Blue shark, Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) and Shortfin …...Blue and shortfin mako sharks are long-lived...

of 68/68
Blue shark, Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) and Shortfin mako shark Prionace glauca, Isurus oxyrinchus, Coryphaena hippurus ©Diane Rome Peebles South Atlantic and North Atlantic Drifting longlines July 11, 2016 (updated December 14, 2016) Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher Disclaimer Seafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by external scientists with expertise in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scientific review, however, does not constitute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommendations on the part of the reviewing scientists. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report. Seafood Watch Standard used in this assessment: Standard for Fisheries vF2 ® ® ® 1
  • date post

    12-Jul-2020
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    0
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Blue shark, Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) and Shortfin …...Blue and shortfin mako sharks are long-lived...

  • Blue shark, Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi) and Shortfin mako shark

    Prionace glauca, Isurus oxyrinchus, Coryphaena hippurus

    ©Diane Rome Peebles

    South Atlantic and North Atlantic

    Drifting longlines

    July 11, 2016 (updated December 14, 2016)

    Seafood Watch Consulting Researcher

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

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

    ®®

    ®

    1

  • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

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

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

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

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54

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

    Table of Contents

    About Seafood Watch

    Guiding Principles

    Summary

    Final Seafood Recommendations

    Introduction

    Assessment

    Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

    Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

    Criterion 3: Management Effectiveness

    Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

    Acknowledgements

    References

    Appendix A: Extra By Catch Species

    Appendix B: Update Summary

    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

  • SummaryThis report focuses on longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean that primarily target tuna and swordfish but alsoretain blue shark (Prionace glauca), shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and mahi mahi (Coryphaenahippurus). Tuna and swordfish have been assessed and recommendations published in a separate SeafoodWatch report. They are included as additional main species in this report because they occur in this fishery. TheU.S. and Canadian longline fisheries are also assessed in a separate report. Blue and shortfin mako sharks are long-lived species, which reach sexual maturity at a late age and produce asmall number of young. In contrast, mahi mahi reaches sexual maturity at a young age and produces a largenumber of young. Blue shark populations in the North Atlantic appear to be healthy but their statuses in theSouth Atlantic are uncertain. Shortfin mako shark populations in the South Atlantic are healthy, and there issome indication that populations in the North Atlantic have improved over time, but there is still a large amountof uncertainty surrounding their current statuses. Mahi mahi has not been fully assessed in the Atlantic,although the information that exists suggests that it has a stable population.

    The longline fisheries that target these species also capture a number of secondary target and bycatch species,including other shark species, sea turtles, and seabirds. Management measures to address seabird interactionshave been taken, but management of sea turtle interactions continues to be weak. We have included speciesthat typically report 5% of more of the total catch or whose status, e.g., Endangered or Threatened, justifiestheir inclusion in this report, per the Seafood Watch criteria.

    Longlines do not typically come in contact with bottom habitats but do capture “exceptional species” andmanagement does not currently take this into account.

    These species are managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)within the Atlantic Ocean.

    5

  • Final Seafood Recommendations

    Summary

    All species included in this report caught by longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean have an overallrecommendation of “Avoid.”

    Scoring Guide

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

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

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

    SPECIES/FISHERY

    CRITERION 1:IMPACTS ONTHE SPECIES

    CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

    CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

    CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

    OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

    Blue sharkSouth At lant ic,Drift ing longlines

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

    DolphinfishSouth At lant ic,Drift ing longlines

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

    Shortfin makosharkSouth At lant ic,Drift ing longlines

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

    Blue sharkNorth At lant ic,Drift ing longlines

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

    DolphinfishNorth At lant ic,Drift ing longlines

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

    Shortfin makosharkNorth At lant ic,Drift ing longlines

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

    2

    2

    6

  • recommendation for any fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

    7

  • Introduction

    Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommendation

    This report focuses on longline fisheries in the Atlantic Ocean that primarily target tuna and swordfish but alsoretain blue shark (Prionace glauca), shortfin mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and mahi mahi (Coryphaenahippurus). Tuna and swordfish have been assessed and recommendations published in a separate SeafoodWatch report. They are included as additional main species in this report because they occur in this fishery. TheU.S. and Canadian longline fisheries are also assessed in a separate report. The longline fisheries included inthis report are managed by the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

    Species Overview

    Mahi mahi is a highly migratory species found worldwide in tropical and subtropical waters. Mahi mahi istypically found in pelagic habitats, where it forms schools and is commonly found associated with floatingobjects. Mahi mahi is a top predator, feeding on small fish and squid (Froese and Pauly 2015).

    Blue shark is a highly migratory species of shark found throughout the world’s oceans in epipelagic andmesopelagic waters. It is considered the most widely distributed shark species and most abundant, withabundance increasing with latitude. Blue shark is an apex predator, consuming a variety of fish and squidspecies (ISCSWG 2014).

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

    Production Statistics

    Catches of mahi mahi in the Atlantic (including the Mediterranean) have increased significantly since 2003. In2003, 564 MT of mahi mahi were reported caught, followed by 2,632 MT in 2004. Catches peaked at 9,070 MTin 2010 and have since decreased to 2,607 MT in 2013 (ICCAT 2014). Blue shark catches in the North Atlantic,where the majority of blue sharks are caught, have increased in recent years. Since 2008, catches in the NorthAtlantic have been over 30,000 MT, with 37,137 MT reported in 2013. Almost all of this catch is from longlinefisheries. Catches in the South Atlantic have increased through 2011 (34,926 MT) but have since declined to19,314 MT in 2013. The majority of these catches also come from the longline fleet (ICCAT 2014). Catches ofshortfin mako shark in the North Atlantic have been fairly stable since the mid-2000s.

    In 2012, 3,635 MT of shortfin mako shark were landed in the North Atlantic. Catches in the South Atlantic, whichtypically represents less than catches in the North Atlantic, have been more variable over time. Catches peakedin 2003 (3,426 MT). Catches in 2013 were only 1,907 MT. The majority of catches in both regions come fromlongline fisheries (ICCAT 2014).

    Importance to the US/North American market.

    The majority of mahi mahi imported to the United States comes from Ecuador (26%), Chinese Taipei (22%),and Peru (21%) (NMFS 2015). In 2010, U.S. landings made up less than 5% of the mahi mahi available in theU.S. marketplace that year (NMFS 2010). Import statistics for sharks are not species-specific. During 2014,imports of fresh shark primarily came from Mexico, with smaller amounts imported from Canada, China, CostaRica, and Spain. Shark fins were imported from New Zealand and China (NMFS 2015).

    8

  • Common and market names.

    Shortfin mako and blue sharks are also known as “shark,” and mahi mahi as dolphinfish.

    Primary product forms

    These species are sold in fresh and frozen forms.

    9

  • 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

    BLUE SHARK

    Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

    South Atlantic Driftinglonglines

    1.00: High 3.00: ModerateConcern

    2.33: ModerateConcern

    Yellow (2.64)

    North Atlantic Driftinglonglines

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

    DOLPHINFISH

    Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

    South Atlantic Driftinglonglines

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

    North Atlantic Driftinglonglines

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

    SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK

    Region | MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

    South Atlantic Driftinglonglines

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

    North Atlantic Driftinglonglines

    1.00: High 3.00: ModerateConcern

    2.33: ModerateConcern

    Yellow (2.64)

    10

  • Blue shark and shortfin mako shark are long-lived species, which attain sexual maturity at a late age andproduce a small number of young. Blue shark populations are considered healthy. Mahi mahi are assessed alongwith several other species and their current status is uncertain. Shortfin mako shark in the North Atlantic arelikely not overfished, although there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these results. In the SouthAtlantic, their populations appear to be healthy.

    Criterion 1 Assessment

    SCORING GUIDELINES

    Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

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

    Factor 1.2 - Abundance

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

    Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

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

    11

  • overfishing.

    BLUE SHARK

    Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 1.2 - Abundance

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Blue sharkreaches sexual maturity around 4–7 years of age and reaches a maximum size and age of 380 cm and 16years, respectively. Blue shark gives birth to live pups every 1–2 years (ISCSWG 2014). These lifehistory characteristics also suggest a high inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure.

    Justification:

    Life history characteristic Paramater Score

    Age at maturity 5-10 years 2Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Average maximum length >300 cm 1Reproductive strategy Live bearer 1Trophic level >3.25 1Total average score 1.4

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderate Concern

    Blue shark in the South Atlantic was last assessed in 2015. Two models were used in this assessment andshowed conflicting results. The Bayesian surplus production model indicated that blue shark in the SouthAtlantic is not overfished, being between 196% and 203% of levels needed to produce the maximumsustainable yield (MSY). In contrast, the state space model indicated that the population could be overfishedand was only between 78% and 129% of MSY levels (ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a “moderate” concernscore due to the conflicting information in the current assessment.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Low Concern

    Blue shark in the North Atlantic was last assessed in 2015. Two di�erent models were used to determine thestatus of blue shark in the North Atlantic. Both models indicated that the population is most likely notoverfished. The Bayesian surplus production model indicated that the biomass in 2013 was between 196%and 205% of levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (MSY). The Stock Synthesis III modelindicated that the spawning stock in 2013 was 135% to 345% of levels needed to produce MSY (ICCAT 2015).Overall, assessment results are uncertain (i.e., level of absolute abundance varied by an order of magnitudebetween models with di�erent structures) and should be interpreted with caution. We have thereforeawarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score.

    12

  • Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

    DOLPHINFISH

    Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 1.2 - Abundance

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderate Concern

    Blue shark has one of the highest susceptibilities to longline fishing gear among elasmobranchs in the Atlantic(ICCAT 2012a) and longlines are the primary gear that captures blue shark in the South Atlantic. The 2015assessment used two models to determine fishing mortality rates on blue shark in the South Atlantic. TheBayesian surplus production model indicated that fishing mortality rates were below levels needed to producethe maximum sustainable yield (F /F = 0.01–0.11) and therefore overfishing is not occurring. But thestate space model indicated that overfishing could be occurring (F /F = 0.54–1.19) (ICCAT 2015). Wehave awarded a “moderate” concern score due to the conflicting results of the 2015 assessment.

    2013 MSY

    2013 MSY

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Low Concern

    Blue shark has one of the highest susceptibilities to longline fishing gear among elasmobranchs in the Atlantic(ICCAT 2012a) and longlines are the primary gear that captures blue shark in the North Atlantic. But accordingto the 2015 assessment, overfishing is not occurring. Two models were used to assess fishing mortality ratesof blue shark in the North Atlantic. Both indicated that fishing mortality rates are currently below levels neededto produce the maximum sustainable yield (F2013/FMSY = 0.04–050 and 0.15 to 0.75) (ICCAT 2015). Wehave awarded a “low” concern score because it appears that overfishing is not occurring, but not a very lowconcern score to account for large amounts of uncertainty.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Medium

    FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 39 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Mahi mahireaches sexual maturity between 35 and 55 cm in length and within the first year of life. The maximum sizeand age reached is 210 cm and 4 years of age. It is a broadcast spawner and high-level predator (Froese andPauly 2014). These life history characteristics also suggest a moderate level of vulnerability to fishing.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Low Concern

    Mahi mahi is assessed along with 13 other “small tunas” in the Atlantic. Currently, there is not enoughinformation to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). A separate preliminary attempt at astock assessment for mahi mahi in the Caribbean and for the U.S. fishery was conducted in 2006. The resultssuggested that catch rates had been fairly stable over the 10-year study period and that the population waslikely near virgin levels in both areas (Parker et al. 2006). In addition, the International Union for Conservationof Nature (IUCN) considers mahi mahi a species of Least Concern with a stable population trend. We have

    13

  • Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

    SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK

    Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 1.2 - Abundance

    awarded a “low” concern score due to the IUCN status and the results of the preliminary assessmentindicating that the population was likely near virgin levels.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Low Concern

    Mahi mahi makes up a small proportion of “small tuna” catches in the Atlantic Ocean. No assessment hasbeen conducted due to a lack of data (ICCAT 2012a). Mahi mahi are caught by a variety of gears (Collette etal. 2011d). In the South Atlantic, catches increased considerably during the early to mid-2000s but have begunto decline again in recent years (FAO 2013). Fisheries are not considered to be a major threat to this species(Collette et al. 2011d). We have awarded a “low” concern score because it is a non-target species andfisheries are not considered to be a major threat.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Shortfin makoshark reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can attain a maximum size of 325–375 cmand live up to 40 years. It is a top predator and gives birth to live young (ISC 2015). These life historycharacteristics also suggest a high inherent vulnerability to fishing based on the Seafood Watch productivityand susceptibility table (PSA = 1).

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Low Concern

    The last assessment for shortfin mako shark in the South Atlantic was conducted in 2012. The results of thisassessment indicated that the biomass was above B and that the population is not overfished. Catch ratetrends showed increasing trends or flat trends in recent years. There were inconsistencies between estimatedbiomass trajectories and CPUE trends, which resulted in a fair amount of uncertainty within the estimatedbiomass, particularly for this population. The current biomass to B ratio was estimated to range between1.36 and 2.16, and the current biomass to virgin biomass ratio ranged from 0.72 to 3.16 (ICCAT 2012g).Based on these estimates, the population is not overfished and we have awarded a “low” concern score.

    MSY

    MSY

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderate Concern

    The last assessment for shortfin mako shark in the North Atlantic was conducted in 2012. The results of thisassessment indicated that the biomass was above B and that the population is not overfished. Catch ratetrends showed increasing trends or flat trends in recent years. There were inconsistencies between estimated

    MSY

    14

  • Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

    biomass trajectories and CPUE trends, which resulted in a fair amount of uncertainty within the estimatedbiomass. The current biomass to B ratio was estimated to range between 1.15 and 2.04, and the currentbiomass to virgin biomass ratio ranged from 0.55 to 1.63 (ICCAT 2012g). Based on these estimates, thepopulation is not overfished. But the assessment was surrounded by a large amount of uncertainty (ICCAT2014).

    The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers shortfin mako shark to be Vulnerable(globally) and the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) considers thisspecies to be threatened (Cailliet et al. 2009) (COSEWIC 2006b). These classifications predate the mostrecent assessment. We have awarded a “moderate” concern score based on this classification combined withthe high level of uncertainty surrounding the most recent assessment for shortfin mako shark in the AtlanticOcean.

    MSY

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Low Concern

    Ecological Risk Assessments of Atlantic sharks indicate that shortfin mako shark is one of the most susceptibleshark species to longline capture in the Atlantic (ICCAT 2012a). Fisheries in the South Atlantic catch aroundhalf the amount of shortfin mako sharks as in the North Atlantic. The last population assessment indicated thatfishing mortality was currently below FMSY levels. FMSY was estimated to range between 0.029 and 0.041,and the current fishing mortality to FMSY ratio was estimated to range between 0.07 and 0.40. Based on thisassessment, overfishing is not currently occurring, but it was advised that current fishing mortality levelsshould be maintained until a more reliable assessment is available (ICCAT 2012g). We have awarded a “low”concern score because overfishing does not appear to be occurring.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderate Concern

    Ecological Risk Assessments of Atlantic sharks indicate that shortfin mako shark is one of the most susceptibleshark species to longline capture in the Atlantic (ICCAT 2012a). The majority of shortfin mako sharks arecaught in the North Atlantic compared to the South Atlantic Ocean. The last population assessment indicatedthat fishing mortality was currently below F levels. F was estimated to range from 0.029 to 0.104, andthe estimated ratio of current fishing mortality rates to F ranged from 0.16 to 0.92. According to theseresults, overfishing is not occurring. But there was considerable uncertainty surrounding the results of thisassessment, and it was noted that fishing mortality should remain constant until more reliable results areavailable (ICCAT 2012g). We have therefore awarded a “moderate” concern score.

    MSY MSY

    MSY

    15

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

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

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

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

    Criterion 2 Summary

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

    ®

    BLUE SHARK - NORTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

    SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

    Whitetip shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

    Atlantic sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

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

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

    Bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

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

    Red(2.159)

    16

  • Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:ModerateConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Yellow(2.644)

    Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Yellow(2.644)

    Albacore 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

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

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

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

    Green(4.472)

    BLUE SHARK - SOUTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000

    SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

    Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    Yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

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

    Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

    grey-headed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

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

    Atlantic sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

    17

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

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

    Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

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

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

    Green(4.472)

    DOLPHINFISH - NORTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

    SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

    Whitetip shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

    Atlantic sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

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

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

    Bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

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

    Red(2.159)

    Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:ModerateConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Yellow(2.644)

    Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Yellow(2.644)

    18

  • Albacore 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

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

    Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

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

    Green(4.472)

    DOLPHINFISH - SOUTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000

    SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

    Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    Yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

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

    Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

    grey-headed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

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

    Atlantic sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

    Blue shark 1.00:High 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)

    19

  • Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

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

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

    Green(4.472)

    SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - NORTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

    SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

    Whitetip shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    1.00:High Concern Red(1.000)

    Atlantic sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

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

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

    Bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Red(1.526)

    Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    3.67:Low Concern Red(1.916)

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

    Red(2.159)

    Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:ModerateConcern

    2.33:ModerateConcern

    Yellow(2.644)

    Albacore 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 3.67:Low Concern Yellow(2.709)

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

    Blue shark 1.00:High 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

    20

  • Dolphinfish 2.00:Medium 4.00:Low Concern 3.67:Low Concern Green(3.831)

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

    Green(4.472)

    SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - SOUTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000

    SpeciesInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

    Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    white-chinned petrel 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

    Yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

    0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)

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

    Black-browed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

    grey-headed albatross 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

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

    Atlantic sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red(1.414)

    Blue shark 1.00:High 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)

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

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

    21

  • This report focuses on pelagic longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic Ocean. Several species of tuna, fish,sharks, sea turtles, and seabirds are captured, some incidentally, in these fisheries. Bycatch of seabirds in theAtlantic occurs in the highest amounts south of 30° S, specifically for albatrosses, giant petrels, and petrels.Few if any interactions have been observed between pelagic longlines and seabirds north of 30° S (Inoue et al.2012). We have included species that either make up at least 5% of the total catch and are considered "mainspecies" (according to the Seafood Watch criteria) or are a stock of concern, endangered etc. Reported catchesfrom the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas Task I database for 2011 were used todetermine the main species. Other species were identified through the literature, which is cited in the tablesbelow. The worst scoring species for the North Atlantic longline fishery is the oceanic whitetip shark because ofits stock status. For the South Atlantic fishery, loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles, wandering and yellow-nosed albatross, and white-chinned petrel are the worst scoring species due to their stock status.

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

    Green(4.472)

    North Atlantic-pelagic

    Species Justification Source

    Oceanic whitetip shark

  • Criterion 2 Assessment

    SCORING GUIDELINES

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

    Factor 2.2 - Abundance(same as Factor 1.2 above)

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

    LEATHERBACK TURTLE

    Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 2.2 - Abundance

    Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability to fishing pressure due to their life history characteristics(Seafood Watch 2013). These life history characteristics include late age at maturity, long life span,and producing a small number of young.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Very High Concern

    Leatherback sea turtle has been listed as Endangered by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970(NMFS 2012). The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtle asCritically Endangered with a decreasing population trend in 2000 (Martinez 2000). In addition, leatherbackturtle has been listed on the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 andis currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with extinction if international trade is notprohibited. In the Atlantic, the population size is estimated to be between 34,000 and 94,000 (TEWG 2007).We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on the IUCN and CITES listings.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Critical

    Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtle, especially for juveniles and adults thatcan be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migration routes (Martinez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996).

    Leatherback interactions throughout the high seas of the Atlantic are known to occur but the total impact on itspopulations is not fully known. Within the Southwest Atlantic, there are high levels of leatherback bycatchbecause pelagic longline fishing is distributed throughout the region (TEWG 2007). In this region, leatherback

    23

  • Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

    LOGGERHEAD TURTLE

    Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 2.2 - Abundance

    sea turtle is at high risk and highly affected by incidental capture in longline fisheries, and in the southeastAtlantic, it is at a low risk but highly affected by longlines (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtlemanagement measures in place for pelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic, but they do not meet bestpractices, such as specific hook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a “critical” concernscore because the population is depleted and adequate management measures are not in place.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderate Concern

    Fishing mortality is thought to be a major threat to leatherback turtle, especially for juveniles and adults thatcan be incidentally captured in fisheries along their migration routes (Martinez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996).In the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, leatherback sea turtle has a low population risk and low bycatch impact fromlongline fisheries (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place for pelagiclongline fisheries in the Atlantic, although these do not meet best practices (Gilman 2011). We haveawarded a “moderate” concern score because \bycatch impacts may be low but sea turtle mitigationmeasures do not meet best practices.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    < 20%

    Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0%–40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlantic, discard rates typically range from 10%–19% (Kelleher 2005).

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    Sea turtles have a high level of vulnerability to fishing pressure due to their life history characteristics(Seafood Watch 2013). These life history characteristics include late age at maturity, long life span,and producing a small number of young.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Very High Concern

    The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in 1996,although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerhead is listed on AppendixI of CITES. Populations of nesting turtles in Brazil (South Atlantic) increased between 1988 and 2004 (NMFS2009). But it is unclear if this trend exists throughout the region.

    24

  • Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

    Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Very High Concern

    The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in 1996,although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerhead is listed on AppendixI of the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). The population of nesting turtles inthe Western North Atlantic has been declining since the late 1990s (NMFS 2009). We have awarded a “veryhigh” concern score based on the IUCN and CITES listings.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Critical

    The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles is considered a primary threat to its populations (MTSG 2006). Inthe Atlantic Ocean, it has been estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 loggerheads were incidentallycaught during 2000 (Lewison et al. 2004). The Brazilian and Uruguayan fisheries in the South Atlantic arereported to have high sea turtle bycatch rates, which may include loggerhead (Giffoni et al. 2008) (Sales et al.2010). In the Southwest Atlantic, loggerhead has a low population risk but high impact from bycatch (Wallaceet al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place but they do not meet best practices, suchas hook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a “critical” concern score becauseloggerhead is depleted in this area, bycatch from longline fisheries is a contributing factor, and adequatemanagement measures are not in place.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderate Concern

    The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle is considered a primary threat to its populations (MTSG 2006). Inthe Atlantic Ocean, it has been estimated that between 150,000 and 200,000 loggerheads were incidentallycaught during 2000 (Lewison et al. 2004). The majority of information available is from the U.S. pelagiclongline fishery and the Canadian fishery to an extent. For example, it is estimated that the U.S. fisherycatches 30,000 loggerheads a year, resulting in 872 deaths per year (NMFS 2009b). The Canadian fisherycaught 1,200 loggerhead turtles between 2002 and 2008 (Paul 2010). An assessment conducted during 2009determined that there was not enough information to assess the effect of loggerhead mortality in individualfisheries (NMFS 2009b) (Paul 2010). But a metadata analysis found that bycatch impacts to this population arelow (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place for pelagic longline fisheries inthe Atlantic, but they do not meet best practices, such as specific hook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011).We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because bycatch impacts may be low but sea turtle mitigationmeasures do not meet best practices.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESNORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    < 20%

    Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0%–40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlantic, discard rates typically range from 10%–19% (Kelleher 2005).

    25

  • WANDERING ALBATROSS

    Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 2.2 - Abundance

    Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

    Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

    WHITE-CHINNED PETREL

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds’ life history characteristics supportthis classification. These characteristics include a long life, late age at maturity, and small number of young.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Very High Concern

    The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers the wandering albatross to be Vulnerablewith a decreasing population trend. The global population is estimated to be around 20,100 matureindividuals. This species breeds on a biennial time frame, producing a single chick every 2 years. In addition,the majority of the pelagic longline mortalities are from the South Georgia breeding population, which is only1,500 pairs annually (Poncet et al. 2006). We have therefore awarded a “very high” concern score.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Critical

    Wandering albatross are threatened by longline fisheries, which have been identified as a leading cause of itspopulation declines. This is primarily a factor of its large range, which makes it susceptible to capture by avariety of fleets (BirdLife International 2012e). The highest bycatch rates for this species occur in the SouthAtlantic, where it is considered the most at-risk bird species to incidental longline capture (Jimenz et al. 2012)(Klaer 2012) (Inoue et al. 2012). Between 1997 and 2009, observers recorded 24 incidental captures of thisspecies in the South Atlantic (Inoue et al. 2012). In addition, wandering albatross was reported to be one ofthe most commonly caught birds in the Taiwanese pelagic longline fishery in the South Atlantic (Yeh et al.2012). Albatross made up 57% of the total seabird bycatch in the Atlantic Ocean from 2003–2006 butwandering albatross only made up around 1% of the bycatch species. But this species has a small populationand does not have the productivity to allow for fast population recovery (BirdLife International 2012e). Bycatchmitigation measures are in place in pelagic longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic that meet best practices(Gilman 2011), but these measures may not be fully implemented throughout the region. We have thereforeawarded a “critical” concern score.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    < 20%

    Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0%–40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlantic, discard rates typically range from 10%–19% (Kelleher 2005).

    26

  • Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 2.2 - Abundance

    Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

    Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

    YELLOW-NOSED ALBATROSS

    Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds’ life history characteristics supportthis classification. These characteristics include a long life, late age at maturity, and small number of young.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High Concern

    The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed white-chinned petrel as Vulnerable with adecreasing population trend. The global population is estimated to have declined from 1,430,000 pairs in the1980s to 1,200,000 pairs currently (BirdLife International 2012d). We have awarded a “high” concern scorebased on the IUCN status.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Critical

    The incidental capture of white-chinned petrels in longline fisheries is thought to be a factor in ongoingpopulation declines (BirdLife International 2012d). Between 1997 and 2009, 47 white-chinned petrels wereobserved as incidentally captured in longline fisheries in the South Atlantic, the fourth-most commonlyobserved species (Inoue et al. 2012). This species also has a high overlap with the International Commissionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) Convention Area (Phillips et al. 2006). Bycatch mitigationmeasures are in place in pelagic longline fisheries operating in the Atlantic that meet best practices (Gilman2011), but these measures may not be fully implemented throughout the region. We have therefore awardeda “critical” concern score.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    < 20%

    Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0%–40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlantic, discard rates typically range from 10%–19% (Kelleher 2005).

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    Seabirds have a high level of vulnerability (Seafood Watch 2013). Seabirds’ life history characteristics supportthis classification. These characteristics include a long life, late age at maturity, and small number of young.

    27

  • Factor 2.2 - Abundance

    Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

    Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

    WHITETIP SHARK

    Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

    Factor 2.2 - Abundance

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Very High Concern

    Yellow-nosed albatross is considered Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN)with a decreasing population trend. A large and rapid population decline has occurred over three generations(72 years). Currently, there are only an estimated 13,900 breeding pairs, or 27,800 mature individuals(BirdLife International 2012b). We have awarded a “very high” concern score based on the IUCN status.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Critical

    Yellow-nosed albatross is one of the most common incidentally caught seabird species in pelagic longlines,and this incidental capture is considered to be a cause of population declines (BirdLife International 2012b).Within the Atlantic longline fisheries, it was estimated that, from 2000 to 2006, 48,500 seabirds wereincidentally caught and of these, 57% were albatross species and 17% were yellow-nosed albatross. Thehighest catch rates occurred in the South Atlantic, where the impact of the pelagic longline fisheries is likelyaccounting for population declines of this species (Jimenez et al. 2012). Yellow-nosed albatross was alsoreported as one of the most commonly observed incidentally captured seabirds in the Taiwanese pelagiclongline fishery (Yeh et al. 2012). These bycatch estimates are considered to be at a level to cause concernfor vulnerable albatross populations (Klaer 2012). Bycatch mitigation measures are in place in pelagic longlinefisheries operating in the Atlantic that meet best practices (Gilman 2011), but measures may not be fullyimplemented throughout the region. We have therefore awarded a “critical” concern score.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    < 20%

    Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0%–40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlantic, discard rates typically range from 10%–19% (Kelleher 2005).

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High

    FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 75 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Oceanic whitetipshark reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can attain a maximum length of 400 cm andlive up to 22 years. Oceanic whitetip shark gives birth to live young and is a top predator (Froese and Pauly2015). These life history characteristics also suggest a high level of vulnerability to fishing.

    28

  • Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

    Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Very High Concern

    Stock assessments for oceanic whitetip shark throughout the Atlantic Ocean have not been conducted. It hasbeen assessed via an Ecological Risk Assessment in 2008 and 2012, at which point it ranked 13th out of 20 interms of productivity, indicating that it is more productive than other species (ICCAT 2012h). According to theInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), oceanic whitetip shark is assessed as CriticallyEndangered, due to radical declines in population sizes over time (Baum et al. 2006). Published estimates ofdeclines range from 70%–90% but the methods used in those studies have been questioned (Burgess et al.2007). We have awarded a “very high” concern scored based on its IUCN status and the fact that it is rapidlydeclining.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    High Concern

    Information on fishing mortality rates for oceanic whitetip shark in the Atlantic Ocean is not available (Baum etal. 2006). This is due to a general lack of data, making stock assessments very difficult. An Ecological RiskAssessment was conducted in 2012 and oceanic whitetip shark ranked 6th out of 20 species in terms ofsusceptibility to longline capture, meaning that it is highly susceptible (Cortes et al. 2012). It should be notedthat the majority of oceanic whitetip sharks are caught by longline compared to purse seines (Rice 2012). Wehave awarded a “high” concern score because of this high susceptibility and because there is a general lack ofinformation, but not a critical concern score because its capture has recently been prohibited by theInternational Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT).

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    < 20%

    Pelagic longline fisheries have an average discard rate of 28.5%, although discard rates can range from 0%–40% (Kelleher 2005). Within the Atlantic, discard rates typically range from 10%–19% (Kelleher 2005).

    29

  • 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

    Criterion 3 Assessment

    SCORING GUIDELINES

    Factor 3.1 - Harvest Strategy

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

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

    Factor 3.1 Summary

    Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score

    North Atlantic / Drifting longlines 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

    South Atlantic / Drifting longlines 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

    30

  • 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 (e.g., International Commissionfor the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT)). This report focuses on longline fisheries for swordfish and tunain the Atlantic Ocean, which are managed by ICCAT. For this report we have scored this section for ICCAT’smanagement of these fisheries.

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

    Subfactor 3.1.1 – Management Strategy and Implementation

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

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

    North Atlantic /Drifting longlines

    Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

    ModeratelyEffective

    ModeratelyEffective

    ModeratelyEffective

    ModeratelyEffective

    HighlyEffective

    South Atlantic /Drifting longlines

    Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

    ModeratelyEffective

    HighlyEffective

    ModeratelyEffective

    ModeratelyEffective

    HighlyEffective

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Ineffective

    Albacore tuna in the North Atlantic is managed through a TAC allotted to the European Union, Chinese Taipei,United States, and Venezuela as well as effort restrictions from 1998 that limit the fishing capacity (ICCAT2012a) (ICCAT 2013c). Bigeye tuna is managed through a TAC and limits on the number of longline vessels(ICCAT 2012a) (ICCAT 2015c) (ICCAT 2015d)(ICCAT 2016d). Atlantic bluefin tuna is managed under a TAC,which is divided up between individual countries. Transfer of fishing effort for Atlantic bluefin tuna from theEastern Atlantic and Mediterranean to the Western Atlantic is not allowed. There is a minimum size limit of 30kg or 115 cm in length. In addition, directed fishing for Atlantic bluefin tuna is not allowed in the Gulf of Mexicospawning grounds, and if there is a threat of a stock collapse (based on stock assessments), then fishing inthe following year will be prohibited (ICCAT 2012d) (ICCAT 2013c). Yellowfin tuna are managed through acountry-specific TAC (ICCAT 2016d). There are no management measures in place for frigate tuna, blue orshortfin mako sharks, or mahi mahi (ICCAT 2012a).

    Swordfish in the North Atlantic is managed through country specific TACs and a minimum size limit (ICCAT

    31

    http://www.fao.org/

  • 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.

    2012a). The Standing Committee on Research and Science (SCRS) of the International Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) has also been tasked with developing a limit reference point, andfuture management is to include trigger reference points that result in a rebuilding plan if the populationdeclines below the limit reference point (ICCAT 2012e). During the most recent Commission meeting (2013),an interim limit reference point was adopted for use in stock assessments, and steps were taken to begin thedevelopment of a harvest control rule for swordfish (ICCAT 2013c).

    Beginning in 2013, countries that have not reported catch data on shortfin mako shark are prohibited fromcatching it (ICCAT 2010h). There are no management measures in place for blue shark or mahi mahi.

    ICCAT does not have formally adopted target reference points. There is a framework for harvest control rules,but none is currently used (ISSF 2013a). We have awarded an “ineffective” score because ICCAT has enactedmeasures for several tuna species included in this report but not for the target species of this report.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Ineffective

    Albacore tuna in the South Atlantic is managed under a TAC of 24,000 t for 2012 and 2013 (ICCAT 2012a).Swordfish in the South Atlantic is managed under a country-specific TAC (ICCAT 2013c). In addition, there is aTAC for yellowfin and bigeye tuna (ICCAT 2011c) (ICCAT 2012a). ICCAT does not have formally adopted targetreference points. There is a framework for harvest control rules, but none is currently used (ISSF 2013a).There are no controls on capitalization (ISSF 2013b). Beginning in 2013, countries that have not reportedcatch data on shortfin mako shark are prohibited from catching it (ICCAT 2010h). There are no managementmeasures in place for mahi mahi or blue shark. We have awarded an “ineffective” score because ICCAT hasenacted measures for several tuna species included in this report but not for the target species of this report.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    North Atlantic albacore tuna is currently under a rebuilding program that was initiated in 2009 and lastupdated in 2013 (ICCAT 2011e) (ICCAT 2013c). According to the most recent assessment, there is a 53%probability the population will be rebuilt by 2019, meeting Convention objectives, and a 75% probability ifcatches are lower. In addition, the biomass has been increasing over time; however, fishing mortality rates arestill above Convention objectives (ICCAT 2013a). A 20-year recovery plan for Atlantic bluefin tuna in theNorthwest Atlantic was initiated in 1998. New recommendations were put into place in 2009 (adopted in2008), in 2010, and supplemented in 2014 (ICCAT 2014b). Based on the most recent assessment, thesemanagement plans may be allowing the population to rebuild (ICCAT 2014).

    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

    32

  • 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.

    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).

    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.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    Albacore tuna is not under a specific recovery plan but management measures have been put into place to aidin its recovery (ICCAT 2012a) and these appear to have been successful (ICCAT 2016).

    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 asoverfished 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).

    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.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    Stock assessments for albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna are conducted every 4–6 years and include catch

    33

  • 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.

    and effort data from both fishery-dependent and -independent sources, along with biological information andother data. Atlantic bluefin tuna assessments are conducted more frequently, every 2–3 years. Swordfish isassessed every 4 years. Frigate tuna has not been assessed since 2008 (ICCAT 2012a). Stock assessmentshave also been conducted for shortfin mako and blue sharks but not for mahi mahi (ICCAT 2012a). There is alarge amount of uncertainty surrounding these assessments and the data used. We have therefore awarded a“moderately effective” score.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    Assessments of albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna are conducted every 4–6 years and include catch andeffort data from fishery-independent and -dependent sources, along with biological information and otherdata. Swordfish assessments are conducted every 4 years. Blue and shortfin mako sharks are also assessedevery 4–6 years but no assessment of mahi mahi has been conducted (ICCAT 2012a). There is considerableuncertainty surrounding these results and some of the data. We have therefore awarded a “moderatelyeffective” score.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    For Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Northwest Atlantic, total allowable catches (TACs) have been set at 1,900 t in2009, 1,800 t in 2010, and 1,750 t from 2011–2014, which followed scientific advice (ICCAT 2012a), and theTAC for 2013 and 2014 was set at 1,750 t (ICCAT 2012d). In 2014, the Scientific Committee noted that, if thecurrent TAC is maintained (or even gradually increased) and the current management scheme continues, thegoal of achieving BMSY through 2022 would likely still be attained (ICCAT 2014). The TAC for 2015 and 2016was set at 2,000 t in 2014 (ICCAT 2014b). It has been suggested that maintaining yellowfin tuna catches atcurrent levels (110,000 t) should lead to the biomass remaining healthy through 2024 (ICCAT 2016). The TACwas set at this level starting in 2012 (ICCAT 2012a). It was also advised that measures to reduce FAD-relatedand other fishing mortality on small yellowfin tuna should be implemented if the Commission intends toincrease the long term yield of yellowfin tuna, which was addressed by the 2016 Commission meeting (ICCAT2016b) (ICCAT 2016d). Bigeye tuna TAC should be reduced from the current level of 85,000 t, in order toallow the population to rebuild (ICCAT 2015d). The Commission lowered the bigeye tuna TAC to 65,000 t from2016 to 2018, which will allow a 49% probability of rebuilding by 2028 (ICCAT 2015c). The swordfish workinggroup advised setting the TAC at no higher than 13,000 t to maintain the population within Conventionobjectives, but the TAC in 2011 was set at 13,700 t (ICCAT 2012a). The Commission has followed advice andset the TAC for albacore tuna in the North Atlantic at 28,000 t for 2012 and 2013. The current assessmentindicates that if catches remain at the current TAC level, the population will rebuild (53% probability) by 2019,which abides by the 2011 recovery plan. But if catches are lowered, recovery would occur more quickly. Thecurrent management measure for North Atlantic albacore tuna allows for potential overages by allowingexcess catch (not included in the total TAC) to be caught by countries with no allocated TAC (ICCAT 2013a). Ithas been advised that catches of shortfin mako shark not be increased (ICCAT 2014) but no catch limits havebeen set for this species. Scientific advice for blue shark and mahi mahi, other than improving catch reporting,has not been provided (ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a “moderately effective” score because scientific

    34

  • 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.

    advice is not always followed.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Highly Effective

    It has been suggested that maintaining yellowfin tuna catches at current levels (110,000 t) should lead to thebiomass remaining healthy through 2024 (ICCAT 2016). The TAC was set at this level starting in 2012 (ICCAT2012a). It was also advised that measures to reduce FAD-related and other fishing mortality on small yellowfintuna should be implemented if the Commission intends to increase the long term yield of yellowfin tuna, whichwas addressed by the 2016 Commission meeting (ICCAT 2016b). The SCRC also noted that maintaining thecurrent TAC (24,000 t) for South Atlantic albacore tuna will be sustainable into the future (ICCAT 2016).

    Bigeye tuna TAC should be reduced from the current level of 85,000 t, in order to allow the population torebuild (ICCAT 2015d). The Commission lowered the bigeye tuna TAC to 65,000 t from 2016 to 2018, whichwill allow a 49% probability of rebuilding by 2028 (ICCAT 2015c). The swordfish working group advised settingthe TAC at 15,000 t and managers have complied with this (ICCAT 2012a). It has been advised that catches ofshortfin mako shark not be increased (ICCAT 2014) but no catch limits have been set for this species. It hasbeen advised that catches of blue shark should not be increased until the issues of uncertainty surrounding the2015 assessment results are addressed (ICCAT 2015). Advice for mahi mahi, other than improving catchreporting, has not been provided. We have awarded a “highly effective” score because managers havelistened to scientific advice.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    In terms of compliance among member countries with management measures, ICCAT has one of the bestpractices of reviewing, assessing, and addressing compliance issues (Koehler 2013). Individual countries arerequired to report sources of fishing mortality and provide monthly catches of bluefin tuna (ICCAT 2012d).Total catches of Atlantic bluefin tuna have not been over the set TAC in recent years (ICCAT 2012b); however,overages in TACs can be subtracted in subsequent years (ICCAT 2012d). Countries are required to provideinformation on catch, catch at size, location, and month of capture for other tuna species and swordfish(ICCAT 2012e). Vessels larger than 24 m in length are required to use a vessel monitoring system (VMS).There is no TAC for frigate tuna (ICCAT 2012a). A TAC for yellowfin tuna was implemented in 2012 andcatches have remained below this level (ICCAT 2016b). There is the ability to subtract overages fromsubsequent years if catches of yellowfin tuna exceed TAC levels (ICCAT 2012a). Bigeye catches have beenbelow TAC levels from 2005 to 2011 and if they ever exceed the TAC, there are measures in place to adjustthe following years’ country quotas (ICCAT 2012a). Catches of swordfish remained below TAC levels from2002 until 2011 but were above the TAC during 2012 (ICCAT 2013). TAC overages can be subtracted forindividual countries in subsequent years (ICCAT 2012e). There are no catch limits in place for blue shark,shortfin mako shark, or mahi mahi. We have awarded a "moderately effective" score because there does notappear to be an issue with catches going over TAC levels, but there are significant challenges with enforcingregulations in these fisheries and monitoring is not sufficient to ensure that there is full compliance with allrelevant regulations.

    35

  • 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.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    In terms of compliance among member countries with management measures, ICCAT has one of the bestpractices of reviewing, assessing, and addressing compliance issues (Koehler 2013). Countries are required toprovide information on catch, catch at size, location, and month of capture for tuna and swordfish (ICCAT2012e), and vessels larger than 24 m in length are required to use VMS. Catches of South Atlantic albacoretuna have been below the recommended TAC since 2004, except for slight overages during 2006 and 2011(ICCAT 2016). Overages are subtracted from subsequent years (ICCAT 2011a). Catches of swordfish havebeen below TAC levels since 2007 (ICCAT 2012a). If overages occur in the future, they can be subtracted insubsequent years (ICCAT 2012f). Catches of swordfish have been below TAC levels since 2007 (ICCAT2012a). If overages occur in the future, they can be subtracted in subsequent years (ICCAT 2012f). There areno catch limits in place for blue shark, shortfin mako shark, or mahi mahi. We have awarded a "moderatelyeffective" score because there does not appear to be an issue with catches going over TAC levels, but thereare significant challenges with enforcing regulations in these fisheries and monitoring is not sufficient toensure that there is full compliance with all relevant regulations.

    NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    Based on the most recent assessment, there is some indication that management measures are allowingpopulations of Atlantic bluefin tuna to increase in the Northwest Atlantic (ICCAT 2014). According to the 2014Eastern Atlantic bluefin tuna assessment, catch and effort has been reduced through the current managementscheme and the spawning biomass has increased substantially. The Scientific Committee noted that thecurrent goal of achieving the biomass necessary to produce the maximum sustainable yield (BMSY) by 2022will soon be reached (ICCAT 2014). There is some indication that quota overages continued through at least2011 (Gagern et al. 2013). Historically, management measures in place for albacore tuna in the North Atlantichave failed to allow the population to recover (ICCAT 2009a). But new management measures have been putinto place, overfishing is no longer occurring, and biomass is recovering and expected to be recovered in 5years’ time (ICCAT 2014).Yellowfin tuna are still slightly overfished, but the most recent assessment indicatesthat they are recovering under current management (ICCAT 2016).According to the 2012 assessment ofswordfish in the North Atlantic, the population was above the biomass needed to produce the maximumsustainable yield (BMSY) and therefore the Commission’s rebuilding objective had been met (ICCAT 2009c)(ICCAT 2012a). Bigeye tuna has become overfished under current management measures, although updatedmeasures have been adopted and will be put into place during 2016 (ICCAT 2015c) (ICCAT 2015d). There areno management measures in place for blue shark, shortfin mako shark, or mahi mahi. It appears that blueshark populations have remained healthy, while shortfin mako shark status, although surrounded byuncertainty, appears to have improved over time (ICCAT 2014). We have awarded a “moderately effective”score because it is too early to determine if recovery efforts have been successful for all species.

    SOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

    Moderately Effective

    36

  • 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.

    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.