Blue shark, Shorin mako shark and Dolphinfish (Mahi...

Click here to load reader

  • date post

    17-Feb-2019
  • Category

    Documents

  • view

    222
  • download

    0

Embed Size (px)

Transcript of Blue shark, Shorin mako shark and Dolphinfish (Mahi...

Blue shark, Shor in mako shark and Dolphinfish (Mahi mahi)Prionace glauca, Isurus oxyrinchus, Coryphaena hippurus

South Atlan c, North Atlan c

Pelagic longline

July 12, 2016

Alexia Morgan, Consul ng Researcher

DisclaimerSeafood Watch strives to have all Seafood Reports reviewed for accuracy and completeness by externalscien sts with exper se in ecology, fisheries science and aquaculture. Scien fic review, however, does notcons tute an endorsement of the Seafood Watch program or its recommenda ons on the part of thereviewing scien sts. Seafood Watch is solely responsible for the conclusions reached in this report.

23455788

142634373844

Table of Contents

Table of ContentsAbout Seafood WatchGuiding PrinciplesSummaryFinal Seafood RecommendationsIntroductionAssessment

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessmentCriterion 2: Impacts on other speciesCriterion 3: Management EffectivenessCriterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

AcknowledgementsReferencesAppendix A: Extra By Catch Species

2

About Seafood Watch

Monterey Bay Aquariums Seafood Watch program evaluates the ecological sustainability of wild-caught andfarmed seafood commonly found in the United States marketplace. Seafood Watch defines sustainableseafood as origina ng from sources, whether wild-caught or farmed, which can maintain or increase produc onin the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affected ecosystems. Seafood Watch makesits science-based recommenda ons available to the public in the form of regional pocket guides that can bedownloaded from www.seafoodwatch.org. The programs goals are to raise awareness of important oceanconserva on issues and empower seafood consumers and businesses to make choices for healthy oceans.

Each sustainability recommenda on 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 informa on against the programs conserva on ethic to arrive at a recommenda on of BestChoices, Good Alterna ves or Avoid. The detailed evalua on methodology is available upon request. Inproducing the Seafood Reports, Seafood Watch seeks out research published in academic, peer-reviewedjournals whenever possible. Other sources of informa on include government technical publica ons, fisherymanagement plans and suppor ng documents, and other scien fic reviews of ecological sustainability. SeafoodWatch Research Analysts also communicate regularly with ecologists, fisheries and aquaculture scien sts, andmembers of industry and conserva on organiza ons when evalua ng fisheries and aquaculture prac ces.Capture fisheries and aquaculture prac ces are highly dynamic; as the scien fic informa on on each specieschanges, Seafood Watchs sustainability recommenda ons and the underlying Seafood Reports will beupdated to reflect these changes.

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

3

Guiding Principles

Seafood Watch defines sustainable seafood as origina ng from sources, whether fished or farmed, that canmaintain or increase produc on in the long-term without jeopardizing the structure or func on of affectedecosystems.

Based on this principle, Seafood Watch had developed four sustainability criteria for evalua ng 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 effec ve is the fisherys management?

How does the fishing affect habitats and the stability of the ecosystem?

Each criterion includes:

Factors to evaluate and score

Guidelines for integra ng these factors to produce a numerical score and ra ng

Once a ra ng has been assigned to each criterion, we develop an overall recommenda on. Criteria ra ngs andthe overall recommenda on 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 li le harm to habitats or other wildlife.

Good Alterna ve/Yellow: Buy, but be aware there are concerns with how theyre caught.

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

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

1

1

4

Summary

This report focuses on longline fisheries in the Atlan c Ocean that primarily target tuna and swordfish but alsoretain blue shark (Prionace glauca), shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and mahi mahi (Coryphaenahippurus). Tuna and swordfish have been assessed and recommenda ons published in a separate SeafoodWatch report. They are included as addi onal 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 shor in 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 popula ons in the North Atlan c appear to be healthy but their statuses in theSouth Atlan c are uncertain. Shor in mako sharks in the South Atlan c are healthy and, although there issome indica on that popula ons in the North Atlan c have improved over me, there is s ll a large amount ofuncertainty surrounding their current statuses. Mahi mahi has not been fully assessed in the Atlan c, althoughthe informa on that exists suggests that it has a stable popula on.

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 interac onshave been taken, but management of sea turtle interac ons con nues to be weak. We have included speciesthat typically report 5% of more of the total catch or whose status, e.g., Endangered or Threatened, jus fiestheir inclusion in this report, per the Seafood Watch criteria.

Longlines do not typically come in contact with bo om habitats but do capture excep onal species andmanagement does not currently take this into account.

These species are managed by the Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT)within the Atlan c Ocean.

Final Seafood Recommenda ons

SPECIES/FISHERY

CRITERION1: IMPACTSON THESPECIES

CRITERION 2:IMPACTS ONOTHERSPECIES

CRITERION 3:MANAGEMENTEFFECTIVENESS

CRITERION 4:HABITAT ANDECOSYSTEM

OVERALLRECOMMENDATION

Blue sharkSouth Atlan c,Pelagic longline

Yellow (2.644) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

Blue sharkNorth Atlan c,Pelagic longline

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

Shor in makosharkSouth Atlan c,Pelagic longline

Green (3.831) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

Shor in makosharkNorth Atlan c,Pelagic longline

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

Dolphinfish (MahiMahi)South Atlan c,

Green (3.831) Cri cal (0.000) Red (1.000) Green (3.873) Avoid (0.000)

5

Summary

All species included in this report caught by longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c Ocean have an overallrecommenda on of Avoid.

Scoring GuideScores range from zero to five where zero indicates very poor performance and five indicates the fishingopera ons 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 Cri cal scores

Good Alterna ve/Yellow = Final score >2.2-3.2, and neither Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) nor BycatchManagement Strategy (Factor 3.2) are Very High Concern2, and no more than one Red Criterion, and noCri cal scores

Avoid/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 Cri cal scores.

Because effec ve management is an essen al component of sustainable fisheries, Seafood Watch issues an Avoid recommenda on forany fishery scored as a Very High Concern for either factor under Management (Criterion 3).

Pelagic longlineDolphinfish (MahiMahi)North Atlan c,Pelagic longline

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

2

6

Introduc on

Scope of the analysis and ensuing recommenda on

This report focuses on longline fisheries in the Atlan c Ocean that primarily target tuna and swordfish but alsoretain blue shark (Prionace glauca), shor in mako shark (Isurus oxyrinchus), and mahi mahi (Coryphaenahippurus). Tuna and swordfish have been assessed and recommenda ons published in a separate SeafoodWatch report. They are included as addi onal 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 Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c 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 ?oa ngobjects. 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 worlds oceans in epipelagic andmesopelagic waters. It is considered the most widely distributed shark species and most abundant, withabundance increasing with la tude. Blue shark is an apex predator, consuming a variety of fish and squidspecies (ISCSWG 2014).

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

Produc on Sta s cs

Catches of mahi mahi in the Atlan c (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 Atlan c,where the majority of blue sharks are caught, have increased in recent years. Since 2008, catches in the NorthAtlan c 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 Atlan c 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 ?eet (ICCAT 2014). Catches ofshor in mako shark in the North Atlan c have been fairly stable since the mid-2000s.

In 2012, 3,635 MT of shor in mako shark were landed in the North Atlan c. Catches in the South Atlan c,which typically represents less than catches in the North Atlan c, have been more variable over me. Catchespeaked in 2003 (3,426 MT). Catches in 2013 were only 1,907 MT. The majority of catches in both regions comefrom longline 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%), andPeru (21%) (NMFS 2015). In 2010, U.S. landings made up less than 5% of the mahi mahi available in the U.S.marketplace that year (NMFS 2010). Import sta s cs for sharks are not species-specific. During 2014, importsof fresh shark primarily came from Mexico, with smaller amounts imported from Canada, China, Costa Rica,and Spain. Shark fins were imported from New Zealand and China (NMFS 2015).

Common and market names.

Shor in 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.

7

Assessment

This sec on assesses the sustainability of the fishery(s) rela ve to the Seafood Watch Criteria for Fisheries,available at h p://www.seafoodwatch.org.

Criterion 1: Impacts on the species under assessment

This criterion evaluates the impact of fishing mortality on the species, given its current abundance. Theinherent vulnerability to fishing ra ng 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 ra ng is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score 2.2=Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 1.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cri cal

Criterion 1 Summary

Blue sharks and shor in mako sharks are a long lived species, which a ain sexual maturity at a late age andproduces a small number of young. Blue shark popula ons are considered healthy. Mahi mahi are assessedalong with several other species and their current status is uncertain. Shor in mako sharks in the northAtlan c are likely not overfished, although there is a large degree of uncertainty surrounding these results. Inthe south Atlan c, their popula ons appear to be healthy.

Criterion 1 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

LowThe FishBase vulnerability score for species is 0-35, OR species exhibits life history characteris cs

BLUE SHARK

Region / MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

South Atlan c Pelagiclongline

1.00: High 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

North Atlan c Pelagiclongline

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

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI)Region / Method Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

South Atlan c Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.831)

North Atlan c Pelagic longline 2.00: Medium 4.00: Low Concern 3.67: Low Concern Green (3.831)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK

Region / MethodInherentVulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Score

South Atlan c Pelagiclongline

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

North Atlan c Pelagiclongline

1.00: High 3.00: ModerateConcern

2.33: ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

8

that make it resilient to fishing, (e.g., early maturing).

MediumThe FishBase vulnerability score for species is 36-55, OR species exhibits life historycharacteris cs that make it neither par cularly vulnerable nor resilient to fishing, (e.g., moderate age atsexual maturity (5-15 years), moderate maximum age (10-25 years), moderate maximum size, and middle offood chain).

HighThe FishBase vulnerability score for species is 56-100, OR species exhibits life history characteris csthat make is par cularly vulnerable to fishing, (e.g., long-lived (>25 years), late maturing (>15 years), lowreproduc on 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, spa al behaviors (e.g., schooling,aggrega ng for breeding, or consistently returning to the same sites for feeding or reproduc on) andgeographic range.

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

5 (Very Low Concern)Strong evidence exists that the popula on is above target abundance level (e.g.,biomass at maximum sustainable yield, BMSY) or near virgin biomass.

4 (Low Concern)Popula on may be below target abundance level, but it is considered not overfished

3 (Moderate Concern) Abundance level is unknown and the species has a low or medium inherentvulnerability to fishing.

2 (High Concern)Popula on 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)Popula on 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 contribu on tothe mortality of species is negligible ( 5% of a sustainable level of fishing mortality).

3.67 (Low Concern)Probable (>50%) chance that fishing mortality is at or below a sustainable level, butsome uncertainty exists, OR fishery does not target species and does not adversely affect species, but itscontribu on to mortality is not negligible, OR fishing mortality is unknown, but the popula on is healthyand the species has a low suscep bility to the fishery (low chance of being caught).

2.33 (Moderate Concern)Fishing mortality is fluctua ng around sustainable levels, OR fishing mortality isunknown and species has a moderate-high suscep bility 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 (Cri cal)Overfishing is known to be occurring and no reasonable management is in place to curtailoverfishing.

BLUE SHARK

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High

FishBase assigned a high to very high vulnerability score of 67 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Blue sharkreaches sexual maturity around 47 years of age and reaches a maximum size and age of 380 cm and 16years, respec vely. Blue shark gives birth to live pups every 12 years (ISCSWG 2014). These life

9

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

history characteris cs also suggest a high inherent vulnerability to fishing pressure.

Ra onale:

Life history characteris c Paramater Score

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

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderate Concern

Blue shark in the South Atlan c was last assessed in 2015. Two models were used in this assessment andshowed conflic ng results. The Bayesian surplus produc on model indicated that blue shark in the SouthAtlan c 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 popula on could be overfishedand was only between 78% and 129% of MSY levels (ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a moderate concernscore due to the conflic ng informa on in the current assessment.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

Blue shark in the North Atlan c was last assessed in 2015. Two different models were used to determine thestatus of blue shark in the North Atlan c. Both models indicated that the popula on is most likely notoverfished. The Bayesian surplus produc on 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 different structures) and should be interpreted with cau on. We have thereforeawarded a low concern and not very low concern score.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderate Concern

Blue shark has one of the highest suscep bili es to longline fishing gear among elasmobranchs in the Atlan c(ICCAT 2012a) and longlines are the primary gear that captures blue shark in the South Atlan c. The 2015assessment used two models to determine fishing mortality rates on blue shark in the South Atlan c. TheBayesian surplus produc on model indicated that fishing mortality rates were below levels needed to producethe maximum sustainable yield (F /F = 0.010.11) and therefore overfishing is not occurring. But thestate space model indicated that overfishing could be occurring (F /F = 0.541.19) (ICCAT 2015). Wehave awarded a moderate concern score due to the conflic ng results of the 2015 assessment.

2013 M SY

2013 M SY

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

Blue shark has one of the highest suscep bili es to longline fishing gear among elasmobranchs in theAtlan c (ICCAT 2012a) and longlines are the primary gear that captures blue shark in the North Atlan c. Butaccording to the 2015 assessment, overfishing is not occurring. Two models were used to assess fishingmortality rates of blue shark in the North Atlan c. Both indicated that fishing mortality rates are currently

10

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI)

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK

Factor 1.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

below levels needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (F2013/FMSY = 0.04050 and 0.15 to 0.75)(ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a low concern score because it appears that overfishing is not occurring,but not a very low concern score to account for large amounts of uncertainty.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

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 characteris cs also suggest a moderate level of vulnerability to fishing.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

Mahi mahi is assessed along with 13 other small tunas in the Atlan c. Currently, there is not enoughinforma on to conduct a full assessment of this group (ICCAT 2012a). A separate preliminary a empt 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 popula on waslikely near virgin levels in both areas (Parker et al. 2006). In addi on, the Interna onal Union for Conserva onof Nature (IUCN) considers mahi mahi a species of Least Concern with a stable popula on trend. We haveawarded a low concern score due to the IUCN status and the results of the preliminary assessmentindica ng that the popula on was likely near virgin levels.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

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

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINENORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

High

FishBase assigned a very high vulnerability score of 86 out of 100 (Froese and Pauly 2013). Shor in makoshark reaches sexual maturity between 180 and 200 cm in size. It can a ain a maximum size of 325375 cmand live up to 40 years. It is a top predator and gives birth to live young (ISC 2015). These life history

11

Factor 1.2 - Abundance

Factor 1.3 - Fishing Mortality

characteris cs also suggest a high inherent vulnerability to fishing based on the Seafood Watch produc vityand suscep bility table (PSA = 1).

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

The last assessment for shor in mako shark in the South Atlan c was conducted in 2012. The results of thisassessment indicated that the biomass was above B and that the popula on is not overfished. Catch ratetrends showed increasing trends or flat trends in recent years. There were inconsistencies between es matedbiomass trajectories and CPUE trends, which resulted in a fair amount of uncertainty within the es matedbiomass, par cularly for this popula on. The current biomass to B ra o was es mated to range between1.36 and 2.16, and the current biomass to virgin biomass ra o ranged from 0.72 to 3.16 (ICCAT 2012g).Based on these es mates, the popula on is not overfished and we have awarded a low concern score.

M SY

M SY

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderate Concern

The last assessment for shor in mako shark in the North Atlan c was conducted in 2012. The results of thisassessment indicated that the biomass was above B and that the popula on is not overfished. Catch ratetrends showed increasing trends or flat trends in recent years. There were inconsistencies between es matedbiomass trajectories and CPUE trends, which resulted in a fair amount of uncertainty within the es matedbiomass. The current biomass to B ra o was es mated to range between 1.15 and 2.04, and the currentbiomass to virgin biomass ra o ranged from 0.55 to 1.63 (ICCAT 2012g). Based on these es mates, thepopula on is not overfished. But the assessment was surrounded by a large amount of uncertainty (ICCAT2014).

The Interna onal Union for the Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers shor in mako shark to beVulnerable (globally) and the Commi ee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC)considers this species to be threatened (Cailliet et al. 2009) (COSEWIC 2006b). These classifica ons predatethe most recent assessment. We have awarded a moderate concern score based on this classifica oncombined with the high level of uncertainty surrounding the most recent assessment for shor in mako sharkin the Atlan c Ocean.

M SY

M SY

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Low Concern

Ecological Risk Assessments of Atlan c sharks indicate that shor in mako shark is one of the most suscep bleshark species to longline capture in the Atlan c (ICCAT 2012a). Fisheries in the South Atlan c catch aroundhalf the amount of shor in mako sharks as in the North Atlan c. The last popula on assessment indicatedthat fishing mortality was currently below FMSY levels. FMSY was es mated to range between 0.029 and0.041, and the current fishing mortality to FMSY ra o was es mated to range between 0.07 and 0.40. Basedon this assessment, overfishing is not currently occurring, but it was advised that current fishing mortalitylevels should be maintained un l a more reliable assessment is available (ICCAT 2012g). We have awarded alow concern score because overfishing does not appear to be occurring.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderate Concern

Ecological Risk Assessments of Atlan c sharks indicate that shor in mako shark is one of the most suscep bleshark species to longline capture in the Atlan c (ICCAT 2012a). The majority of shor in mako sharks arecaught in the North Atlan c compared to the South Atlan c Ocean. The last popula on assessment indicatedthat fishing mortality was currently below F levels. F was es mated to range from 0.029 to 0.104, andM SY M SY12

the es mated ra o 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 un l more reliable results areavailable (ICCAT 2012g). We have therefore awarded a moderate concern score.

M SY M SY

M SY

13

Criterion 2: Impacts on other species

All 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 mul pliedby the discard rate score (ranges from 0-1), which evaluates the amount of non-retained catch (discards) andbait use rela ve to the retained catch. The Criterion 2 ra ng is determined as follows:

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score 2.2=Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if Factor 2.3 (Fishing Mortality) is Cr cal

Criterion 2 Summary

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

BLUE SHARK - NORTH ATLANTIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

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

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

Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Atlan c bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

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

Red (2.159)

Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

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

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

14

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

Green(4.472)

BLUE SHARK - SOUTH ATLANTIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

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

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

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

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 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)

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)

Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

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

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

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

Green(4.472)

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - NORTH ATLANTIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

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

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

Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very High 2.33:Moderate Red (1.526)15

Concern Concern

Atlan c bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

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

Red (2.159)

Shor in mako shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

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

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

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

Green(4.472)

DOLPHINFISH (MAHI MAHI) - SOUTH ATLANTIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

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

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

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

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 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)

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)

Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Blue shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

16

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

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

Green(4.472)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - NORTH ATLANTIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 1.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 1.000

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

Oceanic white p shark 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

1.00:High Concern Red (1.000)

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

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

Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Atlan c bluefin tuna 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (1.526)

Hawksbill turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

3.67:Low Concern Red (1.916)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

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

Red (2.159)

Frigate tuna 3.00:Low 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

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

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

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

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

Green(4.472)

SHORTFIN MAKO SHARK - SOUTH ATLANTIC - PELAGIC LONGLINE

Subscore: 0.000 Discard Rate: 1.00 C2 Rate: 0.000

Species Inherent Vulnerability Abundance Fishing Mortality Subscore

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

Leatherback turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

17

This report focuses on pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c Ocean. Several species of tuna, fish,sharks, sea turtles and sea birds are captured, some incidentally, in these fisheries. Bycatch of seabirds in theAtlan c occur in the highest amounts south of 30S, specifically for albatrosses, giant petrels and petrels. Few ifany interac ons have been observed between pelagic longlines and seabirds north of 30S {Inoue et al. 2012}. We have included such 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 Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas Task I database for 2011 were usedto determine the main species. Other species were iden fied through the literature, which is cited in the tablesbelow. The worst scoring species for the North Atlan c longline fishery is the Oceanic wh te p shark becauseof their stock status. For the South Atlan c fishery, loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles along withwandering and yellow-nosed albatross, and white-chinned petrels are the worst scoring species due to theirstock status.

Loggerhead turtle 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

yellow-nosed albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

wandering albatross 1.00:High 1.00:Very HighConcern

0.00:Cri cal Cri cal(0.000)

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

Albacore tuna 2.00:Medium 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)

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)

Atlan c sailfish 1.00:High 2.00:High Concern 1.00:High Concern Red (1.414)

Yellowfin tuna 2.00:Medium 2.00:High Concern 2.33:ModerateConcern

Red (2.159)

Blue shark 1.00:High 3.00:ModerateConcern

2.33:ModerateConcern

Yellow(2.644)

Dolphinfish (Mahi Mahi) 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)

North Atlan c-pelagic

Species Jus fica on Source

Oceanic white pshark

Criterion 2 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

(same as Factor 1.1 above)

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

(same as Factor 1.2 above)

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

(same as Factor 1.3 above)

White-chinned petrel

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Species Jus fica on Source

Leatherback DepletedWallace et al.2013

loggerhead DepletedWallace et al.2013

Grey-headedalbatross

Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

Black-browedalbatross

Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

Wandering albatross Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

White-chinned petrel Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

Yellow-nosedalbatross

Depleted Inoue et al. 2012

High

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

SOUTH ATLANTIC

High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) has listed white-chinned petrel as Vulnerable witha decreasing popula on trend. The global popula on is es mated to have declined from 1,430,000 pairs inthe 1980s to 1,200,000 pairs currently (BirdLife Interna onal 2012d). We have awarded a high concernscore based on the IUCN status.

19

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Loggerhead turtle

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Cri cal

The incidental capture of white-chinned petrels in longline fisheries is thought to be a factor in ongoingpopula on declines (BirdLife Interna onal 2012d). Between 1997 and 2009, 47 white-chinned petrels wereobserved as incidentally captured in longline fisheries in the South Atlan c, the fourth-most commonlyobserved species (Inoue et al. 2012). This species also has a high overlap with the Interna onal Commissionfor the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT) Conven on Area (Phillips et al. 2006). Bycatch mi ga onmeasures are in place in pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c that meet best prac ces (Gilman2011), but these measures may not be fully implemented throughout the region. We have therefore awardeda cri cal concern score.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

< 20%

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

High

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

NORTH ATLANTIC

Very High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerhead is listed onAppendix I of the Conven on on Interna onal Trade of Endangered Species (CITES). The popula on of nes ngturtles in the Western North Atlan c has been declining since the late 1990s (NMFS 2009). We have awardeda very high concern score based on the IUCN and CITES lis ngs.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Very High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified loggerhead turtle as Endangered in1996, although it has been suggested that this needs to be updated (MTSG 2006). Loggerhead is listed onAppendix I of CITES. Popula ons of nes ng turtles in Brazil (South Atlan c) increased between 1988 and2004 (NMFS 2009). But it is unclear if this trend exists throughout the region.

20

NORTH ATLANTICSOUTH ATLANTIC

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Leatherback turtle

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

NORTH ATLANTIC

Moderate Concern

The incidental capture of loggerhead turtle is considered a primary threat to its popula ons (MTSG 2006). Inthe Atlan c Ocean, it has been es mated that between 150,000 and 200,000 loggerheads were incidentallycaught during 2000 (Lewison et al. 2004). The majority of informa on available is from the U.S. pelagiclongline fishery and the Canadian fishery to an extent. For example, it is es mated that the U.S. fisherycatches 30,000 loggerheads a year, resul ng 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 informa on to assess the effect of loggerhead mortality in individualfisheries (NMFS 2009b) (Paul 2010). But a metadata analysis found that bycatch impacts to this popula onare low (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place for pelagic longline fisheriesin the Atlan c, but they do not meet best prac ces, such as specific hook and bait requirements (Gilman2011). We have awarded a moderate concern score because bycatch impacts may be low but sea turtlemi ga on measures do not meet best prac ces.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Cri cal

The incidental capture of loggerhead turtles is considered a primary threat to its popula ons (MTSG 2006). Inthe Atlan c Ocean, it has been es mated that between 150,000 and 200,000 loggerheads were incidentallycaught during 2000 (Lewison et al. 2004). The Brazilian and Uruguayan fisheries in the South Atlan c arereported to have high sea turtle bycatch rates, which may include loggerhead (Giffoni et al. 2008) (Sales et al.2010). In the Southwest Atlan c, loggerhead has a low popula on risk but high impact from bycatch (Wallaceet al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place but they do not meet best prac ces, such ashook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a cri cal concern score because loggerhead isdepleted in this area, bycatch from longline fisheries is a contribu ng factor, and adequate managementmeasures are not in place.

NORTH ATLANTICSOUTH ATLANTIC

< 20%

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

High

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

21

NORTH ATLANTICSOUTH ATLANTIC

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Oceanic white p shark

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

NORTH ATLANTICSOUTH ATLANTIC

Very High Concern

Leatherback sea turtle has been listed as Endangered by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) since 1970(NMFS 2012). The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) classified leatherback turtle asCri cally Endangered with a decreasing popula on trend in 2000 (Mar nez 2000). In addi on, leatherbackturtle has been listed on the Conven on on Interna onal Trade of Endangered Species (CITES) since 1975 andis currently listed on CITES Appendix I, meaning that it is threatened with ex nc on if interna onal trade isnot prohibited. In the Atlan c, the popula on size is es mated to be between 34,000 and 94,000 (TEWG2007). We have awarded a very high concern score based on the IUCN and CITES lis ngs.

NORTH ATLANTIC

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 migra on routes (Mar nez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996).In the Northwest Atlan c Ocean, leatherback sea turtle has a low popula on risk and low bycatch impactfrom longline fisheries (Wallace et al. 2013). There are sea turtle management measures in place for pelagiclongline fisheries in the Atlan c, although these do not meet best prac ces (Gilman 2011). We haveawarded a moderate concern score because \bycatch impacts may be low but sea turtle mi ga onmeasures do not meet best prac ces.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Cri cal

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 migra on routes (Mar nez 2000) (Zug and Parham 1996).

Leatherback interac ons throughout the high seas of the Atlan c are known to occur but the total impact onits popula ons is not fully known. Within the Southwest Atlan c, there are high levels of leatherback bycatchbecause pelagic longline fishing is distributed throughout the region (TEWG 2007). In this region, leatherbacksea turtle is at high risk and highly affected by incidental capture in longline fisheries, and in the southeastAtlan c, 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 Atlan c, but they do not meet bestprac ces, such as specific hook and bait requirements (Gilman 2011). We have awarded a cri cal concernscore because the popula on is depleted and adequate management measures are not in place.

NORTH ATLANTICSOUTH ATLANTIC

< 20%

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

NORTH ATLANTIC

High 22

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Yellow-nosed albatross

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

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

NORTH ATLANTIC

Very High Concern

Stock assessments for oceanic white p shark throughout the Atlan c 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 produc vity, indica ng that it is more produc ve than other species (ICCAT 2012h). According to theInterna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN), oceanic white p shark is assessed as Cri callyEndangered, due to radical declines in popula on sizes over me (Baum et al. 2006). Published es mates ofdeclines range from 70%90% but the methods used in those studies have been ques oned (Burgess et al.2007). We have awarded a very high concern scored based on its IUCN status and the fact that it is rapidlydeclining.

NORTH ATLANTIC

High Concern

Informa on on fishing mortality rates for oceanic white p shark in the Atlan c Ocean is not available (Baumet al. 2006). This is due to a general lack of data, making stock assessments very difficult. An Ecological RiskAssessment was conducted in 2012 and oceanic white p shark ranked 6th out of 20 species in terms ofsuscep bility to longline capture, meaning that it is highly suscep ble (Cortes et al. 2012). It should be notedthat the majority of oceanic white p sharks are caught by longline compared to purse seines (Rice 2012). Wehave awarded a high concern score because of this high suscep bility and because there is a general lack ofinforma on, but not a cri cal concern score because its capture has recently been prohibited by theInterna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT).

NORTH ATLANTIC

< 20%

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

High

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

23

NORTH ATLANTICSOUTH ATLANTIC

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Wandering albatross

Factor 2.1 - Inherent Vulnerability

Factor 2.2 - Abundance

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Very High Concern

Yellow-nosed albatross is considered Endangered by the Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature(IUCN) with a decreasing popula on trend. A large and rapid popula on decline has occurred over threegenera ons (72 years). Currently, there are only an es mated 13,900 breeding pairs, or 27,800 matureindividuals (BirdLife Interna onal 2012b). We have awarded a very high concern score based on the IUCNstatus.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Cri cal

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 popula on declines (BirdLife Interna onal 2012b).Within the Atlan c longline fisheries, it was es mated 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 Atlan c, where the impact of the pelagic longline fisheries is likelyaccoun ng for popula on 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 es mates are considered to be at a level to cause concern forvulnerable albatross popula ons (Klaer 2012). Bycatch mi ga on measures are in place in pelagic longlinefisheries opera ng in the Atlan c that meet best prac ces (Gilman 2011), but measures may not be fullyimplemented throughout the region. We have therefore awarded a cri cal concern score.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

< 20%

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

High

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

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Very High Concern

The Interna onal Union for Conserva on of Nature (IUCN) considers the wandering albatross to be

24

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Factor 2.3 - Fishing Mortality

Factor 2.4 - Discard Rate

Vulnerable with a decreasing popula on trend. The global popula on is es mated to be around 20,100mature individuals. This species breeds on a biennial me frame, producing a single chick every 2 years. Inaddi on, the majority of the pelagic longline mortali es are from the South Georgia breeding popula on,which is only 1,500 pairs annually (Poncet et al. 2006). We have therefore awarded a very high concernscore.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

Cri cal

Wandering albatross are threatened by longline fisheries, which have been iden fied as a leading cause of itspopula on declines. This is primarily a factor of its large range, which makes it suscep ble to capture by avariety of fleets (BirdLife Interna onal 2012e). The highest bycatch rates for this species occur in the SouthAtlan c, 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 Atlan c (Inoue et al. 2012). In addi on, wandering albatross was reported to be one ofthe most commonly caught birds in the Taiwanese pelagic longline fishery in the South Atlan c (Yeh et al.2012). Albatross made up 57% of the total seabird bycatch in the Atlan c Ocean from 20032006 butwandering albatross only made up around 1% of the bycatch species. But this species has a small popula onand does not have the produc vity to allow for fast popula on recovery (BirdLife Interna onal 2012e).Bycatch mi ga on measures are in place in pelagic longline fisheries opera ng in the Atlan c that meet bestprac ces (Gilman 2011), but these measures may not be fully implemented throughout the region. We havetherefore awarded a cri cal concern score.

SOUTH ATLANTIC

< 20%

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

25

Criterion 3: Management Effec veness

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

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

Score >3.2=Green or Low Concern

Score >2.2 and 3.2=Yellow or Moderate Concern

Score 2.2 or either the Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) or Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor 3.2) is VeryHigh Concern = Red or High Concern

Ra ng is Cri cal if either or both of Harvest Strategy (Factor 3.1) and Bycatch Management Strategy (Factor3.2) ra ngs are Cri cal.

Criterion 3 Summary

Criterion 3 Assessment

SCORING GUIDELINES

Factor 3.1: Harvest Strategy

Seven subfactors are evaluated: Management Strategy, Recovery of Species of Concern, Scien ficResearch/Monitoring, Following of Scien fic Advice, Enforcement of Regula ons, Management Track Record,and Inclusion of Stakeholders. Each is rated as ineffec ve, moderately effec ve, or highly effec ve.

5 (Very Low Concern)Rated as highly effec ve for all seven subfactors considered

4 (Low Concern)Management Strategy and Recovery of Species of Concern rated highly effec ve and allother subfactors rated at least moderately effec ve.

3 (Moderate Concern)All subfactors rated at least moderately effec ve.

2 (High Concern)At minimum, meets standards for moderately effec ve for Management Strategy andRecovery of Species of Concern, but at least one other subfactor rated ineffec ve.

1 (Very High Concern)Management exists, but Management Strategy and/or Recovery of Species ofConcern rated ineffec ve.

0 (Cri cal)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: Harvest Strategy

Factor 3.1 Summary

Region / Method Harvest Strategy Bycatch Strategy Score

North Atlan c / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

South Atlan c / Pelagic longline 1.000 1.000 Red (1.000)

FACTOR 3.1: MANAGEMENT OF FISHING IMPACTS ON RETAINED SPECIES

Region / Method Strategy Recovery Research Advice Enforce Track Inclusion

North Atlan c /Pelagic longline

Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

HighlyEffec ve

South Atlan c /Pelagic longline

Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

HighlyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

HighlyEffec ve

26

The United Na ons Law of the Sea agreement (1995) indicated that the management of straddling and highlymigratory fish stocks should be carried out through Regional Fisheries Management Organiza ons (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 worlds high seas. Countries must abide by themanagement measures set forth by individual RFMOs in order to fish in their waters {Cullis-Suzuki and Pauly2010}. Some RFMOs manage all marine living resources within their authority (e.g., General FisheriesCommission for the Mediterranean (GFCM)), while others manage a group of species such as tunas (e.g.,Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT)). This report focuses on longlinefisheries for swordfish and tuna in the Atlan c Ocean, which are managed by ICCAT. For this report we havescored this sec on for ICCATs management of these fisheries.

ICCAT Contrac ng Par es: United States, Japan, South Africa, Ghana, Canada, France, Brazil, Maroc, Republicof Korea, Cte d'Ivoire, Angola, Russia, Gabon, Cap-Vert, Uruguay, Sao Tome E Principe, Venezuela, GuineaEcuatorial, Republic of Guine, United Kingdom, Libya, China, European Union, Tunisia, Panama, Trinidad andTobago, Namibia, Barbados, Honduras, Algrie, Mexico, Vanuatu, Iceland, Turkey, Philippines, Norway,Nicaragua, Guatemala, Senegal, Belize, Syria, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Nigeria, Egypt, Albania, SierraLeone, Mauritania, Curaao, Liberia, and El Salvador.

Subfactor 3.1.1 Management Strategy and Implementa on

Considera ons: 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 effec ve ra ng, there mustbe appropriate management goals, and evidence that the measures in place have been successful atmaintaining/rebuilding species.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

Albacore tuna in the North Atlan c is managed through a TAC allo ed to the European Union, Chinese Taipei,United States, and Venezuela as well as effort restric ons 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). Atlan c bluefin tuna is managed under a TAC, which is dividedup between individual countries. Transfer of fishing effort for Atlan c bluefin tuna from the Eastern Atlan cand Mediterranean to the Western Atlan c is not allowed. There is a minimum size limit of 30 kg or 115 cmin length. In addi on, directed fishing for Atlan c bluefin tuna is not allowed in the Gulf of Mexico spawninggrounds, and if there is a threat of a stock collapse (based on stock assessments), then fishing in the followingyear will be prohibited (ICCAT 2012d) (ICCAT 2013c). Yellowfin tuna are managed through a country-specificTAC (ICCAT 2012a). There are no management measures in place for frigate tuna, blue or shor in makosharks, or mahi mahi (ICCAT 2012a).

Swordfish in the North Atlan c is managed through country specific TACs and a minimum size limit (ICCAT2012a). The Standing Commi ee on Research and Science (SCRS) of the Interna onal Commission for theConserva on of Atlan c 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 popula ondeclines below the limit reference point (ICCAT 2012e). During the most recent Commission mee ng (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 shor in 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 ineffec ve score because ICCAT has enactedmeasures for several tuna species included in this report but not for the target species of this report.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve 27

http://www.fao.org/

Subfactor 3.1.2 Recovery of Species of Concern

Considera ons: When needed, are recovery strategies/management measures in place to rebuildoverfished/threatened/ endangered species or to limit fisherys impact on these species and what is theirlikelihood of success? To achieve a ra ng of Highly Effec ve, rebuilding strategies that have a high likelihoodof success in an appropriate meframe must be in place when needed, as well as measures to minimizemortality for any overfished/threatened/endangered species.

Subfactor 3.1.3 Scien fic Research and Monitoring

Considera ons: How much and what types of data are collected to evaluate the health of the popula on andthe fisherys impact on the species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, popula on assessments must beconducted regularly and they must be robust enough to reliably determine the popula on status.

Albacore tuna in the South Atlan c is managed under a TAC of 24,000 t for 2012 and 2013 (ICCAT 2012a).Swordfish in the South Atlan c is managed under a country-specific TAC (ICCAT 2013c). In addi on, 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 capitaliza on (ISSF 2013b). Beginning in 2013, countries that have not reportedcatch data on shor in 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 ineffec ve score because ICCAT hasenacted measures for several tuna species included in this report but not for the target species of this report.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

North Atlan c albacore tuna is currently under a rebuilding program that was ini ated in 2009 and lastupdated in 2013 (ICCAT 2011e) (ICCAT 2013c). According to the most recent assessment, there is a 53%probability the popula on will be rebuild by 2019, mee ng Conven on objec ves, and a 75% probability ifcatches are lower. In addi on, the biomass has been increasing over me; however, fishing mortality rates ares ll above Conven on objec ves (ICCAT 2013a). A 20-year recovery plan for Atlan c bluefin tuna in theNorthwest Atlan c was ini ated in 1998. New recommenda ons 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 popula on to rebuild (ICCAT 2014). Yellowfin tuna was included in amul year conserva on and management program for tuna in 2011, which was updated in 2015 (ICCAT2015c).

Included in this plan are capacity limita ons, vessel authoriza on to fish, and a total allowable catch (TAC) foryellowfin (ICCAT 2015c). No updated yellowfin tuna assessment has yet been conducted, so it is too early todetermine if these measures have been successful for yellowfin tuna (ICCAT 2014). Bigeye tuna has recentlybeen assessed as overfished and undergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2015b). ICCAT adopted new regula onsduring the 2015 Commission mee ng to address the status of bigeye tuna, but these will not be put intoplace un l 2016 (ICCAT 2015c). We have awarded a moderately effec ve score because it is too early to tellif recovery plans have been successful.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

Albacore tuna is not under a specific recovery plan but management measures have been put into place to aidin its recovery (ICCAT 2012a). Yellowfin tuna was included in a mul year conserva on and managementprogram for tuna in 2011, which was updated in 2015 (ICCAT 2015c). Included in this plan are capacitylimita ons, vessel authoriza on to fish, and a total allowable catch (TAC) for yellowfin (ICCAT 2015c). Noupdated yellowfin tuna assessment has yet been conducted, so it is too early to determine if these measureshave been successful for yellowfin tuna (ICCAT 2014). Bigeye tuna has recently been assessed as overfishedand undergoing overfishing (ICCAT 2015b). ICCAT adopted new regula ons during the 2015 Commissionmee ng to address the status of bigeye tuna, but these will not be put into place un l 2016 (ICCAT 2015c).We have awarded a moderately effec ve score.

28

Subfactor 3.1.4 Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice

Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien ficrecommenda ons/advice (e.g. do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng isgiven if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

Stock assessments for albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna are conducted every 46 years and include catchand effort data from both fishery-dependent and -independent sources, along with biological informa on andother data. Atlan c bluefin tuna assessments are conducted more frequently, every 23 years. Swordfish isassessed every 4 years. Frigate tuna has not been assessed since 2008 (ICCAT 2012a). Stock assessmentshave also been conducted for shor in 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 amoderately effec ve score.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

Assessments of albacore, bigeye, and yellowfin tuna are conducted every 46 years and include catch andeffort data from fishery-independent and -dependent sources, along with biological informa on and otherdata. Swordfish assessments are conducted every 4 years. Blue and shor in mako sharks are also assessedevery 46 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 moderatelyeffec ve score.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

For Atlan c bluefin tuna in the Northwest Atlan c, total allowable catches (TACs) have been set at 1,900 t in2009, 1,800 t in 2010, and 1,750 t from 20112014, which followed scien fic advice (ICCAT 2012a), and theTAC for 2013 and 2014 was set at 1,750 t (ICCAT 2012d). In 2014, the Scien fic Commi ee noted that, if thecurrent TAC is maintained (or even gradually increased) and the current management scheme con nues, thegoal of achieving BMSY through 2022 would likely s ll be a ained (ICCAT 2014). The TAC for 2015 and 2016was set at 2,000 t in 2014 (ICCAT 2014b). It was suggested that maintaining yellowfin tuna catches at currentlevels (110,000 t) should lead to the biomass being above BMSY by 2016. The TAC has been set at this levelstar ng in 2012 (ICCAT 2012a). Bigeye tuna TAC should be reduced from the current level of 85,000 t, inorder to allow the popula on to rebuild (ICCAT 2015d). The Commission lowered the bigeye tuna TAC to65,000 t from 2016 to 2018, which will allow a 49% probability of rebuilding by 2028 (ICCAT 2015c). Theswordfish working group advised se ng the TAC at no higher than 13,000 t to maintain the popula on withinConven on objec ves, but the TAC in 2011 was set at 13,700 t (ICCAT 2012a). The Commission has followedadvice and set the TAC for albacore tuna in the North Atlan c at 28,000 t for 2012 and 2013. The currentassessment indicates that if catches remain at the current TAC level, the popula on will rebuild (53%probability) by 2019, which abides by the 2011 recovery plan. But if catches are lowered, recovery wouldoccur more quickly. The current management measure for North Atlan c albacore tuna allows for poten aloverages by allowing excess catch (not included in the total TAC) to be caught by countries with no allocatedTAC (ICCAT 2013a). It has been advised that catches of shor in mako shark not be increased (ICCAT 2014)but no catch limits have been set for this species. Scien fic advice for blue shark and mahi mahi, other thanimproving catch repor ng, has not been provided (ICCAT 2015). We have awarded a moderately effec vescore because scien fic advice is not always followed.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Highly Effec ve

Although no specific management advice has been given, the Standing Commi ee on Research and Sta s csdid note that catches over the current TAC will not allow albacore tuna in the South Atlan c to rebuild by

29

Subfactor 3.1.5 Enforcement of Management Regula ons

Considera ons: Do fishermen comply with regula ons, and how is this monitored? To achieve a HighlyEffec ve ra ng, there must be regular enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.

Subfactor 3.1.6 Management Track Record

Considera ons: Does management have a history of successfully maintaining popula ons at sustainable

2020. It was suggested that maintaining yellowfin tuna catches at current levels (110,000 t) should lead tothe biomass being above B by 2016. The TAC has been set at this level star ng in 2012 (ICCAT 2012a).

Bigeye tuna TAC should be reduced from the current level of 85,000 t, in order to allow the popula on 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 advisedse ng the TAC at 15,000 t and managers have complied with this (ICCAT 2012a). It has been advised thatcatches of shor in mako shark not be increased (ICCAT 2014) but no catch limits have been set for thisspecies. It has been advised that catches of blue shark should not be increased un l the issues of uncertaintysurrounding the 2015 assessment results are addressed (ICCAT 2015). Advice for mahi mahi, other thanimproving catch repor ng, has not been provided. We have awarded a highly effec ve score becausemanagers have listened to scien fic advice.

M SY

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

In terms of compliance among member countries with management measures, ICCAT has one of the bestprac ces 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 Atlan c 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 provideinforma on on catch, catch at size, loca on, 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 but it istoo early to determine if catches were below this level. 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 un l 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,shor in mako shark, or mahi mahi. We have awarded a moderately effec ve score because even thoughthere does not appear to be an issue with catches going over TAC levels, enforcement of other managementmeasures in longline fisheries is generally difficult.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

In terms of compliance among member countries with management measures, ICCAT has one of the bestprac ces of reviewing, assessing, and addressing compliance issues (Koehler 2013). Countries are required toprovide informa on on catch, catch at size, loca on, 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 Atlan c albacoretuna have been below the recommended TAC since 2004, except for slight overages during 2006 and 2011(ICCAT 2012a). 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 (ICCAT 2012a).If overages occur in the future, they can be subtracted in subsequent years (ICCAT 2012f). There are no catchlimits in place for blue shark, shor in mako shark, or mahi mahi. We have awarded a moderately effec vescore because even though there does not appear to be an issue with catches going over TAC levels,enforcement of other management measures in longline fisheries can be difficult.

30

levels or a history of failing to maintain popula ons at sustainable levels? A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given ifmeasures enacted by management have been shown to result in the long-term maintenance of speciesover me.

Subfactor 3.1.7 Stakeholder Inclusion

Considera ons: Are stakeholders involved/included in the decision-making process? Stakeholders areindividuals/groups/organiza ons that have an interest in the fishery or that may be affected by themanagement of the fishery (e.g., fishermen, conserva on groups, etc.). A Highly Effec ve ra ng is given if themanagement process is transparent and includes stakeholder input.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

Based on the most recent assessment, there is some indica on that management measures are allowingpopula ons of Atlan c bluefin tuna to increase in the Northwest Atlan c (ICCAT 2014). According to the 2014Eastern Atlan c bluefin tuna assessment, catch and effort has been reduced through the current managementscheme and the spawning biomass has increased substan ally. The Scien fic Commi ee noted that thecurrent goal of achieving the biomass necessary to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B ) by 2022will soon be reached (ICCAT 2014). There is some indica on that quota overages con nued through at least2011 (Gagern et al. 2013). Historically, management measures in place for albacore tuna in the North Atlan chave failed to allow the popula on 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 me (ICCAT 2014). It is too early to determine if management measures have been successful foryellowfin tuna (ICCAT 2012a). According to the 2012 assessment of swordfish in the North Atlan c, thepopula on was above the biomass needed to produce the maximum sustainable yield (B ) and thereforethe Commissions rebuilding objec ve had been met (ICCAT 2009c) (ICCAT 2012a). Bigeye tuna has becomeoverfished under current management measures, although updated measures have been adopted and will beput into place during 2016 (ICCAT 2015c) (ICCAT 2015d). There are no management measures in place forblue shark, shor in mako shark, or mahi mahi. It appears that blue shark popula ons have remained healthy,while shor in mako shark status, although surrounded by uncertainty, appears to have improved over me(ICCAT 2014). We have awarded a moderately effec ve score because it is too early to determine if recoveryefforts have been successful for all species.

M SY

M SY

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

Management measures for South Atlan c swordfish have resulted in long-term maintenance of the stock(ICCAT 2010b). It is too early to determine if management measures have been successful for yellowfin tuna(ICCAT 2012a). In addi on, it is too early to determine if newly established catch limits for albacore tuna(ICCAT 2011k) in the South Atlan c will be successful, although recent informa on suggests that the biomasshas been increasing and fishing mortality rates have decreased (ICCAT 2014). Bigeye tuna has becomeoverfished under current management measures, although updated measures have been adopted and will beput into place during 2016 (ICCAT 2015c) (ICCAT 2015d). There are no management measures in place forblue shark, shor in mako shark, and mahi mahi. It appears that blue shark popula ons have remainedhealthy, while the status of shor in mako shark appears to be healthy in the South Atlan c (ICCAT 2014). Wehave awarded a moderately effec ve score because it is too early to determine if recovery efforts have beensuccessful for all species.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Highly Effec ve

The Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT) has a empted to includestakeholder input in the management and conserva on of some species (e.g., Atlan c bluefin) (ICCAT 2008b).Observers are allowed at scien fic and Commission mee ngs but may not vote on individual managementmeasures. We have awarded a highly effec ve score to account for the inclusion of stakeholder input andtransparency of management process through mee ng reports, and the ability of non-delegates to a end andpar cipate in mee ngs.

31

Factor 3.2: Bycatch Strategy

Subfactor 3.2.2 Management Strategy and Implementa on

Considera ons: What type of management strategy/measures are in place to reduce the impacts of thefishery on bycatch species and how successful are these management measures? To achieve a Highly Effec vera ng, the primary bycatch species must be known and there must be clear goals and measures in place tominimize the impacts on bycatch species (e.g., catch limits, use of proven mi ga on measures, etc.).

FACTOR 3.2: BYCATCH STRATEGY

Region / MethodAllKept Cri cal Strategy Research Advice Enforce

North Atlan c / Pelagiclongline

No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

South Atlan c / Pelagiclongline

No No Ineffec ve Ineffec ve ModeratelyEffec ve

ModeratelyEffec ve

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

Several management measures to mi gate bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery have been implemented bythe Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT). Member countries are requiredto collect and report informa on on bycatch and discards and are suggested to provide iden fica on guidesfor sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals to vessels fishing on the high seas (ICCAT 2011g).Though informa on on seabird interac ons is to be recorded, there is no requirement in the North Atlan c tou lize seabird-specific mi ga on measures (ICCAT 2011h). Silky, oceanic white p, thresher, and hammerheadsharks are prohibited from being caught (ICCAT 2011i) (ICCAT 2010e) (ICCAT 2010f) (ICCAT 2009d). Inaddi on, 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 implementa on 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 popula ons. The current management measures for seabirds, sea turtles and sharks(except those that are prohibited) do not meet best prac ces, such as the required use of seabird avoidancemeasures, or hook and bait restric ons to reduce shark and sea turtle interac ons (Gilman 2011). In addi on,a review of bycatch governance in tuna RFMOs found ICCAT had an average score of 20%, with criteriondealing with bycatch conserva on and management measures scoring the worst (Gilman et al. 2013), so wehave awarded an ineffec ve score.

SOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

Several management measures to mi gate bycatch in the pelagic longline fishery have been implemented bythe Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT). Member countries are requiredto collect and report informa on on bycatch and discards and are suggested to provide iden fica on guidesfor sharks, seabirds, sea turtles, and marine mammals to vessels fishing on the high seas (ICCAT 2011g).

Informa on on seabird interac ons must be recorded, and longline vessels fishing south of 25 S must usetwo mi ga on methods (ICCAT 2011h). Silky, oceanic white p, thresher, and hammerhead sharks areprohibited from being caught (ICCAT 2011i) (ICCAT 2010e) (ICCAT 2010f) (ICCAT 2009d). In addi on, 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 implementa on 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 popula ons. Though mi ga onmeasures for seabirds do meet best prac ces, management measures for sea turtles and sharks do notinclude the required use of specific hook and bait types that are considered best prac ces (Gilman 2011). In

32

Subfactor 3.2.3 Scien fic Research and Monitoring

Considera ons: Is bycatch in the fishery recorded/documented and is there adequate monitoring of bycatch tomeasure fisherys impact on bycatch species? To achieve a Highly Effec ve ra ng, assessments must beconducted to determine the impact of the fishery on species of concern, and an adequate bycatch datacollec on program must be in place to ensure bycatch management goals are being met

Subfactor 3.2.4 Management Record of Following Scien fic Advice

Considera ons: How o en (always, some mes, rarely) do managers of the fishery follow scien ficrecommenda ons/advice (e.g., do they set catch limits at recommended levels)? A Highly Effec ve ra ng isgiven if managers nearly always follow scien fic advice.

Subfactor 3.2.5 Enforcement of Management Regula ons

Considera ons: Is there a monitoring/enforcement system in place to ensure fishermen follow managementregula ons and what is the level of fishermens compliance with regula ons? To achieve a Highly Effec vera ng, there must be consistent enforcement of regula ons and verifica on of compliance.

addi on, a review of bycatch governance in tuna RFMOs found ICCAT had an average score of 20%, withcriterion dealing with bycatch conserva on and management measures scoring the worst (Gilman et al.2013), so we have awarded an ineffec ve score.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Ineffec ve

The Interna onal Commission for the Conserva on of Atlan c Tunas (ICCAT) requires member countries tohave an observer program in place that provides 5% coverage. Observers record informa on on fishing effort,total target and bycatch catches, size, and disposi on, and can collect biological samples (ICCAT 2010i). It isunclear if individual countries have all achieved this 5% coverage. In addi on, 5% observer coverage is deemedinsufficient in most fisheries to obtain accurate bycatch es mates for many species, including seabirds (Hankeet al. 2012). The observer program has not been designed to collect adequate data on seabird bycatch, suchas standardized seabird bycatch repor ng methodology, and there is no informa on on compliance withmandated management measures. We have therefore awarded an ineffec ve score.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

See the Harvest Strategy sec on 3.1.4 for detailed informa on.

NORTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINESOUTH ATLANTIC, PELAGIC LONGLINE

Moderately Effec ve

See the Harvest Strategy sec on 3.1.5 for detailed informa on.

33

Criterion 4: Impacts on the habitat and ecosystem

This Criterion assesses the impact of the fishery on seafloor habitats, and increases that base score if thereare measures in place to mi gate any impacts. The fisherys overall impact on the ecosystem and food weband the use of ecosystem-based fisheries management (EBFM) principles is also evaluated. Ecosystem BasedFisheries Management aims to consider the interconnec ons among species and all natural and humanstressors on the environment.

The final score is the geometric mean of the impact of fishing g