al. 2013). We have awarded a “low”concern and not very low concern score due to the high level of uncertainty.

100

Page 101: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very Low Concern

In 2014, an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted. This assessment considered twopopulations: one in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) and one in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. Accordingto this model, the exploitable biomass for the population in the WCPO region fluctuated at or above the levelneeded to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B ) for most of the time series (1951–2012), and thereis a low probability (14%) of the biomass being below B in 2012 (ISCBWG 2014). We have thereforeawarded a “very low” concern score.

MSY

MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

According to the updated 2013 assessment of swordfish in the Southwest Pacific Ocean, catches are aroundthe levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (82%–102%). The fishing mortality ratefor juvenile swordfish increased in the mid-1990s, and the ratios of current fishing mortality rates tothose needed to produce MSY range from 0.33 to 1.77. This indicates that the population, under someassumptions, may be undergoing overfishing (Davies et al. 2013). We have therefore awarded a “moderate”concern and not a low concern score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very Low Concern

In 2014, an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted. Exploitation rates in this regionpeaked in the 1960s and have declined since. The current fishing mortality rate (H ) is 15%, which islower than the level necessary to produce the maximum sustainable yield (H = 25%). It is very unlikely(<1%) that fishing mortality rates (H) are unsustainable; therefore overfishing is not occurring (ISCBWG2014). We have therefore awarded a “very low” concern score.

2010–2012

MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,

101

Page 102: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

WANDERING ALBATROSS

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers the wandering albatross population to beVulnerable with a decreasing population trend. The global population is around 20,100 mature individuals butthe status of this species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown (BirdLife International 2012l).We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN classification.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

Wandering albatross is threatened by longline fisheries, which have been identified as a leading cause of itsglobal declines. This is primarily a factor of its large range, which makes it susceptible to capture by a varietyof fleets (BirdLife International 2012l). Between 1980 and 2004, 107 interactions between wanderingalbatrosses and pelagic longline gear (primarily south of 31° S) were observed (Molony 2005), and from 1992to 2009, 53% of incidentally captured seabirds died (OFP 2010). Wandering albatross is affected evenby lowbycatch rates due to its small population size (ACAP 2014b). The majority of breeding area for this speciesoccurs in South African territories (ACAP 2014b). Management measures have been adopted by many fleets inthe Southwestern Pacific Ocean to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds. These measures have not beenadopted by all fleets operating in its breeding region (ACAP 2014b). Due to the impact from even low bycatch

102

Page 103: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

WHITE-CHINNED PETREL

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

rates, combined with the fact that bycatch mitigation measures have not been fully adopted by all fleets, wehave awarded a “moderate” concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed white-chinned petrel as Vulnerable andits populations are decreasing. The global population is estimated to have declined from 1,430,000 pairs in the1980s to 1,200,000 pairs currently. There are around 3 million mature birds (Brooke 2004) (BirdLifeInternational 2012o). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN listing.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

White-chinned petrel is one of the most vulnerable bird species to bycatch in fisheries operating in the

103

Page 104: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

YELLOWFIN TUNA

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Southern Hemisphere (ACAP 2014d). Estimates from the 1990s in the Australian longline fishery suggest thatover 800 white-chinned petrels were incidentally caught per year. In the New Zealand longline fishery, 14.5%of incidentally caught birds in longline (and trawl) fisheries between 2003 and 2005 were white-chinnedpetrels (BirdLife International 2012o). White-chinned petrel also has a very high mortality rate as a result ofthis incidental capture (OFP 2010). White-chinned petrel has a high aerial and vertical overlap with pelagiclongline gear (BirdLife International 2012). It should be noted that many fisheries outside of this region mayalso be contributing to a cumulative e�ect on population size (ACAP 2014d). For example, this is one of themost commonly caught species in the South Atlantic (Tuck et al. 2011). But management measures to reducethe incidental capture of seabirds have been adopted by many fleets in the South Pacific (Clarke et al. 2013),so we have awarded a “moderate” concern and not high concern score.

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate to high vulnerability of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin’s lifehistory characteristics support a moderate vulnerability score. Yellowfin tuna reaches sexual maturity by 100cm in length, although growth rates vary by location, and 2–3 years of age. It can attain a maximum size of180 cm and live to at least 4 years of age and perhaps as much as 9 years. It is a broadcast spawner and animportant predator in the ecosystem (Langley et al. 2011) (Froese and Pauly 2013).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

104

Page 105: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Very Low Concern

The biomass-based reference point was 1.37 for the reference model used in the 2014assessment (SB /SB , the ratio of the current [2008–2011] spawning [mature fish] biomass to thatneeded to produce the maximum sustainable yield). The ratio of the latest (2012) spawning biomass to thelevel needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SB /SB ) was 1.24. Therefore yellowfin tunais not in an overfished state (Davies et al. 2014b). We have awarded a “very low” concern score.

current MSY

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESWESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Very Low Concern

The current fishing mortality rate is below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield(F /F = 0.72) for the most realistic models. Therefore overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al.2014). We have awarded a “very low” concern score.

current MSY

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, and in thisfishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue shark are the most commonly caught non-target species. According toobserver data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but arearound 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very lowdiscard rates of <5%, but sharks have very high discard rates of >95% (Akroyd et al. 2012). It should benoted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data fromthe South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate,according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

105

Page 106: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

WESTERN AND CENTRAL PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

< 20%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). In the WCPO pelagic longline fisheries, around 5% of targeted tuna (bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore)were estimated to have been discarded between 1994 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). Discard rates of skipjack tunaare higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targetedtunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between 1994 and 2009 were 11% for billfish,54% for other bony fish, 49% for elasmobranchs, 73% for seabirds, 94% for marine mammals, and 96%for turtles (OFP 2010). According to this second study, based on observer data, the overall discard rate for theWCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), black-footed albatross is classified asNear Threatened with a stable to increasing population trend (BirdLife International 2014). Based on countsconducted during the 2006–2007 breeding season, 64,500 pairs were estimated in colonies that support 90%of the global breeding population. Other estimates from 2000 concluded there were 275,000 birds (Cousinsand Cooper 2000). Its status in the North Pacific Ocean is unknown, so we have awarded a “high” concernscore based on the IUCN status.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

Black-footed albatross is one of the more commonly observed bird species in the Western and Central PacificOcean (WCPO), with interactions primarily occurring in the North Pacific longline fisheries (Baird et al. 2013).Some studies have suggested that the mortality associated with North Pacific tuna longline fisheries maythreaten black-footed albatross. For example, research suggests that a mortality rate of 10,000–12,000 birdsper year is needed to sustain this population and that mortality from pelagic longline fisheries may exceed this(Lewison and Crowder 2003) (Crowder and Myers 2001) (Arata and Naughton 2009). From 1992 to 2009,100% of black-footed albatross caught in longline fisheries north of 10° N were discarded dead (OFP 2010).

106

Page 107: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

LAYSAN ALBATROSS

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

The total estimated mortality of this species in the Central North Pacific between 1994 and 2000 ranged from5,200 to 13,800 birds (Gilman 2001). Other research has estimated mortality rates as high as 6,000 black-footed albatross per year by the Japanese and Taiwanese fleets (BirdLife International 2014). Reducingseabird interactions in this region could improve their status. We have awarded a “high” concern scorebecause seabirds are considered highly vulnerable and their stock statuses are of high concern; currentmortality rates are unknown but could be high; and although management measures have been adopted bysome fleets to mitigate incidental capture in longline fisheries operating in the North Pacific Ocean (Clarke etal. 2013), the best management practices that minimize seabird mortality are not required or adopted by allfleets.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

SOUTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High

Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (Seafood Watch 2013).Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-Abrain 2000). These life history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists the Laysan albatross as Near Threatened butwith a stable population trend (BirdLife International 2012f). Globally, there are an estimated 591,000breeding pairs or 1.18 million mature birds (Naughton et al. 2007). We have awarded a “high” concern scoredue to the IUCN listing.

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

Moderate Concern

107

Page 108: Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped marlin · 2018-11-01 · Black marlin, Blue marlin, Blue shark, Opah, Shortfin mako shark and Striped

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Laysan albatross has a very high overlap within the northern region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean(Baird et al. 2 013). It has been estimated that pelagic longline vessels fishing in the North Pacific Ocean maykill around 8,000 Laysan albatross a year, although in recent years these numbers have been much less due tothe use of mitigation measures (Birdlife International 2012c). Between 1992 and 2009, 100% of incidentallycaptured Laysan albatross from the North Pacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded, and of these, 67%were dead (OFP 2010). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because fishing mortality rates areunknown but there are mitigation measures in place (Clarke et al. 2013).

NORTH PACIFIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

20-40%

The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and CentralPacific Ocean (WCPO), distant water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicate that 36% of the total catchis discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10° N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfishfrom 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and for marinemammals, seabirds, and turtles 100% (OFP 2010).

108


Recommended