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



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


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

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK



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


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



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


DOLPHINFISH




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


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.


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.


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


SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK



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.


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.


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).


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


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


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


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.


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:


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


Red(1.526)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern


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


Yellow(2.644)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 3.00: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




0.00:Critical Critical(0.000)



wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern


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



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)



17



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)


Green(4.472)

DOLPHINFISH - NORTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES










Red(1.526)



Red(1.526)



Red(1.526)




Red(2.159)



Yellow(2.644)

Shortfin mako shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.644)

18



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


Green(4.472)

DOLPHINFISH - SOUTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

















Blue shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.644)


19

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



Green(4.472)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - NORTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES










Red(1.526)



Red(1.526)



Red(1.526)




Red(2.159)



Yellow(2.644)



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

20



Green(4.472)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - SOUTH ATLANTIC - DRIFTING LONGLINES

















Blue shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern


Yellow(2.644)




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.


Green(4.472)

North Atlantic-pelagic

Species Justification Source

Oceanic whitetip shark <5%, depleted Cortes et al. 2012

Frigate tuna 6% reported catch 2011 (NE) ICCAT 2011

Hawksbill turtle Depleted Wallace et al. 2013

Leatherback turtle Depleted Wallace et al. 2013

Loggerhead turtle Depleted Wallace et al. 2013

Olive ridley turtle Depleted Wallace et al. 2013

South Atlantic-pelagic

Species Justification Source

Leatherback turtle Depleted Wallace et al. 2013

Loggerhead turtle Depleted Wallace et al. 2013

Grey-headed albatross Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

Black-browed albatross Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

Wandering albatross Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

White-chinned petrel Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

Yellow-nosed albatross Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

22


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





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.


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.


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



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.


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.


< 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).


High



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




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.


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.


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.


< 20%


25

WANDERING ALBATROSS





WHITE-CHINNED PETREL


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.


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.


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.


< 20%


26





YELLOW-NOSED ALBATROSS



High



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.


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.


< 20%



High


27




WHITETIP SHARK




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.


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.


< 20%



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




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.


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).


< 20%


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


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


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.


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.


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.



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.



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.



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.



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.


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.



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.



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.



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.



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 3.1.

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

Management measures for South Atlantic swordfish have resulted in long-term maintenance of the stock(ICCAT 2010b). Yellowfin tuna are still slightly overfished, but the most recent assessment indicates that theyare recovering under current management (ICCAT 2016). It appears that newly established catch limits foralbacore tuna (ICCAT 2011k) in the South Atlantic have been successful (ICCAT 2016). Bigeye tuna hasbecome overfished under current management measures, although updated measures have been adoptedand will be put into place during 2016 (ICCAT 2015c) (ICCAT 2015d). There are no management measures inplace for blue shark, shortfin mako shark, and mahi mahi. It appears that blue shark populations haveremained healthy, while the status of shortfin mako shark appears to be healthy in the South Atlantic (ICCAT2014). We have awarded a “moderately effective” score because it is too early to determine if recovery effortshave been successful for all species.

NORTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINESSOUTH ATLANTIC, DRIFTING LONGLINES

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 (e.g., Atlantic bluefin) (ICCAT 2008b).Observers are allowed at scientific and Commission meetings but may not vote on individual managementmeasures. We have awarded a “highly effective” score 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.

37

Subfactor 3.2.2 – Management Strategy and Implementation

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

FACTOR 3.2 - BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Critical Strategy Research Advice Enforce

North Atlantic / Driftinglonglines

No No Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective

South Atlantic / Driftinglonglines

No No Ineffective Ineffective ModeratelyEffective

ModeratelyEffective


Ineffective

Several management measures to mitigate bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery have been implemented bythe International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Member countries are requiredto collect and report information on bycatch and discards and are suggested to provide identification guidesfor sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals to vessels fishing on the high seas (ICCAT 2011g).Though information on seabird interactions is to be recorded, there is no requirement in the North Atlantic toutilize seabird-specific mitigation measures (ICCAT 2011h). Silky, oceanic whitetip, thresher, and hammerheadsharks are prohibited from being caught (ICCAT 2011i) (ICCAT 2010e) (ICCAT 2010f) (ICCAT 2009d). Inaddition, longline vessels must carry safe handling, disentanglement, and release equipment for sea turtles,and vessel captains must be trained in safe handling and release techniques (ICCAT 2010g). Individualcountries are required to report on the implementation and compliance with several of these measures,including for sea turtles and sharks (ICCAT 2010g) (ICCAT 2012i). But there are no bycatch cap or catch limitsin place for bycatch species, and it is unknown if these measures have been sufficient to maintain the healthof bycatch species populations. The current management measures for seabirds, sea turtles and sharks(except those that are prohibited) do not meet best practices, such as the required use of seabird avoidancemeasures, or hook and bait restrictions to reduce shark and sea turtle interactions (Gilman 2011). In addition,a review of bycatch governance in tuna RFMOs found ICCAT had an average score of 20%, with criteriondealing with bycatch conservation and management measures scoring the worst (Gilman et al. 2013), so wehave awarded an “ineffective” score.


Ineffective

Several management measures to mitigate bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery have been implemented bythe International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). Member countries are requiredto collect and report information on bycatch and discards and are suggested to provide identification guidesfor sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals to vessels fishing on the high seas (ICCAT 2011g).

Information on seabird interactions must be recorded, and longline vessels fishing south of 25° S must usetwo mitigation methods (ICCAT 2011h). Silky, oceanic whitetip, thresher, and hammerhead sharks are

38

Subfactor 3.2.3 – Scientific Research and Monitoring

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

Subfactor 3.2.4 – Management Record of Following Scientific Advice

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

Subfactor 3.2.5 – Enforcement of Management Regulations

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

prohibited from being caught (ICCAT 2011i) (ICCAT 2010e) (ICCAT 2010f) (ICCAT 2009d). In addition, longlinevessels must carry safe handling, disentanglement, and release equipment for sea turtles, and vessel captainsmust be trained in safe handling and release techniques (ICCAT 2010g). Individual countries are required toreport on the implementation and compliance with several of these measures, including for sea turtles andsharks (ICCAT 2010g) (ICCAT 2012i). There are no bycatch cap or catch limits in place, and it is unknown ifthese measures have been sufficient to maintain the health of bycatch species populations. Though mitigationmeasures for seabirds do meet best practices, management measures for sea turtles and sharks do notinclude the required use of specific hook and bait types that are considered best practices (Gilman 2011). Inaddition, a review of bycatch governance in tuna RFMOs found ICCAT had an average score of 20%, withcriterion dealing with bycatch conservation and management measures scoring the worst (Gilman et al. 2013),so we have awarded an “ineffective” score.


Ineffective

The International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) requires member countries tohave an observer program in place that provides 5% coverage. Observers record information on fishing effort,total target and bycatch catches, size, and disposition, and can collect biological samples (ICCAT 2010i). It isunclear if individual countries have all achieved this 5% coverage. In addition, 5% observer coverage isdeemed insufficient in most fisheries to obtain accurate bycatch estimates for many species, includingseabirds (Hanke et al. 2012). The observer program has not been designed to collect adequate data onseabird bycatch, such as standardized seabird bycatch reporting methodology, and there is no information oncompliance with mandated management measures. We have therefore awarded an “ineffective” score.



See the Harvest Strategy section 3.1.4 for detailed information.

39



See the Harvest Strategy section 3.1.5 for detailed information.

40

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

Although pelagic longline gears do not typically come in contact with bottom habitats, they do impact a numberof ecologically important species, and the consequence of this varies by region. Mitigation measures to reducethe impact of pelagic longlines on bottom habitats are not generally needed.


SCORING GUIDELINES

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

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

Region / MethodGear Type andSubstrate

Mitigation of GearImpacts EBFM Score

North Atlantic / Driftinglonglines

5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

South Atlantic / Driftinglonglines

5.00: None 0.00: Not Applicable 3.00: ModerateConcern

Green(3.873)

41

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

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

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management

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

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

Factor 4.2 - Mitigation of Gear Impacts

Factor 4.3 - Ecosystem-Based Fisheries Management


None

Although pelagic longlines are surface fisheries, contact with the seabed can occur in shallow-set fisheries(Passfield and Gilman 2010). These effects are still considered to be a low risk to bottom habitats (Gilman etal. 2013) (Seafood Watch 2013), so we have awarded a no impact score.


Not Applicable

42


Moderate Concern

Pelagic longline fisheries catch ecologically important species including other tunas, billfish, and sharks. Inparticular, sharks are considered top predators in many ecosystems and play a critical role in how theseecosystems are structured and function (Piraino et al. 2002) (Stevens et al. 2000). The loss of these predatorscan cause many changes, such as to prey abundances, that can lead to a cascade of other affects (Myers etal. 2007) (Duffy 2003) (Ferretti et al. 2010) (Schindler et al. 2002) and behavioral changes (Heithaus et al.2007). Longline fisheries could cause other indirect effects that are not well understood, such as reducing preyavailable to seabirds due to the removal of tunas, reducing optimal school sizes, or reducing the fitness ofindividuals in a school (Gilman et al., in press).

ICCAT has assessed several species of sharks and conducted ecological risk assessments for other bycatchspecies. Though ecosystem impacts are not currently included in management plans, ICCAT has adoptedmanagement measures to protect bycatch species and conducts ecological risk assessments. In addition,there is a Sub-Committee on Ecosystems within ICCAT that is investigating the role of Ecosystem-BasedManagement within ICCAT fisheries (ICCAT 2013b).

43

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.

®

®

44

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

Alessandro, L. and Antonello, S. 2010. An overview of loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta) bycatch andtechnical mitigation measures in the Mediterranean Sea. Reviews of Fish Biology and Fisheries 20:141-161

Alvarez de Quevedo, I., Feliz, M.S. and Cardona, L. 2013. Mortality rates in by-caught loggerhead turtle Carettacaretta in the Mediterranean Sea and implications for the Atlantic populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series489:225-234

Alvarez de Quevedo, I., Cardona, L., De Haro, A., Pubill, E. and Aguilar, A. 2010. Sources of bycatch ofloggerhead sea turtles in the western Mediterranean other than drifting longlines. ICES Journal of MarineScience 67:677-685.

Amande, M.J., Ariz, J., Chassot, E., de Molina, A.D., Gaerner, D., Murua, H., Pianet, R., Ruiz, J. and Chavance, P.2010. Bycatch of the European purse seine tuna fishery in the Atlantic Ocean from 2003-2007 period. AquaticLiving Resources 23:353-362.

Baum, J.K. and Myers, R.A. 2004. Shifting baselines and the decline of pelagic sharks in the Gulf of Mexico.Ecology Letters 7:135-145.

Baum, J., Medina, E., Musick, J.A. and Smale, M. 2006. Carcharhinus longimanus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version2013.1.

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

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

BirdLife International. 2014. Black-browed albatrossThalassarche melanophrys. BirdLife International.

Bonfil, R., Amorim, A., Anderson, C., Arauz, R., Baum, J., Clarke, S.C., Graham, R.T., Gonzalez, M., Jolón, M.,Kyne, P.M., Mancini, P., Márquez, F., Ruíz, C. & Smith, W. 2009. Carcharhinus falciformis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCNRed List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Broderick, A.C., Glen, F., Godley, B.J., and Hays, G.C. 2002. Estimating the number of green and loggerheadturtles nesting annually in the Mediterranean. Oryx 36:227-235

Burgess, G. H., L. R. Beerkircher, G. M. Cailliet, J. K. Carlson, E. Cortés, K. J. Goldman, R. D. Grubbs, J. A.Musick, M. K. Musyl, and C. A. Simpfendorfer. 2005. Is the collapse of shark populations in the NorthwestAtlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico real? Fisheries 30(10):19-26

Casale, P. 2008. Incidental catch of marine turtles in the Mediterranean Sea:captures, mortality, priorities. WWFItaly, Rome.

Chassot, E., Amande, M.J., Chavance, P. Pianet, R. and Dedo, R.G. 2008. A preliminary attempt to estimate tunadiscards and bycatch in the French purse seine fishery of the eastern Atlantic Ocean. SCRS/2008/117.

45

Cheung, W.W.L., T.J. Pitcher and D. Pauly, 2005. A fuzzy logic expert system to estimate intrinsic extinctionvulnerabilities of marine fishes to fishing. Biol. Conserv. 124:97-111.

Collette, 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

Collette, B., Amorim, A., Boustany, A., Carpenter, K., Dooley, J., Fox, W., Fredou, F., Fritzsche, R., Graves, J.,Hazin, F., Herdson, D., Juan Jorda, M.J., Leite, N., Lessa, R., Matsuura, K., Minte-Vera, C., Nelson, J., Nelson, R.,Oxenford, H. & Travassos, P. 2011b. Sarda sarda. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2013.1.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., JuanJorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Salas, E., Schaefer,K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011c. Auxisrochei. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H., JuanJorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H., Salas, E., Schaefer,K., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011d. Auxisthazard. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Collette, B., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Carpenter, K.E., de Oliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Fredou,F.L., Graves, J., Viera Hazin, F.H., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H.,Teixeira Lessa, R.P. & Pires Ferreira Travassos, P.E. 2011e. Euthynnus alletteratus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red Listof Threatened Species. Version 2013.1

Collette, B., Acero, A., Amorim, A.F., Boustany, A., Canales Ramirez, C., Cardenas, G., Carpenter, K.E., deOliveira Leite Jr., N., Di Natale, A., Die, D., Fox, W., Fredou, F.L., Graves, J., Guzman-Mora, A., Viera Hazin, F.H.,Hinton, M., Juan Jorda, M., Kada, O., Minte Vera, C., Miyabe, N., Montano Cruz, R., Nelson, R., Oxenford, H.,Restrepo, V., Salas, E., Schaefer, K., Schratwieser, J., Serra, R., Sun, C., Teixeira Lessa, R.P., Pires FerreiraTravassos, P.E., Uozumi, Y. & Yanez, E. 2011f. Acanthocybium solandri. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List ofThreatened 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.

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

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2009. Canadian Atlantic swordfish and other tunas 2004-2006. Fisheries and Oceans Canada.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2010. Monitoring and enforcement. Fisheries and OceansCanada.

Department of Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO). 2012. Assessment of leatherback turtle (Dermochelys

46

coriacea) fishery and non-fishery interactions in the Atlantic Canadian waters. Canadian Science AdvisorySecretariat Science Advisory Report 2012/041.

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

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

Foster, D.G., Epperly, S.P., Shah, A.K. and Watson, J.W. 2012. Evaluation of hook and bait type on the catch ratesin the western north Atlantic Ocean pelagic longline fishery. Bulletin of Marine Science 88:529-545.

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

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang,J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Delphinus delphis. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang,J.Y. , Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2012. Tursiops truncatus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.Version 2013.1.

Hanke, A.R., Andrushchenko, I and Croft, G. 2012. Observer coverage of the Atlantic Canadian swordfish andother tuna tuna longline fishery: an assessment of current practices and alternative methods. DFO CanadaScientific Advisory Section Resource Document 2012/049.

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

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). 2003. Recommendation by ICCATrelating to Mediterranean swordfish. Recommendation 03-04.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2009a. Report of the 2009 ICCATalbacore stock assessment session. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers, ICCAT 65:1113-1253

International Commission for Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2009b. Report of the 2008 ICCAT yellowfinand skipjack stock assessments meeting. Collective Volume of Scientific Papers ICCAT 64:669-927.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2009c. Report of the 2009 sailfish stockassessment. Reciefe, Brazil, 1-5 June 2009.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2009d. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe conservation of thresher sharks caught in association with fisheries in the ICCAT convention area.Recommendation 09-07.

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.

47

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2010b. Report of the 2010 ICCATMediterranean swordfish stock assessment meeting. Madrid, Spain, June 28-July 2, 2010.

International Commission for the Conservation of Tuna (ICCAT). 2010c. Recommendation by ICCAT on thesouthern albacore catch limits for 2012 and 2013. Recommendation 11-05.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010d. Recommendation by ICCAT onhammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae) caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT.Recommendation 10-08.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010e. Recommendation by ICCAT onhammerhead sharks (family Sphyrnidae) caught in association with fisheries managed by ICCAT.Recommendation 10-08.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010f. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe conservation of oceanic whitetip shark caught in association with fisheries in the ICCAT convention area.Recommendation 10-07.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010g. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe by-catch of sea turtles in ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation 10-09.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010h. Recommendation by ICCAT onAtlantic shortfin mako sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation 10-06.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2010i. Recommendation by ICCAT toestablish minimum standards for fishing vessel scientific observer programs. Recommendation 10-10.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2011a. Report of the 2011 ICCATsouth Atlantic and Mediterranean albacore stock assessment sessions. Madrid, Spain, 25-29 July 2011.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas {ICCAT}. 2011b. Recommendation formanagement measures for Mediterranean swordfish in the framework of ICCAT. Recommendation 11-03.

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

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011e. Supplemental recommendationby ICCAT concerning the north Atlantic albacore rebuilding program. Recommendation 11-04

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011f. Report of the 2011 blue marlinstock assessment and white marlin data preparatory meeting. Madrid, Spain, 25-29 April 2011.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011g. Recommendation by ICCAT oninformation collection and harmonization of data on bycatch and discards in ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation11-10.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011h. Supplemental recommendation

48

by ICCAT on reducing incidental bycatch of seabirds in ICCAT longline fisheries. Recommendation 11-02.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011j. Recommendation by ICCATTfurther amending recommendation 09-10 establishing a list of vessels presumed to have carried out illegal,unreported and unregulated fishing activities in the ICCAT convention area. Recommendation 11-18.

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.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012b. Report of the 2012 Atlanticbluefin tuna stock assessment session.. Doc. No. SCI-033/2012.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012c. Recommendation by ICCATamending the recommendation by ICCAT to establish a multi-annual recovery plan for bluefin tuna in theeastern Atlantic and Mediterranean. Recommendation 12-03.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT). 2012d. Supplemental recommendationby ICCAT concerning the western Atlantic bluefin tuna rebuilding program. Recommendation 12-02.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012e. Recommendation by ICCAT forthe conservation of north Atlantic swordfish. Recommendation 11-02.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012f. Recommendation by ICCAT onsouth Atlantic swordfish catch limits. Recommendation 12-01

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012g. 2012 shortfin mako stockassessment and ecological risk assessment meeting. Olhado, Portugal, 11-18 June, 2012.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012h. Expanded ecological riskassessment of pelagic sharks caught in Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries. SCRS/2012/167.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2012i. Recommendation by ICCAT oncompliance with existing measures on shark conservation and management. Recommendation 12-05.

ICCAT. 2013. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, Spain, September30-October 4, 2013.

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

ICCAT. 2013a. Report of the Standing Committee on Research and Statistics (SCRS). Madrid, Spain, September30-October 4, 2013.

ICCAT. 2013c. Recommendations and resolutions adopted at the 23rd regular meeting of the commission. ICCATCircular #6921.

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.

ICCAT. 2014b. Recommendation by ICCAT amending the supplemental recommendation by ICCAT concerningthe western Atlantic bluefin tuna rebuilding program. ICCAT 14-05.

49

ICCAT. 2015. Report of the 2015 ICCAT blue shark stock assessment session. Lisbon, Portugal, July 27-31, 2015.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2015. Report of the 2015 ICCAT bigeyetuna stock assessment session. Madrid, Spain, July 13-17, 2015.

ICCAT. 2015c. 2015 Annual ICCAT Meeting press release. International Commission for the Conservation ofAtlantic tunas.

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

ICCAT. 2016. Report of the 2016 ICCAT north and south Atlantic albacore stock assessment meeting. Madeira,Portugal, April 28-May 6, 2016. Available at:http://www.iccat.int/Documents/Meetings/Docs/2016_ALB_REPORT_ENG.pdf

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 Tuna (ICCAT). 2008. Report of the 2008 shark stockassessments meeting. Madrid, Spain, 1-5 September, 2008.

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tuna (ICCAT). 2011i. Recommendation by ICCAT onthe conservation of silky sharks caught in association with ICCAT fisheries. Recommendation 11-08.

Inoue, Y., Yokawa, K., Minami, H., Ochi, D., Sato, N. and Katsumata, N. 2012. Distribution of seabird bycatchusing data collected by Japanese observers in 1997-2009 in the ICCAT area. Collective Volume of ScientificPapers ICCAT 68:1738-1753.

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.

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

Jiménez S, Domingo A, Abreu M, Brazeiro A. 2012. Risk assessment and relative impact of Uruguayan pelagiclongliners on seabirds. Aquatic Living Resources 25: 281-295.

Klaer, N.L. 2012. Estimates of total seabird bycatch by Atlantic pelagic longline fisheries from 2003-2006. MarineFisheries Review 74:14-20

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.

50

Levesque, J. 2010. Evolving fisheries: today's bycatch is tomorrow's target catch - escolar (Lepidocybiumflavobrunneum) catch in the US pelagic longline fishery. The Open Fish Science Journal 3:30-42.

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

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

Mejuto, J., Garcia-Cortes, B., Ramos-Cartelle, A. and de la Sema, J.M. 2008. Scientific estimations of bycatchlanded by the Spanish surface longline fleet targeting swordfish (Xiphas gladius) in the Atlantic Ocean withspecial reference to the years 2005 and 2006. International Commission for the Conservation of TunasSCRS/2008/045.

Menard, F., Fonteneau, A., Gaertner, D., Nordstrom, V. Stequert, B. and Marchal, E. 2000. Exploitation of smalltunas by a purse-seine fishery with fish aggregating devices and their feeding ecology in an eastern tropicalAtlantic ecosystem. ICES Journal of Marine Science 57:525-520.

Milessi, A.C. and Defeo, O. Long-term impact of incidental catches by tuna longlines: the black escolar(Lepidocybium flavobrunneum) of the southwestern Atlantic Ocean. Fisheries Research 58:203-213

Moody Marine International (MMI). 2011. North Atlantic swordfish (Xiphias gladius) Canadian pelagic longlinefishery: Vol. 1 final report and determination. Contract Number:09-01 Nova Scotia swordfish.

Morgan, L.E. and Chuenpagdee, R. 2003, Shifting gears: addressing the collateral impacts of fishing methods inUS waters. Pew Science Series. Washington, DC: Island Press.

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

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2009b. An assessment of loggerhead sea turtles to estimate impactsof mortality reductions on population dynamics. NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center Contribution PRD-08/09-14

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2012. Status of stocks 2012, annual report to congress on the statusof US fisheries. NOAA Fisheries.

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013. HMS Fishery Compliance Guide. Atlantic Highly MigratorySpecies, National Marine Fisheries Service.

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

NMFS. 2015. Annual trade data by product, country/associated. National Marine Fisheries Service.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2012. 2012 Stock Assessment and Fishery EvaluationReport for Atlantic highly migratory species. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration. 220 pg.

Parker, C., Kleisner, K.M. and Nowlis, J.S. 2006. Preliminary assessment of the western central Atlanticdolphinfish (Coryphaena hippurus) stock: a Caribbean regional fisheries mechanism project. SustainableFisheries Division Contribution NO. SFD-2--6-041

51

Parkes, G., Mitchell, R., Trumble, R.J. 2013. MSC final report for US north Atlantic swordfish pelagic longline andhandgear buoy fishery. MRAG Americas, Inc.

Paul, S.D., Hanke, A., Smith, S.C., and Neilson, J.D. 2010. An examination of loggerhead sea turtle (Carettacaretta) encounters in the Canadian swordfish and tuna longline fishery, 2002-2008. Canadian Science AdvisorySecretariat Research Document 2010/088

Paxton, J.R. 2010. Alepisaurus ferox. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

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

Poncet, S.; Robertson, G.; Phillips, R. A.; Lawton, K.; Phalan, B.; Trathan, P. N.; Croxall, J. P. 2006. Status anddistribution of Wandering, Black-browed and Grey-headed Albatrosses breeding at South Georgia. Polar Biology29: 772-781.

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

Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch. 2013. Seafood Watch criteria for fisheries. Monterey Bay AquariumSeafood Watch Version January 18, 2013. 82 p.

Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) (2006) Stock assessment report of SEDAR 9 Gulf of Mexicogray triggerfish. SEDAR 9 Assessment Report 1, Charleston, SC.

Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC). 2013. Pelagic observer program catch and disposition data 2007-2009.

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

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

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2012. Grampus griseus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2013.1.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. &Pitman, R.L. 2011. Globicephala macrorhynchus. In: IUCN 2013. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version2013.1

Turtle Expert Working Group (TEWG). 2007. An assessment of the leatherback turtle population in the AtlanticOcean. NOAA Technical memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-555.

Tudela, S. 2000. Ecosystem effects of fishing in the Mediterranean: an analysis of the major threats of fishinggear and practices to biodiversity and marine habitats. Report for FAO Fisheries Department (EP/INT/759/GEF).Rome, Italy.

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

52

Waring, G.T., Josephson, e., Maze-Foley, K. and Rosel, P.E . 2013. US Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico marinemammal stock assessments - 2-12. National Marine Fisheries Service.

Yeh, Y.M., Huan, H.W., Dietrich, K.S. and Melvin, E. 2012. Estimates of seabird incidental catch by pelagiclongline fisheries in the south Atlantic Ocean. Animal Conservation 16:141-152.

53

Appendix A: Extra By Catch SpeciesBIGEYE TUNA





Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But bigeye tuna’slife history characteristics suggest a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, bigeye tuna reaches sexualmaturity around 100–125 cm, reaches a maximum size of 200 cm, and lives around 11 years (Davies et al.2011) (Froese et al. 2013). It is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based onthese life history characteristics, we have awarded a medium score.

Justification:


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


High Concern

Bigeye tuna in the Atlantic was last assessed in 2015. Several models were used in this assessment. TheStock Synthesis model indicates that the biomass has decreased over time, and fell below levels necessary toproduce the maximum sustainable yield (B ) in 2010. The Age Structured Production Model indicated thatthe ratio of the biomass in 2014 to that needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B /B ) rangedbetween 0.554 and 1.225. The Virtual Population Analysis also indicated that the population is overfished(ICCAT 2015a). The 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.

MSY

2014 MSY


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 (F /F ) ranged from 0.576 to 1.436.According to the stock synthesis model, the F /F ratio appears to have decreased in recent years tobelow 1. The Virtual Population Analysis model indicated that overfishing is not occurring (ICCAT 2015a).

2014 MSY

2014 MSY

54


BLACK-BROWED ALBATROSS




Based on the most plausible model runs (0.62–1.85), there is an indication that overfishing is occurring (ICCAT2015a). We have therefore awarded a “high” concern score.


< 20%



High



High Concern

The International Union for Conservation for Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species classifies black-browed albatross as Near Threatened, and rapid declines in the population size are no longer occurring. Thetotal population size worldwide is estimated to be 700,000 breeding birds or 2.1 million individual birds(BirdLife International 2014). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN status.


High Concern

The incidental capture of black-browed albatross in longline fisheries is likely a cause of population declines(BirdLife International 2014). Within the Atlantic longline fisheries, it was estimated that between 2003 and2006, 48,500 seabirds were incidentally caught, and of these, 57% were albatross species and 32% wereblack-browed albatross. The highest catch rates occurred in the South Atlantic (south of 25° S). Black-browedalbatross was also reported to be one of the most commonly observed incidentally captured seabird species inthe South Atlantic Taiwanese pelagic longline fishery (Yeh et al. 2012). These bycatch estimates areconsidered to be at a level to cause concern for vulnerable albatross populations (Klaer 2012). Bycatchmitigation measures that follow best practices (Gilman 2011) are in place in pelagic longline fisheriesoperating in the Atlantic, so we have awarded a “high” concern instead of critical concern score.

Justification:

In the South Atlantic (south of 25° S), information on seabird interactions must be recorded, and longline

55


GREY-HEADED ALBATROSS





vessels fishing must use two mitigation methods (ICCAT 2011h).


< 20%



High



High Concern

Grey-headed albatross is listed as Vulnerable by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)based on quickly declining population sizes over the past 90 years or three generations. There are anestimated 96,000 breeding pairs or 250,000 mature birds (BirdLife International 2012c). We have awarded a“high” concern score based on the IUCN classification.


High Concern

Declines in the population size of this species have been attributed to incidental capture in longline fisheries(BirdLife International 2012c). Grey-headed albatross was the most commonly reported seabird bycatchspecies in the Japanese longline fishery between 1997 and 2009 (90) (Inoue et al. 2012). This species wasnot reported as observed in the Taiwanese fleet between 2004 and 2008 (Yeh et al. 2012). Bycatch mitigationmeasures that meet best practices (Gilman 2011) are in place in pelagic longline fisheries operating in theAtlantic, so we have awarded a “high” concern instead of critical concern score.

Justification:

In the South Atlantic (south of 25° S), information on seabird interactions must be recorded, and longlinevessels fishing must use two mitigation methods (ICCAT 2011h).

56

SILKY SHARK





< 20%



High

Fishbase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 79 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013).


High Concern

A stock-wide population assessment of silky shark in the Atlantic Ocean has not been conducted. TheInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed silky shark as Near Threatened in theSouthwest Atlantic Ocean. Some analysis of catch rate series in the Northwest and Central Atlantic Ocean hasbeen done but not in the South Atlantic (Baum et al. 2003) (Cortes et al. 2007). There are significant issueswith species identification and an overall lack of reporting for this species (Bonfil et al. 2009). We haveawarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN status.


High Concern

A stock-wide population assessment of silky shark in the Atlantic Ocean has not been conducted. TheInternational Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has listed silky shark as Vulnerable in the NorthwestAtlantic and Western Central Atlantic Ocean. Some analysis of catch rate series in the Northwest and CentralAtlantic Ocean has indicated large declines in population size (Baum et al. 2003) (Cortes et al. 2007). Thereare significant issues with species identification and an overall lack of reporting for this species (Bonfil et al.2009). We have awarded a “high” concern score based on the IUCN status.


High Concern

Fishing mortality rates of silky shark in the Atlantic are not known but it is known to be caught in pelagiclongline fisheries. An Ecological Risk Assessment found silky shark scored 8th out of 20 species forsusceptibility to pelagic longline gear in the North Atlantic, indicating that it is highly susceptible (Cortes et al.2012). A lack of reporting and species identification issues have made assessing fishing mortality rates difficult

57


SWORDFISH



(Bonfil et al. 2008). The majority of information in the North Atlantic is specific to the U.S. pelagic longlinefishery, where silky shark represents around 30% of all elasmobranchs (Beerkircher et al. 2002). Theincidental and targeted mortality from fisheries is thought to be a contributing factor to silky shark populationdeclines (Bonfil et al. 2009). We have awarded a “high” concern score because fishing mortality rates areunknown but fishing appears to be a contributing factor to population declines. We have not awarded a criticalconcern score because ICCAT has recently prohibited the capture and retention of silky shark.


< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability of 72 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the lifehistory characteristics of swordfish indicate a lower vulnerability to fishing. For example, swordfish reachessexual maturity around 180 cm in size and around 5 years of age, reaches a maximum length of 455 cm, andlives more than 10 years. Swordfish is a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). This ismore indicative of a moderate vulnerability to fishing based on the Seafood Watch productivity andsusceptibility table score (PSA = 2).

Justification:


Age at maturity <5 years 3Average size at maturity 100-300 cm 2Average maximum size > 300 cm 1Average maximum age 10-25 years 2Reproductive strategy Broadcast spawner 3Trophic level >3.25 1


Low Concern

Swordfish populations in the South Atlantic Ocean were last assessed in 2013. There was considerableuncertainty surrounding the results, with the models providing conflicting results. But it appears that thebiomass is most likely above levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B ) and thepopulation is likely not overfished. We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score because

MSY

58



YELLOWFIN TUNA


of the large amount of uncertainty surrounding the results (ICCAT 2013).


Low Concern

The last assessment for swordfish in the North Atlantic was conducted in 2013. The population of swordfish inthe North Atlantic is estimated to be at or above levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield(B ) and the population is not overfished. The results from this assessment were very similar to those fromthe previous 2009 assessment (ICCAT 2013). There is some concern surrounding the size structure of thepopulation (ICCAT 2013), so we have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score.

MSY


Very Low Concern

Despite a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the results of the 2013 assessment for swordfish in theSouth Atlantic, current fishing mortality rates are likely below those necessary to produce the maximumsustainable yield (F ) (0.75 (0.60–1.01)) and overfishing is likely not occurring. We have awarded a “verylow” concern score because fishing levels on swordfish are sustainable.

MSY


Very Low Concern

Fishing mortality of swordfish in the North Atlantic has been below levels needed to produce the maximumsustainable yield (F ) since 2000 and overfishing is not currently occurring. Fishing mortality peaked in 1995and has shown a downward trend since, with a slight increase from 2002–2005 (ICCAT 2013). We haveawarded a “very low” concern score because fishing levels on swordfish are sustainable.

MSY


< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a moderate vulnerability score of 46 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Yellowfin tunareaches sexual maturity around 100 cm in size and 2–5 years in age. A maximum length of 140–150 cm in

59




ALBACORE


size can be attained and it can live 8–9 years. It is a broadcast spawner and high level predator in theecosystem (Froese and Pauly 2014) (ICCAT 2014). These life history characteristics also support a moderatelevel of vulnerability.


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 F (F /F = 0.77 (0.53–1.05)) andthe 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.

MSY current MSY


< 20%



Medium

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 58 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). But the life historycharacteristics of albacore suggest only a medium vulnerability to fishing. For example, albacore reachessexual maturity between 5 and 6 years of age and reaches a maximum age of 15 years (ISCAWG 2011). It is

60



a broadcast spawner and top predator (Froese and Pauly 2013). Based on these life history characteristics,we have awarded a "medium" score.

Justification:

Life history characteristic Parameter Score

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


High Concern

The population of albacore tuna in the North Atlantic has been below the level needed to produce themaximum sustainable yield (B ) since the mid-1980s but has improved since the lowest levels in the late1990s. There is considerable uncertainty surrounding the status of albacore tuna in the North Atlantic, asevidenced by the wide array of model results. Currently, the ratio of the current spawning stock biomass tothat at the maximum sustainable yield (SSB /SSB ) is estimated to be 0.94 (0.74–1.14). There is a0.2% probability that the population is overfished and undergoing overfishing, a 27.4% probability that thepopulation is neither overfished nor undergoing overfishing, and a 72.4% probability that the population iseither overfished or overfishing is occurring but not both (ICCAT 20013). The International Commission for theConservation of Atlantic Tunas considers this population overfished and we have awarded a “high” concernscore.

MSY

CURRENT MSY


Low Concern

The 2016 assessment of albacore tuna in the South Atlantic indicated that the population status has improvedsince the last assessment (2013). The majority of model runs indicated that the population was notoverfished, with the ratio of the current biomass to that which would produce the maximum sustainable yield(B/B ) ranging from 0.508 to 1.972 (ICCAT 2016). There is a high probability that the population is healthy.We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score to account for uncertainty in thisassessment.

MSY


Low Concern

The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) of albacore tuna in the North Atlantic is estimated to be 31,680 t.Historically, fishing mortality rates were above levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F )from the 1960s to mid-2000s. Currently, F /F = 0.72 (0.55–0.89) and the population is no longerundergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2013a). We have awarded a “low” concern and not very low concern score toaccount for uncertainty in this assessment.

MSY

2012 MSY

61


BLUEFIN TUNA




Low Concern

According to the most recent assessment (2016), fishing mortality rates for South Atlantic albacore tuna havedecreased since the previous (2013) assessment. The current ratios of fishing mortality rates to those thatproduce the maximum sustainable yield (F/F ) are estimated to range from 0.316 to 0.851. There is a highprobability that the population is no longer undergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2016). We have awarded a “low”concern and not very low concern score to account for uncertainty in this assessment.

MSY


< 20%



High

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 82 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). In the westernAtlantic, bluefin tuna reaches sexual maturity around 9 years of age and under 200 cm in length. It is longlived, reaching ages of 40 years and lengths over 300 cm (ICCAT 2012b). Atlantic bluefin tuna is a broadcastspawner and has a high trophic level according to FishBase (Froese and Pauly 2013). These life historycharacteristics also suggest a high vulnerability.


Very High Concern

Based on a low recruitment scenario for Atlantic bluefin tuna in the Northwest Atlantic, the current biomass(B ) is around 225% (192%–268%) above the level needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield(B ), but under the high recruitment scenario, the biomass is only 48% (35%–72%) of B . Therefore,under the low recruitment scenario, Atlantic bluefin tuna is not overfished but under the high recruitmentscenario it is (ICCAT 2012b). Atlantic bluefin tuna is listed as Endangered under the Committee on the Statusof Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) and is under assessment for designation on Canada’s Species atRisk Act (SARA) (GOC 2013). The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers Atlanticbluefin tuna to be Endangered (Collette et al. 2011). We have awarded a “very high” concern score due to theIUCN status and because the stock assessment has been hindered with data concerns and uncertainty.

2013

MSY MSY

Justification:

Two alternative hypotheses are currently considered by the scientific committee conducting the assessment.The first one (high potential recruitment) assumes that high recruitment levels seen in the 1970s can be

62



ATLANTIC SAILFISH



attained again if the stock is allowed to recover. The second hypothesis (low potential recruitment) assumesthat these high levels of recruitment can no longer be achieved due to circumstances such as environmentalchanges. The results of the models and therefore the status of the population is highly dependent on whichone of these hypotheses is true, and there is currently no indication which hypothesis is more plausible.


Moderate Concern

For bluefin tuna in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean, the fishing mortality rate needed to produce the maximumsustainable yield (F ) under the low recruitment scenario is 0.12 (0.17–0.24) and 0.08 (0.07–0.10) underthe high recruitment scenario. The current F /F is 0.36 (0.28–0.43) and 0.88 (0.64–1.08) under thelow and high scenarios, respectively. Therefore, under both recruitment scenarios, overfishing is not occurring(ICCAT 2014). We have awarded a “moderate” and not low concern score due to the uncertainty of theseresults and because overfishing has been occurring under the high recruitment scenario for many years.

MSY

2010–2012 MSY

Justification:


< 20%



High

FishBase assigned a high vulnerability score of 65 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Atlantic sailfish is abroadcast spawner that reaches sexual maturity between 121 and 146 cm, can reach a maximum length of315 cm, and can live around 4 years. It has a high trophic level of 4.5 (Froese and Pauly 2013). These lifehistory characteristics support a high vulnerability score.


High Concern

Two populations of sailfish are assessed in the Atlantic: Eastern and Western. The last assessment wasconducted in 2009 and there was a large amount of uncertainty surrounding the actual status of the two

63



FRIGATE TUNA



populations. There was evidence that the populations were overfished, particularly in the Eastern region.Some model results indicated that the Western population is not overfished. Large declines in abundance ofAtlantic sailfish occurred prior to 1990, but since 1990, estimates of abundance show different trends,depending on the source (ICCAT 2009c). We have awarded a “high” concern score because there is someindication the populations are overfished and because of the uncertainty surrounding its stock status.


High Concern

The majority of fishing mortality for Atlantic sailfish comes from longline fisheries. The majority of sailfish arecaught in the Eastern compared to the Western Atlantic. The last assessment conducted in 2009 was highlyuncertain. The maximum sustainable yield (MSY) was almost twice as high in the Eastern Atlantic (1,250–1,950 t) as in the Western (600–1,100 t). Overfishing is likely occurring in the Eastern Atlantic and possiblyoccurring in the Western (ICCAT 2009c). We have awarded a “high” concern score to account for the Easternpopulation likely undergoing overfishing.


< 20%



Low

FishBase assigned a low vulnerability score of 26 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Longevity of frigate tunais unknown, as is the age at sexual maturity. The size at sexual maturity is estimated to occur between 29 and35 cm. Frigate tuna reaches a maximum size of 60 cm. It is a broadcast spawner and top level predator(Froese and Pauly 2014). These life history characteristics also suggest a low vulnerability to fishing.


Moderate Concern

In the Atlantic, frigate tuna is assessed along with 13 other “small tuna” species. Currently, there is notenough information to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). The International Union for theConservation of Nature (IUCN) considers frigate tuna to be a species of Least Concern with a stable populationtrend. Frigate tuna is considered to be abundant but it is possible that declines in individual species of small

64



HAWKSBILL TURTLE



tunas may be not be apparent, because overall trends for small tunas mask these issues (Collette et al.2011d). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because its stock status is unknown and because ithas a low vulnerability to fishing.


Moderate Concern

Frigate tuna is one of five “small tuna” species that make up 88% of total “small tuna” catches in the AtlanticOcean. No assessment has been conducted due to a lack of data. Landings of frigate tuna peaked in the mid-to late 1980s and late 1990s/early 2000s, but have since declined. It is likely that a number of fish identified asfrigate tuna may actually be bullet tuna (ICCAT 2012a). Frigate tuna is caught by a variety of gears and thereis considerable underreporting and unreporting of catches due to species identification issues and highdiscarding rates (Collette et al. 2011d). We have awarded a “moderate” concern score because informationon fishing mortality rates is not available.


< 20%



High



Very High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) has classified hawksbill turtle as CriticallyEndangered with a decreasing population trend (Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). Hawksbill turtle has been listedon the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) since 1977 and is currently listed onCITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with extinction and that international trade is prohibited. Inthe Atlantic Ocean, a population decrease of 80.5% over three generations was noted in the mid-2000s(Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). The population trajectory since then is unknown. We have awarded a “veryhigh” concern score based on the current IUCN and CITES classifications.

65



OLIVE RIDLEY TURTLE





Low Concern

The incidental capture of hawksbill turtle has been identified as adversely affecting its recovery worldwide,although declines in the population of hawksbill turtle are mainly a factor of historical targeting of this species(Mortimer and Donnelly 2008). In the Atlantic, hawksbill turtle has a low population risk and low bycatchimpact from longline fisheries (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place forpelagic longline fisheries in the Atlantic, although they do not meet best practices, such as specific hook andbait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a “low” concern score because the impact to hawksbillpopulations from bycatch is thought to be low in this region, and population declines have mostly been a factorof historical targeting of this species.


< 20%



High



High Concern

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) considers olive ridley sea turtle to be Vulnerablewith a decreasing population trend. Olive ridley turtle has been listed as Threatened on the U.S. EndangeredSpecies Act (ESA) since 1978 (NMFS 2012a) and is listed on the Convention on International Trade ofEndangered Species (CITES) Appendix I. Specifically, within the North Atlantic, the arribada rookeries(synchronous egg laying) have decreased by 97%–99%, while the non-arribada rookeries (non-synchronousegg laying) have increased 364% over time (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). We have awarded a “highconcern score based on the IUCN status.

66



Moderate Concern

The incidental capture of olive ridley turtle occurs worldwide, although the other fisheries, such as trawls andgillnets, appear to have a larger negative impact compared to that of longlines (Wallace et al. 2013) (Abreu-Grobois and Plotkin 2008). Information on olive ridley bycatch rates is not readily available, but a metadataanalysis suggested that bycatch impacts in the Western Atlantic were low (Wallace et al. 2013). There are seaturtle management 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 therefore awarded a“moderate” concern score.


< 20%


67

Appendix B: Update SummaryThis report was updated during August 2016 to incorporate a new stock assessment for south Atlantic albacoretuna that was published in May 2016. There were no changes to the overall recommendations.

68

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

Documents

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