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.
2
About Seafood Watch® Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch® program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught and farmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch® defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch® makes its science-based recommendations available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can be downloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The program’s goals are to raise awareness of important ocean conservation 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. Each report synthesizes and analyzes the most current ecological, fisheries and ecosystem science on a species, then evaluates this information against the program’s conservation ethic to arrive at a recommendation of “Best Choices,” “Good Alternatives” or “Avoid.” The detailed evaluation methodology is available upon request. In producing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch® seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewed journals whenever possible. Other sources of information include government technical publications, fishery management plans and supporting documents, and other scientific reviews of ecological sustainability. Seafood Watch® Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scientists, and members 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 species changes, Seafood Watch®’s sustainability recommendations and the underlying Seafood Reports will be updated to reflect these changes. Parties interested in capture fisheries, aquaculture practices and the sustainability of ocean ecosystems are welcome to use Seafood Reports in any way they find useful. For more information about Seafood Watch® and Seafood Reports, please contact the Seafood Watch® program at Monterey Bay Aquarium by calling 1-877-229-9990.
3
Guiding Principles Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as originating from sources, whether fished1 or farmed, that can maintain or increase production in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or function of affected ecosystems. Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evaluating wild-catch fisheries 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 score • Guidelines 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 and the overall recommendation are color-coded to correspond to the categories on the Seafood Watch pocket guide 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 other marine life or the environment.
1 “Fish” is used throughout this document to refer to finfish, shellfish and other invertebrates.
4
Summary Albacore, bigeye, Pacific bluefin, southern bluefin, and yellowfin tuna and swordfish are caught by a variety of gears in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), including the North and South Pacific regions. This report focuses on the longline fisheries within the WCPO region that target these six species. There are several broadly defined categories of longline fisheries. These include: 1. South Pacific albacore fishery, which is made up of domestic vessels from Pacific Island countries that operate in subtropical waters and target albacore, and distant-water vessels from Chinese Taipei, China, and Vanuatu that fish south of 20°S and supply albacore to canneries. 2. South Pacific distant-water swordfish fishery, which is mostly made up of vessels from Spain. 3. Tropical offshore and distant-water fisheries that target bigeye and yellowfin tuna. The offshore fishery includes vessels from Chinese Taipei and China that are based in the Pacific Island countries; the distant-water fleet is made up of vessels from Japan, Korea, Chinese Taipei, China, and Vanuatu. The offshore fishery supplies tuna to the sashimi market, while the distant-water fishery supplies the frozen sashimi market. 4. North Pacific distant-water albacore and swordfish fisheries, made up of vessels from Japan, Chinese Taipei, and Vanuatu. Pacific bluefin tuna are targeted by Japanese and Chinese Taipei longliners, and southern bluefin tuna are caught in longline fisheries operating in the South Pacific. In addition to these fisheries, there are a number of domestic tuna fisheries operating in the subtropical and temperate areas of the WCPO (SPC 2014). Populations of swordfish, albacore, and yellowfin tuna are healthy, and fishing mortality rates are currently sustainable, although swordfish in the South Pacific may be undergoing overfishing. Bigeye tuna populations are not healthy and fishing pressure is too high. Populations of Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific have been greatly reduced, as much as 96% over time, and fishing mortality rates are currently too high. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) manages bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the WCPO and albacore tuna in the South Pacific, while the WCPFC and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission manage swordfish, albacore, and Pacific bluefin tuna throughout the North Pacific. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna manages southern bluefin tuna throughout its range. Both organizations have provided few management measures specific to these species and have been only moderately effective in enforcing them. Pelagic longline gears typically have little to no contact with bottom habitats, but do interact with ecologically important species, and these interactions could have negative effects on the ecosystem.
5
Table of Conservation Concerns and Overall Recommendations
Stock / Fishery Impacts on the Stock
Impacts on other Spp.
Management Habitat and Ecosystem
Overall Recommendation
Yellowfin tuna Western Central Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Green (5.00) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (2.098)
Albacore tuna North Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Green (3.83) Critical (0.00)
Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (0.000)
Albacore tuna South Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Green (4.47) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (2.040)
Bigeye tuna Western Central Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Red (1.41) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.530)
Pacific bluefin tuna North Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Critical (0.00)
Red (0.95) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (0.000)
Swordfish North Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Green (5.00) Critical (0.00)
Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (0.000)
Swordfish South Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Yellow (3.05)
Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.854)
Southern bluefin tuna South Pacific - Longline, Pelagic
Red (1.92) Red (1.00) Red (1.00) Green (3.87) Avoid (1.650)
Scoring Guide
Scores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishing operations 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 scores
• Good Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern,2 and no more than one Red Criterion, and no Critical scores, and does not meet the criteria for Best Choice (above)
• Avoid/Red = Final Score <=2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern,2 or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.
2 Because effective management is an essential component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).
6
Table of Contents About Seafood Watch® ................................................................................................................................. 2
Introduction Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation
This report is on the pelagic longline fisheries for Western and Central Pacific populations of bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares) and for North and South Pacific populations of swordfish (Xiphias gladius), albacore tuna (Thunnus alalunga), Pacific bluefin tuna (Thunnus orientalis), and southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii).
Overview of the species and management bodies
Swordfish is a widely distributed billfish species, found globally from 50°N to 50°S and at all longitudes in the Pacific Ocean. Swordfish are assessed as two populations in the North Pacific (Western and Central Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population in both the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea.
Albacore tuna are widely distributed in temperate and tropical waters in all oceans. There are six managed populations of albacore tuna: North and South Pacific Ocean, North and South Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, and Mediterranean Sea (ISCAWG 2014). Bigeye and yellowfin tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Pacific Ocean (Davies et al. 2014) (Rice et al. 2014) (Davies et al. 2014b). There are four populations of bigeye and yellowfin tuna: Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), Eastern Pacific Ocean, Atlantic Ocean, and Indian Ocean.
Pacific bluefin tuna are a single stock found throughout the North Pacific Ocean. Southern bluefin tuna are only found in the southern hemisphere, primarily in the Indian, Atlantic, and Western Pacific Ocean; they are uncommonly found in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. This species migrates from the south coast of Australia and the central Indian Ocean as juveniles, and remains in offshore waters as adults. There is only one known spawning location: southeast of Java, Indonesia in the Indian Ocean (IOTC 2013). Globally, longlines are the most common method used to capture swordfish, albacore, and bigeye tuna, while purse seines are the primary gear used to capture Pacific bluefin and yellowfin tuna. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) is in charge of management of swordfish, albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission is also in charge of management of swordfish, Pacific bluefin, and albacore tuna in the North Pacific, and swordfish in the South Pacific. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna manages that species throughout its range.
8
Production Statistics
Catches of swordfish in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean have varied over time, peaking during the late 1950s and again during the early to mid 1990s. Catches in recent years have declined to below 13,000 t (ISCBWG 2014). In the South Pacific Ocean, the majority of swordfish are captured by longline fisheries. Total catches in this region have been increasing over time, fluctuating around 6,000 t in recent years (Davies et al. 2013).
Figure 1: Swordfish landings (mt) in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean (1951-2012) (ISC 2014).
9
Figure 2: Major contributors to U.S. swordfish imports (%), all countries (country of origin) (NMFS 2014). Longline fisheries for albacore tuna in the North Pacific catch less then half of all albacore in the region. The total catches of albacore in the North Pacific have ranged from a low of 37,000 t in 1991 to highs of 126,000 t and 125,000 in 1976 and 1999, respectively (ISCAWG 2014). Annual catches between 2006-2012 averaged around 78,000 t (IATTC 2014). The major fisheries for albacore tuna in the South Pacific are several distant-water longline fleets (Japan, Chinese Taipei, and China) along with some Pacific Island countries’ domestic longline fleets. Longline fishing has increased since the mid-1990s due to the development and expansion of small-scale fisheries in the Pacific Island countries (American Samoa, Cook Islands, Fiji, French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu). Since 2000, catches of albacore in the South Pacific have increased to more than 80,000 mt, with the majority being caught by the longline fishery (Hoyle et al. 2012).
10
Figure 3: Catches of North Pacific albacore by major gear types, 1966–2012. The Other gear category includes catches with purse seine, recreational gear, hand lines, and harpoons (ISCAWG 2014).
11
Figure 4: Catches of albacore tuna in the South Pacific by gear types, 1950-2011 (Hoyle et al. 2012).
Total catches of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean have increased over time, peaking in the mid 2000s at just under 200,000 mt. Longline catches of bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) ranged from 44,000 to 62,000 t between 1980 and 1993, and since 2004 have ranged from 67,000 t to 77,000 t (Davies et al. 2014). The majority of bigeye catches occur within equatorial regions of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Williams and Terewasi 2014).
12
Figure 5: Total annual catch (thousands of mt) of bigeye tuna from the WCPO by fishing method, 1952–2012 (Harley et al. 2014). Total catches of yellowfin tuna in the WCPO have increased over time from a low of under 50,000 t during the mid-1950s to over 600,000 t in 2008 and 2012. Annual catches of yellowfin tuna by longliners in the WCPO have been around 70,000 to 80,000 t since the mid-1980s (Davies et al. 2014b).
13
Figure 6: Annual catches (thousands of t) of yellowfin tuna in the WCPO by fishing gear, 1952–2012 (Davies et al. 2014).
Purse seines catch the majority of bluefin tuna, followed by troll, longline, and set nets in recent years. Information on historical Pacific bluefin catches (total) is limited, although data sets since 1804 and the early 1900s are available from Japan and the United States, respectively. Catches were high from 1929 to 1940, peaking at 59,000 mt in 1935. In 1949, as the Japanese fleet moved across the North Pacific Ocean, catches increased significantly. Since 1952 (when catch reporting improved), the majority of Pacific bluefin tuna have been caught by Japan. Historically, the United States was the second-most important fishing nation for Pacific bluefin tuna. The United States began targeting Pacific bluefin tuna during the early part of the 20th century, with catches throughout the region peaking between 1929 and 1940. But since the late 1990s, Mexico has replaced the United States as the second-largest fishing nation for Pacific bluefin. Annual catches have been under 20,000 t during the past few years, with a very small proportion being made up by handline and troll and pole gears (ISCPBWG 2014).
14
Figure 7: Annual catches of Pacific bluefin tuna by gear, 1952–2013 (ISCPBWG 2014). Only a small proportion of southern bluefin tuna (16%) is caught in the Pacific Ocean. Total catches of southern bluefin tuna peaked in the 1960s at around 82,000 t, with just under 80,000 t coming from the longline fishery. Catches have declined significantly since then, and were only around 10,000 t in 2012, with around half coming from the longline fleet. Catches in the Pacific Ocean have ranged from 800 t to
15
19,000 t since 1968, with an average catch of 5,500 t (IOTC 2013).
During 2013, the United States imported the largest part (39%) of its albacore tuna from Thailand. Other countries that the United States imports large amounts of albacore from include Vietnam (20%) and Indonesia (16%) (NMFS 2014).
16
Figure 9: Major contributors to U.S. albacore tuna imports (%) all countries and region (country of origin) (NMFS 2014).
The United States imported around 19% of its bigeye tuna from Ecuador, 16% from the Marshall Islands, and 14% from Sri Lanka during 2013 (NMFS 2014).
Figure 10: Major contributors to U.S. bigeye tuna imports (%) all countries and regions (country of origin) (NMFS 2014)
The largest portion of yellowfin tuna was imported from Trinidad and Tobago in 2013 (49%). Smaller amounts were imported from the Philippines (7%), Vietnam (6%), and Indonesia (5%) (NMFS 2014).
17
Figure 11: Major contributors to U.S. yellowfin tuna imports (%) all countries and regions (country of origin) (NMFS 2014).
During 2013, swordfish imports into the United States were primarily from Ecuador (24%), Canada (14%), and Costa Rica (12%) and Singapore (14%).
Figure 12: Major contributors to U.S. swordfish imports (%), all countries (country of origin) (NMFS 2014).
During 2013, the United States imported the largest portion (36%) of its Pacific bluefin tuna from Spain, followed by Japan (23%) and Mexico (15%). Total imports during 2012 were 128.5 t. Export data are for Atlantic and Pacific bluefin tuna combined. During 2012, 396.7 t of fresh and 114.5 t of frozen bluefin
18
tuna were exported, primarily to Japan (NMFS 2014).
Figure 13: Pacific bluefin tuna imports (percentage), 2013, for all countries and regions (country of origin) (NMFS 2014). The United States imports the largest portion of its southern bluefin tuna from New Zealand (47%), followed by Japan (33%) (NMFS 2014). Common and market names
Swordfish is also known as broadbilled swordfish, broadbill, espada, and emperado. Albacore tuna is also known as germon, longfinned tuna, albecore, and T. germo. In Hawaii, albacore tuna is known as tombo ahi; bigeye and yellowfin tuna are known as Ahi; skipjack as Aku; and swordfish as mekajiki. Bluefin tuna is also known as giant bluefin, northern bluefin tuna, tunny, and oriental tuna. Southern bluefin tuna is also known as southern tunny or tunny.
Primary product forms
Swordfish, albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna are sold in fresh and frozen forms. Albacore tuna is sold primarily in canned form but also in fresh and frozen form.
19
Assessment This section assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) relative to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries, available at http://www.seafoodwatch.org.
Criterion 1: Stock for which you want a recommendation This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. The inherent vulnerability 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 mortality scores. The Criterion 1 rating is determined as follows:
• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
Criterion 1 Summary
ALBACORE TUNA Region / Method Inherent
Vulnerability Stock Status Fishing
Mortality Subscore
North Pacific Longline, Pelagic
2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Green (3.831)
South Pacific Longline, Pelagic
2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern
5.00:Very Low Concern
Green (4.472)
BIGEYE TUNA Region / Method Inherent
Vulnerability Stock Status Fishing
Mortality Subscore
Western Central Pacific Longline, Pelagic
2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern
1.00:High Concern
Red (1.414)
PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA Region / Method Inherent
Vulnerability Stock Status Fishing
Mortality Subscore
North Pacific Longline, Pelagic
2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern
0.00:Critical Critical (0.000)
20
SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA Region / Method Inherent
Vulnerability Stock Status Fishing
Mortality Subscore
South Pacific Longline, Pelagic
1.00:High 1.00:Very High Concern
3.67:Low Concern
Red (1.916)
SWORDFISH Region / Method Inherent
Vulnerability Stock Status Fishing
Mortality Subscore
North Pacific Longline, Pelagic
2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low Concern
5.00:Very Low Concern
Green (5.000)
South Pacific Longline, Pelagic
2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern
2.33:Moderate Concern
Yellow (3.053)
YELLOWFIN TUNA Region / Method Inherent
Vulnerability Stock Status Fishing
Mortality Subscore
Western Central Pacific Longline, Pelagic
2.00:Medium 5.00:Very Low Concern
5.00:Very Low Concern
Green (5.000)
Populations of albacore tuna and swordfish in the North and South Pacific Ocean are healthy and fishing mortality rates appear sustainable, although there is the possibility that swordfish in the South Pacific are undergoing overfishing. Populations of Pacific bluefin tuna in the North Pacific Ocean have been greatly reduced, as much as 96% over time, and fishing mortality rates are currently too high. Throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, skipjack and yellowfin tuna populations are healthy and fishing mortality rates are low, but bigeye are in an overfished state and overfishing is currently occurring.
Criterion 1 Assessment
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines
• Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing (
• Medium—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make it neither particularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age at sexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle of food chain).
21
• High—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteristics that make is particularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), low reproduction rate, large body size, and top-predator).
Note: The FishBase vulnerability scores is an index of the inherent vulnerability of marine fishes to fishing based on life history parameters: maximum length, age at 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) and geographic range.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines
• 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 overfished
• 3 (Moderate Concern) —Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherent vulnerability to fishing.
• 2 (High Concern)—Population is overfished, depleted, or a species of concern, OR abundance is unknown and 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
Scoring Guidelines
• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishing mortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to the mortality 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, but some uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but its contribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy and the 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 is unknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted, reasonable management is in place.
22
• 1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishing mortality 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 curtail overfishing.
ALBACORE TUNA
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, the life history characteristics of albacore suggest only a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacore reach sexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reach a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2011). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life-history characteristics, this is scored as “medium” vulnerability.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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 the model) was 110,101 t, with stock depletion estimated to be 35.8% of the unfished SSB. No biomass-based reference points are in place, but the assessment concluded that there was little indication that the SSB was below any candidate biomass-based reference points. This is scored as “low” concern rather than very low concern because even though it is likely that albacore tuna in the North Pacific are not overfished, no reference points are currently accepted (ISCAWG 2014).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
Albacore tuna in the South Pacific were last assessed in 2012 and the results were quite similar to previous assessments (2009 and 2011). According to the assessment, the total biomass of albacore tuna
23
has been reduced to around 82% (62%–93%) of unfished levels, while the spawning biomass (mature females) has been reduced to 63% (35%–80%) of unfished levels. Both of these are considered moderate levels of depletion. The ratios of the current total biomass and spawning biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Bcurrent/BMSY = 1.6 (1.4–1.9) and SBcurrent/SBMSY = 2.6 (1.5-5.2)) are both above 1. However, several issues were addressed during this assessment: chiefly, the unrealistic declines in abundance during the early part of the time series and the high uncertainty surrounding increases in recruitment in recent years (Hoyle et al. 2012). This is scored as “low” concern because the model suggests a healthy stock but there is a large amount of uncertainty surrounding these results.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
The current fishing mortality rate (F2010–2012) for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean is around 72% of the interim reference point (FSSB-ATHL50%, which is the fishing mortality rate that would lead to future minimum SSB falling below the SSB-ATHL threshold level at least once during a 25-year projection period; ATHL is the average ten historical lowest levels). In addition, the current fishing mortality rate (F2010-2012) is below some F-based reference points (FMSY, F0.1, and F10%–40% (fishing mortality that gives 10%–50% reduction in the spawning potential ratio)) except FMED and F50%. Albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean are therefore not currently undergoing overfishing. However, increases in fishing mortality rates will significantly reduce the spawning biomass (ISCAWG 2014). This results in a score of “low” concern rather than very low concern.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very Low Concern
According to the most recent stock assessment (2012), the fishing mortality reference point for albacore tuna in the South Pacific, Fcurrent/FMSY, had a median estimate of 0.21 (0.04–1.08) and there is a low risk that overfishing is occurring.
BIGEYE TUNA
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
24
Medium
FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, bigeye tuna’s life-history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reach sexual maturity around 100–125 cm, reach a maximum length of 200 cm, and live around 11 years (Davies et al. 2014) (Froese et al. 2013). They are broadcast spawners and top predators (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on the Seafood Watch productivity analysis table, these life-history characteristics suggest a medium level of vulnerability. Other methods may suggest a different vulnerability rating. However, because the stock status of bigeye tuna is known, this inherent vulnerability score will not affect the overall outcome. Therefore, this is scored as “medium” vulnerability based on the productivity table analysis.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
Bigeye tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) were last assessed in 2014. According to the base case model, the ratio of the current average (2008–2011) spawning biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent/SBMSY) was 0.94 and the ratio of the latest (2012) spawning biomass (mature fish) to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBlatest/SBMSY) was 0.77, indicating that the population is overfished (Harley et al. 2014). This results in a score of “high” concern.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
For all model runs, the ratios of current fishing mortality rates to those that produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY) were much higher than 1, with the ratio from all runs estimated at 1.57, indicating that overfishing is occurring. Based on this estimate, fishing mortality needs to be reduced by more than 30% from 2008–2011 levels to become sustainable (Harley et al. 2014). Based on the assessment results that overfishing is occurring and has been for some time, this is scored as “high concern” score.
25
PACIFIC BLUEFIN TUNA
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 60 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Pacific bluefin tuna reach sexual maturity between 3 and 5 years of age and around 150 cm length (PBTWG 2012). Maximums of 300 cm and 15 years have been reported. Pacific bluefin tuna are broadcast spawners and have a high trophic level according to FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life-history characteristics, Pacific bluefin tuna has a moderate level of vulnerability, so the score is adjusted to “medium.”
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The most recent stock assessment for Pacific bluefin tuna was conducted in 2014. There are no accepted target or limit reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna, but the ratio of spawning stock biomass (SSB) in 2012 to virgin levels is low, indicating that the SSB is currently only 2%–5% of the unfished level. The population of Pacific bluefin tuna is therefore considered overfished (ISCPBWG 2014) and this is scored as “high” concern.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Critical
There are no target or limit reference points for Pacific bluefin tuna, but the current F (2009–2011 average) is higher than all target and biological reference points commonly used in other fisheries (FMAX, FMED, and F20%). It is currently thought that overfishing is occurring (ISCPBWG 2014). Additional management measures have recently been agreed upon that will help reduce fishing mortality rates for this species. But according to the scientific advice, these measures will not be enough to rebuild the population within 10 years (WCPFC 2014) (ISCPBWG 2014). Thus this is scored as “critical.”
26
SOUTHERN BLUEFIN TUNA
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Southern bluefin tuna reach sexual maturity after at least 8 years of age and at 155 cm in length, but perhaps not until 15 years of age. They reach 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). Based on the FishBase score, this is scored as “high” vulnerability.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very High Concern
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified southern bluefin tuna as Critically Endangered (Collette et al. 2011e). According to the latest stock assessment, the current spawning biomass of southern bluefin tuna is a small fraction of virgin levels and well below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.229 (0.146–0.320)). But at current catch levels, the population is expected to increase. Catch rates from the Japanese longline fishery have been increasing since 2007 for some age classes, and aerial surveys have indicated a recent increase in abundance in 2013 to the second-highest in history (IOTC 2013e). This is scored as “very high” concern based on the current low biomass levels and IUCN status.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
Fishing mortality rates have decreased for southern bluefin tuna and are now below those needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.76 (0.52–1.07)). In addition, reported catches are below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) levels, and current exploitation rates are considered moderate (IOTC 2013e). This is scored as “low” instead of very low concern score because fishing mortality rates have just decreased to sustainable levels and current exploitation rates are considered moderate.
27
SWORDFISH
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the life-history characteristics of swordfish indicate a lower vulnerability to fishing. For example, swordfish reach sexual maturity at around 180 cm in length and around 5 years of age, and they reach a maximum length of 455 cm and live more than 10 years. Swordfish is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). This is more indicative of a “medium” vulnerability to fishing.
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very Low Concern
In 2014, an assessment for swordfish in the North Pacific was conducted. This assessment considered two populations: one in the Western and Central Pacific (WCPO) and one in the Eastern Pacific Ocean. According to this model, the exploitable biomass for the population in the WCPO fluctuated at or above the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) for most of the time series (1951–2012) and there is a low probability (14%) of the biomass being below BMSY in 2012 (ISCBWG 2014). This results in a score of “very low” concern.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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 well as the South-Central Pacific (SCP). Compared to the 2008 assessment, this updated one was able to determine abundance estimates for both regions. However, considerable uncertainty still surrounded the assumptions made with regard to growth, maturity, and mortality (age-specific). Standardized catch rates for the main fleets declined drastically between 1997 and 2011, and the mean size also decreased in the main fisheries. The total and spawning biomasses have declined since the late 1990s and the current levels are 44%–68% and 27%–55% of virgin levels, respectively. The ratios of
28
biomass and spawning biomass levels (mature fish) to those needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) range from 1.15–1.85 and 1.15–3.53, respectively, indicating that the population is not overfished (Davies et al. 2013). This results in a “low” but not very low concern score due to the high level of uncertainty.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very Low Concern
In 2014, an assessment for swordfish was in the North Pacific was conducted. Exploitation rates in this region peaked in the 1960s and have declined since. The current fishing mortality rate (F2010–2012) is 15%, which is lower than the level necessary to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY = 25%). It is highly unlikely (<1%) that fishing mortality rates (F) are unsustainable, so overfishing is not occurring (ISCBWG 2014). This results in a score of “very low” concern.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
According to the updated 2013 assessment of swordfish in the South-West Pacific Ocean, catches are around levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (82%–102%). The fishing mortality rate for juvenile swordfish increased in the mid-1990s, and the ratio of current fishing mortality rates to those needed to produce MSY ranges from 0.33 to 1.77. This indicates that the population under some assumptions may be undergoing overfishing (Davies et al. 2013). This results in a “moderate” but not low concern score.
YELLOWFIN TUNA
Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
FishBase assigned a moderate to high vulnerability of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin tuna’s life-history characteristics support a moderate vulnerability score. Yellowfin tuna reaches sexual maturity by 100 cm in length (although growth rates vary by location) and 2–3 years of age. It can attain a maximum size of 180 cm and live to at least 4 and perhaps as much as 9 years. It is a broadcast
29
spawner and an important predator in the ecosystem (Langley et al. 2011) (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 1.2 - Stock Status
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very Low Concern
The biomass-based reference point for the reference model used in the 2014 assessment (SBcurrent/SBMSY, which is the ratio of the current (2008–2011) spawning (mature fish) biomass to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield) was 1.37. The ratio of the latest (2012) spawning biomass to the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent/SBMSY) was 1.24. Therefore yellowfin tuna are not in an overfished state (Davies et al. 2014b). This results in a “very low” concern score.
Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very Low Concern
The current fishing mortality rate is below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.72) for the most realistic models. Therefore overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2014). This results in a “very low” concern score.
30
Criterion 2: Impacts on Other Species All main retained and bycatch species in the fishery are evaluated in the same way as the species under assessment were evaluated in Criterion 1. Seafood Watch® defines bycatch as all fisheries-related mortality or injury to species other than the retained catch. Examples include discards, endangered or threatened species catch, and ghost fishing. To determine the final Criterion 2 score, the score for the lowest scoring retained/bycatch species is multiplied by the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) and bait use relative to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:
• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating is Critical if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Critical.
In the North Pacific longline fishery that operates in the Western and Central Pacific region, information on bycatch is limited due to low observer coverage (0.1%) in most fisheries, although some fisheries have substantially higher coverage rates. Tunas, billfish, other fish, sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals have been reported as bycatch (OFP 2010). According to observer records, north of 10°N the majority of tuna species are kept, although skipjack tuna had a discard rate of 35% between 1994 and 2009. Swordfish is the most commonly discarded billfish species (44%), while blue and black marlin are primarily retained. Discard rates 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 this region lies between 20–40°N. Information on bycatch of sea turtles in the North Pacific longline fishery is limited (Work and Balazs 2002). The majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries outside of the North Pacific region (Molony 2005). We have provided this information of the main bycatch species, taken from the previously mentioned literature, of the North Pacific albacore tuna fisheries along with additional information for some species. The worst-scoring species in this fishery were the leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) because of their low population sizes and high fishing mortality rates.
In the South Pacific, information on bycatch interactions is available through observer programs, primarily those of Australia and New Zealand along with MSC assessments for several fisheries (e.g., Fiji and the Cook Islands). Seabird interactions with pelagic longline gear are mostly recorded in EEZ waters in the South Pacific around New Zealand and Australia between 20–50°S (Clarke et al. 2013) (Baker and Wise 2005) (Baker and Finley 2008) (Anderson et al. 2011). It was noted that observers had a difficult time identifying birds to 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°, and interaction rates are considered to be much less than in other ocean basins (Clarke et al. 2014). Marine mammal interactions and associated mortality rates with the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery are reported to be 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 turtles, and marine mammals are caught as bycatch. Discard rates of these species vary from only 5% for tunas to 96% for sea turtles (OFP 2010) (OFP 2012a). Common shark species include blue, shortfin mako, silky, and oceanic whitetip sharks. Blue sharks represented 19.5%, silky shark 3.5%, mako sharks 2.2%, and oceanic whitetip sharks 1.4% of the total observed catch between 1994 and 2009 (OFP
40
2010). Sharks in this region are primarily affected by longline fisheries and are considered priority species (Rice and Harley 2012a). An ecological risk assessment of seabirds in the WCPO indicated that populations of 10 species (combined) of large and small albatross and petrels were most likely to be affected by bycatch in this region, primarily in the North and South regions (separated in this report) (Waugh et al. 2012). The majority of sea turtles are observed caught in the tropical longline fisheries that occur west of 180°, with the highest catch rates occurring in 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 15,000 turtles (all species) are estimated to have been caught annually by these longline fisheries. Mortality rates for sea turtles are low, at less than 26% in all years; total annual mortalities for all turtle species ranged from 500 to 3,000 between 1980 and 2004 (Molony 2005). Marine mammal catch rates are very low, although in general, the tropical shallow longline fishery has the highest catch rates. Observer records from 1980 to 2004 indicated many years in which no marine mammal interactions with longline fisheries occurred. However, when observer estimates were extrapolated to the entire fishery (not just the proportion observed), up to 2,200 marine mammal interactions were estimated to occur per year. Between 2000 and 2004, both catch and mortality rates of marine mammals declined. In general, fewer than 200 marine mammal mortalities were estimated to occur between 2000 and 2004 (Molony 2005) (Molony 2007). The worst-scoring species in this fishery are leatherback and loggerhead sea turtles (1.00) due to their low population size and high fishing mortality rates.
North Pacific
Species Justification Source
Oceanic whitetip shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b
Shortfin mako shark Key shark species in WCPO longline fisheries Clark 2011
Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a
Striped marlin 60% of all billfish catches from longline, and in overfished state
Lee et al. 2012
Blue marlin <1% of total catch but longline fishing makes up 80% of total mortality
OFP 2012a
Opah 9.3% of “other fish” Lawson 2001
Blue shark Majority of catches from longline fishery; most commonly caught shark species in pelagic longlines; 19.5% of observed catch 1994–2009
Kleiber et al. 2009; OFP 2010
41
Leatherback sea turtle IUCN listing Critically Endangered; ESA listing, CITES Appendix I
Grey petrel IUCN listing Near Threatened Birdlife International 2012d
Flesh-footed shearwater High interaction rates and discard rates Molony 2005; OFP 2010
Light-mantled 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; large foraging range
Birdlife International 2012l
White-chinned petrel IUCN listing Vulnerable and decreasing Birdlife International 2012o
WCPO
Species Justification Source
Oceanic whitetip shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012b
Opah 9.3% of “other fish” Lawson 2001
Shortfin mako shark Key shark species in WCPO longline fisheries
Clark 2011
Silky shark Overfished Rice and Harley 2012a
Striped marlin 60% of total catches from longline and in overfished state
Lee et al. 2012
Blue marlin <1% of total catch but longline fishing makes up 80% of total mortality
OFP 2012a
43
Black marlin 4%–7% of billfish total catch OFP 2012a
Blue shark Majority of catches from longline fishery; most commonly caught shark species in pelagic longlines; 19.5% of observed catch 1994–2009
Kleiber et al. 2009; OFP 2010
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, CITES Appendix I
Martinez 2000; NMFS 2012
Olive ridley sea turtle IUCN listing Vulnerable; ESA listing Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008; NMFS 2012
Criterion 2 Assessment
BLACK MARLIN
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 44 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
44
No assessment for black marlin has been conducted in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified this species as Data Deficient with an unknown population trend (Collette et al. 2011). This is scored as “moderate” concern because of its IUCN classification.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
Although no stock assessment has been conducted for black marlin in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), there is information on catches and discard rates from observer programs. The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) notes that this species could be threatened by capture in longline fisheries, but fishing mortality rates in the WCPO are not available (Collette et al. 2011a). Reported catches of black marlin in longline fisheries in the WCPO ranged from 1,296 t to 2,289 t between 2000 and 2011 (OFP 2012a). These catches represent between 4% and 7% of the total catch during this time (OFP 2012a). Between 1992 and 2009, 45% of black marlin were discarded in the South Pacific albacore fishery, and of these, 60% were dead. Discard rates in the tropical longline fishery ranged from 0%–6%, with a mortality rate of 35%–73% (OFP 2010). Because fishing mortality rates are unknown and the species suffers high discard mortality rates, this is scored as “moderate concern.”
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard
45
rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
BLACK-BROWED ALBATROSS
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
46
The International Union for Conservation for Nature (IUCN) has classified black-browed albatross as Near Threatened, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2014b). The total population size worldwide is estimated to be 700,000 breeding birds or 2.1 million individual birds (BirdLife International 2014b). The status in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. This is scored as “high” concern score based on the IUCN listing.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
Interactions have been reported between black-browed albatross and the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery, although they are low in number. For example, from 1980 to 2004, 22 black-browed albatross interactions with pelagic longline gear were observed south of 31°S (Molony 2005); between 1992 and 2009, 95% of black-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 capture of seabirds in longline fisheries operating in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013).
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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
47
2010).
BLACK-FOOTED ALBATROSS
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Sea birds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 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.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), black-footed albatross is classified as Near Threatened, with a stable to increasing population trend (BirdLife International 2014). Based on counts conducted 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 (Cousins and Cooper 2000). Their status in the North Pacific Ocean is unknown, so this is scored as “high” concern score based on the IUCN status.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
Black-footed albatross is one of the more commonly observed bird species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (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
48
fisheries may threaten black-footed albatross. For example, research suggests that a mortality rate of 10,00012,000 birds per 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). The total estimated mortality of this species in the Central North Pacific between 1994 and 2000 ranged from 5,200 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). Reducing seabird interactions in this region could improve their status. This is scored as “high” concern because seabirds are considered highly vulnerable and their stock statuses are of high concern, current mortality rates are unknown but could be high and, though management measures have been adopted by some fleets to mitigate incidental capture in longline fisheries operating in the North Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013), the best management practices that minimize seabird mortality are neither required nor adopted by all fleets.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, 0%–100% for other bony fish, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
BLUE MARLIN
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
49
FishBase assigned a moderate to high score of 52 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified blue marlin as Vulnerable, with a decreasing population trend (Collette et al. 2011b). The most recent population assessment in the Pacific Ocean was completed in 2013. Despite long-term declines in the total biomass, the population has been increasing from the maximum sustainable levels (MSY) since the mid-2000s. The population is not considered overfished (BWG 2013). This is scored as “low” and not very low concern to account for the long-term declines and uncertainty associated with the assessment.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
The last assessment for blue marlin was conducted in 2013. Fishing mortality rates (F = 0.26) estimated in this assessment are currently below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY = 0.32). Based on these results, blue marlin is currently not subject to overfishing (BWG 2013). However, there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these results, so this is scored as “low” instead of very low concern.
50
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas was around 5%. Discard rates for non-targeted species between
51
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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
BLUE SHARK
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
An updated assessment of blue sharks in the North Pacific was completed during 2014. Two different models were used in the assessment. The base case results of the two models indicated that the population (biomass (B) and spawning stock biomass (SSB)) of blue sharks is not overfished (B2011/BMSY = 1.65 and SSB2011/SSBMSY = 1.621) and that the population will remain above the level necessary to maintain the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) in the future (ISCSWG 2014). However, evidence including declines in median size and catch rates suggests that there have been declines in abundance of blue sharks in recent years (Clarke 2011) and there is uncertainty in the assessment of blue shark. This results in a “low” rather than very low concern score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
No assessment for blue sharks has been conducted in the South Pacific region of the Western and
52
Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) (WCPFC 2013h), and tagging data, differences in abundance, and evidence of pregnant females at high latitudes in both the North and South Pacific Ocean indicate that this is likely a separate population from that in the North Pacific (Kleiber et al. 2009). Some trends in catch rates for various fisheries have 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 sharks 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 sharks to be Near Threatened globally (Stevens 2009). Because no assessment has been conducted and because they have a high vulnerability score, this is rated as “high” concern.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
An updated assessment of blue sharks in the North Pacific was completed during 2014. Two different models were used in the assessment. The base case results of the two models indicated that the population (biomass (B) and spawning stock biomass (SSB)) of blue sharks is not overfished (B2011/BMSY = 1.65 and SSB2011/SSBMSY = 1.621) and that the population will remain above the level necessary to maintain the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) in the future (ISCSWG 2014). However, evidence including declines in median size and catch rates suggests that there have been declines in abundance of blue sharks in recent years (Clarke 2011) and there is uncertainty in the assessment of blue shark. This results in a “low” rather than very low concern score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
Blue sharks are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific and dominate shark catches in that region. According to the 2014 updated assessment, the fishing mortality rate estimated in 2011 (F2011) was around 34% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) (ISCSWG 2014). Therefore, overfishing is not occurring. However, there is uncertainty surrounding these results and previous assessments have indicated some issues with the data. This results in a “low” instead of very low concern score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
53
Blue sharks are widely distributed throughout the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, including in the South Pacific region. No stock assessments have been conducted on this species in the South Pacific region (Kleiber et al. 2009). However, some information on catch levels is available. The estimated average annual longline catch between 1992 and 2009 was 1,611 t (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011), and from 1992 to 2009, blue sharks made up 10% of the total bycatch in the South Pacific albacore tuna longline fishery (OPF 2010). During this period, 30% of blue sharks were observed discarded in this fishery and, of those, only 7% were dead (OFP 2010). This results in a “high” concern score because blue sharks are highly susceptible to longline capture and there are no management measures in place.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
Blue sharks are widely distributed throughout the North Pacific and dominate shark catches in that region. According to the 2014 updated assessment, the fishing mortality rate estimated in 2011 (F2011) was around 34% of that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY) (ISCSWG 2014). Therefore, overfishing is not occurring. However, there is uncertainty surrounding these results and previous assessments have indicated some issues with the data. This results in a “low” instead of very low concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery
54
and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
FLESH-FOOTED SHEARWATER
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 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.
55
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), flesh-footed shearwater is classified as Least Concern and the population is considered stable (BirdLife International 2012c). This classification was due to this species’ extremely large range and the large population size. In 2004, the global population was estimated to be more than 650,000 individuals (Brooke 2004). This results in a “low” concern score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
Flesh-footed shearwaters appear to be incidentally caught in pelagic longline fisheries operating in the South Pacific. For example, between 1980 and 2004, 124 flesh-footed shearwater interactions with pelagic longline gear were observed in waters south of 31°S (Molony 2005). From 1992 to 2009, 92% of flesh-footed shearwaters captured in the albacore South Pacific longline fishery were discarded and, of those, 85% were dead (OFP 2010). Flesh-footed shearwaters have a large range and subsequently a large overlap with this fishery. Since this species has a high susceptibility to the fishery, fishing mortality rates are unknown, but mitigation measures have been adopted by many fleets in the South-West Pacific Ocean (Clarke et al. 2013), we have awarded a “moderate” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard
56
rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%,) but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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).
GREEN SEA TURTLE
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life-history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified green sea turtles as Endangered, with a decreasing population trend. Wallace et al. (2013) identified populations of green sea turtles in the North Central Pacific Ocean to be at high risk. Green sea turtles have been listed on the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1, which means they are threatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited. The mean annual number of nesting turtles worldwide has decreased 48% to 67% over the past 100 to 150 years (Seminoff 2004). Out of 27 known nesting sites in Oceania, 3 had an increasing
57
trend, 2 had decreasing trends, and 2 had stable trends, while trends at the remaining sites were unknown (Maison et al. 2010). Because of the IUCN classification, this is scored as “very high” concern.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
The incidental capture of green sea turtles is considered a major threat to their populations worldwide (Seminoff 2004). Green sea turtles are one of the more commonly caught turtle species in the South Pacific region (NMFS 2013) (Williams et al. 2009), but the impact from bycatch to the population is low in the South-Central Pacific and the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, so those populations are considered to be at low risk (Wallace et al. 2013). The American Samoa pelagic longline fishery reported the incidental capture of 42 green sea turtles during 2010—four times higher than any other species (NMFS 2013). The Cook Island South Pacific albacore fishery also reports green sea turtles as one of the most commonly caught bycatch species (Gascoigne et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods have been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their use and effectiveness is unknown and there are issues with compliance (Clarke et al. 2014). This results in a “moderate” concern score because bycatch in this fishery does not appear to be threatening the population, but impacts are not fully known.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%,) but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard
58
rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
GREY PETREL
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 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.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
59
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies grey petrels as Near Threatened, with a decreasing population trend (BirdLife International 2012d). The global population is estimated to be somewhat low, around 400,000, with a low estimate of 160,000 and a high of 1,200,000 (Brooke 2004). This results in a “high” concern score to account for the IUCN rating.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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 South Pacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded and all were dead (OFP 2010). In New Zealand waters of the South Pacific, grey petrel has historically been one of the most commonly killed bird species in the tuna longline fishery, with estimates of 45,000 birds being caught during the 1980s and 1990s (BirdLife International 2014d). However, New Zealand has implemented the use of several bycatch mitigation measures in tuna fisheries (NZG 2008). Incidental mortality in fisheries off the coast of Australia has also been reported (BirdLife International 2012d). Although bycatch has been reduced in New Zealand waters, information gaps in other areas suggest that this species should remain rated as “moderate” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%,) but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, for seabirds from 0%–100%, and for turtles
60
from 71%–100% (OFP 2010). The overall discard rate, according to observer records, is around 18% (OFP 2010).
HAWKSBILL TURTLE
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life-history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified hawksbill turtles as Critically Endangered, with a decreasing population trend (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). In the North Central Pacific Ocean, hawksbill populations are considered at high risk (Wallace et al. 2013). Hawksbill turtles have been listed on CITES since 1977 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1, which means they are threatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited. It has been estimated that populations in the Pacific Ocean have declined by over 75% over three generations (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). In the Western Pacific, 7 out of 10 nesting locations have depleted or declining populations (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). This results in a “very high” concern score based on the IUCN listing.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
61
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. Recorded interactions are more frequent in tropical and subtropical waters than in temperate (Williams et al. 2009). Between 1980 and 2004, only 12 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 that this population had a high risk but low bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). There are bycatch mitigation measures being used by some fleets, but there are issues with compliance (Clarke et al. 2014). This is scored as “high” concern because the population is depleted, the fishery impact is not fully known, and mitigation methods may not be effective.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
LAYSAN ALBATROSS
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 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.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) lists the Laysan albatross as Near Threatened
62
but with a stable population trend (BirdLife International 2012f). Globally, there are an estimated 591,000 breeding pairs or 1.18 million mature birds (Naughton et al. 2007). This results in a “high” concern score due to the IUCN listing.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
Laysan albatross have a very high overlap within the northern region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (Baird et al. 2013). It has been estimated that pelagic longline vessels fishing in the North Pacific Ocean may kill around 8,000 Laysan albatross a year, although in recent years these numbers have been much lower due to the use of mitigation measures (BirdLife International 2012c). Between 1992 and 2009, 100% of incidentally captured Laysan albatross from the North Pacific albacore tuna fishery were discarded and, of these, 67% were dead (OFP 2010). This is scored as “moderate” concern because fishing mortality rates are unknown but there are mitigation measures in place (Clarke et al. 2013).
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0-100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
LEATHERBACK TURTLE
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
63
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life-history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very High Concern
Leatherback sea turtles have been listed as Endangered by the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970 (NMFS 2012). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtles as Critically Endangered, with a decreasing population trend, in 2000 (Martinez 2000). Wallace et al. (2013) identified leatherbacks in the Western Pacific to be at high risk. Leatherback turtles have been listed on the Conventional on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 and are currently listed on CITES Appendix 1, which means they are threatened with extinction and international trade is prohibited. Over the past 25 years, the population of leatherbacks 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 of 294,068 turtles and, of these, 6,199 are adults (Jones et al. 2012). This is scored as “very high” concern based on the ESA, IUCN, and CITES listings.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
64
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtles, especially for juveniles and adults that can 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 reporting by some nations and low observer coverage. This low reporting also creates a high amount of uncertainty surrounding current estimates (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2013). Interactions with leatherback turtles 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 the North and Central Pacific Ocean (Roe et al. 2014). Other research has estimated that leatherback turtles suffer a 12% annual mortality rate from pelagic longline fisheries in the WCPO and, based on these estimates, bycatch mortality in longline fisheries (along with other factors such as coastal mortality) should be reduced to avoid extinction (Kaplan 2005). Other estimates suggests 20,000 leatherback turtles were caught in longlines throughout the entire Pacific Ocean during 2000, with 1,000 to 3,200 of these being killed as a result. These results also suggest that continued bycatch in longline fisheries will have major consequences for leatherback turtles in the Pacific Ocean and that the mortality threshold for this species in the Pacific may have been exceeded (Lewison et al. 2004). Other analyses have suggested that leatherback turtles have 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 reducing the incidental capture of sea turtles, but others have not complied with mandated bycatch mitigation methods (Clarke et al. 2014). Because the population is depleted, bycatch mortality appears to be a factor in this depletion, and management measures may not be currently effective, this is scored as “high” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
65
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
LIGHT-MANTLED ALBATROSS
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria (SW 2013). Seabirds reach sexual maturity later in life, produce few young, and have a long lifespan (Oro and Martinez-
66
Abrain 2000). These life-history traits support a “high” vulnerability score.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classifies light-mantled albatross as Near Threatened, 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). This is scored as “high” concern based on the IUCN listing.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
Specific longline fleets in the South Pacific that have reported this species as incidentally caught (in small amounts) in tuna fisheries include New Zealand and Australia (BirdLife International 2012f) (ACAP 2014a). Between 1980 and 2004, 38 interactions were observed between light-mantled albatross and pelagic longline gear, primarily south of 31°S (Molony 2005), and from 1992 and 2009, 100% of light-mantled albatross were discarded dead in the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery (OFP 2010). Interactions are low, breeding areas have all adopted bycatch avoidance methods since 2000, and the majority of its foraging range is within the Convention for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR) region (ACAP 2014a), so this results in a “low” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery
67
and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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).
LOGGERHEAD TURTLE
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life-history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Very High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtles as Endangered in 1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Wallace et al.
68
(2013) determined that loggerheads are at high risk in the North and South Pacific Ocean. Loggerheads are listed on Appendix 1 of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). In the North Pacific Ocean, loggerheads have been listed as Endangered under the United States Endangered Species Act since 1978 (NMFS 2012). This results in a “very high” score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles has historically been considered a primary threat to their populations (MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are susceptible to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially by shallow-set longline fisheries targeting swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). However, data related to incidental captures 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, suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout 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 their 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 high risk to the population (Wallace et al. 2013) (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods are mandated by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their effectiveness is unknown and there are issues with compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). This results in a “high” concern score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles is considered a primary threat to their populations (MTSG 2006). However, data related to incidental captures are scarce due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009). Some estimates suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout 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 their 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 turtles caught by longline in the South Pacific Ocean at high risk and a high bycatch impact (Wallace et al. 2013). Other studies have also suggested that loggerhead populations in the South Pacific are at the greatest risk from interactions with longline
69
fisheries (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods have been adopted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but the effectiveness and use of these techniques are unknown. This results in a “high” concern score.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles has historically been considered a primary threat to their populations (MTSG 2006). Juvenile loggerheads are susceptible to bycatch in the North Pacific region, especially by shallow-set longline fisheries targeting swordfish (Lewison and Crowder 2013). However, data related to incidental captures 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, suggested that 67,000 loggerhead sea turtles were incidentally captured throughout 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 their 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 high risk to the population (Wallace et al. 2013) (Clarke et al. 2014). Bycatch mitigation methods are mandated by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but their effectiveness is unknown and there are issues with compliance with these measures (Clarke et al. 2014). This results in a “high” concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and
70
Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
OCEANIC WHITETIP SHARK
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
FishBase assigned a high to very high score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
71
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers oceanic whitetip sharks to be Vulnerable globally (Baum et al. 2006). The first stock assessment of oceanic whitetip sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted in 2012. Although results are reported in relation to maximum sustainable yield (MSY) reference points, the scientific committee or Commission has not yet identified any reference points to manage this stock. According to the assessment, the spawning biomass (mature fish) is estimated to be far below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.153), indicating that the stock is overfished (Rice and Harley 2012b). This is scored as “high” concern because of the stock status.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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 (FMSY, with Fcurrent/FMSY = 6.694); therefore, overfishing is occurring (Rice and Harley 2012b). It should be noted that the 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 oceanic whitetip sharks. This results in a “high” concern but not critical concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%,
72
for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
OLIVE RIDLEY TURTLE
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
73
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability according to the Seafood Watch criteria, based on their life-history characteristics that include being long-lived, attaining sexual maturity at a later age, and having a low reproductive rate (Seafood Watch 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers olive ridley sea turtles to be Vulnerable with a decreasing population trend. Olive ridley turtles have been listed as Threatened on the United States Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1978 (NMFS 2012a). Along several beaches in Thailand, current estimates of the number of nests/km/day are around 20, while in Indonesia this number is 230. It is estimated that the annual nesting subpopulation on these Thai beaches has decreased 97%–98% over time, while in Indonesia it has increased substantially. Overall, in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, there has been a 92% decrease in annual nesting females, from 1,412 to 108 (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). This is scored as “high” concern because of the IUCN listing.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
The incidental capture of olive ridley turtles occurs worldwide, although other fisheries, such as trawls and gillnets, appear to have a larger negative impact compared to longlines (Wallace et al. 2013) (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Data related to incidental captures are scarce due to low reporting by some countries and low observer coverage rates (≈1%) (Brouwer and Bertram 2009) (Williams et al. 2009).
74
However, bycatch of olive ridleys is 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 Pacific region and the population is at low risk (Wallace et al. 2013). Bycatch mitigation methods have been put into place by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, but there are issues with compliance, and the effectiveness of these measures is unknown (Clarke et al. 2014). This is scored as “moderate” concern because the population is depleted, but this fishery is not a major contributor.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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
75
observer data, the overall discard rate for the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
OPAH
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 82 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Opah reaches a maximum length of 200 cm and lives at least 11 years (Froese and Kesner-Reyes 2002). There is no information on its age at maturity. It is a broadcast spawner and a top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). These life-history characteristics suggest a “medium” level of vulnerability, so the score has been adjusted.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
The status of opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown. This results in a score of “moderate” concern because of this and its medium vulnerability score.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
76
Moderate Concern
There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. However, some 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% were dead (OFP 2010). This is scored as “moderate” concern because the status of the population is unknown.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between 1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opah caught by longliners in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, primarily around Australia and New Zealand, and these represented 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 in the South Pacific longline fishery were discarded and, of these, 25% were dead (OFP 2010). This is scored as “moderate” concern due to a lack of information.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
There is no information on fishing mortality rates for opah in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Between 1987 and 2001, observers recorded a total of 6,569 opahs caught by longliners in this region, and these represented 9.3% of the “other fish” catch (Lawson 2001).
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
77
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
SALVIN'S ALBATROSS
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
78
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.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
According to the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), Salvin’s albatross is considered Vulnerable and it is unknown whether populations are increasing or decreasing. In 1998, it was estimated that 30,750 breeding individuals were present on the Bounty Islands and that this represented 99% of the global population. Based on this estimate, there are roughly 61,500 mature birds and 90,000 individuals (BirdLife International 2012h). This is scored as “high” concern based on the IUCN listing.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
Salvin’s albatross is more commonly reported as incidentally caught by New Zealand tuna longliners than in other 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 International 2012h). This is scored as “moderate” but not high concern because bycatch mitigation measures have been adopted by the New Zealand fleet (NZG 2008) and almost all the breeding and foraging areas for this species occur in New Zealand waters (ACAP 2014c).
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and
79
Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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).
SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
There has been some question about the stock structure of shortfin mako sharks in the Pacific Ocean. Currently the consensus is that there is a single population in the North Pacific (PIFSC 2014). A stock-wide assessment is planned for 2014; an assessment was previously conducted in the Northwest Pacific in 2009. The assessment found a downward trend in the spawning stock biomass (SSB) (abundance of mature fish) and determined that the population might have been overfished (Chang and Liu 2009).
80
Analysis of catch rate data indicated no real trend in abundance for shortfin mako sharks over time (Clarke 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). This is scored as “high” concern because the population was last assessed as near overfished levels but no recent assessments have been completed. In addition, shortfin mako sharks have a high vulnerability score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
No population assessment of shortfin mako sharks in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean 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 as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). This is scored as “high” concern because their population status is unknown and because of their very high vulnerability score.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
An assessment of shortfin mako sharks was conducted in the Northwest Pacific in 2009. The assessment found a downward trend in the spawning stock biomass (SSB) (abundance of mature fish) and determined that the population might have been overfished (Chang and Liu 2009). Analysis of catch rate data indicated no real trend in abundance for shortfin mako sharks over time (Clarke 2011). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature has assessed this species globally as Vulnerable (Cailliet et al. 2009). No population assessment for shortfin mako sharks in the South Pacific has been conducted. This is scored as “high” concern because the population in the North Pacific was last assessed as near overexploited, but no recent assessments have been completed and the South Pacific population is not assessed. In addition, shortfin mako sharks have a very high vulnerability score and are listed as Vulnerable by the IUCN.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The 2009 assessment of shortfin mako sharks conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishing
81
mortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Estimated average annual longline catches between 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch estimates have declined by 50% over the past decade. A separate analysis of shortfin mako (not an assessment) found no evidence for the impact of fishing on mako sharks in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011). There are no management measures in place and fishing mortality rates may be too high, so this is scored as “high” concern.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
No assessment of shortfin mako sharks has been conducted in the South Pacific region. However, some information on catch and discard rates is available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of mako sharks were observed caught in the Western 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). This is scored as “high” concern because information on fishing mortality rates in the South Pacific is not available, the population is depleted and susceptible to longline gear, and no management is in place to protect the species.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The 2009 assessment of shortfin mako sharks conducted in the Northwest Pacific suggested that fishing mortality should be reduced by 32% (Chang and Liu 2009). Estimated average annual longline catches between 1992 and 2009 were 71 t, although catch estimates have declined by 50% over the past decade. A separate analysis (not a stock assessment) indicated that there is no evidence for the impact of fishing on mako sharks in the North Pacific (Lawson 2011) (Clarke 2011). No assessment of shortfin mako sharks has been conducted in the South Pacific region. However, some information on catch and discard rates is available. For example, between 1994 and 2009, 1,047 t of mako sharks were observed caught in the Western 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). This is scored as “high” concern because information on fishing mortality rates in the South Pacific is not available, the population is depleted and susceptible to longline gear, and no management is in place to protect the species.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
82
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
83
SILKY SHARK
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High
FishBase assigned a high score of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers silky sharks to be Near Threatened globally (Bonfil et al. 2009). The first assessment of silky sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) was conducted in 2012 and updated during 2013 (Rice and Harley 2013). According to this model, the spawning biomass (abundance of mature fish) levels consistently declined over the modeled time period (1995–2009). The spawning biomass has declined by 67% since 1995. The spawning biomass in 2009 was far below the target levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (SBcurrent/SBMSY = 0.70 (95% confidence interval [C.I.] = 0.51–1.23)) and therefore the stock is overfished. This is scored as “high” concern because the SSB is below MSY.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
84
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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 the maximum sustainable yield (Fcurrent/FMSY = 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 sharks (WCPFC 2013f). The success of this measure is highly dependent on post-release survival of silky sharks. This is scored as “high” concern based on the high fishing mortality rates.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
85
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
STRIPED MARLIN
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Medium
FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 56 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Sexual maturity is reached between 140 and 180 cm and around 2 years of age. Striped marlin can attain a maximum size of 300 cm and live 10–12 years (Lee et al. 2012). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). These life-history characteristics are more indicative of a “medium” vulnerability to fishing, so the score has been adjusted.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
Striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean were assessed in 2011. The results of this model show a long-term decline in biomass, with the population in 2010 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass. There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to reference points based
86
on maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the spawning biomass in 2010 was 65% below that needed to attain MSY. Therefore, striped marlin is overfished (Lee et al. 2012) and this results in a “high” concern score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
The most recent population assessment of striped marlin in the South-West Pacific Ocean was conduced in 2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half their virgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smaller since. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) after 1970, although biomass has increased since 2004. However, 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 status of the population: Bcurrent/BMSY = 0.96 (0.37–1.96) and SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.09 (0.32–2.89). There is a 50% probability that SBcurrent is less than SBMSY, and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ratio less than 1, which suggests that striped marlin are approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012 ). This results in a “moderate” concern score because of the uncertainty in their population status.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The most recent population assessment of striped marlin in the South-West Pacific Ocean was conduced in 2012. According to this assessment, both the total and spawning biomass declined to at least half their virgin levels by 1970, but declines for total (36%) and spawning (29%) biomass have been smaller since. Biomass declined to levels below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) after 1970, although biomass has increased since 2004. However, 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 status of the population: Bcurrent/BMSY = 0.96 (0.37–1.96) and SBcurrent/SBMSY = 1.09 (0.32–2.89). There is a 50% probability that SBcurrent is less than SBMSY, and 6 out of 10 model runs resulted in a ratio less than 1, which suggests that striped marlin are approaching an overfished state (Davies et al. 2012 ). Striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean was assessed in 2011. The results of this model show a long-term decline in biomass, with the population in 2010 being at only 15% of the unfished biomass. There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to reference points based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY), the spawning biomass in 2010 was 65% below that needed to attain MSY. Therefore, striped marlin is overfished (Lee et al. 2012). This results in a “high” concern score due to the population status in the North Pacific.
87
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
There has been a long-term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean. Since the 1990s, longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in this region. Fishing mortality rates are high: F = 0.76 from 2007–2009, which is about 24% above the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than FMSY for most of the time series (1975–2010). There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to reference points based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY), overfishing is occurring (Lee et al. 2012). This results in a “high” concern score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Low Concern
A population assessment of striped marlin in the South-West Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The entire longline fleet has substantially affected the population size of striped marlin in the South-West Pacific Ocean. Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 mt), but catches appear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The reference point based on fishing mortality is Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.58 (0.08–2.53), so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012). This is scored as “low” and not very low concern to account for uncertainties in the model.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
There has been a long-term decline in catches of striped marlin in the Western and Central North Pacific Ocean. Since the 1990s, longline fishing has accounted for over 60% of the total striped marlin catches in this region. Fishing mortality rates are high: F = 0.76 from 2007–2009, which is about 24% above the levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (FMSY). Fishing mortality rates have been higher than FMSY for most of the time series (1975–2010). There are no target or limit reference points, but compared to reference points based on maximum sustainable yield (MSY), overfishing is occurring (Lee et al. 2012). A population assessment of striped marlin in the South-West Pacific Ocean was conducted in 2012. The entire longline fleet has substantially affected the population size of striped marlin in the South-West
88
Pacific Ocean. Catches during recent years were 20% below the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) (2,182 mt), but catches appear to be approaching MSY levels because of recent low recruitment levels. The reference point based on fishing mortality is Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.58 (0.08–2.53), so overfishing is not occurring (Davies et al. 2012). This is scored as “high” concern based on the high fishing mortality rates in the North Pacific.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
20-40%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%. In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). Information from observer records collected in the North Pacific indicates that 36% of the total catch is discarded. Specifically, in the area north of 10°N, discard rates for tuna ranged from 0%–35%, for billfish from 3%–44%, for sharks and rays from 0%–100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, and 100% for marine mammals, seabirds, and turtles (OFP 2010).
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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 Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
89
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). 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 tuna are higher (20%) (OFP 2010). Earlier estimates through 2009 indicated that the total discard rate of targeted tunas 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 the WCPO longline fishery is 15% (OFP 2010).
WANDERING ALBATROSS
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers the wandering albatross population to be Vulnerable, with a decreasing population trend. The global population is around 20,100 mature individuals but the status of this species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean is unknown (BirdLife International 2012l). This is scored as “high” concern based on the IUCN classification.
90
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
Wandering albatross are threatened by longline fisheries, which have been identified as a leading cause of this seabird’s global declines. This is primarily a factor of their large range, which makes them susceptible to capture by a variety of fleets (BirdLife International 2012l). Between 1980 and 2004, 107 interactions between wandering albatross and pelagic longline gear, primarily south of 31°S, were observed (Molony 2005), and from 1992 to 2009, 53% of incidentally captured seabirds died (OFP 2010). Wandering albatross are impacted by even low bycatch rates due to their small population size (ACAP 2014b). Most of the breeding area for this species occurs in South African territories (ACAP 2014b). Management measures have been adopted by many fleets in the South-West Pacific Ocean to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds. However, these measures have not been adopted by all fleets operating in their breeding region (ACAP 2014b). Due to the impact from even low bycatch rates, combined with the fact that bycatch mitigation measures have not been fully adopted by all fleets, this is scored as “moderate” concern.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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).
91
WHITE-CHINNED PETREL
Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.1 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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.
Factor 2.2 - Stock Status
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.2 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
High Concern
The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed white-chinned petrel as Vulnerable, and their populations are decreasing. The global population is estimated to have declined from 1,430,000 pairs in the 1980s to 1,200,000 pairs currently. There are around 3 million mature birds (Brooke 2004) (BirdLife International 2012o). This is scored as “high” concern based on the IUCN listing.
Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality
Scoring Guidelines (same as Factor 1.3 above)
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
White-chinned petrel is one of the most vulnerable bird species to bycatch in fisheries operating in the southern hemisphere (ACAP 2014d). Estimates from the 1990s in the Australian longline fishery suggest that over 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 2003–2005 were white-chinned petrels (BirdLife International 2012o). White-chinned petrels also have a very high
92
mortality rate as a result of this incidental capture (OFP 2010). White-chinned petrels have a high areal and vertical overlap with pelagic longline gear (BirdLife International 2012). However, it should be noted that many fisheries outside this region may also be contributing to a cumulative effect on population size (ACAP 2014d). For example, this is one of the most commonly caught species in the South Atlantic (Tuck et al. 2011). However, management measures to reduce the incidental capture of seabirds have been adopted by many fleets in the South Pacific (Clarke et al. 2013), so this results in a “moderate” concern but not high concern score.
Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
< 20%
The average overall discard rate in tuna longline fisheries worldwide is 22%, but in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO), distant-water longline vessels may have a discard rate as high as 40% (Kelleher 2005). The three targeted tunas represented 74% of the South Pacific albacore tuna fishery and, in this fishery, mahi mahi, wahoo, and blue sharks are the most commonly caught non-target species. According to observer data from the Fiji pelagic longline fishery in the South Pacific, discard rates vary by species but are around 6% of the total catch for all species combined. For example, tuna, mahi mahi, and opah have very low discard rates (<5%), but sharks have very high discard rates (>95%) (Akroyd et al. 2012). However, it should be noted that Fiji bans the retention of sharks and therefore discard rates may be skewed. Observer data from the South Pacific albacore fishery indicate that discard rates for tuna ranged from 3%–100%, for billfish from 4%–45%, for sharks and rays from 0%-100%, for other bony fish from 0%–100%, for marine mammals 100%, 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).
93
Criterion 3: Management effectiveness Management 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 determined as follows:
• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy
(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern = Red or High Concern Rating is Critical if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) ratings are Critical.
Criterion 3 Summary
Region / Method Management of Retained Species
Management of Non-Retained Species
Overall Recommendation
North Pacific Longline, Pelagic
1.000 1.000 Red(1.000)
South Pacific Longline, Pelagic
1.000 1.000 Red(1.000)
Western Central Pacific Longline, Pelagic
1.000 1.000 Red(1.000)
Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy
Scoring Guidelines
Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scientific Research/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 considered. • 4 (Low Concern)—Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated ‘highly
effective’ and all other subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’ • 3 (Moderate Concern)—All subfactors rated at least ‘moderately effective.’
94
• 2 (High Concern)—At minimum, meets standards for ‘moderately effective’ for Management Strategy and Recovery 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 of Concern rated ‘ineffective.’
• 0 (Critical)—No management exists when there is a clear need for management (i.e., fishery catches threatened, endangered, or high concern species), OR there is a high level of Illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing occurring.
Factor 3.1 Summary
Factor 3.1: Management of fishing impacts on retained species Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion North Pacific Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
South Pacific Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective N/A Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Western Central Pacific Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
The United Nations Straddling and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks Agreement (1995) indicated that the management of straddling and highly migratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). RFMOs are the only legally mandated fishery management bodies on the high seas and within EEZ waters. There are currently 18 RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all the world’s waters. Member countries must abide by the management measures set forth by individual RFMOs in order to fish in their waters (Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010). Some RFMOs manage all marine living resources within their authority (e.g., General Fisheries Commission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)), while others manage a group of species such as tunas (e.g., Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC)). This reports focuses on tuna and swordfish caught in pelagic longline fisheries under RFMO jurisdiction. Albacore tuna, swordfish, and Pacific bluefin tuna caught by pelagic longline fisheries in the North Pacific and, in the South Pacific, swordfish and albacore only, are managed by two RFMOs: the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) in the Eastern Pacific Ocean (see below for member nations). Bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna caught in pelagic longline fisheries in the WCPO are managed only by the WCPFC. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna manages that species throughout its range. Few management measures have been implemented specific to albacore tunas or swordfish, but their populations appear to be healthy and not in need of a recovery plan at this point. The WCPFC has instituted catch limits for bigeye tuna in the longline fishery. The
WCPO and IATTC have been moderately effective with regard to accepting scientific advice, enforcement, and inclusion of stakeholder input. WCPFC members: Australia, China, Canada, Cook Islands, European Union, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, France, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Republic of Marshall Islands, Nauru, New Zealand, Niue, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Chinese Taipei, 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 be appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful at maintaining/rebuilding species.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective
There are few management measures in place for albacore tuna in the North Pacific Ocean. Measures were adopted in 2005 and have not been updated since. Those management measures included maintaining current catch levels (average effort between 2002 and 2004) in order to maintain 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 to agree on consistent management measures for the North Pacific population (IATTC 2005c) (WCPFC 2005). In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission implemented a catch limit of 10,000 t between 2012–2013 (5,600 in 2012 and 4,400 in 2013) and 5,000 t for 2014 for Pacific bluefin tuna caught in the Convention Area (IATTC 2012). In the Western and Central Pacific Ocean, the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission has limited fishing effort for Pacific bluefin tuna. Vessels fishing north of 20°N had to stay below 2002-2004 fishing effort levels during 2013 (WCPFC 2012a). There is also a recently implemented Catch Documentation Scheme (WCPFC 2013a). There is an interim reference point (fishing mortality) for North Pacific albacore but no reference points for Pacific bluefin. Biomass-based limit reference points are used to determine the status of tuna populations. Target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species, and there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). However, the WCPFC has a working group that is currently identifying potential target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). This results in an “ineffective” score because current management strategy has been unable to maintain sustainable populations of Pacific bluefin
96
tuna.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective
Few management measures have been enacted for albacore tuna or other targeted tunas in the South Pacific region of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has limited the number of fishing vessels actively fishing for albacore to not exceed 2005 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). In 2009, the WCPFC limited the number of vessels targeting swordfish and catches to levels from any year between 2000 and 2005, and required this information to be reported to the Commission (WCPFC 2009). Management measures adopted for other retained species include effort restrictions for striped marlin (WCPFC 2006). In addition, biomass-based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for albacore and are used to determine the status of tuna populations. There is a limit reference point for albacore tuna, but target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species. In addition, there are no harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). However, the WCPFC has a working group that is currently identifying potential target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). 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 total allowable 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 in place since 2012. In addition, there is a meta-rule process that the CCSBT can use to deal with certain situations such as untested recruitment or abundance estimates, or “substantial” improvements with regard to unknown or missing data (CCSBT 2010) (CCSBT 2014). This results in an “ineffective” score because management has been unable to maintain healthy populations of southern bluefin tuna.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective
There are few management measures in place for targeted tuna species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) 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 effort cannot be increased (except for small island nations and Indonesia) (WCPFC 2013b) (WCPFC 2012a) (WCPFC 2005). In addition, biomass-based limit reference points have been adopted by the WCPFC for bigeye and yellowfin tuna, and are used to determine the status of tuna populations. Target reference points are not yet in place for any of these species, except in the short term for bigeye tuna, and there are no
97
harvest control rules (ISSF 2013). However, the WCPFC has a working group that is currently identifying potential target reference points, and it last met in 2013 (WCPFC 2013c). The current catch limits for bigeye tuna have not been sufficient in reducing fishing mortality and the population status has declined since catch limits were put into place. In addition, there is not a mechanism in place when catch limits are exceeded. This results in an “ineffective” score because the current management scheme has been insufficient in managing bigeye tuna populations.
Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern
Considerations: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuild overfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fishery’s impact on these species and what is their likelihood of success? To achieve a rating of Highly Effective, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihood of success in an appropriate timeframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimize mortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective
Pacific bluefin tuna are overfished. Fishing effort and catch limits were adopted after the 2012 assessment by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) and Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) (IATTC 2012) (ISCPBWG 2014) (WCPFC 2012a). According to the 2014 updated assessment, these management measures were not sufficient to allow the population to recover. 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 length and under are not projected to be sufficient to allow the population to recover (ISCPBWG 2014) (WCPFC 2014). This results in an “ineffective” score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
N/A
Albacore and swordfish populations are healthy in the South Pacific region (Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013).
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
98
Bigeye tuna is classified as overfished in the most recent stock assessment and is experiencing overfishing; management measures have been ineffective at reducing bigeye fishing mortality rates (Harley et al. 2014). However, bigeye tuna has only recently been classified as overfished and it is too early to determine if the fishery will be able to recover the population in a timely manner. This results in a “moderately effective” score.
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 the fishery’s impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, population assessments must be conducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the population status.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
Albacore, swordfish, and Pacific bluefin tuna stocks are monitored and assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014) (Davies et al. 2013) (ISCPBWG 2014), and assessments include information on catches, catch per unit effort, length frequency, and tagging data. However, assessments have not been conducted for species such as shortfin mako shark or opah, and tuna/billfish assessments have a great deal of uncertainty associated with them. This results in a “moderately effective” score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
Albacore, swordfish, and southern bluefin tuna populations are monitored and assessed on a regular basis (ISCAWG 2014) (Davies et al. 2013) (IOTC 2013), and assessments include information on catches, catch per unit effort, length frequency, and tagging data. However, assessments have not been conducted for species such as shortfin mako shark or opah, and tuna/billfish assessments have a large amount of uncertainty surrounding them. This results in a “moderately effective” score.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
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 effort data, size (for some species) and biological information is included in these assessments. Several other main species
99
have been assessed including swordfish and blue and oceanic whitetip sharks. However, many other species have yet to be assessed and there are issues with data reporting for the tuna assessments, so this results in a “moderately effective” score.
Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
Members of the albacore working group suggested after the last assessment that the current management measures should be maintained (ISCAWG 2011). 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-American Tropical Tuna Commission, if properly implemented and enforced, could lead to an improved stock status. However, keeping 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 be immediately 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 Pacific bluefin tuna, was adopted by the IATTC (IATTC 2013). Included in this resolution is the requirement that future assessments include analysis to determine what the status of Pacific bluefin tuna would be with and without these measures in place. The WCPFC also adopted an interim measure in 2013 that aimed to reduce fishing mortality rates, and the Northern Committee has recently agreed upon additional management measures to reduce fishing mortality on juvenile fish (WCPFC 2013a) (WCPFC 2014). No new advice was provided by the Scientific Committee in 2014 for swordfish in the North Pacific Ocean (ISCBWG 2014). This results in a “moderately effective” score to account for new management being put into place based on the latest Pacific bluefin stock assessment.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
The most recent assessment for albacore tuna in the South Pacific did not provide any suggestions on the need for any specific management measures. However, the Scientific Committee did suggest that longline fishing mortality needs to be reduced to maintain the economic viability of the fishery, and this has not been adopted by the Commission (WCPFC 2013e). The last assessment did not suggest any specific management measures for swordfish in the South-West Pacific region of the Western and
100
Central Pacific Ocean (Davies et al. 2013). No measures aimed at reducing longline fishing mortality rates have been adopted. The Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has adhered to scientific advice and utilizes a Management Procedure in setting a total allowable catch level that will ensure the biomass reaches the current interim rebuilding target for southern bluefin tuna (CCSBT 2011). This results in a “moderately effective” score because advice has not really been followed for the target species.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
The last bigeye, skipjack, and yellowfin tuna assessments made recommendations to improve the current statistical model used and identified needs for 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 mortality levels need to be 36% less than the 2008–2011 level in order to be sustainable. The Scientific Committee noted that spatial management could be utilized for yellowfin tuna and that catches should not be increased from 2012 levels (WCPFC 2014b). In addition, reducing the fishing mortality on juveniles would increase the overall yield (Harley et al. 2014). The Scientific Committee did recommend in 2009 that the Commission consider fishing limits for skipjack (Rice et al. 2014). The Commission does recognize that fishing mortality needs to be reduced to improve the status of bigeye and yellowfin tuna in this region (WCPFC 2012). The Commission has recently prohibited discarding of these species but there are not catch limits for either species in this fishery. The 2014 Commission meeting had not occurred at the time of this report, so it is unknown if additional management measures are to be adopted based on the updated 2014 stock assessments. This results in a “moderately effective” score.
Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Do fishermen comply with regulations, and how is this monitored? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be regular enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has a compliance monitoring scheme in place that 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. The Commission evaluates compliance by members annually with respect to: catch and effort limits and reporting for target species, spatial and temporal closures, observer and Vessel
101
Monitoring Systems (VMS) coverage, and provision of scientific data (WCPFC 2012c). The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) has a compliance monitoring plan that includes collecting information from member nations on compliance and enforcement of measures, requiring a plan of action to improve any issues from member nations not under compliance, and that allows the Commission to develop sanctions and incentives to improve compliance (IATTC 2011a). Vessel Monitoring Systems are required on all vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean south of 20°N and east of 175°E. The area north of 20°N and west of 175°W had an activation date for VMS of December 31, 2013 (WCPFC 2012d). There are measures in place allowing for the boarding and inspection of vessels in the Convention Area (WCPFC 2006) and the WCPFC maintains a list of illegal, unreported, and unregulated vessels (WCPFC 2010b). In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, vessels longer than 24 m must use VMS (IATTC 2004) and a list of IUU vessels is maintained (IATTC 2005a). A recent study, which developed a standard way of assessing transparency in RFMOs, found the WCPFC had a lack of transparency with regard to the availability of compliance-related data, a lack of incentive for countries to comply with management measures, and lacked the processes needed to respond to non-compliance (Gilman and Kingma 2013). Koehler (2013) also found both the WCPFC and IATTC to be ineffective with regard to compliance transparency. Specifically, the IATTC does not appear to deal with compliance issues in a thorough manner, and the WCPFC’s compliance assessment process (there is a compliance monitoring scheme in place) (WCPFC 2013d) is closed to the public and does not have ways of dealing with non-compliance. In 2013 the Commission finally started releasing some information on the compliance of individual nations (WCPFC 2013g). Assessing the effectiveness of these enforcement measures is difficult because there is a general lack in the transparency of information with regard to surveillance activities, infractions, and enforcement actions and outcomes (Gilman et al. 2013). This results in a “moderately effective” score.
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) has a compliance monitoring scheme in place that 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. The Commission evaluates compliance by members annually with respect to: catch and effort limits and reporting for target species, spatial and temporal closures, observer and Vessel Monitoring Systems (VMS) coverage, and provision of scientific data (WCPFC 2012c).
102
There are specific reporting requirements in place to monitor compliance with the FAD set limiting options (WCPFC 2013a). Vessel Monitoring Systems are required on all vessels fishing for highly migratory species in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean south of 20°N and east of 175°E. The area north of 20°N and west of 175°W had an activation date for VMS of December 31, 2013 (WCPFC 2012d). There are measures in place allowing for the boarding and inspection of vessels in the Convention Area (WCPFC 2006b) and the WCPFC maintains a list of illegal, unreported, and unregulated vessels (WCPFC 2010b). H A recent study, which developed a standard way of assessing transparency in RFMOs, found the WCPFC had a lack of transparency with regard to the availability of compliance-related data, a lack of incentive for countries to comply with management measures, and lacked the processes needed to respond to non-compliance (Gilman and Kingma 2013). Koehler (2013) also found both the WCPFC and IATTC to be ineffective with regard to compliance transparency. Specifically, the IATTC does not appear to deal with compliance issues in a thorough manner, and the WCPFC’s compliance assessment process (there is a compliance monitoring scheme in place) (WCPFC 2013d) is closed to the public and does not have ways of dealing with non-compliance. In 2013 the Commission finally started releasing some information on the compliance of individual nations (WCPFC 2013g). Assessing the effectiveness of these enforcement measures is difficult because there is a general lack in the transparency of information with regard to surveillance activities, infractions, and enforcement actions and outcomes (Gilman et al. 2013). This results in a “moderately effective” score.
Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record
Considerations: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining populations at sustainable levels or a history of failing to maintain populations at sustainable levels? A Highly Effective rating is given if measures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of species overtime.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). In terms of Pacific bluefin tuna, the WCPFC and IATTC have been unable to maintain a healthy population (ISCPBWG 2014). However, albacore and swordfish populations have remained healthy (ISCAWG 2011)(ISCBWG 2014). This results in a “moderately effective” score.
103
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
Management measures enacted by the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) have shown mixed results in their ability to meet stock management objectives of principal market species (Gilman et al. 2013). In addition, the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna (CCSBT) has been unable to maintain healthy populations of southern bluefin tuna (IOTC 2013). This results in a “moderately effective” score because some target species (Hoyle et al. 2012) (Davies et al. 2013) have remained healthy.
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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 market species (Gilman et al. 2013). In terms of bigeye tuna, the WCPFC has been unable to reduce fishing mortality rates to appropriate levels (Harley et al. 2014) and catch limits have been exceeded by some nations (WCPFC 2014). It is unclear if newly enacted management measures will be successful (WCPFC 2013a). This results in a “moderately effective” score.
Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion
Considerations: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders are individuals/groups/organizations that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by the management of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conservation groups, etc.). A Highly Effective rating is given if the management process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) allows for accredited observers to participate in most meetings. Historically, the WCPFC has lacked transparency (Gilman et al. 2013) in some factors but this has improved in recent years. The Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission also allows outside accredited observers, which can be made up of scientists, NGOs, or other interested parties, to attend meetings. This results in a “moderately effective” score.
104
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission allows for accredited observers to participate in most meetings. Historically, the WCPFC has lacked transparency (Gilman et al. 2013) in some factors but this has been improved in recent years. This results in a “moderately effective” score.
Bycatch Strategy
Factor 3.2: Management of fishing impacts on bycatch species Region / Method All Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce North Pacific Longline, Pelagic
No No Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
South Pacific Longline, Pelagic
No No Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
Western Central Pacific Longline, Pelagic
No No Ineffective Ineffective Moderately Effective
Moderately Effective
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC) have instituted management measures for seabirds and sea turtles in longline fisheries operating in the Pacific Ocean. However, the success of these measures is not yet known. Observer programs do exist, but they observe only a fraction of the entire fishery.
Subfactor 3.2.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation
Considerations: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of the fishery on 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 minimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mitigation measures, etc.).
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective
The Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC) and Inter-American Tropical Tuna
105
Commission (IATTC) have adopted several management measures to protect vulnerable bycatch species. For example, WCPFC and IATTC members are asked to implement the International Plan of Action for Reducing Incidental Catches of Seabirds in Longline Fisheries. Vessels fishing north of 23°N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean (WCPO) and Eastern Pacific Ocean (EPO) are required to use at least two mitigation measures, 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 to undertake additional mitigation research (IATTC 2011b) (WCPFC 2012e). Members of both the WCPFC and IATTC are also to implement the FAO Guidelines to Reduce Sea Turtle Mortality in Fishing Operations. Proper handling and release guidelines should be used when hard-shell turtles are incidentally captured, and longline vessels must carry line cutters and de-hookers to allow for the safe handling and release of turtles. Longline fisheries are also urged to research mitigation techniques such as the use of circle hooks. Vessels conducting shallow-set fishing targeting swordfish must also comply with mitigation measures (e.g., circle hooks, whole bait, or other reviewed technique) (WCPFC 2008b) (IATTC 2006). In addition, fisheries observers record and report interactions with seabirds and turtles (IATTC 2011c) (WCPFC 2012e) (WCPFC 2008b). Members of both the WCPFC and IATTC are prohibited from retaining, transshipping, storing, or landing oceanic whitetip and silky sharks, and any incidentally caught sharks should be released and the incident recorded and reported (IATTC 2011d) (WCPFC 2012f) (WCPFC 2013f). Members are also to implement the FAO International Plan of Action for the Conservation and Management of Sharks, and National Plans of Action should have policies in place to reduce waste and discarding of sharks. Information on catch and effort for key species is to be reported, and shark finning is banned (5% ratio) (IATTC 2005b) (WCPFC 2010a). The WCPFC scored an average of 42% across five broad bycatch governance categories in a recent study conducted by Gilman et al. (2013). This is scored as “ineffective” because there are no bycatch limits for non-target species and it is unclear if these management measures are effective at maintaining population levels of bycatch species or being put into place. For example, Clarke (2013) identified that compliance with implementing WCPFC-adopted management measures specific to sharks is at best 60%, and lower for some measures. In addition, the low level of observer coverage in the WCPO has hampered the ability of assessing whether adopted management measures have been effective (Gilman 2011).
Subfactor 3.2.2 – Scientific Research and Monitoring
Considerations: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch to measure fishery’s impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effective rating, assessments must be conducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch data collection program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met.
106
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Ineffective
Vessels fishing for “fresh fish” north of 20°N in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean must implement an observer program and achieve 5% coverage by the end of 2014 (WCPFC 2012g). In the Eastern Pacific Ocean, vessels longer than 20 m must have at least 5% observer coverage by 2013 (IATTC 2011c). This monitoring level is very low considering the number of potential bycatch species, and is often not attained by all nations; the low observer coverage hinders the ability to accurately determine the effectiveness of management measures (Gilman 2011) (Clarke 2013). In addition, data collection protocols within the observer programs are considered deficient (Gilman et al. 2013). This results in an “ineffective” score.
Subfactor 3.2.3 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice
Considerations: How often (always, sometimes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scientific recommendations/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effective rating is given if managers nearly always follow scientific advice.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
The Scientific Committee has recently (2014) recommended that several measures related to bycatch be adopted by the Commission. These include analyzing bycatch mitigation methods for sharks and evaluating the fin to carcass ratio currently in effect, implementing e-monitoring trials for seabirds, and additional collection of 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 (e.g., (WCPFC 2013e)), so this results in a “moderately effective” score.
Subfactor 3.2.4 – Enforcement of Management Regulations
Considerations: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow management regulations and what is the level of fishermen’s compliance with regulations? To
107
achieve a Highly Effective rating, there must be consistent enforcement of regulations and verification of compliance.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderately Effective
See Subfactor 3.1.5 in the Harvest Strategy section for determination.
108
Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if there are measures in place to mitigate any impacts. The fishery’s overall impact on the ecosystem and food web and the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem Based Fisheries Management aims to consider the interconnections among species and all natural and human stressors on the environment.
The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing gear on habitat score (plus the mitigation of gear impacts score) and the Ecosystem Based Fishery Management score. The Criterion 2 rating is determined as follows:
• Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern • Score >2.2 and <=3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern • Score <=2.2=Red or High Concern
Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.
Criterion 4 Summary
Region / Method Gear Type and Substrate
Mitigation of Gear Impacts
EBFM Overall Recomm.
North Pacific Longline, Pelagic
5.00:None 0.00:Not Applicable
3.00:Moderate Concern
Green (3.873)
South Pacific Longline, Pelagic
5.00:None 0.00:Not Applicable
3.00:Moderate Concern
Green (3.873)
Western Central Pacific Longline, Pelagic
5.00:None 0.00:Not Applicable
3.00:Moderate Concern
Green (3.873)
Although pelagic longline gears do not typically come in contact with bottom habitats, they do affect a number of ecologically important species, and the consequences vary by region. Mitigation measures to reduce the impact of pelagic longlines on bottom habitats are not generally needed and there is no indication of a need in these three fisheries.
Justification of Ranking
Factor 4.1 – Impact of Fishing Gear on the Habitat/Substrate
Scoring Guidelines
• 5 (None)—Fishing gear does not contact the bottom • 4 (Very Low)—Vertical line gear
109
• 3 (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 trawl that is known to contact bottom occasionally (
• 2 (Moderate)—Bottom dragging gears (dredge, trawl) fished on resilient mud/sand habitats. Gillnet, trap, or bottom longline fished on sensitive boulder or coral reef habitat. Bottom seine except on mud/sand
• 1 (High)—Hydraulic clam dredge. Dredge or trawl gear fished on moderately sensitive habitats (e.g., cobble or boulder)
• 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.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
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). However, these effects are still considered to be a low risk to bottom habitats (Gilman et al. 2013) so this results in a no impact score.
Factor 4.2 – Mitigation of Gear Impacts
Scoring Guidelines
• +1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with gear, fishing intensity low/limited, gear specifically modified to reduce damage to seafloor and modifications shown 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 to limit 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 habitats not protected); there are some limits on fishing effort/intensity, but not actively being reduced.
110
• 0 (No Mitigation)—No effective measures are in place to limit gear impacts on habitats. North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Not Applicable
Factor 4.3 – Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management
Scoring Guidelines
• 5 (Very Low Concern)—Substantial efforts have been made to protect species’ ecological roles and ensure fishing practices do not have negative ecological effects (e.g., large proportion of fishery area is protected with 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 place to 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 fish aggregating devices (FADs) are used.
• 3 (Moderate Concern)—Fishery does not catch species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem, or if it does, studies are underway to determine how to protect the ecological role of these species, OR negative ecological effects from hatchery supplementation or FADs are possible and management is not place to mitigate these impacts.
• 2 (High Concern)—Fishery catches species that play an exceptionally large role in the ecosystem and no efforts 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 is having serious negative ecological or genetic consequences, OR fishery has resulted in trophic cascades or other detrimental impacts to the food web.
North Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
South Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Western Central Pacific, Longline, Pelagic
Moderate Concern
111
The pelagic longline fishery in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean catches a number of ecologically important species including other tunas, billfish, and sharks. In particular, sharks are considered top predators in 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 prey abundances) that can lead to a cascade of other affects (Myers et al. 2007) (Duffy 2003) (Ferretti et al. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al. 2007). In the North Pacific Ocean, the removal of blue sharks and tunas by longline fishery has been shown to lead to an increase in the number of 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 by fisheries in the Convention Area and has to date completed stock assessments on two species (oceanic whitetip and silky sharks), in addition to adopting several management measures to protect bycatch species (Rice and Harley 2013) (Rice and Harley 2012b). Also, the WCPFC has initiated studies to monitor changes to the food web and to examine predator-prey relationships (Allain 2010) (Allain et al. 2012). This is scored as “moderate” concern because this fishery catches exceptional species but there are some efforts to incorporate their ecological role into management.
112
Acknowledgements Scientific review does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch® program, or its seafood recommendations, on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch® is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.
Seafood Watch® would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for graciously reviewing this report for scientific accuracy.
113
References Abreu-Grobois, A Plotkin, P. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group) 2008. Lepidochelys olivacea. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
ACAP. 2014a. Light-mantled albatross Phoebetria palpebrata. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.
ACAP. 2014b. Wandering albatross Diomedea exulans. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.
ACAP. 2014c. Salvin's albatross Thalassarche salvini. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.
ACAP. 2014d. White-chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis. Agreement on the Conservation of albatross and petrels.
ACAP. 2008. Albatross and petrel distribution within the WCPFC area. The Fourth meeting of the WCPFC Ecosystem and Bycatch Specialist Working Group, Port Moresby, August 14, 2008.
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 4 final 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 from ECOPATH 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: IUCN 2012. 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 seabird bycatch 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. Overlap between 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 in Longline Fisheries - 2008 Assessment Report. Report to Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Canberra.
114
Baker, G.B. and Wise, B.S. 2005. The impact of pelagic longline fishing on the flesh-footed shearwater Puffinus carneipes in Eastern Australia. Biological Conservation 126: 306–316.
Barlow, J. 2006. Cetacean abundance in Hawaiian waters estimated from a summer/fall survey in 2002. Marine Mammal Science 22:446-464.
Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.2.
Bell, E.A., Sim, J.L. and Scofield, P. 2009. Population parameters and distribution of the black petrel (Procellaria parkinsoni), 2005/2006. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.
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. Version 2014.2.
BirdLife International 2012c. Thalassarche chrysostoma. 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. Version 2013.1.
BirdLife International 2012s. Phoebastria immutabilis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.
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. Version 2012.2
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. Version 2012.2
BirdLife International. 2012i. Puffinus griseus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
BirdLife International. 2012l. Diomedea exulans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
BirdLife International. 2012o. Procellaria aequinoctialis. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2
115
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. IUCN Red 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 Pacific oceans shallow-set longline fisheries. WCPFC-SC5-2009/EB-WP-04.
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 the Southern 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 Northwest Pacific Ocean using per recruit and virtual population analyses. Fisheries Research 98:92-101.
Clarke, S. 2013. Towards and integrated shark conservation and management measure for the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Pacific Islands Regional Office and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. WCPFC-SC9-2013/EB-WP-08.
Clarke, S. 2011. A status snapshot of key shark species in the Western and Central Pacific and potential management options. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-EB-WP-04. 37 p.
Clarke, S. 2009. An alternative estimate of catches of five species of sharks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean based on shark fin trade data. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Scientific Committee Paper SC5/WB-WP-02.
Clarke, S., Sato, M., Small, C., Sullivan, B., Inoue, Y. and Ochi, D. 2014. Bycatch in longline fisheries for tuna and tuna-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 on Data Held by SPC-OFP. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-01.
116
Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H. and Nakano, H. 2011c. Analysis of North Pacific Shark Data from Japanese Commercial Longline and Research/Training Vessel Records. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02.
Clarke, S., Yokawa, K., Matsunaga, H., and Nakano, H. 2011. Analysis of North Pacific shark data from Japanese commercial longline and research/training vessel records. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August, 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/EB-WP-02. 89 p.
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
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., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C.,et al. 2011b. Makaira nigricans. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
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. 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.
Cousins, K. and Cooper, J. 2000. The population biology of the black-footed albatross in relation to mortality caused 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 Pelagic Longline 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 management organizations. Marine Policy 34:1036-1042
Davies, N., Pilling, G., Harley, S. and Hampton, J. 2013. Stock assessment of swordfish (Xiphias gladius) in the southwest Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC9-2013/SA-WP-05. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session, 6-14 August 2013, Federated States of Micronesia.
Davies, N., Hoyle, S. and Hampton, J. 2012. Stock assessment of striped marlin (Kajikia audax) in the southwest Pacific 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., Hoyle, S., Harley, S., Langley, A., Kleiber, P., and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of bigeye tuna in 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.
Dutton, P.H., Hitipeuw, C., Zein, M., Benson, S.R., Petro, G., Pita, J. et al. 2007. Status and genetic structure of nesting populations of leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) in the western Pacific. Chelonian Conservation and Bioloyg 6:47-53.
Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). 2012. Fishstat J database. Food and Agriculture Organisation, Rome, Itsly. Accessed April, 2013.
Ferretti, F., B. Worm, G.L. Britten, M.R. Heithaus, H.K. and Lotze. 2010. Patterns and ecosystem consequences of shark 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 species composition of tuna schools in the Gulf of Guinea between 1981 to 1999, in relation with the fish aggregating device 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, Del Mar, Ca.
Fréon, P. and Dagorn, L. 2000. Review of fish associative behavior: Toward a generalization of the meeting point hypothesis. 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 CM 2002/L:12. Available at: http://info.ices.dk/products/CMdocs/2002/L/L1202.pdf
Gascoigne, J., Kolody, D., Sieben, C., and Cartwright, I. 2014. The SZLC, HNSFC Cook Islands EEZ south Pacific albacore longline fishery. MSC Public Comment Draft report.
Gilman, E. 2011. Bycatch governance and best practice mitigation technology in global tuna fisheries. Marine Policy 35:590-609.
Gilman, E.L. 2001. Keeping Albatross off the Hook in the North Pacific Ocean. World Bird Watch. 23(2): 14-16.
Gilman, E. and Kingma, E. 2013. Standard for assessing transparency in information on compliance with obligations of regional fisheries management organizations: validation through assessment of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. Ocean Coastal Management 84:31-39.
Gilman, E., Suuronen, P., Hall, M., Kennelly, S. In Press (2013). Causes and methods to estimate cryptic sources of fishing mortality. Journal of Fish Biology.
118
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
Heithaus, M.R., Frid, A., Wirsing, A.J., Dill, L.M., Fourqurean, J.W., Burkholder, D., Thomson, J. and Bejder, L 2007. State-dependent risk taking by green sea turtles mediates top-down effects of tiger shark intimidation in a marine ecosystem. Journal of Animal Ecology 76:837-844.
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.
Hoyle, S., Kleiber, P., Davies, N., Langley, A. and Hampton, J. 2011. Stock assessment of skipjack tuna in 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-04. 134 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 stock assessment. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-01. Available online http://www.wcpfc.int/node/4587.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (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). 2012. Conservation and Management Measures for bluefin tuna in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Resolution C-12-09, 83rd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 25-29 June 2012.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011d. Resolution on the conservation of oceanic whitetip sharks 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). 2011c. Resolution on scientific observers for longline vessels. Resolution C-11-08. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011b. Resolution to mitigate the impact on seabirds of fishing for species covered by the IATTC. Resolution C-11-02. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 2011.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2011a. Resolution on the process for improved compliance of resolutions adopted by the Commission. Resolution C-11-07. 82nd Meeting, La Jolla, CA, 4-8 July 2011.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2007. Resolution to mitigate the impacts of tuna fishing vessels on sea turtles. Resolution C-07-03. 75th Meeting, Cancun, Mexico, 25-29 June 2007.
119
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). 2005a. Resolution to establish a list of vessels presumed to have 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). 2005b. Resolution on the conservation of sharks caught in association 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. 73rd Meeting, Lanzarote, Spain, 20-24 June 2005.
Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission (IATTC). 2004. Resolution on the establishment of a vessel monitoring system (VMS). Resolution c-04-06, 72nd Reunion, Lima Peru.
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 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 working group. International Scientific Committee for tuna and tuna-like species in the North Pacific Ocean.
International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean Pacific Bluefin Working 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 of Micronesia.
International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013b. ISSF stock status ratings 2013 status of the world fisheries for tuna. ISSF Technical Report 2013-4, April 2013
International Seafood Sustainability Foundation (ISSF). 2013a. ISSF stock assessment workshop: control rules and reference points for tuna RFMOs. ISSF Technical Report 2013-03. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, DC. 34 p.
120
Jones, T.T., Bostrom, B.L., Hastings, M.D., Van Houtan, K.S., Pauly, D. and Jones, D.R. 2012. Resource requirements of the Pacific leatherback turtle population. PLoS ONE 7:e45447/dpi:10.1371/journal.pone.0045447.
Josse, E., Dagorn, L. and Bertrand, A. 2000. Typology and behavior of tuna aggregations around fish aggregating devices from acoustic surveys in French Polynesia. Aquatic and Living Resources 13:183-192.
Josse, E., Bertrand, A. and Dagorn, L. 1999. An acoustic approach to study tuna aggregated around fish aggregating devices in French Polynesia: methods and validation. Aquatic and Living Resources 12:303-313.
Kaplan, I.C. 2005. A risk assessment for Pacific leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea). Canadian Journal of Fisheries 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 as determined by productivity-susceptibility analysis. Scientific Committee Second Regular Session, 7-18 August 2006, 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 central Pacific Ocean: productivity and susceptibility analysis. Scientific Committee Third Regular Session, 13-24 2007, Honolulu, HI. WCPFC-SC3-SWG/WP-1. 20 p.
Kleiber, P., Clarke, S., Bigelow, K., Nakano, H., McAllister, M. and Takeuichi, Y. 2009. North Pacific blue shark stock assessment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-PIFSC-17. 83 p.
Kleiber, P., Hampton, J., Hinton, M.G and Uozumi, Y. 2003. Update on blue marlin stock assessment. 15th Meeting of the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish BBRG-10. SCTB15 Working Paper.
Koehler, H.R., 2013. Promoting compliance in tuna RFMO's: a comprehensive baseline survey of the current mechanics of reviewing, assessing and addressing compliance with RFMO obligations and measures. ISSF Technical Report 2013-02.
Kolody, D., Campbell, R. and Davies, N. 2008. A Multifan-CL stock assessment of south-west Pacific swordfish 1952-2007. 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 Central pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Seventh Regular Session, 9-17 August 2011, Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia. WCPFC-SC7-2011/SA-WP-03. 135p.
121
Lawson, T. 2001. Observer data held by the Oceanic Fisheries Programme covering tuna fishery bycatches in the western and central Pacific Ocean. 14th Meeting of the the Standing Committee on Tuna and Billfish, 9-16 August 2001, Numea, New Caledonia. SWG-9. 42 p.
Lee, H., Piner, K.R., Humphreys, R. and Brodziak, J. 2012. Stock assessment of striped marlin in the western and central North Pacific Ocean in 2011. Report of the Billfish Working Group Stock Assessment Workshop. International Scientific Committee for Tuna and Tuna-like Species in the North Pacific Ocean.
Lehodey, P., Bertignac, M., Hampton, J., Lewis, A. and Picault, J. El Nino Southern Oscillation and tuna in the western Pacific. Nature 389:715-718
Lewison, R.L. and Crowder, L.B. 2007. Putting longline bycatch of sea turtles into perspective. Conservation Biology 21:79-86
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., 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 Legislation throughout 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. Version 2012.2.
Menard, F., Stequert, B., Rubin, A., Herrera, M. and Marchal, E. 2000. Food consumption of tuna in the equatorial 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. 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.
Molony, B. 2006. Summary of the biology, ecology and stock status of billfishes in the WCPFC, with a review of major variables influencing longline fishery performance. 1st Meeting of the Scientific
122
Committee of the Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Noumea, New Caledonia, 18-19, August 2006. WCPFC-EB-2.
Molony, B. 2005. Estimates of the mortality of non-target species with an initial focus on seabirds, turtles and sharks. First meeting of the Scientific Committee of the western and central Pacific Fisheries Commission, 9-19 August 2005. WCPFC-SC1. 84 p.
Mortimer, J.A Donnelly, M. (IUCN SSC Marine Turtle Specialist Group). 2008. Eretmochelys imbricata. In: IUCN 2012. 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 of apex 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 (NMFS). 2014. Us Foreign trade. NOAA Office of Science and Technology.
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). 2012. Endangered Species Act - Section 7 Consultation Biological Opinion. National Marine Fisheries Service, Pacific Islands Region, Protected Resources Division. 162 pg.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 2011. U.S. National Bycatch Report. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-117E, 508 p.
NZG. 2008. Fisheries (seabird sustainability measures-surface longlines) notice 2008 (No. F429). New Zealand Gazette 21 February 2008, No. 31. New Zealand Government, Wellington.
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.
Oceanic Fisheries Programme. 2010. Non-target species interactions with the tuna fisheries of the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Sixth Regular Session, 10-19 August, 2010, Nuku'alofa, Tonga. 59 p.
Oro, D. and A. Martinez-Abrain. 2000. Ecology and behavior of seabirds. Marine Ecology - Encyclopedia of Life Support 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 Interviews with Pacific Island Fishers. Technical Report produced under the Global Environment Facility
123
Oceanic Fisheries Management 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 Pacific Islands Fisheries Science Center Quarterly Research Bulletin, June 2011.
Piraino, S., Fanelli, G., Boero, F. 2002. Variability of species roles in marine communities: change of paradigms for conservation priorities. Marine Biology 140:1067-1074.
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 of Threatened Species. Version 2012.2.
Rice, J. 2012. Alternate catch estimates for silky and oceanic whitetip sharks in Western and Central Pacific Ocean. WCPFC-SC28-2012/SA-IP-12.
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. and Harley, S. 2012b. Stock assessment of oceanic whitetop sharks in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Scientific Committee Eighth Regular Session, 7-15 August 2012. WCPFC-SC8-2012/SA-WP-06 Rev 1. 53 pg.
Rice, J., Harley, S., Maunder, M. and Aires Da-Silva, A. 213. Stock assessment of blue sharks in the north Pacific Ocean 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 hotspots for endangered leatherback turtles on longlines in the Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the Royal Society 281:20132559
Schindler, D.E., Essington, T.E., Kitchell, J.F., Boggs, C. and Hilborn, R. 2002. Sharks and tunas: fisheries impacts on predators with contrasting life histories. Ecological Applications 12:735-748.
Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch criteria for fisheries. Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch Version January 18, 2013. 82 p.
124
Seminoff, J.A. (Southwest Fisheries Science Center, U.S.) 2004. Chelonia mydas. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of 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. Worldwide population decline of Dermochelys coriacea: are leatherback turtles going extinct? Chelonian Conservation and Biology 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 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.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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Version 2012.2
125
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 Pacific using classical and climate-based models, Internal Report IR-II-024. NOAA Fisheries, Pacific Islands Science Center. 25 p.
Wallace, B.P., Kot, C.Y., MiMatteo, A.D., Lee, T., Crowder, L.B. and Lewison, R.L. 2013. Impacts of fisheries bycatch on marine turtle populations worldwide: toward conservation and research priorities. Ecosphere 4:40.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-based longline fishery as documented by fishery observers. Marine and Coastal Fisheries: Dynamics, Management and Ecosystem Science 1:270-282.
Waugh, S.M., Filippi, D.P., Kirby, D.S., Abraham E. Walker N. 2012. Ecological Risk Assessment for seabird interactions in Western and Central Pacific longline fisheries. Marine Policy 36: 933–946.
WCPFC. 2014. Scientific Committee Tenth Regular Session. Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission, Majuro, Republic of the Marshall Islands, 6-14 August 2014.
WCPFC. 2013a. Conservation and management measure for Pacific bluefin tuna. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-09. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia.
WCPFC. 2013d. Conservation and management measure for compliance monitoring scheme. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-02. Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December 2013, Cairns, Australia.
WCPFC. 2013e. Commission for the Conservation and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western 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 Management Measure 2013-08. Commission Tenth Regular Session, 2-6 December, 2013, Cairns, Australia.
WCPFC. 2013b. Conservation and management measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2013-01. Tenth regular session, December 2-6, 2013, Cairns Australia.
WCPFC. 2013g. Commission for the Conservation and Management of highly migratory fish stocks in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Tenth Regular Session, Cairns, Australia, 2-6 December 2013.
126
WCPFC. 2013h. Scientific Committee Ninth Regular Session summary report. Pohnpei, Federated States of Micronesia, 6-14 August 2013.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012A. Conservation and management measure for bigeye, yellowfin and skipjack tuna in the western and central Pacific Ocean. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-01. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012b. Conservation and management measure for 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). 2012c. Conservation and management measure for compliance monitoring scheme. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-02. Commission Ninth Regular 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, 26-30 March 2012.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012f. Conservation and management measure for oceanic whitetip shark. Conservation and Management Measure 2011-04. Eighth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, 26-30 March 2011.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012g. Conservation and management measure for implementing the regional observer programme by vessels fishing for fresh fish north of 20N. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-03. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2012e. Conservation and management measure to mitigate the impact of fishing for highly migratory fish stocks on seabirds. Conservation and Management Measure 2012-07. Commission Ninth Regular Session, Manila, Philippines, 2-6 December 2012.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010a. Conservation and management measure for sharks. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-07. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-12 December 2010.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010b. Conservation and management measure to establish a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the WCPO. Conservation and Management Measure 2010-06. Seventh Regular Session, Honolulu, HI, 6-10 December 2010.
127
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2010c. Conservation and management measure for 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). 2009. Conservation and management for swordfish. Conservation and Management Measure 2009-03, Sixth Regular Session, Papeete, Tahiti, French Polynesia, 7-11 December 2009.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2008b. Conservation and management of sea turtles. Conservation and Management Measure 2008-03. Fifth Regular Session, 8-12 December 2008, Busan, Korea.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission. 2008a. Conservation and management measure for bigeye and yellowfin tuna in the Western and Central Pacific Ocean. Conservation Management Measure 2008-01.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 200. Conservation and management measure for the -regional observer programme. Conservation and Management Measure 200. Fourth Regular Session, Tumon, Guam, USA, 2-7 December 20007.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2006. Western and central Pacific fisheries commission boarding and inspection procedures. Conservation and Management Measure 2006-08. Third Regular Session, Apia, Samoa, 11-15 December 2006.
Western and Central Pacific Fisheries Commission (WCPFC). 2005. Conservation and management measure for North Pacific albacore. Conservation and Management Measure-2005-03. Second Session 12-16 December 2005.
Whitehead, H. 2002. Estimates of the current global population size and historical trajectory for sperm whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 295-304.
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 WCPO longline 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 longline fishery. Fisheries Bulletin 100:876-880
Work, T.M. and Balazs, G.H. 2002. Necropsy findings in sea turtles taken as bycatch in the North Pacific longline fishery. Fishery 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.
![Page 1: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
![Page 2: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
![Page 5: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
![Page 6: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
![Page 8: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
![Page 9: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
![Page 10: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
![Page 12: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
![Page 13: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
![Page 14: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
![Page 15: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
![Page 16: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
![Page 17: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
![Page 18: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
![Page 19: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
![Page 20: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
![Page 21: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
![Page 22: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
![Page 23: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
![Page 24: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
![Page 25: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
![Page 26: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
![Page 27: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
![Page 28: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
![Page 29: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
![Page 30: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
![Page 31: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
![Page 32: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
![Page 33: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
![Page 34: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
![Page 35: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
![Page 36: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
![Page 37: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
![Page 38: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
![Page 39: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
![Page 40: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
![Page 41: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
![Page 42: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
![Page 43: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
![Page 44: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
![Page 45: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
![Page 46: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
![Page 47: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
![Page 48: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
![Page 49: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
![Page 50: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
![Page 51: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
![Page 52: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
![Page 53: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
![Page 54: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
![Page 55: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
![Page 56: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
![Page 57: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
![Page 58: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
![Page 59: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
![Page 60: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
![Page 61: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
![Page 62: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
![Page 63: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
![Page 64: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
![Page 65: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
![Page 66: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
![Page 67: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
![Page 68: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
![Page 69: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
![Page 70: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
![Page 71: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
![Page 72: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/72.jpg)
![Page 73: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/73.jpg)
![Page 74: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/74.jpg)
![Page 75: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/75.jpg)
![Page 76: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/76.jpg)
![Page 77: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/77.jpg)
![Page 78: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/78.jpg)
![Page 79: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/79.jpg)
![Page 80: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/80.jpg)
![Page 81: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/81.jpg)
![Page 82: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/82.jpg)
![Page 83: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/83.jpg)
![Page 84: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/84.jpg)
![Page 85: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/85.jpg)
![Page 86: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/86.jpg)
![Page 87: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/87.jpg)
![Page 88: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/88.jpg)
![Page 89: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/89.jpg)
![Page 90: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/90.jpg)
![Page 91: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/91.jpg)
![Page 92: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/92.jpg)
![Page 93: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/93.jpg)
![Page 94: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/94.jpg)
![Page 95: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/95.jpg)
![Page 96: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/96.jpg)
![Page 97: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/97.jpg)
![Page 98: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/98.jpg)
![Page 99: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/99.jpg)
![Page 100: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/100.jpg)
![Page 101: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/101.jpg)
![Page 102: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/102.jpg)
![Page 103: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/103.jpg)
![Page 104: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/104.jpg)
![Page 105: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/105.jpg)
![Page 106: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/106.jpg)
![Page 107: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/107.jpg)
![Page 108: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/108.jpg)
![Page 109: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/109.jpg)
![Page 110: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/110.jpg)
![Page 111: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/111.jpg)
![Page 112: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/112.jpg)
![Page 113: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/113.jpg)
![Page 114: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/114.jpg)
![Page 115: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/115.jpg)
![Page 116: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/116.jpg)
![Page 117: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/117.jpg)
![Page 118: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/118.jpg)
![Page 119: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/119.jpg)
![Page 120: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/120.jpg)
![Page 121: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/121.jpg)
![Page 122: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/122.jpg)
![Page 123: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/123.jpg)
![Page 124: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/124.jpg)
![Page 125: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/125.jpg)
![Page 126: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/126.jpg)
![Page 127: Pacific Ocean...Pacific Ocean [WCPO] and Eastern Pacific), a single population in the South-West Pacific, two populations in the Atlantic (South and North), and a single population](https://reader035.documents.pub/reader035/viewer/2022070914/5fb4ee9965b2ae3d9f2a4f6a/html5/thumbnails/127.jpg)
![Indo-Pacific Climate Modes in Warming Climate: Consensus ...Indian Ocean dipole . Indian Ocean basin warming . Indo-western Pacific ocean ... [17], inducing a north Indian Ocean (NIO)](https://static.documents.pub/doc/80x56/611a7e4e613a58782f2e061c/indo-pacific-climate-modes-in-warming-climate-consensus-indian-ocean-dipole.jpg)
