Blackfin, Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna - Seafood Watch · tuna, although more in the Eastern...

Blackfin, Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna

Thunnus atlanticus, Katsuwonus pelamis, Thunnus albacares

Atlantic OceanTroll/Pole

March 12, 2015 (updated December 14, 2016)

Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by externalscientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does notconstitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of thereviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

®

®

®

Fisheries Standard Version F2

© Scandinavian Fishing Yearbook/www.scandposters.com

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

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

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

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

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .28

Table of Contents

About Seafood Watch

Guiding Principles

Summary

Final Seafood Recommendations

Introduction

Assessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

Acknowledgements

References

2

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

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

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

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

®

3

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

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

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

Each criterion includes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

1

1

4

SummaryTuna are caught by a variety of gear types in the Atlantic Ocean. This report focuses on Atlantic troll, handlineand pole, which includes handline, fisheries for blackfin tuna (Thunnus atlanticus), skipjack (Katsuwonuspelamis) and yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) tuna.

Blackfin tuna populations are healthy in the Atlantic and fishing mortality rates are sustainable. Yellowfin tunaare overfished but are not undergoing overfishing. Skipjack tuna populations are healthy.

In the Atlantic Ocean these species are managed by the International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic Tunas. There are currently not any management measures in place for blackfin tuna.

Troll, handline and pole and handline fisheries have minimal impact with bottom habitats and low bycatch ratesassociated with these fisheries.

5

Final Seafood Recommendations

Scoring Guide

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

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

Best Choice/Green = Final Score >3.2, and no Red Criteria, and no Critical scoresGood Alternative/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern , and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCritical scoresAvoid/Red = Final Score ≤2.2, or either Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy(Factor 3.2) is Very High Concern or two or more Red Criteria, or one or more Critical scores.

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

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION 1:IMPACTS ONTHE SPECIES

CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Blackfin tunaAtlant ic, Troll/Pole

Yellow (2.644) Red (1.414) Yellow (3.000) Green (3.873) Good Alternative(2.567)

Skipjack tunaAtlant ic, Troll/Pole

Green (3.831) Red (1.414) Yellow (3.000) Green (3.873) Good Alternative(2.816)

Yellowfin tunaAtlant ic, Troll/Pole

Yellow (2.709) Red (1.414) Yellow (3.000) Green (3.873) Good Alternative(2.582)

2

2

6

Introduction

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

This report focuses on Atlantic troll and pole, including handline, fisheries for blackfin tuna (Thunnusatlanticus), skipjack (Katsuwonus pelamis) and yellowfin (Thunnus albacares).

Species Overview

Blackfin tuna are only found in the Western Atlantic in pelagic waters from Massachusetts south to Trinidad andBrazil. Blackfin tuna are known to form mixed schools with skipjack tuna. Spawning appears to occur inoffshore waters (Froesey and Pauly 2013).

Skipjack and yellowfin tuna are found in tropical and subtropical waters of the Atlantic and Mediterranean(ICCAT 2012a). There are four populations of yellowfin and five for skipjack: Western and Central PacificOcean, Eastern Pacific Ocean, Atlantic (eastern and western for skipjack) and Indian Ocean. Juvenile yellowfintuna and juvenile bigeye tuna tend to form schools with skipjack tuna that are mostly found in surface waters. Larger tunas are found in subsurface waters where they also form schools (ICCAT 2012a).

In Atlantic waters these species are managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of AtlanticTunas.

Production Statistics

Blackfin tuna catches peaked during the mid-1990's at 4,488 t; since 2003, catches have been below 2,000 t(ICCAT 2014).

In the Eastern Atlantic, purse seines catch by far the majority of all skipjack tuna. In the Western Atlantic baitboats catch the majority. Other surface gear fisheries (i.e. troll and pole) catch a small amount of skipjacktuna, although more in the Eastern compared to the Western Atlantic. In 2013, 7,094 t of skipjack tuna werecaught by other surface gears in the Eastern Atlantic and only 326 t in the Western Atlantic. Total catches ofskipjack tuna in the Atlantic during 2013 were 221,628 t (ICCAT 2014).

The gear used to capture yellowfin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean are primarily purse seines in the Eastern Atlanticand longlines in the Western Atlantic. In 2013, 1,772 t and 1101 t of yellowfin tuna were caught by othersurface gears in the Eastern and Western Atlantic, respectively. Total catches of yellowfin tuna in the AtlanticOcean during 2013 were 92,615 t (ICCAT 2014).

7

Figure 1 Yellowfin tuna catches in the Atlantic Ocean between 1950 and 2013 (ICCAT 2014).

Figure 2 Skipjack tuna catches in the Atlantic Ocean between 1950 and 2013 (ICCAT 2014)

Figure 3 Blackfin tuna catches in the Atlantic Ocean between 1950 and 2013 (ICCAT 2014).

8

Figure 4 Atlantic bluefin tuna catches in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean (ICCAT 2014)

Importance to the US/North American market.

Skipjack tuna imports dropped from 24,128 t in 2011 to 17,635 t in 2012. The United States imported almost allskipjack tuna from Mexico (84%) during 2012 (NMFS 2014).

9

Figure 5 Major contributors to US skipjack tuna imports (%), ICCAT Convention Area (country of origin) (NMFS2014)

During 2013, yellowfin tuna were primarily imported from the Philippines (24%), followed by Trinidad andTobago (18%) (NFMS 2014).

Figure 6 Major contributors to US yellowfin tuna imports (%), ICCAT Convention Area (country of origin) (NMFS2014)

Around 200 t of bigeye and skipjack and 300 t of yellowfin were exported in 2011. Exports of bigeye tuna andyellowfin tuna were higher in 2012 (679 t and 843 t respectively). Skipjack tuna exports during 2012 were 339t. Atlantic bluefin exports were much less during 2011 (293 t) compared to 2012 (797 t). Information onblackfin tuna exports/imports is not available (NMFS 2014).

Common and market names.

Blackfin tuna do not have any other accepted names. Skipjack tuna are also known as ocean bonito and lessertuna. In Hawaii, bigeye and yellowfin tuna are known as Ahi, and skipjack as Aku.

Primary product forms

These species are sold fresh and frozen and for the sashimi and sushi market.

10

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

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

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

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

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

Criterion 1 Summary

Yellowfin tuna appear to be depleted/overfished but are not undergoing overfishing. Skipjack tuna appear to beat a healthy abundance and fished at a sustainable level. Blackfin tuna have not been assessed so their status isuncertain, but there is no indication that they are depleted or undergoing overfishing.

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Low—The FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteristics thatmake it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).

BLACKFIN TUNARegion /Method

InherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Atlantic Troll/Pole 2.00: Medium 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

SKIPJACK TUNARegion / Method Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Atlantic Troll/Pole 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.831)

YELLOWFIN TUNARegion / Method Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

Atlantic Troll/Pole 2.00: Medium 2.00: High Concern 3.67: Low Concern Yellow (2.709)

11

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

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

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

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

5 (Very Low Concern)—Highly likely that fishing mortality is below a sustainable level (e.g., below fishingmortality at maximum sustainable yield, FMSY), OR fishery does not target species and its contribution to themortality of species is negligible (≤ 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).3.67 (Low Concern)—Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, butsome uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but itscontribution to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the population is healthy andthe species has a low susceptibility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).2.33 (Moderate Concern)—Fishing mortality is fluctuating around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high susceptibility to the fishery and, if species is depleted,reasonable management is in place.1 (High Concern)—Overfishing is occurring, but management is in place to curtail overfishing, OR fishingmortality is unknown, species is depleted, and no management is in place.0 (Critical)—Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

BLACKFIN TUNA


ATLANTIC, TROLL/POLE

Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 41 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Blackfin tuna is asmall tuna species that reaches sexual maturity by 50 cm length and 3 years of age. The maximum lengthattained is around 108 cm and they live to around 5 years. Blackfin tuna are broadcast spawners and high-level predators in the ecosystem (Froesey and Pauly 2014). These life-history characteristics also suggest a

12



SKIPJACK TUNA



“medium” vulnerability.


Moderate Concern

In Atlantic waters, blackfin tuna are assessed along with 13 other “small tuna” species. Currently, there is notenough information to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). According to the InternationalUnion for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), blackfin tuna is a species of Least Concern, with a stable populationtrend, and is considered one of the most common tuna species in the western Atlantic (Collette et al. 2011a).They receive a score of “moderate” concern because information on their status is unknown and they have amoderate vulnerability to fishing pressure.


Moderate Concern

Blackfin tuna makes up a small proportion of “small tuna” catches in the Atlantic Ocean. No assessment hasbeen conducted due to a lack of data. Landings have been variable over the years, peaking in the ealry 1990sbut showing no consistent trend over time (ICCAT 2012a). They are caught by a variety of gears but there isno indication that overfishing is occurring (Collette et al. 2011a). It receives a score of “moderate” concernscore because information on fishing mortality is not available.


Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Skipjack life-history characteristics support this score. Sexual maturity is reached around 45 cm length or 2 years old, andskipjack can reach a maximum size of 110 cm and age of 12 years. It is a broadcast spawner and has a hightrophic level (Froese and Pauly 2013).


Low Concern

Stock assessments for skipjack tuna are difficult to employ due to its biology and fishery characteristics. In theAtlantic Ocean, eastern and western stocks of skipjack tuna are assessed. According to the most recentassessment in 2014, the biomass in the eastern region is likely above target levels (biomass needed toproduce the maximum sustainable yield, B ) and the biomass in the western region is “probably” 30%above the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B /B = 1.3). Both populations are notoverfished (ICCAT 2014). The high level of uncertainty associated with this assessment precludes a score ofvery low concern, so this factor rates as “low” concern.

MSY

2013 MSY

13


YELLOWFIN TUNA





Low Concern

Stock assessments for skipjack tuna are difficult to conduct based on their life history and the fisherycharacteristics. The last assessment in the Atlantic was conducted in 2014 for eastern and westernpopulations. The assessment determined that the fishing mortality rate (F ) in the eastern Atlantic waslikely below the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F ), and the rate in the westernAtlantic was likely 30% below F (F /F = 0.70) (ICCAT 2014). Because the populations appear to besustainably fished but there is some uncertainty surrounding the results, this factor scores as “low” concernrather than very low concern.

2013

MSY

MSY 2013 MSY


Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin tunareaches sexual maturity around 100 cm in length and 2–5 years of age. A maximum length of 140–150 cm canbe attained and they can live 8–9 years. It is a broadcast spawner and high-level predator in the ecosystem(Froese and Pauly 2014) (ICCAT 2014). These life-history characteristics also support a “medium” level ofvulnerability.


High Concern

Yellowfin tuna in the Atlantic Ocean was last assessed in 2016. The population is currently estimated to beabout 5% below Convention objectives (B /B = 0.95 (0.71–1.36)), with a 45.5% chance that thepopulation is not overfished or undergoing overfishing. Their status has improved since the 2011 assessment,when it was estimated at 85% of B with a 26% chance the population is not overfished or undergoingoverfishing. However, the stock is still considered to be overfished (ICCAT 2016b). This rates as “high” concernbecause the population is classified as overfished.

2014 MSY

MSY


Low Concern

The current fishing mortality rate is estimated to be 23% below FMSY (Fcurrent/FMSY = 0.77 (0.53–1.05))and the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) is estimated at 126,304 t (ICCAT 2016b). This suggests that fishingmortality rates are sustainable and overfishing is not occurring. The assessment suggested only a 13.3%chance the stock is both overfished and undergoing overfishing and suggested that the continuation of currentcatch levels into the future will be sustainable through 2014. We have therefore awarded a low concern score.

14

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

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


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

Criterion 2 Summary

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

®

BLACKFIN TUNA - ATLANTIC - TROLL/POLE

Subscore: 1.414 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.414

SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

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

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

Skipjack tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

SKIPJACK TUNA - ATLANTIC - TROLL/POLE




Blackfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

15

Troll and pole fisheries typically have very little bycatch associated with them. While other tuna species, sharksand other fish may incidentally be caught, it is in very small amounts (<5%) so, based on Seafood Watchcriteria, they do not qualify for inclusion in this report. Baitfishing used in troll and pole fisheries typically makesup only a small proportion of the total fishing effort on bait species {Gillet 2012}. Interactions with Endangered,Threatened, or Protected species are also likely very minimal in these fisheries. Therefore, other than the targettuna species and bigeye tuna caught with them, no additional "main species" were included in this report. Theworst scoring species in this report is bigeye tuna.


SCORING GUIDELINES

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

Factor 2.2 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.2 above)

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

BIGEYE TUNA


YELLOWFIN TUNA - ATLANTIC - TROLL/POLE




Blackfin tuna 2.00:Medium 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Skipjack tuna 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)


Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). However, bigeyetuna’s life history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reachsexual maturity around the time they reach a size of 100–125 cm; they reach a maximum size of 200 cm andlive around 11 years (Davies et al. 2011) (Froese et al. 2013). They are broadcast spawners and toppredators (Froese and Pauly 2013). These life-history characteristics result in a “medium” vulnerability.

16


Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate


High Concern

Bigeye tuna in the Atlantic were last assessed in 2015. Several models were used in this assessment. TheStock Synthesis model indicates the biomass has decreased over time and fell below levels necessary toproduce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) in 2010. The Age Structured Production Model indicated theratio of the biomass in 2014 to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B2014/BMSY) rangedbetween 0.554 and 1.225. The Virtual Population Analysis also indicated the population is overfished (ICCAT2015a). The current status is assessed to be overfished based on the most plausible model runs (0.48-1.20).We have awarded a "high concern" score because there is evidence the population of bigeye tuna in theAtlantic is overfished.


High Concern

According to the Age Structured Production model used in the 2015 assessment, the ratio of fishing mortalityin 2014 to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F2014/FMSY) ranged from 0.576 to 1.436,indicating that overfishing may be occurring. According to the stock synthesis model, the F2014/FMSY ratioappears to have decreased in recent years to below 1, suggesting overfishing is not occurring. The VirtualPopulation Analysis (VPA) base model indicated overfishing is not occurring, although some model runsindicated overfishing is occurring (the VPA results were sensitive to the values used for recruitment) (ICCAT2015a). Based on the most plausible model runs (0.62-1.85) there is an indication that overfishing is occurring(ICCAT 2015a). As some models indicate overfishing is occurring, we have awarded a "high concern" score.


< 20%

Handline and troll and pole methods have very low discard rates, typically ranging from 0%–7% (Kelleher2005). Troll and pole and line fisheries depend heavily on the use of baitfish, which most often comes fromother fisheries (Gillett 2012). However, the amount of tuna caught is much greater than the amount of baitfishused. The tuna to bait ratio is typically around 30:1, although this can vary by fishery due to differences in thebaitfish used and the fishing technique (Gillett 2010). Therefore, the score is left as <20%.

17


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

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

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

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

Criterion 3 Summary


SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

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

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

Factor 3.1 Summary

Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score

Atlantic / Troll/Pole 3.000 0.000 Yellow (3.000)

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

Atlantic /Troll/Pole

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

HighlyEffective

18

The United Nations Law of the Sea agreement (1995) indicated that the management of straddling and highlymigratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional Fisheries Management Organizations (RFMOs). RFMOs are the only legally mandated fishery management body on the high seas and there are currently 18RFMOs (www.fao.org) that cover nearly all of the world’s high seas. Countries must abide by the managementmeasures set forth by individual RFMOs in order to fish in their waters (Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly 2010). SomeRFMOs manage all marine living resources within their authority (e.g., General Fisheries Commission for theMediterranean (GFCM)), while others manage a group of species such as tunas (i.e. International Commissionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)). This report focuses on the troll and pole fisheries for bigeye,blackfin, skipjack and yellowfin tuna in international waters within the North and South Atlantic Ocean, whichare managed by ICCAT (see below for member countries).

ICCAT Contracting Parties: United States, Japan, South Africa, Ghana, Canada, France, Brazil, Morocco,Republic of Korea, Cote d’Ivoire, Angola, Russia, Gabon, Cabo Verde, Uruguay, Sao Tome and Principe,Venezuela, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea, United Kingdom, Libya, China, European Union, Tunisia, Panama, Trinidadand Tobago, Namibia, Barbados, Honduras, Algeria, Mexico, Vanuatu, Iceland, Turkey, Philippines, Norway,Nicaragua, Guatemala, Senegal, Belize, Syria, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Nigeria, Egypt, Albania, SierraLeone, Curacao, Liberia, El Salvador and Mauritania.

Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

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

Subfactor 3.1.2 – Recovery of Species of Concern

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


Moderately Effective

There are no management measures in place for blackfin tuna (ICCAT 2012a). There are no managementmeasures specific to skipjack tuna, but the establishment of a time/area closure in the surface fishery toprotect juvenile bigeye tuna also provides some protection to skipjack and yellowfin tuna (ICCAT 2012a). There is a total allowable catch (TAC) for yellowfin and bigeye tuna (ICCAT 2012a)(ICCAT 2011b). ICCATdoes not have formally accepted target reference points. There is a framework for harvest control rules, butnone are currently used (ISSF 2013a). We have awarded a "moderately effective" score becausemanagement measures have been enacted for several tuna species included in this report.



ICCAT has implemented measures to address both bigeye tuna and yellowfin tuna stock concerns. Bigeye tunaare under a multi-year conservation and management program initiated in 2009, which includes capacitylimitations, vessel authorization to fish, and catch limits. However, bigeye tuna have recently been assessed as

19

http://www.fao.org/

Subfactor 3.1.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

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

Subfactor 3.1.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

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

overfished and undergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2015a). ICCAT adopted new regulations during the 2015Commission meeting to address the status of bigeye tuna but these will not be put into place until 2016(ICCAT 2015b).

The multi-year conservation and management program for bigeye tuna was amended in 2011 to includeyellowfin tuna. In addition to capacity limits and vessel authorization, it also includes a total allowable catch(TAC) for yellowfin (ICCAT 2011b). Measures to recover yellowfin tuna populations appear to be succeeding,as the 2016 yellowfin assessment showed that yellowfin is recovering, overfishing has halted, and biomass isnearly at Bmsy. The 2016 yellowfin assessment also indicated that maintaining catches at current levels willresult in a 68% probability of maintaining a healthy stock through 2024 (ICCAT 2016b). At the 2016 ICCATCommission meeting, a Recommendation that included catch limits for bigeye and yellowfin tuna, fishingcapacity limitations, FAD fishing regulations, area/time closures and additional control and surveillancemeasures was adopted (ICCAT 2016d).

We have awarded a "moderately effective" score because although ICCAT is taking steps to address the statusof bigeye and yellowfin tuna populations, their populations have not yet fully recovered, and the effectivenessof the measures to recover bigeye tuna are not yet clear.



Stock assessments for bigeye, skipjack and yellowfin tuna are conducted every 4-6 years and include catchand effort data from both fishery-dependent and independent sources, along with biological information andother data sets. Assessments for blackfin tuna are not conducted on a regular basis; although they do includesome catch, effort and size data, the overall data needed for assessments are lacking (ICCAT 2012a). However, there is uncertainty surrounding the results of these assessments and there are issues withreporting catch data for some species. This rates a "moderately effective" score.


Highly Effective

Scientific advice for the management of blackfin tuna was not given in the last assessment (ICCAT 2012a). Nospecific management recommendations were made for skipjack tuna, other than to keep catches below themaximum sustainable yield (MSY) (ICCAT 2014). It has been suggested that maintaining yellowfin tunacatches at current levels (110,000 t) should lead to the biomass remaining healthy through 2024 (ICCAT2016). The TAC was set at this level starting in 2012 (ICCAT 2012a). It was also advised that measures toreduce FAD-related and other fishing mortality on small yellowfin tuna should be implemented if theCommission intends to increase the long term yield of yellowfin tuna, which was addressed by the 2016

20

Subfactor 3.1.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

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

Subfactor 3.1.6 – Management Track Record

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

Subfactor 3.1.7 – Stakeholder Inclusion

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

Commission meeting (ICCAT 2016b) (ICCAT 2016d). Scientific advice indicated that bigeye tuna TAC should bereduced from the current level of 85,000 t, in order to allow the population to rebuild (ICCAT 2015c). TheCommission lowered the bigeye tuna TAC to 65,000 t from 2016-2018, which will allow a 49% probability ofrebuilding by 2028 (ICCAT 2015b). We have awarded a "highly effective" score because management has ahistory of following scientific advice.



In terms of member countries' compliance with management measures, ICCAT has one of the best practicesof reviewing, assessing, and addressing compliance issues (Koehler 2013). Individual countries are required toprovided catch and effort data to the ICCAT Secretariat, and these data make it possible to monitor totalallowable catches (TACs). In addition, vessel monitoring systems are required on all vessels larger than 20 m(ICCAT 2003). A TAC for yellowfin tuna was implemented in 2012 and catches have been consistently belowthis level (ICCAT 2016). If catches of yellowfin tuna exceed TAC levels, there is the ability to subtractoverages from subsequent years (ICCAT 2012a). Bigeye catches have been below TAC levels from 2005 to2011 and, if they ever exceed the TAC, there are measures in place to adjust the following years' countryquotas (ICCAT 2012a). There is no TAC for blackfin tuna or skipjack tuna (ICCAT 2012a). We have awarded a"moderately effective" score because there does not appear to be an issue with catches going over TAClevels, but there are significant challenges with enforcing regulations in tuna fisheries and monitoring is notsufficient to ensure that there is full compliance with all relevant regulations.



Management measures have been able to sustains some species, but others remain overfished (ICCAT 2012a)(ICCAT 2016). Bigeye tuna have become overfished under current management measures, although updatedmeasures have been adopted and will be put into place during 2016 (ICCAT 2015b)(ICCAT 2015c). Yellowfintuna are still slightly overfished, but the most recent assessment indicates that they are recovering undercurrent management (ICCAT 2016). We have awarded a "moderately effective" score to account for theuncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of the bigeye recovery plan, while recognizing the progress madetowards recovery of yellowfin stocks.

21

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy

SCORING GUIDELINES

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

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


Highly Effective

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has attempted to includestakeholder input in the management and conservation of some species (i.e. Atlantic bluefin) (ICCAT 2008b). Observers are allowed at scientific and commission meetings but may not vote on individual managementmeasures. This results in a score of "highly effective" to account for the inclusion of stakeholder input andtransparency of management process through meeting reports, and the ability of non-delegates to attend andparticipate in meetings.

FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGYRegion / Method All Kept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce

Atlantic / Troll/Pole Yes No

22

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

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


Rating cannot be Critical for Criterion 4.

Criterion 4 Summary

Troll and pole gear has minimal impact or contact with bottom habitats. However, management measures donot currently address ecosystem impacts from these fisheries.


SCORING GUIDELINES

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

5 (None) - Fishing gear does not contact the bottom4 (Very Low) - Vertical line gear3 (Low)—Gears that contacts the bottom, but is not dragged along the bottom (e.g. gillnet, bottom longline, trap) and is not fished on sensitive habitats. Bottom seine on resilient mud/sand habitats. Midwater 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/sand1 (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.

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

+1 (Strong Mitigation)—Examples include large proportion of habitat protected from fishing (>50%) with

Region /Method

Gear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation of GearImpacts EBFM Score

Atlantic /Troll/Pole

5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

24

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

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

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

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

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management


None

Fishing gears such as handline and troll and pole rarely impact bottom habitats (Seafood Watch 2013).


Not Applicable


Moderate Concern

Troll, handline and pole fisheries rely on live baitfish, which could include "exceptional species" such asanchovy or sardines, and the effect of the removal of these species on the eocystem is unknown, and fewbaitfish fisheries are managed (Gillet 2012) (FAO 2014). ICCAT has assessed several species of sharks andconducted ecological risk assessments for other bycatch species. Though ecosystem impacts are not currentlyincluded in management plans, ICCAT has adopted management measures to protect bycatch species and

25

conducts ecological risk assessments. In addition, there is a Sub-Committee on Ecosystems within ICCATthat is investigating the role of Ecosystem Based Management within ICCAT fisheries (ICCAT 2013).

26

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

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

®

®

27

ReferencesCollette, B., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Carpenter, K.E., Dooley, J., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L.,Fritzsche, R., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Nelson, J.,Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Teixeira Lessa, R.P. & Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E. 2011a. Thunnus atlanticus. In:IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1

Cortés, E., Brown, C. and Beerkircher, L.R. 2007. Relative abundance and average size trends of pelagic sharksin the northwest Atlantic ocean, including the Gulf of Mexico and Caribbean Sea. Gulf and Caribbean Research19(2): 37-52.

FAO. 2014. Fishing techniques tuna pole and line fishing. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department.

Gillett, R. 2012. Report of the 2012 ISSF Workshop: the management of tuna bait fisheries: The results of aglobal study. ISSF Technical Report 2012-08. International Seafood Sustainability Foundation, Washington, D.C.

Gillett, R. 2010. Replacing purse seining with pole and line fishing in the Western Pacific: some aspects of thebaitfish requirements. Gillett, Preston and Associates Inc. for the ISSF.

Huang, H. 2009. Report of the Taiwanese observer program for large-scale tuna longline fisheries in the AtlanticOcean in 2007. ICCAT Collective Volume of Scientific Papers 65:2399-2408.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010a. Report of the 2010 ICCATbigeye tuna stock assessment session. Pasaia, Gipuzkoa, Spain 5-9 July 2010.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011b. Recommendation by ICCAT toamend the recommendation by ICCAT on a multi-year conservation and management program for bigeye tunaand yellowfin tuna. Recommendation 11-01.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011a. Report of the 2011 ICCATyellowfin tuna stock assessment session. San Sebastian, Spain, 5-12 September 2011.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012a. Report of the standingcommittee on research and statistics (SCRS). PLE-104/2012, Madrid, Spain, 1-5 October 2012.

ICCAT. 2013. Summary of the report of the inter-sessional meeting of the Sub-Committee on Ecosystems.ICCAT Report 2012-13(II).

ICCAT. 2014. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). International Commissionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, Madrid, Spain, 29 September to 3 October, 2014.

Report of the 2015 ICCAT bigeye tuna stock assessment session. Madrid, Spain, July 13-17, 2015.

2015 Annual ICCAT Meeting press release.

Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, Spain, 28 September to 2October, 2015.

ICCAT. 2016. Report of the 2016 ICCAT north and south Atlantic albacore stock assessment meeting. Madeira,Portugal, April 28-May 6, 2016.

28

ICCAT. 2016b. Report of the 2016 ICCAT yellowfin tuna stock assessment meeting. San Sebastian, Spain, June27th to July 1 2016.

ICCAT. 2016c. Report of the standing committee on research and statistics (SCRS). Madrid Spain, October 3-72016.

ICCAT. 2016d. 2016 Annual ICCAT meeting press release. International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic Tunas.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2008. Report of the meeting ofmanagers and stakeholders in Atlantic bluefin tuna. MSAB Tokyo 2008.

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

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

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

29

Blackfin, Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna - Seafood Watch · tuna, although more in the Eastern...

Documents

Transcript of Blackfin, Skipjack and Yellowfin tuna - Seafood Watch · tuna, although more in the Eastern...